Let's Talk About Control
I want to immediately make a reservation - I do not set my goal to incite conflict. My goal is a healthy discussion with people interested. Healthy - it means giving logical arguments, and not to splash hate. I would also like to make those who just pass by think.
Not long ago, I stumbled upon, in general, quite boring and already old, a graduation from the School of Gossip with Yevgeny Kaspersky .
')
Nevertheless, one of the thoughts expressed by Mr. Kaspersky on this program forced me to write this post. No, there was nothing innovative in it. Such ideas are often and with varying success put forward and even put into practice. Take the same acclaimed ACTA agreement.
Yes, and the reasons that prompted Mr. Kaspersky to stick to his point of view became clear to me after a very short reflection. Moreover, his point of view on this topic is no longer a secret .
However, this is a sin not to discuss this topic. No not like this. This topic should be raised again and again, time after time. Especially when ACTA is looming on the horizon, showing us how easy the world of cyberpunk can easily become our reality with you.
It's about control. In this case, about the control over the Internet, over ordinary users.
How does Mr. Kaspersky argue the need for control?
“We have no control over this network, the Internet at all. This is a refuge of criminals, terrorists, porn, spam and other things. "
The first thing that comes to mind is the thought - for the vacuum cleaner the whole world is sewage. But let's not emotion. So Mr. Kaspersky is experiencing, apparently, because of the increase in crime. Habr confirms this. Humanly, this fear can be understood. But let's leave this item for later.
He further mentions the terrorists. No, this trick is already working hard even in America. Porn? "Pleasant" care of our morality. So, we leave cybercrime for investigation and turn on spam there.
What is the solution proposed?
For ordinary people -
1. An international unit fighting cybercrime should be created.
2. Internet passports. "If you take an action that can be harmful to others - send the program, climb into your bank, if you climb into a resource that is the media, show your passport." At the same time, Mr. Kaspersky insists that the reading of resources remains anonymous, so anonymity is not taken away from people.
About the first item. Yes, there is a real need for this. With proper organization, such a unit can bring many benefits. This is a very good idea and should be supported in every way.
About the second item, sorry. First, anonymity is not only about the ability to read something without being tracked. Here we are talking about anonymity of communication. It consists of two types of anonymity - the recipient (or reading person) and the sender (the creator of the text), taking away one of which you often break and the other. Why? Yes, because everything depends on the context. And we not only write and read articles. There is also live communication between people, which is also proposed to make controlled.
About why we need anonymity and why not only people “who have something to hide” need it, I don’t even want to raise a question. This is a separate big topic, which I hope is well known to most.
Now back to cybercrime. It turns out that the introduction of control over the actions of users through Internet passports is a measure that should save us from crime. Fair? I do not believe that Mr. Kaspersky seriously considers such a naive proposal.
Obviously, it is possible to hack any system with a large, well, very large desire. There would be more money. And the means and desires of an organized and developed cybercrime will suffice. But there are also many clever people who simply will not tolerate such treatment with themselves. In this case, surely these two forces will unite their efforts in order to crack these cyber passports. It is possible and indirectly unite efforts, without special agreement. As it was with gaming consoles and Linux activists. The main thing is that those who really need it will get anonymous Internet access. Therefore, who will remain under control? That's right, quiet and law-abiding people, who will be protected from pornography and other "evil spirits", strengthening their moral principles with sticks. As in the saying: "the law that the web, the bumblebee slip through, and the fly gets bogged down."
Remember at least the same electronic passports. How quickly and easily they were hacked !
What is the main failure of such an approach to solving the problem of cybercrime?
I mean, why can't it just work for the purpose for which it is served? In a desire to regulate the behavior of people, this time. Two - in the misunderstanding of the fact that cyberspace is a completely different world, with completely different laws. Politicians around the world constantly stumble upon this rake, again and again. Well, it looks funny, say, the desire to ban pornography on the Internet after 12 hours? But the intentions were good.
I am sure that Yevgeny Kaspersky is a very clever person, and cannot stumble upon the rake of politicians because of his education. Accordingly, the conclusion suggests itself that he says what the owners of large corporations and other "powers that be" want to hear. If you think about it, does its main income consist in selling antivirus to ordinary people?
PS I do not propose to give up when fighting cybercrime. By the way, by this I primarily mean those who cause harm to "ordinary" people. I think it is necessary to work on means of protection, on the literacy of using computers and the Internet by ordinary people. Yes, crime is growing and the means of attack are becoming more complex. But the same thing happens with protection. Both forces on different sides of the barricades work, helping each other develop and become better.
