Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Former FBI Agent Calls for a Second Internet 486

Posted by samzenpus
from the it-became-necessary-to-destroy-the-internet-to-save-it dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Former FBI Agent Patrick J. Dempsey warns that the Internet has become a sanctuary for cyber criminals and the only way to rectify this is to create a second, more secure Internet. Dempsey explains that, in order to successfully fight cyber crime, law enforcement officials need to move much faster than average investigators and cooperate with international law enforcement officials. The problem is various legal systems are unprepared for the fight, which is why he claims we must change the structure of the Internet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Former FBI Agent Calls for a Second Internet

Comments Filter:
  • Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @09:58PM (#22582802) Homepage
    Will the second internet have Third Life?
    • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Idefix97 (725474) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:14PM (#22582994)
      Although Dempsey says that a solution "might be" a second internet, which to me sounds silly, he does make some very valid points on how cybercrime needs to be handled across borders.
      It seems that many countries just want to forbid things, with regards to the internet, rather than adjust to a new way of looking at crime committed through the internet.
      If it turns out that law enforcement can't or won't adjust to the speed in which cybercriminals operate, maybe the only way to help prevent crime is to educate the users, or even help write better software (against spoofing etc.).
      • Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) * on Thursday February 28, 2008 @01:11AM (#22584462) Homepage Journal
        I have an Idea!

        Let's hook up to both 'nets, and bridge 'em!
        • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by b4upoo (166390) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @07:21AM (#22586416)
          I am amazed that anyone is falling for the internet as a criminal nest nonsense. Obviously whenever any very large group of people does anything at all some crime must occur. It's all about proportion. How many people died world wide fighting to keep their bicycle from being stolen last year? How many died because of internet activity? We all know bicycles were far ahead in the crime stats. So should we build an entirely different society to keep bicycles from being stolen? Obviously not. And we don't need a new net either.
          • Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by jotok (728554) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @10:19AM (#22587602)
            I don't think the bicycle analogy is very good.
            The internet is an enabling technology and as it enables certain crimes they become MUCH more prevalent than they used to be. Not necessarily fundamentally different, just easier to carry out. Kiddie porn or fraud are good examples.

            I think that laws don't necessarily need to change, but investigators need to be able to accomplish more (notice I didn't say they need more powers). Simply finding the kiddie porn sites is hard enough when the guys know they're being hunted and are hiding from the cops already. Being able to find the bad guys, develop a case, and bring it to prosecution needs to be easier without violating anyone's existing civil rights. I would focus on more hiring, better training, and straightening the paths within DOJ and among law enforcement agencies.
            • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by The Spoonman (634311) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @11:32AM (#22588480) Homepage
              So, does the Internet increase the amount of kiddie porn, or the access to it? If it increases the number of kids who are molested on film, I can stand behind trying to invoke extra measures to stop the growth. If, however, it just makes it easier for more pedophiles to view the same images, then the problem isn't the Internet. The problem is the kiddie porn and "fixing" the Internet isn't going to change anything. Of course, the real solution of finding a "cure" for pedophilia would be a better alternative, but that's just me...

              I quoted the word "cure" because I know there's no "cure", but treatments could be developed that would minimilize a pedophiles impulses and thus allow them to lead a normal and productive life. Putting them in prison or on Dateline is not the solution.
            • Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)

              by RareButSeriousSideEf (968810) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @11:33AM (#22588506) Homepage Journal

              I don't think the bicycle analogy is very good.
              I agree. This is Slashdot; we only use car analogies here.
              • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

                by spun (1352) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {yranoituloverevol}> on Thursday February 28, 2008 @11:52AM (#22588730) Journal

                I don't think the bicycle analogy is very good.
                I agree. This is Slashdot; we only use car analogies here.
                Of course we do. A good car analogy is like a finely tuned race car. It gets you where you need to go faster. Although it's loud. And it's probably not street legal. And sometimes your car analogy crashes into someone else's car analogy and there's a big wreck but the fans love that anyway. And you need a lot of gas, did I mention the gas?
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28, 2008 @02:16AM (#22584834)
        Soooo how are they going to stop people from just layering an anonymous protocol on top of whatever they force on to people?

        Soooo how are they going to stop people from encrypting data and obfuscating it?

        Soooo how are they going to stop people form implementing a "slow drip" protocol through random nodes which is also encrypted?

        There is absolutely no way to police the Internet without significantly impacting response times, etc. QoS will suck and they will still never be able to touch 99.99% of the "criminals".
        • by Dan541 (1032000) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @03:00AM (#22585108) Homepage
          We are already working on a second "Internet" its called "Freenet" and it aims to eliminate many of the current problems with the Internet such as censorship and accountability.

          Segregating the Internet!!!! Why do I get dejavu when I think of that? Oh what that's how it all started.

          Honestly this idiot is suggesting we work backwards and devolve the Internet.

          ~Dan
    • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

      by phpmysqldev (1224624) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @01:10AM (#22584458)
      "Will the second internet have Third Life?"

      No, no! Its a multiplier so it would have 4th life. Which raises the question of what happened to 3rd life?

      Which is why I will be producing the new online sensation "5th Life: Search for 3rd Life"

      Dont even get me started on the currency conversion.
  • Translation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by christurkel (520220) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @09:59PM (#22582814) Homepage Journal
    "We need a second Internet so we can make it easier to spy on you and track you."
    • Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:31PM (#22583176) Journal

      "We need a second Internet so we can make it easier to spy on you and track you."
      Notice that he isn't complaining about the domestic situation. He essentially wants to reincarnate AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe, etc of the 80's and 90's because creating walled gardens is easier than convincing foreign countries to change their laws. WTF?

