I think it's about time they do that. My AOL coasters ain't in any shape anymore to be presentable, I need replacements!
And why would I want to verify my identity? Last time I checked I was pretty sure that I was myself, no need to verify anything.
Odd. What you describe sounds like my early adoption of internet usage. Everyone made fun of me using that slowpoke, expensive pastime that could never compete with "normal" computer use, since you could barely transfer text sensibly when GUIs already ruled the computer world and 3D graphics were approaching the gaming world. And here I was, that nerdy little idiot, watching text trickle down my phone line and being happy about communicating with someone via text when I could simply have called him (and considering the amount of time and effort it took it would probably have been cheaper, too)...
How this information could be useful? Just imagine you could have predicted any of the youth trends of the past. Pick any one. Still no idea how you could profit from that in some way?
You are aware that the basic idea behind creating such a social network is harvesting personal information about the users and how they interact with each other, yes? Then who in their sane mind would WANT to create an API to decentralize that?
And I guess you overestimate their attention span. FB will be "lame" sooner or later. Give it 2-5 years and everyone will be jumping on that next best thing.
So whatever "standard" the majority sets will be "good", and to hell with you if you don't agree with groupthink? Am I really the only one who thinks that this might be a dangerously slippery slope in a world where every country is basically dependent on the others?
"Interesting that you think $whistleblower is a hero, we think he's a traitor. And look, there our friends do think so, too, or else they're not our friends anymore (insert glare towards smaller countries cowering in the corner and nodding quickly here). So you want to be our friend, too, or do you want us to kick you out of "our" internet?"
And it won't be "the evil US" who do it because it's all decentralized and everyone agreed that it's a fine idea... because everyone shits their pants 'cause they don't want to be left out in the rain.
That's maybe the biggest question here. The US hands over control of the internet. Ok. Fine. Sounds good on paper. But who gets control? And please don't say "nobody". Like it or not, certain things need to be policied by some entity. The two things that immediately spring into the mind are domain name control and IP address assignation. Pretty much anything where "globally unique" is a key feature will have to have some kind of controlling entity.
And the very LAST thing I could possibly see as beneficial is if that control was handed to certain entities that would all too eagerly take control of it. Namely corporations with an interest in controlling those resources. Can you imagine what it would be like if a for-profit organization takes over certain aspects of the net? Especially the "globally unique" ones? If you thought domain name turf wars have been problematic, you ain't seen nothing yet.
I'm certainly not someone who thinks it's a perfect solution to hand the control of an important resource to a single country. Far from it. If anything, handing it to the EU sounds sensible, considering how much infighting is going on there and how much bickering, the chance that they could use it against the rest of the world is sufficiently small. Ok, I'm kidding. But I guess it is easy to understand how it's hard to find a good governing body for something like this. Who should take over?
The UN? Please. Take a look at how much success they had with world peace and world hunger and ponder how much more important those two things are compared to the internet. Then consider how much success they'd have policying and governing the internet.
A multi-national consortium? Where's the difference to the UN?
The EU? As I said, considering how much in-fighting and bickering is going on there, it probably carries the lowest risk of anything bad happening. But also the lowest chance of ANYTHING happening when something needs to be done. Plus the highest chance that it will eventually be sold off to the highest bidding corporation.
Decentralize it? Good idea on paper, that was essentially the basic idea behind the internet, but it has deviated from that a long while ago. It's very unlikely that this can still fly. Most likely we'll be running into severe problems before long. Especially when certain countries decide it's a good idea to do a few things differently so they can more easily avoid doubleplusungood ideas to reach the plebs.
Who should take control? I can't really think of many good alternatives, but I'm eager to hear suggestions.
Run around and point a video cam at a cop.
"These specs are now exactly what the client wants, no need to think of eventualities"
"Nobody will ever need that feature"
"I don't need to comment that, it's obvious what it does"
"Once the prototype runs, it's going to be easy"
"I'll do it right, then I'll never ever have to touch it again"
"One last meeting to go to"
"There's no possible way this could become a security risk"
$change + "can't break anything"
"It COULD create a race condition in theory, but it can't happen in reality"
And finally, the ever popular
"I'll just slap something together now so we can ship it, I'll eventually get around to do it right"
I read the GPs statement as "one of the lies I tend to tell myself"
Even if it was for a "good cause". Let's for a moment even assume that the NSA is an all-holy entity that could never do anything wrong and that we trusted them implicitly, not because our software forces us to but because we genuinely wanted to.
Note the subjunctive.
Even then the security software would be a security hazard. Simply and plainly because there is (at least) one way to access data that is absolutely beyond your control. You cannot even audit the security level of the entity holding the additional key to your data.
If you need to give your non-tech boss a way to understand the severity, that's like having a general key to your office and the safe with all the highly classified and mission critical papers deposited at your local police force. While by itself not a problem (provided you trust your police), they are not required to give you any information concerning the key's storage or whereabouts. You will not be notified how they themselves will keep that key safe, nor do you get any kind of information should that key get stolen. You will not be notified if some potential attacker or burglar, or even a competitor, gets access to that key, legally or illegally.
That's a bit like telling a career criminal that he should better not do a petty crime. Like telling a murderer that it's not ok to steal a car to drive to his victim.
'cause all the money they had went into the product and nothing was left for the PR department?
15. How often do we get to hear about it? I read about it on $otherpage $time ago.