Security boss calls for end to net anonymity The CEO of Russia's No. 1 anti-virus package has said that the internet's biggest security vulnerability is anonymity, calling for mandatory internet passports that would work much like driver licenses do in the offline world. The comments by Eugene Kaspersky, who is also the founder of Kaspersky Lab, came during an interview …
Cyber criminals gain another way to profit from the Internet.
"Anyone want to buy a fake 'Net ID?"
There are already ample provisions for ensuring that the people party to an Internet transaction are who they say they are. They are available on an opt-in basis to those who can be bothered, as they should be.
They say that a question well asked is half answered. It seems to me that so far no-one has actually framed the right question. Yes, we all agree that in abstract terms the internet (or more properly, it's users) could do with more security - but security from what? from each other, from the baddies, from their governments - or other country's governments - or who?
You also can't have it both ways: security for "good" people also provides "bad" people with the ability to conduct their badness, for want of a better term, unfettered. You can't say "these people are good, worthy citizens - we won't surveil them, but these other people (the ones with the forged internet passports) are bad - we need to keep a close eye on them." Likewise, having an internet passport won't act as a safety blanket and protect it's owner from viruses, worms or even their own stupidity: just like having a real passport (or even a medal from the queen) doesn't stop people trying to break into your house.
When it boils down to it, all I can think this guy wants is for more people to buy his security products. Well ... no thanks.
The moron doesn't seem to understand that the Internet made his parasitic business possible, and that the seeming chaos of the Internet actually enhances security, by enhancing privacy and allowing redundant data routing.
A network with a compulsory authentication layer will actually be less secure, because it would make user data easier to intercept, modify and obstruct, also smart people would eventually figure out how to add covert data channels, to carry data undetected by outside observers. Such a network could be far less resistant to outrages, and far more costly to build and run.
It is already possible to set-up independent networks, which could easily subvert the Fascist network he suggests.
Comrad, what a wonderful idea. I'm sure we could find some ex-stasi officers who are looking for work that could help us police the internet. Oh, and we have all these left over uniforms from the "good ole" days (you remember, the ones with fur hats and that distinctive hammer and sickle emblem) for some internet "auditors" to wear as they go door to door performing ID checks. Yes, this is wonderful. Where is a petition to sign, I'll vote for this... oh yea, it won't be optional. No thanks Mr. Kapersky.
Useful for NuLab to 'encourage' ID cards - no card, no net access.
Useful for Saudi Arabia to stop women being able to use the net and maybe make contact with a man they're not related to.
Useful for all governments, big companies, and busybodies to be able to withdraw anyone's net access at whim.
Two words. FUCK THAT!
Course If the online passports could be revoked for sheer stupidity that could be fun. Also what happens when there are 50k people running around with his Online Drivers License?
Can anyone say NetForce? I think Tom Clancy might have trademark on this idea.
...of arrogant tyrant wanna-be assholes who are just so damned sure they know what I need better than I.
And, Mr. Kaspersky, suck on my real name. I use it when I want, and I don't use it when I don't want. I'll post anonymously when I write something inflammatory, unlike this mild message. Why should you have any say in the matter, you impotent jerk?
I am not a number & I intend to remain a FREE MAN!
Just like grains of sand running through your fingers.........
Numbers UIDs on their own can be applied/ misapplied to identify/misidentify anyone!
I think he's tired of the Security Game & is searching for a very dangerous short cut!
This post has been deleted by its author
Dear Kaspersky
We do not need to return to the world you propose.
We do not need to be controlled as you propose.
We wish to continue to have free and unmonitored access to all the information which has been denied to us for so long.
We wish to make our own decisions on the information or even disinformation we receive.
We like the direction we are going in.
Dear Kaspersky, go fly a kite....
Seems there are never enough idiots in the world. How is it that some here would embrace this insanity. They would probably sell their mothers for favor if they could. No Kaspersky, you are wrong about this. And to think you have a privacy lock included with you software. What would that be for do you suppose? I can feel a boycott coming on. I for one won't purchase this software again. Not after this stab at the heart of Internet.