      He can't have a legislative solution, so he comes up with a technical one.
      (x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
      • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara@hudson.barbara-hudson@com> on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @11:21PM (#22583674) Journal

        The whole idea is that in Soviet Amerika, Second Internet spys on YOU!

        • by EvilNTUser (573674) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @06:59AM (#22586344)
          This has to be the only reason, in fact, and not just one of them. Cybercrime can be stopped without any monitoring!

          The article talks about hacking into bank accounts and identity theft etc. So if the government wants to crack down on this, why don't they just mandate that banks have to send their customers a bootable read only flash drive that contains a basic operating system, browser, SSL certificates and a one time pad? It wouldn't matter how badly some clueless moron's computer was trojaned to hell, because the bank would only accept connections from the booted flash drive.

          You can't get mugged on the internet. You can't be coerced on the internet. Criminals need YOUR COOPERATION.

          The U.S. could also stop using checks like every other civilized country, because they're a ridiculously huge security hole and a huge pain in the ass compared to direct bank transfer. But all of this would make too much sense, because none of it involves more government monitoring of its citizens.

          The land of the free. Where no laws must ever tell corporations what to do, but citizens must compensate for their ineptness by being spied upon.
          • by Dekortage (697532) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @08:54AM (#22586890) Homepage

            You can't get mugged on the internet. You can't be coerced on the internet. Criminals need YOUR COOPERATION.

            Well, that is almost true. With certain Windows exploits, you can be doing perfectly normal things on your PC and still become infected. You can even have a firewall and anti-virus/anti-spam spam filter.

            Unless, of course, you think that "cooperation with criminals" means "I don't digitally arm my computer to the hilt with every possible kind of protection, down-to-the-second patches, and anti-hacker voodooo ninjas." Just because my house is not surrounded by a moat filled with hungry pirahnna, does not somehow mean that I am cooperating with thieves. Next you're going to blame women for being raped...

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by EvilNTUser (573674)
              "Well, that is almost true. With certain Windows exploits, you can be doing perfectly normal things on your PC and still become infected. You can even have a firewall and anti-virus/anti-spam spam filter."

              Sure, and that's why the only solution is to boot from the flash drive.

              A trojan could of course run the flash drive in a virtual machine, but this is one case where the Trusted Platform Module could be used for good instead of evil (DRM).

              Additionally, it gives the bank power to root your machine, but all y
          • by canuck57 (662392) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @08:57AM (#22586902)

            why don't they just mandate that banks have to send their customers a bootable read only flash drive that contains a basic operating system, browser, SSL certificates and a one time pad?

            While I suspect this will protect many, what about others, perhaps the majority that were not broken into this way?

            Lots of cases of people walking in to banks and jacking in a USB drive right to the tellers or bank managers machine. So far we have even trusted bank employees and government officials. They too could be on the take for a list of ...

            Don't overstate the users complicity in identity theft, while it does happen, not nearly as often as the banks would like you to think. This feeds the bank image, "we didn't do it" when in fact most of the time it was bank failure, not user failure.

            But it is also why the banks do not do what you suggest, as then the only avenues of leaks are theres and they don't want us to realize how uncontrolled it really is.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Lumpy (12016)
            Why do it the hard way? I have a cryptographic key In my hand. If I tell you my Password is fluffybunnies88 at my Chase bank account it will not help you. you need the 6 digit code my key is giving me every 30 seconds AND the cryptographic key on my thumb drive. this stops the thiefs dead cold. Even the low security version that ebay and Paypal is wildly successful and only fails if they do a man in the middle attack and echo your info inside the time window and then reconfigure your account to disab
    • Re:Translation (Score:4, Interesting)

      by smitty_one_each (243267) * on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:50PM (#22583386) Homepage Journal
      Yeah, and also you probably have less spam and phishing due to transparency.
      The US military is taking a step in this direction with Common Access Card (CAC) readers.
      I can see a day where you pay for entry to a secure, transparent community to conduct hassle-free transactions, while still having a wild, wild west internet for other activities like /.
      Dunno if credit cards/cash makes a good analogy for the two use-cases, but it least the analogy lacks wheels.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Hawkeye05 (1056362)

        I can see a day where you pay for entry to a secure, transparent community to conduct hassle-free transactions, while still having a wild, wild west internet for other activities like /.
        Is it just me or does this remind anyone else of Firefly/Serenity? You Go To a monitered, military state like inner planet to find work, then you go to the outer planets/moons to fulfill the job and get paid, or possibly killed in the process.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by xeoron (639412)
      Ok, correct me if I am wrong, but there is already a 2nd Internet and it's more secure...
    • Re:Translation (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mabhatter654 (561290) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @01:28AM (#22584568)
      Microsoft & AT&T has also wanted this... that's how they'll "fix" things like spam, porn, competition, etc. What everybody really wants is a pay-per-connection system like the phone system. The commie geeks at MIT and DARPA pulled a big one over building a fault-resistant, uncontrolled, re-routeable open spec network in the name of "national security"... it's the last time corporations will let that happen.
  • VPN (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ForestGrump (644805) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:00PM (#22582816) Homepage Journal
    Someone give this guy a VPN.
    • Re:VPN (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kesuki (321456) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:59PM (#22583450) Journal
      requiring convicted criminals to use a vpn would be a step in the right direction.

      also much easier to implement than trying to build an internet around catching crooks.

      so what do you do with the criminals from Africa who are connected to organized crime, who have whole 'internet cafes' and people standing watch so they can get out of there if the 'police' come, who are more than likely on the take anyways...

      remember the 'untouchables' it took a special breed of cops to go against organized crime and get results, and with 'cyber crime' often being 'international crime' it's difficult to police.

