Driver's License for the Internet

[Wraith]

Microsoft's Mundie calls for 'internet driving licence'

Mandatory test would apply to all citizens before using the internet

Microsoft's chief strategy officer has suggested that people should undergo mandatory training before being allowed online.

Craig Mundie, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, proposed a three-tier system of authentication for people, devices and applications.

Mundie acknowledged that this would mean some loss of anonymity, but said that people are used to having to present identification in other areas of life and that the internet should be no different.

"If you want to drive a car you have to have a licence to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance," he said.

"People don't understand the scale of criminal activity on the internet. Whether criminal, individual or nation states, the community is growing more sophisticated."

Mundie explained that it is perfectly reasonable to have anonymity when simply walking down the street, but that if a citizen enters a bank to access funds they will need an ID.

Hamadoun Touré, secretary general of the International Telecommunications Union, used the meeting to suggest that nations should sign up to a cyber war treaty guaranteeing that they would not launch an online "first strike".

"A cyber war would be worse than a tsunami - a catastrophe," he said, adding that the attacks on Estonia in 2007 were just the beginning.

Countries should also guarantee not to harbour cyber terrorists, said Touré, and to offer freedom of information to citizens.

A McAfee spokesman at the event warned that China, the US, Russia, Israel and France are among 20 countries currently gearing up to take warfare online, and that the world is facing an electronic arms race.

US senator Susan Collins, meanwhile, said in a blog post: "A former US director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, asked me about the possibility of the Senate passing an international treaty on cyber security, if one were to be drafted, or absent that, a cyber security bill for the US.

"Our Homeland Security Committee is working on such legislation, but there are many obstacles to overcome."

Source

This is actually a fairly minor event to come out of all the discussios coming out of the WEF. It's not going to happen, and probably isn't a good idea anyways, but the training suggests a test at the end, and there is something appealing about the idea of requiring people to pass a test before they can get on to the internets.

[Lewkowski]

I think this is the wrong way to tackle it.

Allow a free market system to control the internet. I envision a process where major banks, retailers, software companies, smart phone companies and dozens of on-line shops create a system of verifying identification. In order to log on to any of their companies/accounts you would need to obtain this identification. Possibly requiring some kind of real proof of identification before issuing the ID.

Once the ID is established the person navigating these sites would no longer become anonymous. A system of checks could occur to insure that suspicious activity could be curtailed. Much like your bank calls your cell phone if you forget to tell them your going on vacation so they can ensure suspicious charges aren't fraud. The beauty of this system is that it would be voluntary. But there would be enormous incentive to use it as otherwise your ability to do business on-line would be curtailed as major companies wouldn't accept other forms of identification.

Anyway probably a pipe dream but I love the idea of big companies coming together to fine a free market solution to internet fraud.

[Being]

I think this is the wrong way to tackle it.

Allow a free market system to control the internet.

Would you please qualify what you mean by "free market" ?
I mean, regulated by who exactly? Shareholders? Corporate executives? Board of Directors? Advertisers? Consumers?

[Lewkowski]

Non-governmental control. It doesn't need to be Corporate but it would be likely. And it wouldn't control the entire internet of course. It would just control the gateway into financial parts of it. And if a company didn't want to be part of it, that's fine. But they wouldn't get the free improved security so it would use carrots as opposed to government mandate to get people to be a part of it.

[Hazir]

You totally ignore the fact that we're dealing with potentially criminal activities so the government has to be involved ?

[Lewkowski]

You totally ignore the fact that we're dealing with potentially criminal activities so the government has to be involved ?

To use an analogy -

Government investigates car thefts. It however doesn't mandate car alarms. The car alarm, Lojack or anti-theft measures are not required by the government. The increased internet security idea for financial transactions on-line are similar to those items.

[Illusions]

Lewk you do realize that corporations already have these things right? Last I checked in order to purchase something online I either needed to use a credit or debit card, paypal, or an e-check...all things that are connected to corporate financial institutions, and are also connected to personally identifiable information.

[EyeKhan]

Would you please qualify what you mean by "free market" ?
I mean, regulated by who exactly? Shareholders? Corporate executives? Board of Directors? Advertisers? Consumers?