The Internet isn’t a means of conveyance. It’s a means of communication. It’s not like driving. It’s like telephoning. In all the decades we’ve had the telephone, has any democracy suggested a telephone licence?
The country that gave us the Internet would be a major stumbling block for such a plan. US courts generally take the position that anonymous speech is constitutionally protected.
Kaspersky’s had this crazy idea for some time. He outlined the same principles on the BBC’s Click programme, last year. [1] While Kaspersky may be as mad as a Russian president, his company produces the best anti-virus software for Windows. So, telling him to stick it up his Bering Strait isn’t very helpful.
No. It will never happen. The more you lock down a human system, the more humans will want to bust out of that system. We cannot be labled & directed like ants or lab rats in a controlled environment. Human nature, lawfull or not, will always triumph. A history of too much "big brother" has forced human nature into the wild time and time again. WHere do you think we got freedom fighters, revolutionaries, AND PIRATES! AARRRRRRRRRRR! ;)
I seem to recall hearing, over the years, about lots of spyware and rootkits that were undetectable by most AV, including this bozos self-named product. They leeched off the insecurity of Windows for as many years as they could, never once pointing out or attempting to help come up with any real, long term, cure for all of Windows' security ills. Naturally.
Now MS has gotten into that game (took 'em long enough...) these leeches stand to lose most of their blood supply, so they come up with bone-headed schemes like this.
Yes, I know someone said the original article is more of a "what if". So here's mine: what if we banned the use of Windows to access the internet? Seems to me a lot easier to do, and no downsides either.
Killing off leeches like this would be just a bonus, not the main focus...
...now a politician? Has he been recruited by the UK / Aus Government? Which person is pulling the strings that control his mouth? Did he eat mouldy bread and in a fit of bacteria induced madness spout off this tripe? Look, no one has to give ID for sending a letter, buying a book, ordering food, or any other number of entirely normal activities that a paranoid person or gov. could be inclined to think is subversive, or just against what "they" like. so please, just leave us the F*U*K alone...and deal with things that are a little more pressing.
Schengen travellers do not require passports - oooooooh nooooo...we dont know where people are going, or when, or sometimes even how or what they are doing...ooooooh nooooo. Although it doesnt seem to cause millions of problems now does it ;-)
Then, when you remember this guy is a Russian, and that Russians are actually used to, and enjoy, a hard regime (or so it seems, since they do tend to go out of their way to build them up) it all seems to make more sense.In which case my message would be - do as you please in your country - should be easy, you must have all those old in-land passports, ID cards, just add a RFID or Barcode to everyone's and you can be happy. However, just because one country has a masochistic tendency for police states and dictators, this does not mean they should foist it on others.
I would also expect a security expert to know how hard a completely fool-proof and fail-proof system would be to devise (lets be Honest, the Russian hackers are showing him that every day...right?)
America would be cut off since so much spam originates from there, Russia would be cut off since so many malware tools phone back to servers there, China would be cut off for just not paying any attention to the rest of the world and doing their own equally totalitarian thing..... the list goes on.
As long as there are three licensee levels or classes of competency: Dumb Ass Kid (DAK class), Smart Ass Know-it-all (SAKiA class), and the Oh My F**ckin' God Whata F**kin' Geek ( OMFGWFG class). And I get to decide who goes in each class based on my criteria.
Paris because Paris is in a class by herself.
I knew this was coming, i've posted about it before on various sites, that one day the powers that be are going to want people to have a virtual, verifiable online ID that traces everything you do online back to your real identity that everyone who wants to go online will be forced to have.
This absolutely has to be stopped, it obviously won't work, any system can be gamed or hacked but the real issue (even if you believe something like this would help) is that it will stifle free speech - so many people go online to learn, to anonymously get info and talk to people about health issues and personal things that should always be anonymous if the person involved wants it this way.
Just think about political speech and organizing...Say goodbye to that - with the way the US federal government now behaves, just look at Pittsburg - tons of innocent people ]bombarded with LRADs (which can cause permanent hearing damage) for just coming out of their hosue to see what was going on...Police or agent provocateurs dressed up in black and knocking over trash cans - then riot police (and even hired military contractors like blackwater drressed as police) brtualizing innocent people... - SO with all of that sort of behavior, if this sort of thing gets mandated it will be the end of the last truly free medium of communication we have.
