Internet Licenses: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

What do the activities listed above have in common ?

The answer is that all are potentially dangerous activities for which one must obtain a license if one wishes to remain on the right side of the law.

It is surprising to me that one potentially dangerous activity is conspicuously missing from the above list. We all accept without question the need for regulation where dangerous technologies are concerned (as the list clearly demonstrates). So why should the Internet be exempt ? What is so special about 0s and 1s travelling along a wire that makes us give it 'special treatment' ? Why should this important resource not enjoy the protection from abuse that regulation would undoubtably provide ?

In the old days of the Internet, its usage was confined to academia, and the military. Back in those days, one could be fairly sure that Internet users were responsible citizens, who would not abuse their 'net access, after all our educators and defenders are people we knew we could trust.

These days, with the explosive growth in Internet usage, it is impossible to control who goes online. Indeed, many Internet Service Providers (ISPs) market themselves on how 'easy to use' their service is. You are just as likely to find senior citizens, children, teenagers and housewives online these days, as you are to find a world class physicist or a military intelligence officer.

As you would expect, with such a large number of uneducated people given unrestricted access to such a powerful tool, the results have not always been pleasant, and abuse has run rampant. You can find bomb making instructions, Islamic fundamentalist propaganda, pornography, hate sites, left wing and right wing extremism, pornography, fascism in all its different and elaborate disguises, Radical androphobic feminism, autism, pornography, questionable politics, pornography, blasphemy against Jesus, and yet more pornography.

This is the mere tip of the iceberg, since the Internet is estimated to have as much as 100 Gigabytes of this kind of offensive material, and it is growing larger by the week, as more and more uneducated people rush to 'get online' so that they may 'surf the web' with their equally poorly-educated beer-swilling redneck buddies.

As with all technologies, the Internet has matured to the point where regulation is not just desirable, it has become inevitable. You don't need to be Kreskin to predict that unless the Internet is regulated, and regulated quite heavily, it will soon collapse under the sheer weight of pointless traffic Britney Spears fan sites, uninteresting personal home pages and the extra load placed on the 'net infrastructure by illegal protocols such as Aimster Napster, Bearshare Gnutella and the like.

As with automobiles, firearms, and TV ownership, the only way to ensure the Internet is used responsibly is to introduce a system of licencing and mandatory education for its users. Such a system would ensure that only those with a complete understanding of the Internet and a responsible approach to online activities would be entrusted with access to the 'net. After all, Internet access should be a privilege, not a right.

There may be some opposition to begin with, but I predict that as with other forms of licensing, most people will be happy to give up a small amount of their freedom in order to take advantage of the many benefits promised by more control of the 'net.

I would envisage centers being set up all over the country, where 'newbies' could go and practice surfing in a safe environment, and receive instruction on a curriculum to include basic 'nettiquette' and 'safe surfing' in a non-threatening environment.

After practicing and receiving instruction, a net user would then take their 'Internet test' which would qualify them to surf the net without supervision. Subsequent higher level tests would enable the would-be surfer to improve his or her skills to the point where access to more advanced net-surfing technology would be permitted.

It may be that these centers will need a safe practice Internet of their own, disconnected from the dangers of the real Internet (although this may not be required if tools such as net nanny, surfsafe, cyber guard zone alarm and web-washer offer sufficient protection). Obviously the details of this need to be thrashed out by our elected representatives and legislators.

Since different people have different capacities for learning I propose that we have different categories of Internet license based on several factors:

Class C Internet License
Allows the user to surf the Internet over a dial-up connection, at speeds of up to 56kbps, using an industry standard OS, such as Windows ME or Windows XP. Net Nanny, or Cyber Patrol must be activated at all time during the session. IE6 is the only browser that may be used by holders of this license.
Class B Internet License
Allows the user all the priveleges of the Class C license, plus the license holder is now entitled to surf the Internet over a DSL or Cable Modem connection,(either directly connected or in conjunction with an 802.11b wireless network), and may if he or she chooses, use 'alternative' Operating systems such as BeOS, or MacOS X. Cyber Patrol and Net Nanny may be used at the discretion of the individual surfer. The user may utilize IE6 or at his or her discretion other commercial grade browsers such as Opera or Netscape.
Class A Internet License
Allows the user all the priveleges of the Class B license, plus the license holder is now entitled to surf the Internet over a T1 or OC3 connection or faster, and may utilize any Operating system they choose (including net-unfriendly OS's such as BSD Unix and Linux), and may use the browser of his/her choice, including lynx and Mozilla.