      'spying' on what people do over the net is really the only way to catch the criminals in the act. however, doing so in a country that you don't work for is impossible with the way the internet works. unless of course, you create a law governing how 'backbone' providers work with international police, to allow certain countries to be 'locked in' to a certain backbone, where the data traveling from that backbone to other backbones can be monitored... and evidence of crime can be monitored, and controlled.

      doing something like that would discourage the growth of online crime in iran and africa without affecting internet usability in 'modernized' nations, but countries like china russia etc would be much harder to try and stop crime in, without completely redesigning the internet around catching criminals, the problem will only get worse.

      remember the prohibition, when a layman could make a fair bit higher salary rum running, than doing decent work, crime spiraled out of control. an internet that doesn't care who does what or when or why and does everything to make any packet go through to recipient... will only breed a den of thieves.

      can the global economy take a 7 billion dollar a year hit to cyber crime every year, for the next 20 years? no it can't and that's why tracing criminal activity is Going to become standard. right now to credit card fraud, identity theft, and check fraud scams etc... i seem to recall hearing that europe and the usa were combined losing 7 billion dollars a year, but it was on dateline nbc, not on the internet so the figure might be off.

      tracking the criminals down is going to get easier, and the crime harder to pull off. It's only a matter of time.

      although i Seriously doubt they're going to make it easier for the movie and music industries to track down users, and catch them 'in the act' what is going to get targeted is the stuff that really steals from the banks, and the rich and gives it to the criminals.

      if i had the money I'd bet a billion dollars that within a decade hacking will be traceable world wide, through hardware ids before they get the money transfered from one bank account to another one.

      if i had another billion dollars, I'd wager that in 10 years banks will process checks the way wal-mart does now, before they hand the user any money, and before they can 'wire' the money to another bank account, the original account is checked for the money, and the check is scanned by the computer for identifying marks, that can verify it as original.

      taking 3 days to verify a cashiers check just doesn't cut it when that's what check cashing fraud scams are banking on.
      • by r_jensen11 (598210) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @11:38PM (#22583782)

        requiring convicted criminals to use a vpn would be a step in the right direction.
        I would love to see the results of only restricting convicted pedo's to only VPN's.

        Pedo 1: a.s.l?
        Pedo 2: 13, f, nyc. u?
        Pedo 1: 12, f, nyc 2!
        Hmm, a network of only 13-year-olds.... So the real question is, would it be one giant digg?
      • Re:VPN (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheLink (130905) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @11:45PM (#22583844) Journal
        "requiring convicted criminals to use a vpn would be a step in the right direction."

        While they are in prison or once they get out?

        Or are you going to keep convicted criminals in prison because it "would be a step in the right direction"?
        Or keep them permanently on public "* Offender" lists?

        If rehabilitation rates are so low and nobody really gives a damn, why not just execute them like they do in China? Since obviously "everyone hates them so much".

        The only big difference between you and a convicted criminal is you haven't been caught yet.

        Is copying stuff a criminal offense yet?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by roystgnr (4015) *
        requiring convicted criminals to use a vpn would be a step in the right direction.

        The smart criminals have been using encryption (and steganography) to communicate with each other since before the government figured out that export controls don't keep strong encryption out of the hands of foreigners.

        They'll happily keep using encryption, too, on top of whatever "second internet" you force everybody to use. This isn't about not being able to spy on scary cybercriminals who are hiding from the law, it's abou
  • Um, no (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:02PM (#22582840)
    Sorry, but changing the "structure of the internet" because some former policeman says it would be a good thing just ain't a persuasive argument. If anything, take whatever he says and do the opposite.
  • In other words ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rossz (67331) <ogre&geekbiker,net> on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:02PM (#22582842) Homepage Journal
    "We're too stupid to deal with this interweb thingy, so we need the entire world to change how things are done to accommodate our incompetence."

    Yeah, that's going to happen.
    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:42PM (#22583304) Journal
      It doesn't seem like you understood what he actually said.

      "the problem with investigating international cyber crimes and capturing criminals on the Internet ... has much more to do with the fact that the legal systems throughout the world vary greatly and take a very long time to change."
      He's complaining that the rest of the world's laws are the stumbling block, not the USA's incompetence.

      That said, I agree with your conclusion.
    • by siddesu (698447) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:45PM (#22583332)
      Actually, it has little to do with stupid. What started as random voices against the internet from various corners several years ago is now solidifying into a very firm and well-funded opposition to a the free internet.

      The reasons of the different parties vary, but they are all pushing consistently for the same outcome -- a monitored and controlled internet. Most worryingly, their lobbying and scare tactics are increasingly getting results.

      First, everyone under the hat of IFPI and the various Recording and Movie Ass. of wherever are in the game as their business model is evaporating. They want more restrictions and more monitoring, so that they can eat into your consumer surplus better. Most other copyright and related rights owners jump on this bangwagon, as they have strong vested interest in having their monopoly to be extended in various ways.

      Then, there are the newspapers and the TV -- in addition to belonging in the first group, they feel their revenues are being eaten by a random collection of bloggers, aggregators and other uncontrollable internet evils that deliver more targeted and interesting commentary faster and at lower cost. Besides, their relevance as propaghanda tool (and their position as "the fourth power") is also threatened, and they'll fight hard to keep it.

      Finally, there is the government. The establishment want to know more about you so that they can tax you (and, in general, manage you) better. Surveillance is always a boon to them, and anything that can bring more is very welcome. Especially lobbying groups like those above, who make seemingly "legitimate" cases for more surveillance and control. But it doesn't end there. The internet is also a threat to the establishment in that it allows exposure of their questionable activities; it keeps track of their past deeds. This threat makes the life of the establishment politicians hard, and they'll fight to remove it. Bribery is a big source of income, and threats to it are hardly welcome. Finally, the internet allows "fringe politicians" and large groups of people to gather behind a cause quickly and efficiently. This tends to make, among everything else, lobbying less efficient, and decrease the amount of legal bribery income.