I believe that this is the biggest threat to freedom and to the internet, bigger even than network neutrality (which, in some respects can cause similar problems, with certain types of information being "downgraded" or even not served).
If this becomes a reality it will destroy the culture of the internet - digital culture will be dealt a death blow - and I expect now that it's been mentioned every organization from the RIAA and similar groups to the national security organizations to the financial sector will hop on board.
So, Mr Kaspersky....Your products are crap and you can STFU and fuck off.
The internet is the last unmolested medium, don't allow anyone to ruin it. So many things have been made possible because of anonymity, imagine if every blogger had to have a ID card, so many breaking stories wouldn't see the light of day because of government censorship and in the case of some regimes it could cost you your life. Just this week http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8311885.stm
What a irresponsible thing to say. If this is ever proposed protest in every way you can, it would be the worst thing to happen period.
Given Eugene Kaspersky comments consider what spyware Kaspersky products may contain, boycott his "software" go with OS or AVG solutions.
Eugene Kaspersky doesn't understand why the interent is the success it is - think about it how many people would of bothered to get a ID card for the internet in the 90's, no one.
He doesn't believe it'll be achieved, he just wants to justify and market a secure closed sub-set of the internet where everyone has a validated identity. A walled compound. You pay to join (be issued an identify certificate) and then you can trust all your neighbours.
There are lots of people who would "trade" their privacy for a feeling of safety. There always have been. How many people regret the passing of AOL's closed version of the internet?
The internet is already not anonymous. However, it is presently non-anonymous for the powers that be.
A large portion of the USA internet traffic is offloaded to a number of boxes which are puppeteered from the No Such Agency. Same for the Russian, Chinese, etc traffic. Europe is overall trailing behind, but Tony Bliar has managed to put the foundations of EU joining the stalwarts through his "Fear the Paedo" campaign. Every UK ISP now has a box that can be potentially used to offload for snooping under the guise of "Though shall not see Scorpion Album Covers".
Frankly, I am all for giving the same power to Joe the average user. It is a fantastic idea. It is also perfectly within the limits of current technology. Nearly all of Europe and most of the other developed economies already issue cittizens some form of smartcard and it can be used to authenticate any traffic originated by Joe Average luser at IP or higher layers.
However, all the powers that be will scream bloody murder if this will happen. In order for any traffic to be authenticated and verified to its origin it will have to be encrypted. Otherwise anyone along the way will be able to tamper with it. This will immediately put all the communications of Joe Average user outside the realm of day-to-day casual snooping which is going on at the moment. And the likes of No Such Agency and their bretheren do not like dat. They will be promptly joined by MarketingDroids and other lowlife.
Analogies to the physical world can only be carried so far. On the net, today, you can damage other people while remaining not just anonymous, but unidentifiable, and yes there is a crucial difference. If i'm walking down a public street I don't have to wear an ID tag. BUT if I commit a crime, I have to divulge my identity - and if I refuse, law enforcement people can compel me to reveal it.
I urge everyone to think abou this distinction (being anonymous vs unidentifiable). I believe in the long run some form of verifiable network identification may be necessary and will come to be accepted.
Strong, but justified, I feel.
Having helped a few volunatary and human rights organisations to do *stuff* via the net, I have to say that I'm very glad that not everyone is such an authoritarian nutjob.
That said, we're about to get the tories back in the UK, so maybe authoritarian nutjob with a tint of pigopolist is the colour of the season..
The idea of something like a driving license or passport to use the Internet is a bit silly when you consider that it is common to bribe officials to obtain either document in Kaspersky's native Russia, as well as other parts of the former Soviet Union.
Using fake or stolen credentials is hardly going to be a deterrent to people who would already face substantial penalties for hacking, fraud and the like.
