By SN
Saturday October 17, 2009
Slashdot – October 17, 2009:
“Eugene Kaspersky, CEO of well-known computer security company Kaspersky Labs, is calling for an end to the anonymity of the Internet, 
and for the creation of mandatory ‘Internet passports’ for anyone who wishes to browse the Web. Says Kaspersky, ‘Everyone should and must have an identification, or internet passport … the internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military. Then it was introduced to the public, and it was wrong … to introduce it in the same way.’ He calls anonymity ‘the Internet’s biggest security vulnerability’ and thinks any country that doesn’t follow this regime should be ‘cut off.’ The EFF objects, and it’s likely that they won’t be the only ones.”
Since this man is interested in Web security, he naturally proposes the utimate solution to his Web security problems, that is, “internet passports.” Unfortunately, this also is the “Final Solution” to eliminating the Web’s usefulness to the average, powerless user. Unfortunately, I am certain that this is not the last time, we will hear of this terrible proposal.
WOW I HATE THIS GUY
Dear Kaspersky, go back to your 1984 dreams.
Asshole
Might be time to cut Kaspersky off from our money. I won’t be buying his software again thank you.
Well said #2
Lets face it, the internet is now the third most important utility behind electricity and heat/AC, bypassing the telephone and cable/sat TV. A growing percentage of the population rely on the internet for their livelihood.
Any attempt to put restrictions on it now (whether it be by government or corporate control) should be seen as a human rights violation.
Whats that Franklin quote again? Oh yeah, “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither”.
Yeah, well I can see his point. But its academic at this point in time.
And I love that Ben Franklin quote.
That is just what we need to really F$%k up the net.
Kapersky has an idea. I’m not sure how well it could be implemented but it is an idea.
Right now all the malware is coming from behind proxy walls. No one knows who is releasing the trojans and viruses. Phishing is easy when the trace hits that brick firewall.
Sure, 99.9% use the internet responsibly. So how do we go after the 0.1% that want to injure the 99.9%?
This is just an idea, lets not dismiss it without some thought.
It does not seem strange that this comment is coming from some one whose business is located in Russia..hmmmmmmmm
“This is just an idea, lets not dismiss it without some thought.”
I’ve thought about it for about two seconds and let’s dismiss it now. The Internet has become essential for ordinary people’s business, communication and entertainment needs. It is the ultimate expression of real democracy in our society – anyone can run a business or be a media pundit with just a few computers and a good server. What is the point of making us obtain “web passports”? The only reason that I can see is to monitor our usage of the Net. I, for one, am SICK OF BEING ASSUMED TO BE AND TREATED LIKE A CRIMINAL by our government and degenerates like this Kaspersky.
As No. 6 said so many years ago….”I am not a number, I am a FREE MAN!” Be seeing you….
The Chinese government backs this 100%. No anonymity!
This ain’t Russia, barf-wallower!
I think they should cut off his balls.
Mr. Fusion ==>
I agree 100%!
Let’s start with you.
Please post your full name and address here for everyone to see. This is the only way to lead: by example.
From real security expert, Steve Gibson, paraphrased “anonymity is requirement for free speech on the Internet. You can’t have free speech online without anonymity… Anonymity has nothing to do with secure information transfer, …”. So, here again we encounter the question percolating these days in the society: what are we willing to sacrifice for security? Fundamental human rights?
Worse of all, he thinks just one step ahead. What happens when his proposed Internet identity is stolen (and it will)? How to prove innocence? Big Govt. types will immediately add to it biometrics. Only problem, technology exists to steal your fingerprints or iris scan from 30ft away, without your knowledge…. Same as with DRM or gun control. Criminals would run rampant and unobstructed while ordinary people pay for fake security with all kinds of complications.
Sounds like he’s getting sick and tired of his own job, and is becoming lazy.
Seems he wants to set up internet security just like how the TSA does it at air ports, with passports, and photo IDs so they know exactly who you are and where you’re going. This way his his job at “web security” will be much easier.
First of all it’s not THAT hard to track someone down on the internet if a crime is committed. Your anonymity on the internet (not just the web) is a very thin vale, since all they need to identify you is a date, time and an IP address.
