The Internet - drowning in its own waste?

[--Pete]

Hi,

On the other hand, I might just have to thank them for making my point in a way I do not have the stomach to duplicate. I really would like to thank them. Posthumously. Soon.

--Pete

[Guest]

asdfasdf

[Minionman]

Pete gets a consolation prize for the evening. Hopefully tomorrow we can all get back to talking like usual.

[Fragbait]

Hi,

Now, Pete, listen. That really wasn't necessary. I mean the whole spamming and posting waste from your second pc with two different usernames just to prove your point.
We were already believing you before!!!

:P

Greetings, Fragbait

[Guest]

Now, Pete, listen. That really wasn't necessary. I mean the whole spamming and posting waste from your second pc with two different usernames just to prove your point.

I don't think that was the case. If Griselda/Bolty are smart (they are :-p) they banned their IP address, so Pete wouldn't be with us today. Glad to see that the those images are gone... It took me a lot of nerve to come back to LL and see if it was safe.

[Nystul]

I don't think that was the case. If Griselda/Bolty are smart (they are :-p) they banned their IP address, so Pete wouldn't be with us today. Glad to see that the those images are gone... It took me a lot of nerve to come back to LL and see if it was safe.

I'm pretty sure that was a joke. :P But if Pete wanted to cause some mischief, he would be too smart to do it from his usual IP!

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm pretty sure that was a joke.

Given the smiley face in the title of Fragbait's post, I'm sure it was.

But if Pete wanted to cause some mischief, he would be too smart to do it from his usual IP!

Thank you for the vote of confidence. Given that by now there are a lot of people on these fora who've known me for over seven years, I would hope that my style was pretty well established. And that it would be obvious that the *** posted was *not* my style.

--Pete

[gekko]

LIAR!! We all know it was you, pete. Stop hiding behind 7 years of established "style" and "presence" at the lounge. You can't fool us!

I will grant that your plot was rather ingenious, well thought out, and nicely timed. I wouldn't have had the patience to build up 7 years of trust before pulling such a stunt, personally.

gekko

[anarchae]

I missed the "live" performance of this thread. Just wanted to say, compared to ten years ago, I have found looking-up the most simple of subjects to be most frustrating! If you do get pages w/relevant info - it is the same two or three that have google-bombed the search-engines to death. Then of course, there is the general lack-of-civility in many of the "communities". As always, it is the few bad-monkeys that ruin the experience for all the rest.

[BruceGod]

T.V.

To misquote The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy;
"Everything you like is either illegal, immoral, or fattening."

And, what if you're an "ameteur" hoping to get paid, because you're pretty sure you are ALREADY putting out better stuff than 90% of the "professionals" you run across?

NOTE: STILL more than slightly drunk

edit: everything after "TV"

edit2: added periods, and capitalized "To". Yes, the fact that I can't edit my unclosed parentheses in the post title is driving me batty! Note: Now only slightly drunk.

[kandrathe]

Well, yes, I think my straw man is a bit draconian and no I don't think many would agree with me. Some, such as yourself, will see this as overly restrictive. I arrived at my position by living through the past, where in fact content providers were limited to a select group of industries, and universities involved with the US DOD. There was no "anonymous" content, and things were very organized and in fact seemingly bright people quibbled incessantly over minutia and the most minor of changes.

I feel your fears are based on what your government would do to you based on your ability to have free unfettered speech. Perhaps then you are willing to put up with the cesspool the Internet is becoming to continue communicating with your fellow humanity without fear of retribution. The baseline for Internet speech cannot be to accommodate the lowest common denominator of government repression, but rather the peoples under these yokes of tyranny must either struggle to free themselves from these bonds or suffer what they are given by their masters.

But as you say, my opinions are those of an individual with nothing to fear from accountability in what I'm saying, as long as it is not treasonous or a threat to the national security of my nation. So, yes, I want to have the ability to restrict certain address ranges or domain suffixes from coming into my home. The only other choice is to rip the wire from the wall, and disconnect completely.

As you rightly point out "who is to be the arbiter of trash vs good content"? I don't know, but I know that someone needs to at least better categorize stuff to help out Pete when he's looking for armor, or to help you wade through the "professional" commercial sites and focus on more "amateur" content if you so desire.

I think the jury is still out on copyrights; I know that illegal knockoffs of books, software, movies and music are robbing billions of dollars from the content publishers. So I see no reason for these "professional" media companies to move their content to electronic form to exacerbate their hemorrhaging.

From my experience, much of the net's quality content is offered by 'amateurs', while 'professionals' tend to be responsible for most of the crap.

Maybe that was a bad choice of words on my part, but I was trying to differentiate between content providers with credentials from just any old person with an opinion, or an axe to grind.

[Moldran]

I feel your fears are based on what your government would do to you based on your ability to have free unfettered speech.

