The notion of securing the internet with a codified set of regulations is rather ridicules. Senators desire to regulate the internet desire to do so in order to collect revenu from it. That is after all the simplest form of regulation is to tax something.
For example prior to the schedule system established by Nixon the way in which drugs like marijuana or opium was with taxation. it's was unlawful to possess with out being taxed indicated by a rubber stamp. But you couldn't apply for the stamp without possession. In computer terms (for those familiar with linux) this is a circular dependency. it works the same way anytime you regulate something like a webpage. In order for you to have a webpage it must meet the regulatory standards. To determine if regulatory standards are met you must have someone to make a qualified judgment. The enforcer receives a pay cheque and labor is taxable revenu. Also you have revenu from violators of the regulation. When you have a webpage that users interact with than the users can harm the webpage by modifying in a way as to bring it out of compliance. Businesses desire to mitigate this risk and will do so in several ways. The first method that pops to mind is to share the cost of the risk in the form of insurance. Making a new industry that will require regulation by our benevolent government. Next they will insure user identity with use of biometrics. Making another mandated industrial product (some form of biometric reader). Yes which is regulated and taxed. Business will also pass the cost on to the user in the form of access fees.
In order to tax something with out imposing a direct tax you simply have to regulate it. This way the government can generate revenu without telling their employers (us) about the revenu directly.
Let us step back for a moment from the legislative motivation for regulating the internet. Let's focus on security it self for a moment. Security on the internet is not and exorcise of meeting regulatory standards. Internet security is a function in technological and physical security systems. If you have a computer with secure data on it you are careful of the things you plug into it like iPods or thumb drives. You are also careful what you plug it into, you wouldn't plug it into the internet with out some sort of DMZ type firewall system. Secure server are much like bank vaults of the early 20th century. Sure they are really hard to get into. Getting into them is not impossible however. The idea is to detect and delay the attempt until the trespasser could be caught. This is much the same way technological security is setup. The more important your data the better the security of the system it is on will be. You see businesses will regulate themselves and insure the data is secured. Hackers aren't really looking for your data. Because your data is like a house. yes sure there is some valuables in your house but you lock the front door and that keeps the bad guys out 97% of the time. vary valuable data is housed on servers of some corporation and is more secure. Well what about all the pirating? (someone might say). Well I think it's a bit overhyped. Really if it was so horrible no one would make a album any more or a movie for that matter. I haven't seen a big production house closing recently because pirates sharing files killed it. Why? because they have adpted there business model to adapt to the internet with companies like Netflicks and Hulu. They have invested in DRM. We will all see the reductions of websites like BitTorrent and other p2p sharing as these businesses adjust. Sites that offer p2p sharing are more like small BBS's of the old days. That is my point really. No matter the amount of laws you stack on the backbone of the interent they will not squash all of the violators of the regulations. We will never stop pirating. There is no means to stop it technically so how can you stop it with statute. Murder is pretty illegal but people still do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment