One of the great things about the internet today,is that anyone anywhere can get their message across to others,no matter who they are,or where they are.Apart from a few repressive areas of the world,most of us with web access can look up the news,info,music,movies,even those awful jpegs of Aunt Doris in sunburn-on-sea.
What it cant prevent are hackers,crackers,spammers,and basic idiots who try to undermine services,products,and OS's for the rest of us.Likewise,spam email is annoying,even with a so called spam filter which occasionally fails.
One of the worst things is when appeals appear on a web site asking for financial support,with so-called bank details,when you know it is a con.For the past two days,this site has had such an attack,yet the offending postings are everywhere for everyone to see.Of course,so far,noone has replied to any of it.
I for one donate to appeals.Not on the internet,nor if anyone calls at my house,but via other means.That is my right,as it is the right of anyone anywhere to do the same.Yet I feel that the reputation of sites can be compromised if these problems are not sorted out.

All the best,
Nez.

The offending spammer has now been zapped.

ScottGem

The question is not "Cant the Internet be abused?" But in how many ways can it be abused.

One has to remember what the Internet was originally designed for. It was designed as a way for the US Department of Defense to share information with academic and commercial contractors who were doing research for them. It was never designed, not even imagined that it would become the great global equalizer that it has become.

The development of the Internet can be likened to the development of the American West. There is a lot of good done on the Net, but a lot of lawlessness and abuse as well. Spam, Spyware, Phishing, scams, hacking and other problems abound. It behooves anyone accessing the Internet to be aware of these dangers. They are relatively easily avoided if one exercises common sense.

IMHO, one of the Net's greatest strengths is also one of its greatest weaknesses. That is the anonymity. Since its not very easy to trace back the actions of anyone, the abusers feel free to abuse. The Net needs to be made more secure (IP v6?). But more important, no one should be allowed access to the Net without first having their identity verified. Its just too easy for someone to create e-mail addresses or get an ISP account that is not traceable. If such accounts were not allowed to be opened until identity could be verified, then you provide a trail that law enforcement can use to track the miscreants.

psi42

If you want to see that taken to an extreme, take a look at this.





I believe there are times when this sort of verification is appropriate and times when it is not. I certainly don't think any website I visit should be able to instantly connect my IP address with my real name and location. I don't care if it is an official US government website, it is the client who should explicitly initiate the verification process with the server. Verification is appropriate when it is deemed necessary by the client -- i.e. an online purchase or exchange of sensitive information. That's why we have SSL certificates.

In other situations, I think the partial anonymity we have at the moment does more good than harm. Yes, it can be abused, but it is always the most malicious or offensive members of a group that represent said group. There are lots of good things that have happened that would not be possibly without this partial anonymity, or would at least be made far more difficult.

~psi42

ScottGem

The following is quoted from the Freenet site PSI linked to:
"Without anonymity there can never be true freedom of speech"

While I can see why someone would feel that, I disagree with the principle behind it. In my opinion voicing an opinion anonymously negates the opinion to some extent. If you feel something strongly enough that you want to express your opinion about then you should be willing to stand behind it. If someone doesn't believe in what they say enough to stand behind it, then why should I believe in it?


I don't disagree with anything that you said. Verification is the function of the agency granting access to the Net, be it an ISP or an E-mail service. that info, should not be available to anyone requesting it. It should only be given out when requested by a valid Court Order.

I don't see any reason to give up the "partial anonymity" of the Net. Its one of the best features of the Net. But what has happened is that partial anonymity has emboldened people to do things they might never do without it. People break the law with impunity because of it. If they knew that they could be traced if they do break the law, then they might be less inclined to do so. I'm not advocating getting rid of the "partial anonymity", just not make it easy for anyone to get on the Net with total anonymity.

psi42

What if voicing that belief could cause violent retribution from another group, endangering the speaker's freedom or life?

labman

We need some balance on the net. Certainly I want Labman to be able to continue his out spoken ways with anybody tracking me down. Putting my real name into Yahoo people search only gives a list of 12 people. A little hint of my location, and some kook I have offended has my address and telephone number. Saying somebody is stupid if they feed their dog raw meat is one thing. Stealing their identity is another. Maybe kind of like license plates. It is easy for the police to track down the owner of a car, but difficult for the average kook. Surely we set up a system keeping both the kooks and phishers off my back.

Nez

Interesting what Labman said about a balance being needed,and that the police can track the owner of a car,but basically not some 'idiot' on the net.
When you sign up with an isp,they have your details,know who you are,and where you are,in theory.My web conection runs at x speed,but if I was to do some jiggery pokery and mess about and try and increase the download speed without informing them,in other words,conning a freebie,the end result would probably be a huge fine,and my account being cancelled.Yet I always find it amazing that anyone can post and say "hey,give me five dollars,and I'll give you ten in return!"
Of course,they are not breaking the law.If your daft enough to donate,and you never hear from them again,then hard luck.I'm not saying that freedom of speech,posting,or opinions should be refused.There is an always in the news country,which introduced mobile phones as an experiment,but quickly banned them after realising that freedom of speech was against the regime doctrine.
Again their are sites on the web which I would'nt go near,because of their political,racist,or unsavoury views.However,that is their right,no matter how much I might disagree with everything that's said.
Here in the UK we are stupid enough to have to put with a television license fee,which brings in the BBC £2billion a year.Yes those figures are correct.Refuse to pay and you can end up in jail.When their charter comes up for review in 2007,their is some hair brained scheme to introduce a web tax,as the BBC will by then be broadcasting via the web,as well as the usual means,at super-fast broadband speed.There will be no freedom about that.
Maybe in the end we will end up with a fingerprint an eye scan just to gain access to the web.No doubt the crackers and scammers will find a way to beat even that.


Nez.

ScottGem

This is where the partial anonymity comes into play. But I still stand behind having 'the courage of one's convictions'.

ScottGem

That's the problem and the main point I'm trying to make. Not sure how it is in the UK, but in the US one can create an AOL or Earthlink or other ISP trial account with false info. Eventually the account will be closed when the credit card or other identity check fails. But in the meantime, the phony can use that account for days, maybe weeks, sending out phishing schemes, scams, spam, or other nefarious acts. Its even easier to get a free e-mail account.

Until this practice is stopped, the Net will continue to be plagued by such.