As use of the internet has evolved, it's become clear to the really smart people who design and run all this stuff that some major design changes are needed to keep the internet running smoothly in the future. For instance, the internet as it currently exists is vulnerable to attacks and failures that the new version should be able to withstand.
The National Science Foundation is backing the Global Environment for Networking Investigation (GENI) project for creation of a new internet architecture to replace the current structure of the internet. The new architecture will be more focused on security and will better integrate wireless and mobile technologies, and at higher speeds than the current internet can handle.
A project on this scale can be compared to the early days of the internet. The National Science Foundation will be teaming up with universities and government agencies to build and stress-test this new version of the internet, and the GENI experimental network will most likely be hooked up with the National LambdaRail and Internet2 networks, which are working on new networking architectures as well.
Privacy and security are major focuses of the GENI project, because researchers believe that without better safeguards for privacy and more assurances of security on the internet, people will eventually stop using it.
I'm sure it will be years, if not decades, before a new internet infrastructure is put in place or even attempted on a wide scale. I'm waiting impatiently.
Time for all of us to get our blinders off and look at this project for what it is.
First, a "secure" internet is a controlled internet. One of the major tenants of developing a new net is "privacy and accountability and vary protections for individuals based on "difference and local values," ... that to me reads like "we are taking away the freedom and anonymity of the internet".
What are "local values"? That does mean that China can more easilly censor the information their caged citizens get...and so will the USA. One law passed to restrict images of a lewd nature by Congress in one of their secret meetings and "Poof!" no more SuicideGirls because the "local values" of America won't permit it.
No more freedom of to publish scathing commentary with anonymity. What do you thin "accountability" means?
I'd bet corporate money is influencing this push for more "security".
If people could be bothered to understand the net and simple network security and be accountable for their own then we might be able to keep our internet freedoms instead of giving them up, like we have in the real world.
In my opinion this is a simple power grab to steal our freedoms on the internet. Its something the powerful historically do to the masses in every industry and endevour. The current internet makes everyone the same...its socialism of the highest order and that can't be allowed by the "elite".
Problem is we want "security" because that sounds better that "freedom".
IdFungus, I think you need to take off the tinfoil hat for a few minutes and go read the article and see what they actually mean by privacy and security.
Focus is on privacy for users.
Security is for the network architecture itself, so it can't be taken out as easily by targeted attacks.
Funding is from the National Science Foundation and universities.
Although the "differences and local values" thing is a bit... strange. There are and always have been ways around everything, though. Completely controlling the content of the internet has never been possible, and I seriously doubt it will be even in this new incarnation.
[Edited on Aug 28, 2005 by Shalome]
5
alpha_hazard
Fort Collins, CO
April 2004
AUG 28, 2005 02:48 PM
in general it's always better to make continuous small changes rather than sweeping changes only every once in a while. That's how things have gone on the net for years. Although large changes coupled with small changes are just as good really...look at firefox. That's something I would call pretty big.
alpha_hazard said:
in general it's always better to make continuous small changes rather than sweeping changes only every once in a while. That's how things have gone on the net for years. Although large changes coupled with small changes are just as good really...look at firefox. That's something I would call pretty big.
The problem with trying to make incremental small changes on something as large as the internet is that the aging infrastructure and original design of the internet are not capable of handling what needs to be done. There needs to be massive change, according to the guys who built the original ARPAnet. Several of the original ARPAnet people are actually contributing to this project, which is really fucking cool. They have the ability to say "hey, we built this thing in the first place, and we've learned from our mistakes."
I like my tinfoil hat and that has nothing to do with the fact you are glossing over the more sinister applications of this new architecture.
The NSF and Universities are funding this, but who is funding them? Where is the grant money coming from? university naked lacrosse t-shirt sales ? No. It would be huge corporations and government funds.
This project would be like paying for the survaillence that would make "1984" a reality.
IdFungus said:
I like my tinfoil hat and that has nothing to do with the fact you are glossing over the more sinister applications of this new architecture.
The NSF and Universities are funding this, but who is funding them? Where is the grant money coming from? university naked lacrosse t-shirt sales ? No. It would be huge corporations and government funds.
This project would be like paying for the survaillence that would make "1984" a reality.
Powergrab. Mark my words.
The government and ISPs already have the means to control and monitor every bit of traffic on the internet and censor anything they see fit.
How come we aren't living in China-like-suppression already?
The article looks more like a fluff write-up pulling from the initial SIGCOMM announcement. The SIGCOMM announcement isn't much clearer.
In reality, that is a good thing. If you've already decided what works then you don't need scientists to research it. You need engineers to implement it.
What we think of as "the Internet" is fundamentally successful since its almost entirely content and protocol neutral at the core. The layering of protocols allows some nodes to pay attention to higher levels, while others deal only with the lower levels.
With the coming transition to IPv6 its not a bad idea to garner some new insights to the ways in which modern Internet users utilize the services provided over the Internet.
Everyone and their mothers in the tech industry want to be the ones to design a new 'net. Problem being that government intervnetion into the whole process is at an all-time high which will probably lead to counter-intuitive "security" measures.
As it is right now, we could just use a rehash of http; which has been in development for the past 4 or 5 years already anyway.
The net as is is pretty good. It's redundant and highly tolerant. People just need to make less exploitable code.
IdFungus said:
What are "local values"? That does mean that China can more easilly censor the information their caged citizens get...and so will the USA. One law passed to restrict images of a lewd nature by Congress in one of their secret meetings and "Poof!" no more SuicideGirls because the "local values" of America won't permit it.
in addition to what shalome said, this can already happen now with today's technology.
Haha, what a killer idea. The internet is already just a jumble of facts and information. This new idea sounds like a solid one but the same thing will happen again.
Shal
Los Angeles, CA
October 2002
AUG 28, 2005 02:15 PM