Of course there will need to be age restrictions as well. Nobody under the age of 14 or over the age of 75 will qualify for an Internet license. The very young need to develop their personalities, and exposure to the solitary net-surfing experience could severely stunt their mental and social development leading to autism or extremely violent behavior (or at the very least, social ineptitude, whilst the very old would be at risk of heart seizures and other complications caused by some of the more extreme content that is to be found on the Internet.

Enforcement of the Internet license may also prove to be problematic. However it needn't be so. A minor reworking of the TCP/IP protocol stack to include a license verification phase as part of the three way handshake, combined with strong encryption and digital signatures, and biometric scanning devices attached to every PC should make it trivial to ensure that the net is free from unlicensed surfers. Combine this with the threat of having your Internet license revoked for misbehaviour and you have a very powerful mechanism to control misuse of the 'net.

In the same way that posession of motor vehicle drivers license does not protect the driver from the occasional fender-bender, likewise the Internet license will not prevent the occasional abuse of the Internet from taking place. In order to provide a means of redress for those affected by a licensed surfer's poor nettiquette, there will need to be a mandatory insurance law. All licensed Internet users will need to take out insurance to cover their liabilities for any abuses they perpetrate online (whether accidental or intentional).

The regulation of the Internet promises to improve the Internet for everyone. By eliminating the irresponsible individuals who spoil the web for the rest of us, we will be able to enjoy an enhanced web surfing experience free from h4x0rs, skR1p7 K1dd135, spammers, misinformation, porn, extreme political lunatics, lame-assed websites and just about every other problem that plagues the Internet today. Your Internet license could become just as important to a future employer as a driver's license or a high school diploma is today! Of course, the Privacy Nazis and Freedom Fascists will trot out that familiar tired old chestnut:- that people who sacrifice their freedoms do not deserve them in the first place, but most of those kind of people are not parents and are unconcerned about protecting our children from the very real dangers of the unregulated Internet.

I hope I have given you surfers some food for thought. If you think I am being a control freak, just try to imagine the state our highways would be in today if anyone regardless of age or ability were entitled to drive an automobile, anyone regardless of age or ability were entitled to carry a gun and anyone regardless of age or ability were entitled to sell liquor to whomesoever they chose.

It's a sobering thought I think you will agree.

	hmmm.. (none / 0) (#3)
	by derek3000 on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 01:38:38 PM PST

	seems that my original comment was too controversial for my fellow adequacy readers. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	nice try, pal (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by dirty monkey man on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 01:46:37 PM PST

	Trolling is not tolerated here. Any comment may be deleted by a site admin, and all trolls will be deleted. This is your fair warning. you were warned before you posted. why cry now? but let me just say that i hope in the future (as you mature) you learn how to enjoy the fruits of healthy debate instead of just trying to be a 'wiseguy' all the time. furthermore, in your previous post you made some comments on laws that are for your own good. let me be the first to strongly suggest you take a boat to africa or someplace and leave civilization to those who value it.

	Thanks dirty monkey man (none / 0) (#8)
	by dmg on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:07:42 PM PST

	I could not have put it better myself. Us adequacy editors take our jobs very seriously, and comments like derek3000's are precisely the kind of 'trolling' that we will not tolerate. It is good to see that at least some people understand what adequacy is all about. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	and how do you explain this? (none / 0) (#24)
	by philipm on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:23:20 PM PST

	Yes, but I had a rebuttal to his troll. And why did you censor mee too? I guess he was just too adequate.... liberal hypocrite I hope you get a job and see what the real world is like. --philipm

	The pitfalls of open source (none / 0) (#29)
	by iat on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:50:02 PM PST

	Yes, but I had a rebuttal to his troll. And why did you censor mee too? When the troll comment was "editorialised" and hidden from normal users' view, your comment was also hidden. Unfortunately, "editorialisation" is one of the few remaining open source parts of our proprietary weblog engine and so is prone to this sort of unfortunate bug. If you really like, I'll unhide your comment, but without the parent comment (the troll) it will look like you're talking to yourself. Are you sure you really want that? Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	no (none / 0) (#30)
	by philipm on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:56:27 PM PST

	you are right as always. I humbly apologize. Its just that those liberal linux zealots make me so mad. Grrrrrrrrr. --philipm

	Dismay (none / 0) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 01:56:57 PM PST

	Police yourself before you try and police other people.