The problem lies with people’s right to privacy (Do’h, that darn Constitution again!) and having to get judge’s orders to ask an ISP who used that IP in that time frame.
Kaspersky simply wants to SKIP that all together and be able to click a button and see who the criminal is, with no actual work or “security” involved.
So what would be keeping these people that are already breaking the law from illegally representing themselves with a false passport?
When anonymity is outlawed only outlaws will have anonymity.
#4 Funny how you totally glazed over the Nr. One Utility:
Water! (fresh, drinkable water.)
Then electricity. In the non-tempereate regions, yes, climate conditionig, but maybe telephony is more important in all other places.
#19 overtemp is correct. The real criminals will always operate outside the law and no amount of government regulation will change that. That’s why with strict gun control only the criminals will have guns. As for Rush Limbaugh…he can take care of himself. He has refuted the recent statements made against him buying into the St. Louis Rams to my satisfaction. Anyone with half a brain can see it for what it was…a smear campaign to damage a popular conservative radio personality by left-wing whack jobs. That’s no reason to punish the rest of us by taking away our online anonymity.
@Alfie
why shouldn’t speakers be identified
So they won’t be hunted down, sued, jailed or killed because of their opinions.
On the other hand, knowing the location of all Christians on the Internet would make it easier for the government of the Beast to hunt them down and kill them. Hmmm … maybe you have a point.
I for one will cease to purchase or recommend his anti-virus. F-Prot is better anyways. Anonymity is what makes the network safe and not the other way around. He proposes we send packets all over the place with our identification and Mr. tithead Kapersky isn’t smart enough to understand the potential abuse in this. Let him get in bed with M$, Lockheed, and the Military Industrial Complex and they can invent that new super secure protocol, as soon as they put it up, hackers will tear it down.
19. “Convince me…why shouldn’t speakers be identified…”
Alfred1, until you start posting with your full name and address, no one is going to take your hypocritical argument seriously.
F U
Alfred1
Twitters from Iran.
Case closed.
The whole world doesn’t enjoy the benefits of “our constitution” (by “our”, I assume you are referring to the 4.5% of the world’s people who live in the U.S.). Let’s try be mature and keep in mind that everyone in the world ain’t ‘merican.
A few points.
1. Anyone who assumes that they have true privacy on the internet ought to think carefully about that.
2. I’ll use the above mentioned 99.9%(good)/.01%(bad) ratio of internet users. Fine, but that means maybe +10M bad users on at any given time. These people are spread throughout the world under tons of different legal regimes. Police forces are unable to catch all criminals of physical crimes, much less tech based crimes.
3. Passports in the real world don’t protect against transnational crime, why would they in the virtual world?
I could see this being an enormously lucrative business for, wait for it, computer security companies. I don’t see this making a measurable change in malware distribution.
Alfie,
The Constitution is just a god damned piece of paper. Gorge Bush said so. It offers no protection if the government doesn’t enforce it.
Why do I try … this is worse than arguing with a brick wall.
“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither”.
Sorry Ben, but that quip lacks definition. What if I sacrifice 5% of my freedom in return for 90% security? Isn’t that a good deal? Perhaps I’ll even trade something else in the future to get that 5% of freedom back, and still retain my security.
As for the bozo who want’s to make everyone identifiable on the net… the danger of becoming a victim will outweigh any advantage to being online. Without enough customers, internet providers will opt out and what’s left will only be for inter-business use. (JMO)
#33
“I could see this being an enormously lucrative business for, wait for it, computer security companies. I don’t see this making a measurable change in malware distribution.”
Interesting that Kaspersky is making this proposal just as M$crosoft is releasing their free AV solution.
Wow. what a different idea coming from a Russian…
Methinks he needs to be hooked up to the machine in the story below.
This sounds like a great idea to avoid his products.
I am not to worried about my anonymity at present. Things may change here in the future and they are very different right now in places like Iran, and China.
In the future I may decide to do something that may outrage the rich, powerful and bad. I want to keep that as an option.