      And, this push against the free internet is happening everywhere. Draconian internet laws have sprung fast virtually everywhere in the past year or two - the US, Eastern and Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Korea, which suggests what happens is not a random process at all.
  • Ummmmm, no. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones (18351) * on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:03PM (#22582844) Homepage Journal
    "Former FBI Agent Patrick J. Dempsey warns that the Internet has become a sanctuary for cyber criminals

    Any time you have a new community or resource to exploit, there will be criminals. However, calling it a sanctuary is hardly apt. I can think of more than a few places that are a sanctuary for criminals, yet you won't see the government razing those neighborhoods and starting anew, would you? Besides, who gets called a criminal?

    and the only way to rectify this is to create a second, more secure Internet.

    Ummmm, no. What he means is that they want to form a new network that can routinely be filtered, scanned and probed with no means of anonymity (already going away) or flexibility.

    Dempsey explains that, in order to successfully fight cyber crime, law enforcement officials need to move much faster than average investigators and cooperate with international law enforcement officials.

    How about figuring out how to deploy a network within your own agency first, that agency employees can actually use?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      calling it a sanctuary is hardly apt.

      I believe the number is 1 in 5.
    • Re:Ummmmm, no. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by blahplusplus (757119) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:37PM (#22583246)
      "Dempsey explains that, in order to successfully fight cyber crime, law enforcement officials need to move much faster than average investigators and cooperate with international law enforcement officials.

      How about figuring out how to deploy a network within your own agency first, that agency employees can actually use?"

      More importantly, how about ending crime by extreme economic inequality, tax breaks for the rich and going after tax havens?

      I'd rather see money spent on Prevention rather then re-action, making a society that people don't feel the need to turn criminal to begin with.

      Human beings have this awful tendency to neglect the human environment and thus they bring revolution and crime down on themselves for their apathy and neglect.
    • by Max Littlemore (1001285) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:45PM (#22583328)

      "Former FBI Agent Patrick J. Dempsey warns that the Internet has become a sanctuary for cyber criminals

      Any time you have a new community or resource to exploit, there will be criminals. However, calling it a sanctuary is hardly apt. I can think of more than a few places that are a sanctuary for criminals, yet you won't see the government razing those neighborhoods and starting anew, would you? Besides, who gets called a criminal?

      Actually, the internet is a sanctuary for cyber criminals. You don't find cyber criminals holding up armoured trucks at gun point, regular meat criminals do that, you find cyber criminals on the interwebs. That's why they're cyber criminals. The intertubes are a sanctuary for cyber criminals for exactly the same reason that the FBI is a sanctuary for corrupt FBI agents.

      I totally recommend creating a second internet, and a second FBI, a second stock market, a second local primary school. Everything.

      No one thing should get all the cred for harbouring criminals. If people want to be paranoid and really stupid, let them be paranoid and really stupid and have a good laugh at their expense.

  • to the FBI.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LingNoi (1066278) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:03PM (#22582850)
    I don't care about your needs to "successfully fight cyber crime" which to me translates to "successfully sniff out rats".

    I care about speed, anonymity and integrity of data.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "Successfully fight[ing] cyber crime" can fairly important when it comes to integrity of data. Unless you decide that fighting cyber crime is really up to network administrators or something like that. In which case we may as well make phishing and hacking and whatnot entirely legal or something... internet theft, etc.

      not that I actually support the former FBI agent's idea. actually it seems to be pretty stupid, heh.

  • by dbIII (701233) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:03PM (#22582854)
    That very annoying "internets" word will be real and I won't be able to threaten to kill a puppy every time sombody that should know better uses it.
  • by deadmongrel (621467) * <karthik@poobal.net> on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:04PM (#22582858) Homepage

    Since major cities have more crime than before why don't create new cities.

    But the problem with investigating international cyber crimes and capturing criminals on the Internet is not necessarily due to lack of cooperation among international law enforcement bodies."
    As opposed to extraditing murderers, mafiaa members etc is easy with respect to "traditional" crimes?
    Why hire competent people who technology as tools and adapt your law enforcement agency when you change the world around you to adapt to your incompetence?
    And for those who says "Think of the children": No law can effectively parent your child for you. Do you damn duty.
  • Yay (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jollyreaper (513215) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:04PM (#22582862)
    When the government or agents of the government ask for something, the opposite is probably in your best interest.
    • Re:Yay (Score:4, Funny)

      by c6gunner (950153) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:54PM (#22583418)

      When the government or agents of the government ask for something, the opposite is probably in your best interest.
      Right! So the next time you hear a bomb technician yelling "RUUUUUNNNNN!!!!!!!", be sure to flip him the bird and stay exactly where you are! Fuck Da Man! Vive le Revolution!
  • Also... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheWizardTim (599546) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:04PM (#22582864) Journal
    ... the FBI want's a pony.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by antdude (79039)
      Why is there an astrophe in wants? :P
      • by VanessaE (970834)
        Didn't you get the memo? An apostrophe is just a warning that a word ends in 's' of course. That same memo declared that your and you're are one and the same word now, as are there/their/they're and its/it's.


        At least, that's the impression one gets these days. I mean, even on brick-and-morter store signage that's visible from a few blocks away. *sigh*

  • Good idea..but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alphavox (1211354) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:06PM (#22582892)
    What do we do when the second internet is overrun? Building a new internet everytime "cyber-criminals" get on it sounds expensive...
  • by Viking Coder (102287) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:06PM (#22582894)
    If only we could create a second, more secure Nigeria.
  • by laffer1 (701823) <luke@noSPAm.foolishgames.com> on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:09PM (#22582922) Homepage Journal
    There is only so much we can do to secure any network from attack. There will always be ways to spoof identities, and commit illegal acts. Retooling the whole thing won't make a different in that regard. We may up the bar a little, but that won't last for long. People will think of new ways to work around what we can think of today.