	This would certainly stop the pedofiles (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:07:09 PM PST

	It seems like every week I read about a young girl or boy being preyed upon by some pedofile who used the internet to get them. I'm a strong believer in technology and freedom, but to me this crosses the line - once your sons and daughters are in danger, action must be taken. The way I see it, we either have to keep these perverts off the internet, or we need a way to identify them, something like a little flag or a special bell that goes off when they come into a chatroom so everyone can be careful and watch out for each other. I know it seems extreme and maybe even un-American, but sometimes freedom is a luxury that must be restricted to combat evil. Just my two cents' worth, god bless.

	A middle ground at last... (none / 0) (#176)
	by budlite on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:07:03 PM PST

	I kind of agree with what you're saying, and I'll refrain from commenting on the practical problems involved with what you propose. I like the idea of the internet as a free information exchange, and the idea of licensing and total centralised control of what one can and can't view is abhorrent to me. However, I do agree that a small amount of regulation is in order. I'm happy with the state of the internet as it is now, bar the presence of child pornography and script kiddies with maladjusted mentalities. Those are the few things that I believe should be regulated and targeted by the regulating authorities. I stand up for freedom of speech and if someone wants to post their extreme political views, then let them. Whether or not they are posted on the internet that person and probably others will still hold their views and find some other means of "spreading the word". This idea of strict licensing and ridiculously strict content control is definitely going way too far, but some small amount of regulation IS a good idea.

	No it wouldn't (none / 0) (#213)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 05:38:54 PM PST

	First of all, 80% of all paedophiles are either family members or friends. Their contact with children has nothing to do with the Internet or computers. Secondly, one computer can do the work of 100,000 FBI agents or Police Officers. You may think that you are anonymous sitting behind your computer monitor but your not. Neither are the perverts that pray on children. Law enforcement agencies have learnt to harness the power of the Internet to catch these sickos, banning them is probably one of the worst things you could possibly do.

	Not exactly possible. (none / 0) (#9)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:18:50 PM PST