Not long ago, I stumbled upon, in general, quite boring and already old, a graduation from the School of Gossip with Yevgeny Kaspersky .
')
Nevertheless, one of the thoughts expressed by Mr. Kaspersky on this program forced me to write this post. No, there was nothing innovative in it. Such ideas are often and with varying success put forward and even put into practice. Take the same acclaimed ACTA agreement.
Yes, and the reasons that prompted Mr. Kaspersky to stick to his point of view became clear to me after a very short reflection. Moreover, his point of view on this topic is no longer a secret .
However, this is a sin not to discuss this topic. No not like this. This topic should be raised again and again, time after time. Especially when ACTA is looming on the horizon, showing us how easy the world of cyberpunk can easily become our reality with you.
It's about control. In this case, about the control over the Internet, over ordinary users.
How does Mr. Kaspersky argue the need for control?
“We have no control over this network, the Internet at all. This is a refuge of criminals, terrorists, porn, spam and other things. "
The first thing that comes to mind is the thought - for the vacuum cleaner the whole world is sewage. But let's not emotion. So Mr. Kaspersky is experiencing, apparently, because of the increase in crime. Habr confirms this. Humanly, this fear can be understood. But let's leave this item for later.
He further mentions the terrorists. No, this trick is already working hard even in America. Porn? "Pleasant" care of our morality. So, we leave cybercrime for investigation and turn on spam there.
What is the solution proposed?
For ordinary people -
1. An international unit fighting cybercrime should be created.
2. Internet passports. "If you take an action that can be harmful to others - send the program, climb into your bank, if you climb into a resource that is the media, show your passport." At the same time, Mr. Kaspersky insists that the reading of resources remains anonymous, so anonymity is not taken away from people.
About the first item. Yes, there is a real need for this. With proper organization, such a unit can bring many benefits. This is a very good idea and should be supported in every way.
About the second item, sorry. First, anonymity is not only about the ability to read something without being tracked. Here we are talking about anonymity of communication. It consists of two types of anonymity - the recipient (or reading person) and the sender (the creator of the text), taking away one of which you often break and the other. Why? Yes, because everything depends on the context. And we not only write and read articles. There is also live communication between people, which is also proposed to make controlled.
About why we need anonymity and why not only people “who have something to hide” need it, I don’t even want to raise a question. This is a separate big topic, which I hope is well known to most.
Now back to cybercrime. It turns out that the introduction of control over the actions of users through Internet passports is a measure that should save us from crime. Fair? I do not believe that Mr. Kaspersky seriously considers such a naive proposal.
Obviously, it is possible to hack any system with a large, well, very large desire. There would be more money. And the means and desires of an organized and developed cybercrime will suffice. But there are also many clever people who simply will not tolerate such treatment with themselves. In this case, surely these two forces will unite their efforts in order to crack these cyber passports. It is possible and indirectly unite efforts, without special agreement. As it was with gaming consoles and Linux activists. The main thing is that those who really need it will get anonymous Internet access. Therefore, who will remain under control? That's right, quiet and law-abiding people, who will be protected from pornography and other "evil spirits", strengthening their moral principles with sticks. As in the saying: "the law that the web, the bumblebee slip through, and the fly gets bogged down."
Remember at least the same electronic passports. How quickly and easily they were hacked !
What is the main failure of such an approach to solving the problem of cybercrime?
I mean, why can't it just work for the purpose for which it is served? In a desire to regulate the behavior of people, this time. Two - in the misunderstanding of the fact that cyberspace is a completely different world, with completely different laws. Politicians around the world constantly stumble upon this rake, again and again. Well, it looks funny, say, the desire to ban pornography on the Internet after 12 hours? But the intentions were good.
I am sure that Yevgeny Kaspersky is a very clever person, and cannot stumble upon the rake of politicians because of his education. Accordingly, the conclusion suggests itself that he says what the owners of large corporations and other "powers that be" want to hear. If you think about it, does its main income consist in selling antivirus to ordinary people?
PS I do not propose to give up when fighting cybercrime. By the way, by this I primarily mean those who cause harm to "ordinary" people. I think it is necessary to work on means of protection, on the literacy of using computers and the Internet by ordinary people. Yes, crime is growing and the means of attack are becoming more complex. But the same thing happens with protection. Both forces on different sides of the barricades work, helping each other develop and become better.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/141500/
All Articles