    On the other hand, I wouldn't mind an overhaul on DNS and SMTP to slow some spammers and other jerks down.

    The real problem is the diverse nature of laws between different countries and the strong enforcement in some places and near zero enforcement elsewhere. Think about it, someone in Russia can do almost anything outside their country and not be prosecuted. In other places, we have parts of the Internet filtered because of some lame moral code.

    I just wish these people who don't understand the spirit of the Internet would take their marbles and go home.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The real problem is the diverse nature of laws between different countries and the strong enforcement in some places and near zero enforcement elsewhere.

      From a defensive perspective, the problem is that most people are really bad at recognizing phishes, hoaxes, scams, and the like. At this point, 100% of the email forwards I get from my 60 year old aunt have been debunked. Most people just lack that "this is bullshit" detector.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by creysoft (856713)
        It's not so much that. It's that they developed their instincts (now permanently crystallized in their aging minds) in a different world than you did. If you want to know what I mean, take your 60 year old aunt to the grocery store, pick up the first brand name product you find, and listen to her rattle on about how that's ridiculously overpriced, and this one is much better quality and costs half as much and blah blah blah blah. Her 'bullshit detector' is calibrated for a different set of situations than y
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by oodaloop (1229816)
      Funny thing is, we already HAVE a secure internet. It's called SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network). It's a massive secure global intranet totally separate from the internet that the government and military use for Secret-level and below information. Then there's JWICS (Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System) for Top Secret and below, which is even bigger and more secure. They both have plenty of problems, but spammers, hackers, etc are not among them. I have one of each of the
  • by nebaz (453974) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:10PM (#22582932)
    I'm not going to be lectured about the internet by Dr. McDreamy.
  • by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:12PM (#22582960)

    The problem is various legal systems are unprepared for the fight, which is why he claims we must change the structure of the Internet.

    Oh that's just great. So just because poor mr Dempsey woke up one day believing that someone wasn't ready for a fictional fight then we all should just drop the world's communications infrastructures and rebuild it according to mr Dempsey's vision. For the sake of those poor unprepared legal systems, of course. And also the world's safety. And the children, now that we are at it.

    What mr Dempsey is advocating is nothing more than taking over the control of the medium. No one has it and he wants it badly, claiming that it's in everyone's best interests to be controlled by an overreaching, totalitarian organization. Well guess what mr Dempsey, the internet works great just as it is and no one benefits from having a righteous mr Dempsey, head of the internets, fighting the fight that those poor, fictional legal systems are supposedly incapable of carrying out.

  • by flabbergast (620919) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:13PM (#22582982)
    "If we accept the fact that the greatest hurdle in arresting international cyber criminals is that various legal systems just aren't prepared to address the speed at which these crimes occur or the various nuances that are unique to computer crimes, then the question is: What can we do to fix the problem?"
    So, he goes from acknowledging that there's a jurisdictional problem and a speed problem when it comes to law enforcement to creating a new "verified" internet where you have to "prove" who you are? Umm..no.
    And he goes on to hit every hot topic in security today: DDOS, identity theft. spam, etc. And then, he makes the claim "the fact is that Internet crimes are almost always international crimes." And he doesn't back it up, rather gives anecdotal evidence of a hacker in Russia using computers in Thailand to steal data.
    I am not a security expert (and I'm not pretending to be) but this "sky is falling" mentality is crap. Most identity theft (the act of stealing) is not done over the internet, its done locally. Yes, selling lists of thousands of SSNs and credit card #s happens over the internet, but the thievery itself doesn't.
    In fact, this would make things worse: you're creating a global ID. Once someone steals your global ID they can do whatever they want. And once again, your ID wouldn't be stolen over the "new" internet, it would be stolen because you didn't shred a document and someone went dumpster diving.
    This doesn't solve any problems.
  • by Deanalator (806515) <pierce403@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:17PM (#22583026) Homepage
    .. with blackjack, and hookers!
  • by Chris Snook (872473) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:19PM (#22583054)
    I won't disagree with the assertion that the internet is a game-changer when it comes to criminal investigations, but the idea that we should castrate it for this reason is ridiculous. The dinosaur who raised this complaint is clearly a digital immigrant. Most of his generation lacks the level of familiarity necessary to effectively investigate crimes involving the internet. The problem goes beyond a simple matter of training. A good investigator needs an intuitive understanding of how people interact with their world, including the internet, more than they need an intimate understanding of protocols.

    The next generation of investigators will be digital natives. They'll have grown up with the web, email, blogs, message boards, IM, flickr, youtube, social networking, and the like. They won't all have CCNAs, but they'll have a sufficient understanding of how people use the internet to know when to bring in forensic experts.

    The transition will be difficult. The digital immigrants with extensive investigative experience and the digital natives who are novices in their profession will have to cooperate and exchange their knowledge and wisdom, and in the meantime, some criminals will slip through the cracks. That's the price of progress.
  • Good Idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the_Bionic_lemming (446569) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:24PM (#22583104)
    Let all of the various conglomerates move all of their online advertising, and shopping, and noise to a new internet.

    We all stand and applaud, then cut them off from ever returning to the old internet.

    Then we can go back to the days of sharing information and having fun without that stupid "punch the monkey" ilk...
  • by Darkforge (28199) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:26PM (#22583132) Homepage
    so we can re-use our old forms. It's a bit surprising how effective this is.

    --

    Patrick J. Dempsey, your post advocates a

    (x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

    approach to fighting international "cybercrime." Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
    (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from nation to nation.)

    ( ) spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
    (x) legitimate Internet uses would be affected
    (x) no one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
    ( ) it is defenseless against brute force attacks
    (x) it will protect us for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
    (x) users of the Internet will not put up with it
    (x) microsoft will not put up with it
    (x) the police will not put up with it
    (x) requires too much cooperation from criminals
    (x) requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
    (x) many users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
    ( ) spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
    ( ) anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

    specifically, your plan fails to account for

    (x) laws expressly prohibiting it
    (x) lack of centrally controlling authority for the Internet
    (x) open relays in foreign countries
    ( ) ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
    (x) asshats
    (x) jurisdictional problems
    ( ) unpopularity of weird new taxes
    ( ) public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
    (x) huge existing software investment in the Internet
    (x) willingness of users to install os patches received by email
    (x) armies of worm riddled broadband-connected windows boxes
    ( ) eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
    (x) extreme profitability of international crime
    (x) joe jobs and/or identity theft
    (x) technically illiterate politicians
    ( ) extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with criminals
    (x) dishonesty on the part of criminals themselves
    ( ) bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
    ( ) outlook

    and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

    (x) ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
    ( ) any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
    (x) smtp headers should not be the subject of legislation
    ( ) blacklists suck
    (x) whitelists suck
    ( ) we should be able to talk about viagra without being censored
    ( ) countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
    ( ) countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
    (x) countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
    ( ) sending email should be free
    (x) why should we have to trust you and your servers?
    (x) incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
    (x) feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
    ( ) temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
    (x) i don't want the government reading my email
    ( ) killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

    furthermore, this is what i think about you:

    ( ) sorry dude, but i don't think it would work.
    (x) this is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
    ( ) nice try, assh0le! i'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

  • by AdamHaun (43173) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:28PM (#22583158) Journal
    1. I can't do my job because of X.
    2. Changing X would fix that problem.
    3. Therefore, we should change X.

    With no regard for whether X has any value of its own. Open your eyes and look outside of your own field before you decide to change the world in your favor.

  • ummm (Score:5, Funny)

    by djupedal (584558) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:29PM (#22583164)
    "The problem is various legal systems are unprepared for the fight..."

    I think Mr. Dempsey misspelled 'all'...
  • by drDugan (219551) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:29PM (#22583166) Homepage
    "Doing law enforcement is getting harder, so let's change the rules"

    I see this now in almost every arena of law enforcement... and for good reason. It *is* getting harder to do low enforcement. The thought process is something like this: "As law enforcement, we know we're failing; we can't really stop the criminals, so let's treat everyone as a suspect." Basically enforcing laws is a traditional behavior. It is the way to maintain stability and control on society and in a similar way that traditions maintain cultural norms. Traditional behaviors are the antithesis of innovation.

    Technology is changing at a breakneck pace, and increasing in the speed of change. It is hard, nigh impossible for large, bureaucratic, rules-based organizations to keep pace with innovation in technology, and the concomitant adoption by criminals.

    The disturbing thing is that instead of law enforcement innovating to keep up with the demands of the job, many in law enforcement have lobbied successfully to change the rules of the game. This is most true in the United States over the last five years with the tired dirge: "give up your liberties or the terrorists will win".

    I think the correct solution is to change the way we do law enforcement. Change the people who do it. Make smaller, more nimble organizations. Change the speed with which law enforcement operates. Remove entrenched, non-technical savvy deadweight from organizations. Incorporate the latest technology. Change quickly with the rest of society and keep the fundamental principles that make open society possible and successful.

    And for christ's sakes, please stop degrading people by forcing them to take off their clothing and shoes to board an airplane. I know, it seems totally off topic, but the same idea we can't really stop the criminals, so let's treat everyone as a suspect.
  • by dubl-u (51156) * <2523987012NO@SPAMpota.to> on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:31PM (#22583182)
    Upon reading the article summary, I thought the guy must be nuts.

    After reading the article, however, and carefully thinking about his ideas, I've concluded that he is instead an idiot.

    Has this man never heard of Metcalfe's Law [wikipedia.org]? His second, registration-only internet will be about as popular as BITNET [wikipedia.org] and Telenet [wikipedia.org] are these days. (Yes, Virginia there were globe-spanning networks before the Internet. It's true!)

    While he's at it, he might as well call for a second telephone system, one that only allows people to say nice things.
  • by merc (115854) <slashdot@upt.org> on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:39PM (#22583260) Homepage
    Dempsey explains that, in order to successfully fight cyber crime, law enforcement officials need to move much faster than average investigators and cooperate with international law:

    I call for a second FBI.
  • by ISurfTooMuch (1010305) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:47PM (#22583352)
    Go ahead, Mr. Dempsey, start your new Internet. You act as if creating a new one requires some sort of special permission, but you'd be wrong. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from creating another Internet using TCP/IP or whatever protocol you like. You can design it any way you want. You can even run Web servers on port 90210 if you like. Hell, you might even find a way to run the whole thing on NetBEUI. I doubt it, but don't let me kill your dream. I'm sure MS will be glad to modify it so it'd work...for a price. So you go right ahead and start your new Internet. Get everything set up, then you can get back to us. If we like what you've built, maybe we'll come over for a visit. I doubt it, but don't let me discourage you.
  • by Ambiguous Coward (205751) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:48PM (#22583364) Homepage
    Now, maybe I'm mis-remembering here, but I seem to remember hearing about this little doo-dad called "Internet 2." You know, for scientists and certain authorized parties and such.

    But yeah, we definitely need to get to work on that "Internet 3." Screw Web 2.0, I'm already on Internet 3!

