So I was reading this because I would love to go up in the "Vomit Comet" and found that Richard Garriot actually owns a lunar lander and rover the Russians sold to him. The story about preserving moon landings references the Russian lunar missions.

So based on international treaty no government can lay claim to anything on the moon nor the moon itself as property. But Garriot is the first private person, that I know of, to have property on the moon and actually has the first step in claiming his own lunar plot.

Thats synergy!

So how about tiny satellites that use solar sails to coral junk over time. They could be networked and radar-equipped to avoid each other and real satellites(maybe fitted with transponders for redundancy). These satellites could be very small and the sails small as well. If there was a satellite in distress or a piece of junk to big for one of these micro guys they could gang up and help each other.

    I know technically there are hurdles with solar sail technology but even worse are the political and financial hurdles. Also technically we would need to figure out a safe way to push debris or connect to legit, usable satellites without damaging equipment. For trash just a plow-like shape would work but maybe an electromagnet would work also.

    First, who funds/runs this program? Even if these satellites were semi-autonomous there would be enough management needed to double what NASA has(a guess on my part) as well as coordinating with the world's satellite owners to maintain their orbits. Then, how do we convince people that these satellites need to be programmed open source to ensure they are politics-neutral.

    If we as citizens of Earth can unite around the idea of space as our global park then we also need to create a neutral organization that will keep it clean.

Before anyone jumps to any conclusion I do not assume everyone here is American nor that American = Good or good, only that the american idea is valuable(not necessarily right).

Initially in America, at least based on what is known or understood about the founders, the law was meant to create a baseline of protection with the rest of the population opt-ing in to enhance and, eventually, raising that baseline by trying solutions based on volunteers, essentially beta-testing the idea in their community. Why not do that here.

Some people, interested in destroying the botnet could take the solution that is worm-like itself and feed the propagation list with an opt-in mailing list(like most forum boards are on the net now) and further protect people from the risk by providing a confirmation Yes-No form before the "solution" is applied to the individual's PC, and further educate them by storing and displaying a log of the operation.

Another way to make the solution more effective is to make three tiers.

You subscribe and confirm to the "solution" online newsletter style with a clear "At your own risk" disclaimer but it has to be from the Internet IP(if behind NAT) your machine uses. The "solution" is sent out to you within a specified time. When it gets to you it:

Asks with a Yes-No button form "Did you sign up at for the 'solution' and wish to apply the solution now?"

Users selects Yes -> next step.

User selects No -> next step.

Tier 1. "solution" generates a list of steps that you can take as the user to protect your PC. If the user selected No above the "solution" then destroys itself and removes you from the newsletter list. If the user selected Yes then the "solution" asks "Would you like to apply these suggestions now?". A log is saved onto the desktop and opened for the user to see what this "solution" has done to the PC.

User selects Yes -> next step.

User selects No -> "solution" quits and removes itself from the PC but maintains you on the newsletter for further updates.

**This is tier 1 least invasive/risky for the user but also least protection.**

Tier 2. "solution" asks if you would like to remove any bad things that are on this computer and provide the user with full disclosure on what was done including how it did it in a log file saved on the desktop.

User selects Yes -> does it, removes itself from the PC, maintains your email on the newsletter for further updates.

User selects No -> goes to next step.

**This tier is secure but builds in no edge for those protecting the user, however, the paranoid individual/sysadmin can monitor a tool that may be untrusted and this allows the community to build trust and thus increase use and restrict the botnet's size.**

Tier 3. "solution" tells the user that it will now remove any threat and dictate the user only files that where manipulated or deleted and not how or why. Then the "solution" deletes itself and maintains the user on the newsletter for future updates.

**This is the best method but only if the "solution" is trusted by the user, this way the user fosters trust with the "solution" makers allowing an edge for those protecting, keeping the method of protection out of the hands of the bot makers.**

Now I suppose removing tier 2 would avoid any violation of privacy or law but it would also restrict adoption rates. It is possible that this is the model current anti-malware programs use now but at some point the details of the logs and the flow of these steps gets obfuscated too much. I suspect it is usually a fault of marketing and/or an attempt to allow a tool to be left on a system, or perhaps it is just so the makers don't lose business to another company that just uses their solution and markets it seperately. Those few things are issues that could be eradicated here by a decent supportive community of those that know how, and want to help. Personally, I am willing to volunteer to work towards something like this as long as the motive is sound and expectations are modest.

The law is only a baseline. If the law is keeping us from protecting ourselves then there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed but as far as I know we can work around, if not with, any laws that are out there. We can take the problem into our own hands to help protect each other.

Gr0kThis
--
"The scale that balances Republicanism and Democracy is capitalism. Justice's scale of guilt or innocence is truth. The power that balances Congress and the Executive branches is the Judicial branch. Gravity, that immutable force behind all this measurement is the American People!"