	Especially the browser/OS thing. Other things too. There are hundreeds of ways how, when you are knowledgeable enough, you can make a machine posing as another kind of machine. Ie, browsers are identified by "User-agent:" HTTP request header line. There are few things simpler than to fake this line: one possibility is to hack the file the line is defined in and edit it to anything other. Another possibility, which I am routinely using, is a proxyserver that intercepts and edits the request/response headers. So I can set any browser to appear as any other browser, with resolution up to single URL (in techspeak, with resolution to a regexp match against the requested URL). Faking operating system IP fingerprinting (ie, the kind nmap uses) is more difficult. However, it's still possible: you can either edit the kernel sources and make it respond in certain way to the probes, or you can intercept the data by other computer between the computer and the modem. (All you need is a machine with two serial ports and fast-enough (I bet a 486/100 is enough) CPU. Then you can intercept/edit packets going from/to the modem in real time. I had similar setup here, though for monitoring only, that was watching both the Rx and Tx lines to the modem and displaying data dumps in real time on second monitor. Similar thing you can do with Ethernet (cable modems, etc.) with a machine and a pair of network cards, set up as Ethernet bridge. If you have the cards that have software-configurable MAC address, nobody can figure out any change from the outside. Some security monitoring systems even work this way: they act transparent, logging all the packets in a circular buffer, and in case of problems the log is reviewed.) Software developer licences. When I checked last, the compiler hadn't needed to know more than the locations of header files and libraries. Both Visual C++ (ewww) and gcc. Which is the only good way. Car driving licences. When I checked last (repairing ignition for a friend), the car started even when I hadn't had one. I don't possess it, and I don't have the skills to drive a car (because I don't have the need to), but the car itself doesn't care. Transceiver licences. Same thing. I once operated a transceiver for an afternoon, when a friend needed to assist with something, for exchange for teaching me how it works. If I will need, I can get a transceiver unit and operate it. No licence? No problem. Just don't make waves, don't piss off fellow channel ops, and be mostly quiet, and you will not get caught. Regarding TVs, the UK phone detection vans are more of a myth than of a real thing. The modus operandi of the "TV goons" is to compare registration lists against household lists and harass the people who don't have The Paper (or, as we like to say here, "bumazhka" (from Russian, evoking the control-it-all practices of our Soviet Brother)). Even if they would really have the detectors, it is easy to foil them: don't use regular TV, but put a TV card to the computer. The detectors "see" the electromagnetic noise emitted by horizontal deflection coils, and are tuned to 15.625 kHz. By using a scan convertor, in this case TV card, the computer-TV setup operates on frequency of the monitor, and TV detector doesn't see it. (It is also possible the detectors listen on the frequency of superheterodyne oscillator of the receiver, but it is improbable; the signal is much weaker and unsuitable for reception by a sane-cost device. The function of TV detectors is more psychological than technical.) About detection of unlicenced equipment connected to the public network: I operate a smaller drove of do-it-myself devices connected to phone lines (a call recorder (constructionally equivalent to a "bug" but not so stealthy), a line voltage detector (telco had some problems and they weren't too willing to take care about it (damn monopoly) and a voltmeter helped me to see when the line is ok)...). Which is theoretically expressly forbidden. However, because I acquired the specs of the phone devices and of the phone switchboards line requirements, from the outside the whole system is still well within technical parameters of "legal" line, and the chances to find about the "violations" by mere electrical measurement are de facto zero. Proved by years. (Equipment law #1: You can violate any rules as long as you don't cause any problems.) Regarding privacy and freedom: To ensure there will be no anonymity/pseudonymity, you would have to cut off all access to the outside world, or force all the world to conform to the same rules. Even then, you would have to monitor each and every transaction - which can be easily cheated using protocol-level tunneling. How can you find that that SSL-encrypted transaction that behaves like a videotelephone call is really a videophone call and not a data transmission, "smuggling" source codes across the borders? Even if you would intercept an unencrypted transmission, how would you ensure that there aren't steganography-encoded informations in the video stream? Remember - even if you'd have certified tamperproof machine, using the serial or Ethernet proxy-bridges described above you can manipulate the data streams going in and out of it. Fake licences. They are as old as the idea of licencing. As they will be validated by a machine, it should not be much of problem to cheat the machine. Machines are stupid. Digital signatures. This will breed a whole market with fake signatures. Check the market with longdistance calling codes to see what I talk about in principle. Same with creditcard numbers. Wireless networks. If the current sorry state of wireless network security will continue together with their proliferation, it will not be problem to just take a laptop, a wireless PCMCIA card, and a car, and cruise through the city until a "holey" network is found. Then just connect in, do what you want to do online, and leave. Censorware. There are whole organizations that work on ways to cheat the censorware like Net Nanny. This layer is not too hard to defeat, especially when you have full physical access to the machine. If checked from the outside, it should be no problem to either keep outside marks of running censorware, or simulate malfunction. Even if fully operational, running a server or having a friend who runs a server with a toy like CGIproxy under HTTPS is a proven way how to get through. My friends in less fortunate states (China, UAE, Saudi Arabia) are using one I set up for them, with full success. Friends. In smaller country or a dislocated town, everyone knows everyone. A lot of "extra-legal relations" is then possible. When you have a trust-based network, much more kinds of services are possible. (Refering back to the driving licence: if your local cop knows you and knows you drive safely and well, he will not necessarily care about that you don't have the "bumazhka". You then usually do some sort of similar service for him as well. Black market. If too restrictive rules appear, tools for skirting them appear as well. Naturally, people then create two groups: the ones who have and the ones who need. A market will emerge, in compliance with the thousands-years-old rules. In short, your idea is impossible to implement in a leakproof way. Without turning the whole world into a police state. Even then, there will be ways around. It will pose great inconvenience for all the public, and will only give them false sense of security, making the life of Black Hats in sum easier (slightly more difficult Net access, but much less secure networks because of absence of any overt danger). So the idea is also counterproductive in its very effects.

	*yawn* (none / 0) (#18)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:50:21 PM PST

	Cranks like you will never get past the interview phase of the class C licensing requirements. Interview? Boringly easy. Find what they can ask for, find (or buy or guess) what they want to hear, tell them so. Hey - if I can remember unix commands, I can remember test answers too. You never cheated a test or lied in a form? It's so easy it's boring. If for no other reason, interviewers would have to fail you after the very first question or skip lunch in order to listen to your answer to the second question. If you want simple answers, ask the Management. If you want correct and complex answers, ask the Technicians. Without the minimal requirement of a class C license, no authorized IP reseller will connect you to the Internet. Social engineering. If it fails, friends. If it fails, fake licence. If it fails, service theft. There isn't impossibility here - just lack of determination. Crisis averted, Einstein. Sure?

	i see your point (none / 0) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:03:03 PM PST