    -G
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @10:52PM (#22583394) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, and these newfangled "automobiles" make it so much harder for the cops to catch crooks, since the cops now have to move so much faster, and even cooperate with cops in the next county. Instead of the cops getting automobiles and some radios of their own, we should get rid of automobiles, make them illegal, and instead give everyone some other kind of automobiles that all have cutoff switches in their motors that cops can stop with their radios.

    And no criminals will ever figure out how to wire around the cutoff switches. Then cops can just go back to being lazy again. Oh, and by the way, we should let the cops trample all over our rights that we discarded because protecting those rights was too much work.

    I feel safer already. Don't you?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @11:07PM (#22583536)
    ... where the agents are significantly smarter than this ex First FBI agent.
  • by mentaldrano (674767) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @11:08PM (#22583546)
    Seriously, does it surprise anyone that law enforcement wants a more "secure" and hence traceable, internet? The Law is moving in on this frontier; some of the residents demand it, and cops always want more power.

    Heinlein wrote about this decades ago - "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Great read, and extremely relevant.
  • by PAjamian (679137) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @11:12PM (#22583576)

    Former FBI Official Imaj Oke stated today that We need a new earth due to the massive amounts of crime and terrorism on this one.

    "Our current planet is so rife with criminal activity that we need to populate a new planet that will be restricted only to fully law abiding citizens." He said at an interview earlier this afternoon, "Once we have established the new planet the old one will, of course no longer be necessary and will be dismantled for parts."

    Oke went on to describe the technical merits of the new planet stating that life on the planet would be fully controlled by benevolent corporate monopoly interests to ensure that nobody's intellectual property is infringed.

  • by phliar (87116) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @11:15PM (#22583610) Homepage
    Yes, we need a new Good Internet that the FBI, SS, RIAA, etc. will make safe and legal for everyone. The rest of us will stay on this one (to be renamed Evilnet).
  • RFC 3514 (Score:4, Funny)

    by Scareduck (177470) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @11:47PM (#22583858) Homepage Journal
    Clearly, he hasn't read that the current Internet has a provision for this: the Evil Bit set in the IP header, as specified in RFC 3514 [ietf.org], published 1 April 2003.
  • by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann.slash ... m ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday February 28, 2008 @12:06AM (#22583984) Homepage Journal
    is it SPAM? Phishing? DDOS attacks? Or is it child porn, terrorism and that kind of things?

    If it's the first, then it's not a new internet we need, but rather to fix what is allowing these attacks to take place.

    If it's the second, then my friend, there's no solution. Crime was committed before the internet. Changing the internet won't solve crime. Child porn happens because children are kidnapped and abused. And that happens OUTSIDE the internet. Perhaps we need to spend less money on Iraq and more money on programs to prevent child abuse and all that.

    If you want children not to be approached by stranger adults, then make some kind of "child ID" using a centralized certification authority or something. Or how about EDUCATING YOUR KIDS?
  • by metoc (224422) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @12:14AM (#22584050)
    Just like you need a driver's license to use the public road system, or a passport to fly, you will need a Internet license.
  • A test run (Score:3, Funny)

    by Venik (915777) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @12:38AM (#22584250)
    I heard NYPD will be testing this new concept developed by FBI: to deal with the Russian mafia problem a second, more secure Brooklyn will be set up on the outskirts of Ruby Valley, Nevada.
  • by david_thornley (598059) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @12:39AM (#22584258)

    Can't he just recommend that routers check for the "evil bit"? It would be about as effective and much easier.

  • by i_b_don (1049110) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @03:47AM (#22585362)
    Here's my prediction:

    As the government tries more and more to clamp down on the internet and bandwidth becomes more and more free OR the government successfully forces us to go to this "Second" internet (let's call this "surveillance net"), people will come up with a new "freenet" to lay on top of this new freedom restricting internet.

    All it would take would be an open source program protocol that would pass information over the "surveillance net" by encoding the data, chopping it up, and passing it through multiple nodes (think parallel, not serial distribution) before it gets to the recipient. That way nobody (i.e. government) at any single node would be able to tell what data was being passed or even to who. This would successfully nuke any second internet benefits. With this expectation of a free internet that the general masses have grown to expect, I think you'd get a large percentage of people who were willing to be freenet nodes. (you can of course try to mandate this like bittorrent nodes where you have to be a node on the freenet in order to use the freenet).

    I think all this really requires is that bandwidth be cheap and a push by the government to clap down on internet freedoms. I think we'd very quickly see a counter-revolution and open source developers would create the freenet.

    d
  • by Casandro (751346) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @03:59AM (#22585418)
    There may be a need for a "new" net, but the goals would be completely different.

    Such a network would need to provide things like distributed caching by default and censorship resistance, as well as anonymity.

    For example the network would cache all cachable protocolls by default, as often as it can be done. Then no site could be slashdotted again as many of the routers in between would just cache the content. A great side effect is that the identity of the originator of the request would be obscured by the routers.

    Another important point is that it must not have any "single points of control" like the DNS-system or IP allocations.
    Furthermore we would need to focus on every participant beeing able to route. The network must not be tree-like anymore. If you have wireless LAN and your neighbour has, too, there must be automatic peering.

    Another idea would be to make it work on scaresly connected networks. Imagine you have a mobile device. It could try to fetch your encrypted (!) e-mail and fetch it whenever you have a connection. Every router in the connection would try to accept the request and cache the response until you have a connection again.
  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @04:48AM (#22585654) Homepage

    Most of the security and crime problems associated with the Internet are problems with the client, not the network. In other words, Microsoft Windows is the problem.

    If desktop clients ran each browser window in a separate jail, and downloaded programs were constrained by NSA SELinux type mandatory security, or a virtual machine monitor, to stay in their individual compartments, most of the attacks on personal computers would stop working.