Markets work best when there's little regulation. Take the US Financial Markets, for example. See how well that worked out? And of course there's the last 20 years of shaping the US health care system into a for profit market to keep the costs down. Yes, the less regulation in the market, the better.

[X900BTA]

Markets work best when there's little regulation. Take the US Financial Markets, for example. See how well that worked out? And of course there's the last 20 years of shaping the US health care system into a for profit market to keep the costs down. Yes, the less regulation in the market, the better.

I'd like to throw in here that I think we're in a transitional period. Markets working best with less regulation has been true in the past, and is in principle true, but with more information available to more people and a larger number of said people being involved in various markets the old adage is no longer true. Why? Because instead of a small pool of reasonably qualified people doing X you have a huge amount of people, most of whom aren't qualified and some are just plain stupid, doing X and no matter how well the trained pool behave they cannot fight the strength in numbers aspect of the now much larger group. This is how we got stock market bubble, housing bubble, etc. It's how we'll get the next bubble as well unless regulation is re-thunk, imo.

Markets working best with perfect information to all and all being rational actors iis the goal in theory, but as is evident to anyone with two eyes we have much imperfect information and many many irrational actors. This = Fail.

[EyeKhan]

I'Markets working best with less regulation has been true in the past, and is in principle true,

Can you give an example of this??? I dont' think an unregulated market can work at all. How do you keep people from being cheated and extorted if there's no regulation??? When has an unregulated market ever worked???

Why? Because instead of a small pool of reasonably qualified people doing X you have a huge amount of people, most of whom aren't qualified and some are just plain stupid, doing X and no matter how well the trained pool behave they cannot fight the strength in numbers aspect of the now much larger group. This is how we got stock market bubble, housing bubble, etc. It's how we'll get the next bubble as well unless regulation is re-thunk, imo.

The people that caused the realestate bubble and the people that nearly destroyed the financial markets with their credit default swaps and their mortgage based derivatives were the experts, not the masses of people getting the non-existant equity out of their homes to buy flatscreen tvs. The masses were largely the ignorant victims. The people that should have known better were those selling garbage mortgages and those repackaging them as equities and those insuring them, all operating as though there was never going to be a consequence because they stupidly bought into the idea that property values always go up. These people weren't the ignorant masses, these were the experts.

Makets working best with perfect information to all and all being rational actors iis the goal in theory, but as is evident to anyone with two eyes we have much imperfect information and many many irrational actors. This = Fail.

There is never perfect information. There are never actors that are totally rational some of the time or semi-rational all the time. And there are always experts that are more interested in manipulating and warping the market to their advantage and everyone else's detriment regardless of the harm. So you always need an appropriate amount of regulation to keep the system from falling apart.

[Khendraja'aro]

No, markets don't work with "less" regulation and they don't work with "more" regulation. They work with the right regulations. Anyone who argues against a new regulation solely on the basis of his axiom that less regulations make a market work better is a fool.

[EyeKhan]

No, markets don't work with "less" regulation and they don't work with "more" regulation. They work with the right regulations. Anyone who argues against a new regulation solely on the basis of his axiom that less regulations make a market work better is a fool.

I totally agree. And the appropriate regulation is dependant on whatever the market is trading.

[X900BTA]

Can you give an example of this??? I dont' think an unregulated market can work at all. How do you keep people from being cheated and extorted if there's no regulation??? When has an unregulated market ever worked???

I said "less", not "none". I think you can probably think of plenty of markets that have historically worked very well with "less" regulation, as well as plenty who've not done so well with "more" regulation. Part of the dilema here, which no one seems to talk about, is regulation quantity is not and never has been a one size fits all answer. Nuclear Power plants, for example, should definitely have a lot more regulation than say local farmers markets.

The people that caused the realestate bubble and the people that nearly destroyed the financial markets with their credit default swaps and their mortgage based derivatives were the experts, not the masses of people getting the non-existant equity out of their homes to buy flatscreen tvs. The masses were largely the ignorant victims. The people that should have known better were those selling garbage mortgages and those repackaging them as equities and those insuring them, all operating as though there was never going to be a consequence because they stupidly bought into the idea that property values always go up. These people weren't the ignorant masses, these were the experts.