	Interview? Boringly easy. Nothing could possibly easy for you except being transparently stupid. I dont think you realize the cognitive dissonance provoked when comparing your words to your inflated sense of fragile grandiosity. Let me make this as simple as possible. For you to ever get as little as a Class C Internet License under the New World Order, you will require a frontal lobotomy to fool the secretary, much less the interviewer in the office behind her desk.

	too easy. (none / 0) (#38)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:23:03 PM PST

	I would go for the: "ive never used computers before. I want to be able to use the email thing" PASS or "I am a registed computer scientist (with the correct papers). And I want to contribute to the internet" PASS now how difficult is that dumbass??? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Dear Mr. Tolstoy: (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:23:15 PM PST

	I shudder to think how much of the information super highway's transmission resources would be wasted if you made the effort to connect enough of the dots in your speaking (gibberish) points to remain on-topic. Cranks like you will never get past the interview phase of the class C licensing requirements. If for no other reason, interviewers would have to fail you after the very first question or skip lunch in order to listen to your answer to the second question. And that is the fly in your ointment, the monkeywrench in your machinery, the hacker in your secretarial pool, etc: Without the minimal requirement of a class C license, no authorized IP reseller will connect you to the Internet. Crisis averted, Einstein.

	i think some introspection is in order (none / 0) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:50:23 PM PST

	now how difficult is that dumbass??? It's impossible if you're a Lunix user. Lunix users must demonstrate their mastery of useless computer trivia or they simply die where they stand. You've heard of self-esteem? Well Lunix users have this thing called Lunix instead. If I may, I suggest you sit on your hands and browse this site for the evidence.

	not true (none / 0) (#50)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:03:18 PM PST

	I dont give a shit about linux in all honesty. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	you'd thinks so (none / 0) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:54:21 PM PST

	but... Interviewer: Does the name Linux Torvaldez mean anything to you? Hacker in disguise: ITS LINUS TORVALDS YOU IDOT!!!1! DONT U NO ANYTHING???? Interviewer: Next.

	hehe (none / 0) (#51)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:04:48 PM PST

	never heard of social engineering? hackers are good at it. Go read up on some cases. linux will never be illegal as it is a legally made software. The government cant shut down companies that dont break the law. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	you have a short, volatile memory. Power loss? (none / 0) (#54)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:21:47 PM PST

	never heard of social engineering? hackers are good at it. Go read up on some cases. Au contraire, I've heard all about your heros Kevin Mitnick and Fiber Optik. Have they been released from jail already? Well, just goes to show how much magnanimity humanity is capable of extending towards its inferior, subgenus hacker stepchildren. However, please be advised that tolerance is ultimately just a word, not much more than unmusical sound emanating from red, soft, moist, voluptuous lips. The interpretation of such sounds in the past is not your license to conduct yourself illegally or on the Internet without a Class C Internet User License in the future. Forewarned is forearmed. #!/usr/local/bin/perl print "Oh, yes, Internet Licensing is coming.\n" (Just so you understand.)

	You don't see them all. (none / 0) (#59)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:46:48 PM PST

	Have they been released from jail already? You hear only about the ones who get caught. For each careless (or out of luck) one there is at least a dozen of low-profile ones. That quiet little kid with glasses from your neighbourhood can be quite well a world-class network security ace. To quote a cop from "Cops" (or what was that live-action show made from police cam footages): "I never seen a smart criminal." It is quite possible that it was just because the smart ones are harder to catch.

	you dont understand english (none / 0) (#65)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:24:07 PM PST

	social engineering has sweet fuck hacker all to do with 14 year old world class network security aces even if such a delusion were possible. Do you know why? Because 14 year olds will have a hard time social engineering anyone before the onset of puberty sends their squeaky, childish voices on permanent vacation. It has become abundantly clear that you are not adequate. I suggest you lurk until you learn to focus your attention and read with comprehension. Acquiring human skills is not as easy as learning to hack, but nothing worthwhile is as easy as learning to hack. It's all about adequacy.

	You're partially right. (none / 0) (#76)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:26:51 PM PST

	... Because 14 year olds will have a hard time social engineering anyone before the onset of puberty sends their squeaky, childish voices on permanent vacation. Yes. Until then, they better spend their time studying technology. Acquiring role-playing skills, being it from games of Dungeons & Dragons or from participating in local theatre group, helps as well.

	kidz, dont listen to this provocateur! (none / 0) (#79)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 08:37:24 PM PST

	Role playing skills acquired playing D&D will serve you well when you're engineering more sedatives out of the orderlies in the lunatic asylum you were sent to after shooting the kids in your classroom with daddy's 22 calibre magic wand for making fun of your lack of social skills.