    If it weren't for those armies of zombie PCs out there, hiding where something unwanted was coming from on the network wouldn't work. Look what's happened to spam. Today, essentially all spam involves compromised machines. Any that doesn't is shut down, fast.

    Ir's all Microsoft's fault.

  • by jthiesen98 (684782) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @05:05AM (#22585750)
    So once again police is finding it difficult to keep up with technology and ask us to limit the technology for investigation purposes. This seems to be just yet another attempt at introducing a police state in the wake of 9-11. I say no thanks!
  • by Blauwhelm (1244856) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @06:00AM (#22586044)
    The internet as we know it today has evolved from an ideology of a few researchers. Vennevar Bush, who proposed the Memex system in 1945 that made it possible to link information sources via interactive computing. Ted Nelson, who thought of the hypertext system, which links texts with keywords in a very different way and that we still use today. And Tim Berners-Lee who brought the dreams of this information network into reality with his World Wide Web. The ideology of these men was that information should be available everywhere, for everyone, at any time, for free. Everyone should participate in this World Wide Web and should be unrestricted in any use. From this freedom, that is more and more restricted by some governments, hackers from all over the world have developed better software and even helped making the internet what it is today. Hackers are the watchdog of the ideology of this freedom and get there support from internet users from all over the world. The Aibot hacks wouldn't be so successful if the Slashdot community didn't support it at the time.

    The internet shouldn't be made more 'secure' by the government. The internet as we know it, is designed as a network which gives everyone the opportunity to participate. Restricting these 'rights' would be against the ideology from which the internet is build. We should see the internet as a public domain, where users are responsible and should watch for cybercrime and fight it. Let's think of securing the internet by participating as users instead of giving this out hands to the government.
  • by rtobyr (846578) <toby.richards@net> on Thursday February 28, 2008 @09:33AM (#22587136) Homepage
    Although it isn't what this guy is looking for, we do have SIPRNet [wikipedia.org].
  • by natoochtoniket (763630) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @10:30AM (#22587718)

    Exactly how long does he think it will take before someone, somewhere, installs a router between the old Internet and the New Internet?

    I would guess it might take slightly longer than a nanosecond. But not by much. Most of the first New Internet routers will be installed in schools, to protect the children. I'm pretty sure that there is at least one evil grad student in one of our schools who is fully capable of configuring a router.

    On second thought, the New Internet would probably be connected to the Old Internet before it even boots up for the first time.

  • News flash (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BiOFH (267622) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @11:01AM (#22588110)
    Could someone tell law enforcement and the media that they must have missed the memo where we all stopped using "cyber" a long time ago?
    Seriously... every time I hear "cyberthis" or "cyberthat", it's inevitably someone in law enforcment, the media or k-12 education (but talking about some enforcement issue). The cops are the worst... every unit they create is cyber-something... I guess they think it sounds cool. In actuality, it's more like hearing your grandpa say "gettin' jiggy with it".

    However, if they're serious about such an endeavour they should go study with those who've already begun this sort of thing: China.

    I'm sorry, Mr. Dempsey, sometimes a job just has to be hard.
  • by moxley (895517) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @11:14AM (#22588266)
    WASHINGTON D.C. (AP) -- "All we're saying is that we want our country to be a real country again, one where we can have faith in our constitution, one that is grounded in the rule of law," said Jason Smith, spokesperson for the group "Americans For a Free America (AFFA)." Smith continued: "we have the backing of several million Americans. Our group is committed to ensuring that our government returns to being constitutional, and that our country stops this slide that has turned it into a "dictatorial banana republic." Our charter states that this must be accomplished using constitutional, non-violent means, and part of what needs to be done is that we need a "second FBI." While it is clear that most agents in the FBI we have now are honest, hard working Americans who believe in protecting our country AND the rights of it's citizens it is just as clear that there is a criminal group operating above (and infiltrating within) the FBI."

    When contacted for comment on the AFFA group, agent Johnson of the FBI commented: "It is clear that AFFA is a domestic terror group, all they want to talk about is freedom when we are fighting an endless war. We need to be able to do whatever we want because most certainly this group may kill babies, torture puppies and bomb buildings. This cannot be allowed."

    When presented with the quote above, Smith replied "This is why we're calling for a second FBI, the criminals in our government have ruined the first FBI by either asking them to, or allowing them to commit crimes against the people; and be clear, we are not saying most FBI agents are criminals, that isn't the case, my uncle was a fed, but the corruption at the top and in certain "joint task forces" ruinz it for the 98% of good, America loving agents."

    When asked what evidence the agency had of anything illegal acts by AFFA, or why they would suspect that a group committted to peace, freedom, and the rule of law would commit such heinous acts, I was detained and questioned for 10 hours about if I was part of a domestic terror group and whether I supported the constitution. I was released after I agreed to publish the following statement: "I now see that the the FBI is right, this group and their type is dangerous. We are all in danger, danger is everywhere, and the internets is where it hides."

  • by holyspidoo (1195369) on Thursday February 28, 2008 @11:20AM (#22588344)
    My net is completely safe:

    My ISP caps my download so I can't download evil viruses

    My ISP throttles my p2p traffic so I can't download music and become infected with the terrorist virus and become one of them like the RIAA video says

    My websurfing experience constantly pops up with anticybercrime tools that I can buy for only 19.95, I have 204 of those tools installed so far

    I have norton, so my internet apps are all blocked anyways and my computer is too slow to let me experience the web and get terrible cybercrime done to me.

    Also, I installed vista SP1 and now my computer boots to a blue screen so it is even safer.

    Why another internet?

    PS. Without my PC, I decided to go play outside and got hit by a bus. Damn you internet!!!

Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. -- Glaser and Way

Working...