That the Internet was not designed for public use is irrelevant. Compuserve and others tried selling closed, controlled networks for public use but it didn't really work. Kaspersky and others who like the idea of such a controlled network are welcome to go away and start one of their own - and leave the rest of us with the imperfect Internet, along with the possibility that anyone can express their opinions freely without first obtaining permission from their government.
C'mon fellers, this just keeps coming back. I wrote about the Euro Commission suggesting this - at the behest fo the French I think - 12 or 14 years ago. Obama walked in to the oval office to find a report proposing this sitting on his desk ready for him. This is coming.
So please, don't belittle, just say it can't work, think it's paranoid fantasy: take it seriously. It is a *serious* threat. Oppose it on solid, practical, arguable grounds.
is the right people fought for centuries. The internet does not belong to states or governments,
its THE communication medium for free expression. The invention of the internet was one further step in the evolution of a social global society for improving and etablieren the rights of poeple all over the world. It cannot be over estimated what the internet means for people who are still struggleling for their freedom and thier rights, the people in iran, in china etc... Everyone who touches this should be very very carefull what he/she says. Now comes Eugene!!
The dude from a country with a long long history of freedom and democracy. Eugene knows a lot about the internet, about freedom and people rights: he sells antivirus software.
His undifferntiated totally naive statements is the biggest bullshit which was spread over the internet for years. (Yes Eugene, you can say that shit, because the internet is still free) Maybe we really need a internet law for banning those idiots.
I really think, Eugene Kaspersky products should be boycott!!!
I will do it right now.
This is how it's going to be in the future. Anonymous criminal users are ruining the internet for everyone. And before I get called a hypocrit for posting this without my name it's to avoid criminals using my information for spamming.
Most websites are commercial entities and as such deserve the right to know who it's patrons are. The "real world" example is bull since you can't go into a store with a mask on. You would get kicked out.
You can end anonyminity or at least combat it by an SSL type of setup where authentication is required and http servers like apache run a special module which can handshake the browser. Authentications can then be confirmed. This could be optional for any site that doesn't want anonymous users browsing it's content or using it's services. I see nothing wrong with this scenario or implementation.
Thus was Spaken: "No. It will never happen. The more you lock down a human system, the more humans will want to bust out of that system. We cannot be labled & directed like ants or lab rats in a controlled environment. ..."
You mean like most of the human populace already is? After all, that's why they call it the "Rat Race". ;-)
Not discounting the (nearly extinct) examples of TRUE Pirates, etc., may I humbly point out that the current institutionalized State systems (education, currency, etc) that trap the vast majority of the human populace (nature or not), was ignored by Pirates, Revolutionaries, etc. of old, much like the system of punishment (law) established by the State.
Which means if you are still in or a part of the "System", you are the problem. If you see and do nothing, what are you there for?
- but now he lost it.
No matter if that was an opportunistic attempt to please some powers that be, or if he was serious. He either lost his mind, or his integrity.
Calling for an international "Internetpolice body" with Interpol like powers like another AV vendor does- Yes, absolutely! Why not hunt cyber criminals as vigorously as real life "terrorist" (the quotes because this term has become pretty stretched recently).
A totalitarian approach- never!
Him of all people should have felt on their own skin how ugly such systems are- and understand why they, fortunately, always fail, eventually.
Apart from the fact that even thinking in that direction is admitting defeat as a security software company.
But then:
Can't change the scorpions nature, can we. Good then that at least the frogs are able to learn!
Anonymous, just because I (still) can!
Kaspersky's call for Internet Passports is madness. The social repurcussions are surely obvious, and it's not clear what problem it might solve.
Most cybercrime is actually linked to an EXCESS of arbitrary identification, with inadequate safeguards. For the average user, anonymity in reality has become a luxury. The simplest credit card purchase requires an inordinate amount of identifying information to be divulged, to total strangers, who then pass it all onto third party processors no one has ever heard of. Hundreds of millions of personal records are compromised every year, fuelling a rampant black market in illegitimate IDs.
I say to Kaspersky, anonymity would be a blessing! To solve cybercrime, we don't need any new passport, rather we need to protect the identities we already have against theft and abuse.
Stephen WIlson, Lockstep Technologies.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