You're proving my point here. The continuation of unsustainable actions may have been made possible by experts and kept going by the media and government, but the participation in said unsustainable conditions was also made possible by masses not having perfect (or nearly, at the least) information. Remove mass marketing and access to what amounted to a ton of bad information and these two bubbles would have been very small and not wrecked havoc on the entire economy. The people being ignorant and innocent victims is part of the problem with the information age that i'm alluding to.

There is never perfect information. There are never actors that are totally rational some of the time or semi-rational all the time. And there are always experts that are more interested in manipulating and warping the market to their advantage and everyone else's detriment regardless of the harm. So you always need an appropriate amount of regulation to keep the system from falling apart.

I agree. My point is that the theory says more information is better, but the theory assumes rational actors, intelligent actors, "good" information, etc. This has not proven to be the cast in the information age and, now that everyone and their mother has access to far too much information (largely unregulated, btw), we're paying for it every 10 years or so

Edit: Apparently Khendraja'aro is talking about it [right amount of regulation]. Nice

[EyeKhan]

This has not proven to be the cast in the information age and, now that everyone and their mother has access to far too much information (largely unregulated, btw), we're paying for it every 10 years or so

Honestly, who would have ever thought the result of the "information age" would be greater ignorance? Yeah, in hindsight what else could it have been? We're humans afterall, and if there's some advantage we can get over others, we'll do it. It's really the "dis-information" age.

[Hazir]

Well, I must say that if there is one class of people I have significantly less trust in it must be financial experts; the best reminder I have of why they haven't started fucking up things only recently is a small savings/investment plan I have. It's going to pay out april this year. If I had faithfully put the same money under my mattress every month, I would probably have 40% more than now that I put it in the care of the experts. Every time I hear people say that 'in the long run' stocks are a good bet, then I wonder what horizon these people use. Obviously my 15 years were too short to even get my own money back

[Timbuk2]

"If you want to drive a car you have to have a licence to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance," he said.

What? What a fucktard analogy.

A car in the hands of someone who has not been licenced can directly kill or maim someone. How does that compare to a noob logging on to the internet?

Fuckwit.

I'd be all for vacant-brained spanners having to obtain a licence before being allowed to publish retarded articles however.

[EyeKhan]

Well, I must say that if there is one class of people I have significantly less trust in it must be financial experts; the best reminder I have of why they haven't started fucking up things only recently is a small savings/investment plan I have. It's going to pay out april this year. If I had faithfully put the same money under my mattress every month, I would probably have 40% more than now that I put it in the care of the experts. Every time I hear people say that 'in the long run' stocks are a good bet, then I wonder what horizon these people use. Obviously my 15 years were too short to even get my own money back

What does "pay out" mean? If you sell the stocks, you're committing to the losses. Now is not the time to sell.

[Hazir]

What does "pay out" mean? If you sell the stocks, you're committing to the losses. Now is not the time to sell.

You tell me The thing is that I got myself into a savingsplan that was exempt from taxation and for this reason runs for exactly 15 years. I don't have any say over when I can sell and cash. The friendly people of the place where I started this didn't tell that part of my savings would go towards an insurance I didn't need. And clearly they were so good at managing their funds that in 15 years they couldn't make any profits.

[EyeKhan]

You tell me The thing is that I got myself into a savingsplan that was exempt from taxation and for this reason runs for exactly 15 years. I don't have any say over when I can sell and cash. The friendly people of the place where I started this didn't tell that part of my savings would go towards an insurance I didn't need. And clearly they were so good at managing their funds that in 15 years they couldn't make any profits.

Oh man. Insurance as investment is a bad thing. Mandatory selling is worse. And the timing? Lord.... the only thing going for you is it wasn't last year...

[X900BTA]

Two of my stock picks are PAL and TTM. Maybe you could recoup on them? TTM = Tata Motors of India (I got in at $6) and PAL = Largest NA Palladium mine which is main metal used in catalytic converters (got in at $2.65). If you lose money not my fault lol.

