Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)

Vivien M. vivienm at dyndns.org
Mon Apr 19 15:23:21 UTC 2004


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On 
> Behalf Of Dr. Jeffrey Race
> Sent: April 19, 2004 9:11 AM
> To: Jeffrey Race
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT)
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:12:16 -0400, Chris Brenton wrote:
> 
> > An uneducated
> >end user is not something you can fix with a service pack.
> 
> 
> A profound point, again highlighting the fact that there
> are no technical solutions to this problem.  (Though
> technical measures to enhance traceability are a big help.)
> 
> So, the logical inference is training and licensing to
> get internet access.   When I was 16 in Connecticut many
> many years ago, we had to take a driver-training course
> (given by a policeman) to get a driver's license.
> 
> I see no discussion about this approach, here or elsewhere.

Well, there are a number of problems with this.

Firstly, who enforces it? The reason it "works" with cars is that the state
(or province for those of us north of the border) effectively says "you
can't drive a car without this lovely piece of paper/plastic that we'll give
you" and "if we find you driving a car without the lovely piece of
paper/plastic, you're going to be in serious trouble". Are you proposing
that each jurisdiction that currently licences drivers also licence Internet
users and tell ISPs "sorry, but if they don't give their licence, you can't
give them an account"?

Secondly, HOW do you enforce it? Motor vehicles only require a licence to be
operated on public roads in all jurisdictions I'm aware of. IANAL, but if
some 14 year old kid without a licence wants to drive around on his parents'
private property, that is not illegal. Now, the instant that vehicle leaves
the private property, it's another story (assuming, of course, cops around
to check licences. In some jurisdictions, this is more true than in others).
My point is, driving is ONLY regulated when it is done in public view, for
obvious reasons. Computer use is an inherently private activity, so how do
you propose to verify that the person using a computer is in fact licenced?
Mandatory webcams? :P

Thirdly, WHO do you enforce it against? It's pretty difficult (and illegal)
for $RANDOM_JOE (or $RANDOM_KID, etc) to just go out and drive someone's car
without their explicit knowledge and permission. (Okay, so you can hotwire a
car, but...) It's very easy for someone other than the computer owner or ISP
contractholder to have access to it and abuse it and stuff. So what do you
propose? Mandatory cardreaders on all computers? Fingerprint scanners
integrated into keyboards? How else can you avoid Mom logging online, and
then letting the unlicenced kids roam free online, allegedly to do "research
for school"? Do you want to fine/jail/etc Mom if the kids download a trojan
somewhere?

Fourthly, as someone pointed out, the first generation always complains. I
hate to show how young I probably am compared to many on this list, but my
jurisdiction introduced graduated driver's licencing a few years before I
was old enough to get a driver's licence, and it angers me that the random
guy who's out on the road driving like a moron had to go through way less
bureaucracy, road tests, etc than me simply because he was born ten years
before me. That said, if no reforms are made to make this system stricter,
I'm sure the next generation won't see this system as an outrage simply
because they won't remember an era when the bureaucracy.
Currently, people can buy computers/Internet access/etc unregulated at the
random store down the street. You're proposing that some regulatory
authority require licencing... Why should these voters accept it? Especially
since, unlike with cars, the damage done by poorly-operated computers is
rather hard to explain to a technologically-unskilled person. Most would
respond something like "well, it's not my fault some criminal wrote a
virus/exploit/whatever. Put that person in jail, and let me mind my own
business." Good luck educating them on the fallacies in that statement.

Fact is, until home computer security issues result in a pile of bloody
bodies to show on CNN, no one in the general public and/or the legislative
branches of government has any incentive to care... 

Vivien




More information about the NANOG mailing list