No. I live in a country in which civil freedoms are guarantueed quite well. I, as a person, would not have to fear any kind of censorship. I am also pretty much accountable on what I do and say on the net today. A simple whois lookup on my email address' domain reveals my real name and address, my ISP AFAIK stores my connection information (IP <---> physical net account) for 6 months.
It is not so much my personal freedom that I see endangered by ideas such as the ones you proposed, but the general freedom on the net.

So, yes, I want to have the ability to restrict certain address ranges or domain suffixes from coming into my home. The only other choice is to rip the wire from the wall, and disconnect completely.

If that is what you want, I have no problem with that. You have every right to restrict what comes into your home. It is when people start trying to restrict what comes into other people's homes that I see a dangerous development.
If really all you want to do is restricting your own system from connecting to certain address ranges or domains: That can quite easily be done with technical measures already. Put a proxy between your computer and your ISP and configure it however you like.

As you rightly point out "who is to be the arbiter of trash vs good content"? I don't know, but I know that someone needs to at least better categorize stuff to help out Pete when he's looking for armor, or to help you wade through the "professional" commercial sites and focus on more "amateur" content if you so desire.

I partly agree with that (although I must repeat, I find the Internet in 2004 still alot better than some peolpe here describe it). But IMO, it is up to the Internet community to develop solutions (e.g. better search engines) that achieve that without considerably giving up freedom.

The freedom on the net does come at a price, yes. At present, the price/gain relation is fine for me. Google may be pretty much unusable considering certain topics, but Google is not the net's heart, there are alternatives. So far, I have very rarely experienced major trouble finding useful information on a topic I searched for. I have the impression that a huge part of people's complaints is caused by weaknesses of certain search engines. That can be fixed. And the fact that links are not valid for all eternity lies in the nature of the net, I can think of no way to change that. Definately no reason to establish such a thing as an 'Internet enforcement agency'.

[Bun-Bun]

To misquote The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy;
"Everything you like is either illegal, immoral, or fattening."

Or Flo and Eddie, who did the song "Illegal, Immoral and Fattening" back in the 1970's.

[kandrathe]

I guess I'm more fed up than you. My corporate e-mail server has been dragged to a crawl sifting out the 120 or so virus laden inbound e-mails per day, and 95% of the remainder is flagged as spam. Add in virus infecting scripts on web pages, spy-ware, pop up ads, shenanigans with search engines, and outright deception and fraud practiced from every point on the globe daily and I see a problem that is bigger than poor Pete being unable to find adequate information on armor.

The point is that as a software engineer, I know how to prevent most of the useless trash from infecting my office or home. But, 95% of people who are connected do not. Most are entirely unaware that their unprotected home machine is being used as a platform for spreading garbage and viruses, or as a repository for trash.

So, now you say that you do live in a society that guarantees you the freedom to say what you like without fear of retribution. So your argument is not for yourself, but to protect those unfortunates in other repressive societies. You have registered your domain with honest credentials, and do not intentionally try to deceive your ISP, or the general public, because you do not have anything to hide. I would say that if you were a criminal you might choose differently, and that is the problem. That those who mean to perpetrate crimes, or abuse the internet are given free license and hide behind the anonymity provided.

Case in point; Just yesterday I received an e-mail that was almost professional looking, except the grammar was atrocious. It was addressed to me, and was from my bank with official bank logos and letterhead. All it wanted me to do was to validate I was a banking customer in good standing by clicking on the "official looking" link, and login to my on-line banking account. However, the entire message was a gif image and clicking anywhere on the gif image brought you to an elaborate hoax in an attempt to rob me. So I packaged all the documentation about the e-mail, the raw html, the site it defers to and sent it to my banks fraud department. BUT, I know what to look for. How many of their customers were fooled?

How many people do you know personally that have had to wipe a machine due to a virus or malware infection? How many businesses have been brought to a crawl due to them. This isn't just about Pete's wading through trash to find useful info. It is getting into the realm of real harms against people, and law enforcement needs a better way to track down these kinds of scumbags.

[Jim]

Hi

I have a new telephone # since July 15th, that's only 13 days and already I'm getting telemarketing calls @ 7:30am. I'm now registered with the Federal "Do Not Call List" :D

The National Do Not Call Registry :wub:

State Do Not Call List Laws -- March 2004 :wub:

We need a "National Do Not Spam Registry" :P

Found this bit of Info:

Cybercrime

Through the establishment of the Attorney General's computer crimes unit, Arizona can now focus on combating technology crime. While computers and the Internet have become a convenience and asset for companies and individuals, technological advances have also given criminals a new way to commit the same old offenses. These include: Identity theft, theft of personal information, fraud, distribution of child pornography and sabotage. The Computer Crimes Act of 2000 is a comprehensive law that has strengthened the penalties for some technology offenses and added clear definitions for others. For example, these updated laws:

US CODE COLLECTION Sec. 1030. - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers.

(a)

Whoever -

(1)
having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access....>ETC.

