Shades of things to come?

[grober]

With the announcement that thousands of internet users could effectively lose their internet connection yesterday when the FBI shut down its safety net server facility for certain malware infected computers is this a view of the future where governments step in to regulate what you can access on the net? It already happens in China where users only see the "Chinese" version of Google. With government sanctioned cyberspying and espionage [ China and Israel come to mind] looks as if governments the world over are re-asserting their authority and trying to bring the "wild child of the late 20th century" -the internet-- under control and to mould it to their will. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...computer-for-malware-or-risk-losing-internet/

 

[SimonsMerc]

Seriously?

It sounds like you've fundamentally misunderstood the situation. Computers were infected with evil software that hijacked their internet connections. The FBI stepped in and took over the server that their connections were going through, so that the evil people couldn't steal from the hijacked users. They got a court order to enable them to run these servers for a while, telling people that they need to fix their computers. Now they're turning these servers off, because the court order ran out. Anyone who *still* hasn't fixed their computer yet will lose internet access temporarily until they fix their computer.

This isn't big brother. It's the security services doing what they *should* be doing - trying to make sure that people are safe online.

-simon

 

[Mr E]

Isn't this situation in the US the other way round - a federal agency took action to enable continued access for people?

I'm quite ambivalent to this story - if people can't sort out their machines after having received info and support being made available then losing access is their lookout. Why should the government continue to help these peeps out?

WRT the larger story, why would the internet be developed and used by governments, etc, in any different way to other media forms?

 

[Bellow]

I'm quite ambivalent to this story - if people can't sort out their machines after having received info and support being made available then losing access is their lookout. Why should the government continue to help these peeps out?

Because at least one government is forcing businesses to pay VAT on-line but cannot guarantee the security of the internet when it comes to payment method. Small businesses do not have mega buck IT departments to sort this out.
If I choose to purchase on the 'net it is my choice to release whatever financial details are necessary to enable the transaction. I should never be forced to use a system where the security is questionable.

Having had the malware issue it is very time consuming to erradicate and apart from me benefitting from its removal from my computer, so does everyone else. We have no idea what a malware infected computer may be used for by the infectors.

 

[Dieselman]

Looking at this another way, maybe Governments should police the internet to stop hackers, virus's and malware being so rampant.
They would have the resources to "seek and destroy" the perps.

 

[grober]

Seriously?

It sounds like you've fundamentally misunderstood the situation. Computers were infected with evil software that hijacked their internet connections. The FBI stepped in and took over the server that their connections were going through, so that the evil people couldn't steal from the hijacked users. They got a court order to enable them to run these servers for a while, telling people that they need to fix their computers. Now they're turning these servers off, because the court order ran out. Anyone who *still* hasn't fixed their computer yet will lose internet access temporarily until they fix their computer.

This isn't big brother. It's the security services doing what they *should* be doing - trying to make sure that people are safe online.

-simon

No I am not saying what the FBI was doing was bad ---in this case. Its simply an example how a government agency can control how people can connect to the internet. In this case it was a benevolent action and controlled by court order but it merely illustrates a principle. I would wager the majority of internet users are completely ignorant of the processes involved when they go online [ this forum is probably an exception with a high preponderance of computer professionals] and with ignorance comes the ability of the unscrupulous to manipulate . At the beginning the malevolent part of internet was the province of computer geeks/hackers who fiddled with it for the challenge and cybercriminals were simply there "for the money" It took a little time but the corridors of power of governments and large corporations have seen the power of the net and are now starting to re-assert the control of information they had in many other aspects of our lives. --- its what they do. The internet was bit lawless- a bit Wild West at first but its unrestricted power of communication has surprised several governments in recent years and sometimes led to big political/regime change---- this hasn't gone unnoticed by our political masters [ bad and good] is all I am saying.