"The White House is urging consumers and companies to tighten up their computer security. A draft version of a widely anticipated cybersecurity plan due to be released by the Bush administration on 18 September will reveal how the US Government intends to improve net security problems. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2266161.stm So self regulation instead of heavy handed officialdom? will it work?
to the individual the net is a fairly safe place, the real world is considerably more dangerous, mainly because i haven't finalised my online headstabbing device... but i'm working on it . seriously now, i think it's quite sensible for some of the burdon of responsibility to go to the users/businesses, however the fact is that on the whole they have no idea how to properly secure their network. There is also the large amateur website market, where bad scripting or inproper installations can leave systems wide open to abuse. In some ways i fear it isn't quite tough enough, perhaps home users can't be expected to continually be up-to-date with all security fixes, but businesses and websites should perhaps be given a stricter hand. There isn't really much excuse for bad coding etc, especially considering the breach of privacy that could be involved for the users etc. Alaric.
Did anyone catch the article about a student in Asia that connected a firearm to an IP address for remote firing? Then they should take away a few perks from the CEOs, et. al., and pay for some security employees. They could even, *gasp*, pay for some training. I think this responsibility should be solely with the amatuer users. If you leave your door unlocked, there's a good chance something will be stolen. These home users probably need an appliance then. Something that they can store files on etc., but otherwise don't have to administer.
unfortunately that would play into the hands of aol, intel and microsoft who would be more than happy to monopolise the market and extort the people on a second internet type thing... although i agree that it's a possiblity and has some significant advantages, it does also have some disadvantages... like the number of people learning about computers and the number of people going into the computer market would decline. - this wouldn't necessarily be good for industry. perhaps a way to combat this is to limit people to seriously restricted machines until they have passed a test on securing the machine and maintenance and the basics of operating systems etc. When they pass they can be given a license to building and run their own machines. it'd be interesting to see if people would actually agree to this type of scheme, clearly the test would be fairly rudimentary, such that a clever 7yr old could pass. The people who are unlikely to pass are also the people who probably wouldn't require anything more than the 'appliance' as you put it. hell if they can do it for vehicles i don't see why they couldn't for computers note: i don't believe any politician would ever suggest such a scheme, but sometimes i wish they would!
Definately don't want that, but I think they will offer products like this in the future. Well, that would require Gubmint intervention, and I really, really don't want them involved at this level. Laws exist for crimes, but people can still walk down streets and get mugged etc. Even though police officers may be dicks, they aren't prophylactics. I don't think Cyberworld should be any more 'protective'. If an individual can't lock their computer, then they shouldn't keep sensetive information on it. Financial info, pictures with the mistress... whatever. Children shouldn't be left alone in Cyberworld any more than they would be the streets of any urban area. Adults should be responsible for themselves. AAA (a motorist aid company) exists for people to purchase help. I say let someone come along to sell security for home PCs.