(2)
intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains -

(A)

information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);

[anarchae]

In response to/support of Kandrathe

On this particular issue, I do a bit of internet selling. On an average week, I get between 15-30 "phishing" emails. Most "from" my auction site and payment site. But also others "from" any banking institution you can name. Most are very professional looking, but fall down on grammar and the nature of the information they ask you to provide. Then there's the porn spam, phamacy spam, ED and penile enhancement spam, mortgage spam. . . Setting your filters doesn't work 'cause they simply change the mis-spellings. Then there's the "email virus notifications" trojans. . . 75% of my email is simply garbage of this nature! I'm pretty fed-up w/this, as well!

[--Pete]

Hi,

I hadn't even mentioned e-mail in my original post. But in many ways it is the epitome of what went wrong with the net. e-mail was the first "killer ap" on the Internet back before the WWW was even a gleam in CERN's eye. A simple application that permitted one user to send a *text* file to another. It had the speed (almost, especially if neither end was on BITNET) of a chat program and the convenience of regular mail. The epitome of technology gone good.

Now, thanks to idiots of all stripes, it is the epitome of technology gone bad. Partially this is due to the jackasses (mostly Microsoft) who will not leave well enough alone. A text message is innocuous, it cannot harm you. But the "if it can be done it should be done" fools added the ability to send messages in all sorts of ways that permits the spread of viruses.

The next class of idiots are the people who use a free service for their personal profit, the spammers. These are well supported by the "liberal intellectual" (i.e., clueless ivory tower residents with plate glass navels) who drone on about "freedoms" with never a clue about "responsibilities". They have a great view of society, from the outside, while living on the tax dollars of the useful.

And the final class of idiots are the users, who feel it necessary yo avoid any form of thinking. Who find it necessary to open every piece of junk that ends up in their inbox. And who need to forward everything to at least a dozen of their peers (i.e., fellow unicellular organisms) in the off chance that someone they know hasn't seen a hundred copies of the latest joke, warning or scam.

Even the "professional societies" are in on the act. Where most were satisfied by putting out a newsletter about once a month, hardly a day passes that I don't get a few e-mails from these organizations. Almost all of it is of no interest to me (or to any other sentient being). But because there is the occasional nugget of useful information and there is no longer any other way to get said information, I have to allow the flow of trivial to continue.

The combination of anonymity and no-cost have led to the ruin of a once useful service. The tragedy of the commons without even the opprobrium of your neighbors.

Yes, I only addressed the problems with the web, that being the most "visible" part of the Internet. But all parts of it (with the exception, maybe, of ftp) are well on their way down the toilet.

--Pete

[Kylearan]

Hi,

But all parts of it [the Internet] (with the exception, maybe, of ftp) are well on their way down the toilet.

While I agree with pretty much all you've said regarding the deterioration of the WWW, mail etc., I think there's one part of the net besides ftp that's still useable and has suffered only slightly in quality over the last years: Usenet. I find it simply amazing how newsgroups have managed to keep up their high standard. There are lots of groups with intelligent people discussing and sharing information on a high level, and spam is only a minor nuisance there. If I seek information, often I find it there instead of the WWW.

And usenet has a good chance to survive the ever-increasing amount of stupid people using the internet. It has survived the wave of AOL users in the 1990s, and it looks like it will survive the attack of the completely stupid and broken Google Groups, so I have high hopes about usenet's future. It has been there before WWW, and I hope it will still be there (and useable) once the WWW has become completely useless.

It still works because usenet users are mostly limited to intelligent people (stupids won't find usenet, and if they find it, will think it's boring - it's text only, with no flashing, colorful images!), and peer pressure still works nicely there. Sure, there are the binaries and warez groups, but you can just ignore them and all is well.

-Kylearan

[--Pete]

Hi,

Good point, overall. There are still a lot of good groups and there is still a lot of good discussion on those groups. But that can be said about web fora, and even web sites. The problem with the Internet is not that there isn't any good material on it. It is that the good material is, by and large, drowned in a sea of junk. And there is no good "filter" to attenuate the noise and let the pure goodness through.

Now, admittedly the newsgroups are, for the reasons you gave, a lot better than average. And for someone who has been around and has his favorite dozen or so groups he's subscribed to, there doesn't seem much change. However, if a newbie wanders into newsgroups, and downloads the list with 3x thousands of names (I no longer even look at the total :) ), it could take him a minute or two to find the good stuff.

I can't remember the last time that I subscribed to a non-gaming related newsgroup. Even with a good reader (I use Agent) the effort of downloading a few hundred messages and then skimming them to get an idea of the value of the group, and repeating the process daily for a couple of weeks is usually not worth the result.

So yeah. There are pockets of goodness left in newsgroups, as there are in all parts of the net. And the partitioning is nice, keeping most of the spam out of any given group. But I think here, too, the noise to signal ratio is very high. And the ability to find that signal is too small.

--Pete

[moon_blade]

I think of the internet as a world library filled with truth and lies. You have to find the right book. One time I read someting from a website the Noah was a merchant and had a vision about the boat and the flood (what a load of croc) so if you look at information on the web, you just have to be very careful. Very good topic.


- bob