[Being]

Two of my stock picks are PAL and TTM. Maybe you could recoup on them? TTM = Tata Motors of India (I got in at $6) and PAL = Largest NA Palladium mine which is main metal used in catalytic converters (got in at $2.65). If you lose money not my fault lol.

I heard rumors the U.S. is trying to sell it's shares of GM to Tata.

[Cracky]

This is just another net-neutrality thing wrapped up in a different suit and tie.

Nothing to see here, move along, move along...

[Aimless]

my bank's online services requires the use of my debit card, a card-reader, my pin-code, a temporary code that pops up on the page whenever i need to do anything that involves the transfer of money, and a second temporary code that pops up on the card-reader, that i have to enter as a signature for any transaction i make...

it works smoothly and i'm assuming it's summat safer than just cards or passwords, so i wouldn't mind seeing something like that become mandatory for anything that involves money changing hands.

[EyeKhan]

Two of my stock picks are PAL and TTM. Maybe you could recoup on them? TTM = Tata Motors of India (I got in at $6) and PAL = Largest NA Palladium mine which is main metal used in catalytic converters (got in at $2.65). If you lose money not my fault lol.

Index funds dude.

[X900BTA]

Index funds dude.

Index funds won't recoup his missing 40% Good advice though People should have their money in various vehicles depending on age, and index funds are a decent one to use.

I could see Tata Motors involved there with GM.

[EyeKhan]

Index funds won't recoup his missing 40% Good advice though People should have their money in various vehicles depending on age, and index funds are a decent one to use.

I could see Tata Motors involved there with GM.

Its too late for his missing 40%. Unless you know a LOT about a particular company, and probably even if you do, you should not stick your retirement savings into individual stocks. And managed mutual funds just suck your money up into management fees. Index funds are the way to go.

[Wraith]

It depends on your age, risk tolerance, and how much effort you're willing to put into it. I've beat the index funds every single year since I've started investing. Index funds are fairly safe, but you can do better.

[EyeKhan]

It depends on your age, risk tolerance, and how much effort you're willing to put into it. I've beat the index funds every single year since I've started investing. Index funds are fairly safe, but you can do better.

You can. You can also totally fuck yourself even if you DO the research (and who has time for that anyway?). That won't happen with index funds unless everyone gets fucked (like when the DOW goes from 14k to 6k in a year and a half ). And then its likely they'll come back. And if they don't, well, you have bigger problems anyway. But hell, if you like managing the investing up close and you can tolerate the risk, you're certainly right. You can beat the market.

[Hazir]

my bank's online services requires the use of my debit card, a card-reader, my pin-code, a temporary code that pops up on the page whenever i need to do anything that involves the transfer of money, and a second temporary code that pops up on the card-reader, that i have to enter as a signature for any transaction i make...

it works smoothly and i'm assuming it's summat safer than just cards or passwords, so i wouldn't mind seeing something like that become mandatory for anything that involves money changing hands.

One of my banks works with my debit-card, a card reader, a code provided from the website for all transactions.
One of my banks works with the same but only provides the code on the website for payments.
One of my banks works with a user ID and password and a verification code sent to my GSM for every transaction.

Index funds dude.

You can. You can also totally fuck yourself even if you DO the research (and who has time for that anyway?). That won't happen with index funds unless everyone gets fucked (like when the DOW goes from 14k to 6k in a year and a half ). And then its likely they'll come back. And if they don't, well, you have bigger problems anyway. But hell, if you like managing the investing up close and you can tolerate the risk, you're certainly right. You can beat the market.

The fund I have my money in is an index tracker, but IIRC a world wide one (I sort of lost interest when I realised it's not going to give me even my own money back, it's really disheartening). And yes, the only thing it's got going for it is that I wasn't forced to cash last year, in which case I'd probably have gotten back less than 50% of what went in.

[Being]

The fund I have my money in is an index tracker, but IIRC a world wide one (I sort of lost interest when I realised it's not going to give me even my own money back, it's really disheartening). And yes, the only thing it's got going for it is that I wasn't forced to cash last year, in which case I'd probably have gotten back less than 50% of what went in.

The really sad part is that most passive investors believe the other 50% just evaporated into thin air. In reality it was a monumental shift in wealth.