	Ignore him and pay attention. (none / 0) (#84)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 09:04:32 PM PST

	Role playing skills acquired playing D&D will serve you well when you're engineering more sedatives out of the orderlies in the lunatic asylum you were sent to after shooting the kids in your classroom with daddy's 22 calibre magic wand for making fun of your lack of social skills. Hey, those little bastards got only what they begged for! But seriously... I hadn't played much. But even then, I learned an important concept: "The character doesn't know what the player knows." In essence, behaving like not knowing something. Not as easy as it sounds, and important when you need to hide or deny knowledge about something. Maybe it will save my life one day.

	Are you a genius? (none / 0) (#86)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 09:19:37 PM PST

	Cause if you are, there's at least one nobel in my 5 year old niece's future.

	social engineering (none / 0) (#114)
	by PotatoError on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 05:18:58 AM PST

	go buy some network security books. One of the first things they tell any network administrator is to train their staff against social engineering attacks. Even simple ones such as phone calls... "Hi im Mike (network administrator) im in a rush and Ive forgotten the password for remote login through my laptop. Could you give it to me quick?" And believe me - idiots out there give the passwords down the phone. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Just so everyone knows (none / 0) (#220)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:12:49 PM PST

	"Social engineering" is a phrase hackers use where normal people would just say "tricking people." The hacker grasp of language is truly extraordinary.

	Just so everyone knows - get it right (none / 0) (#285)
	by majhelle on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 08:19:03 AM PST

	The term 'Social Engineering' first appeared in security journals not from the hacker community. Most 'hackers' wouldn't use the term if they had to.

	add the concept of law to the growing list... (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:14:42 PM PST

	of things you fail to understand. For example: If it fails, service theft. There isn't impossibility here - just lack of determination. Hey, that sounds like the sweet nothings felons whisper to each other in the darkness of their prison cells. Coincidence? I think not. I'll leave you alone to contemplate the disassociation errors in your logic (hint: in the real world, illegal actions provoke deservedly unpleasant consequences) and your future.

	Only if... (none / 0) (#28)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 04:45:18 PM PST

	If it fails, service theft. If you seen, I put direct service theft at the very end of the list. Low-risk options first. I am not in favor of service theft, as it means loss to the provider (unlike the fake licence), but I want to keep it as a last-resort option. hint: in the real world, illegal actions provoke deservedly unpleasant consequences Only if you get caught. Which means you made a mistake, most likely by "not doing your homework" and overlooking something, or being too high-profile. Some time ago it was illegal here to badmouth the Government. Still, people were doing it. There were news you got only from the Rumour Channel. It was also illegal to listen to Radio Free Europe (or Voice of America); The Government was even jamming it[1]. If my government will decide that I don't belong to the Net, I will shit on that decision of them as well. [1] Which was easy to overcome as well. You just needed to shield the receiver (ie, aluminum foil for cooking), and use highly-directional antenna - jammers were located in other direction than the transmitters. I was only a kid back then, and learned it from a classmate who was a high-frequency buff.

	dumbass. (none / 0) (#40)
	by PotatoError on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:25:59 PM PST

	mad scientist is right. If the government banned free speach and made it illegal to argue againt it would you do so? would you submit? Of course if you wont then you are breaking the law. The kind of thing "the sweet nothings felons whisper to each other in the darkness of their prison cells." If the government imposes facist laws against human rights of free speach and expression then you have to be a loser to not resist. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	excuse me (none / 0) (#52)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:06:00 PM PST

	who said anything about banning Free Speech? The proposition on the table is regulating the internet against hackers, terrorists, pornographers and the illegal like. These are already banned or regulated in the physical world, and we're simply advising you of your inexorable internet future where 1's and 0's are pressed into the service of moral Man instead of computers and their hacker slaves. Now shut your bleating strawmen and begin making plans for an alternate lifestyle. Are you fat? You will look thinner in prison stripes. (NOTE: If cannot stop polluting Adequacy threads with your barely lucid and non sequitur brain farts, please return your nick and have a nice life elsewhere.)

	Collateral damage (none / 0) (#72)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 07:56:10 PM PST

	who said anything about banning Free Speech? The proposition on the table is regulating the internet against hackers, terrorists, pornographers and the illegal like. ...and killing Free Speech will be just collateral damage.