Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking The Internet IT

What Does the 'Next Internet' Look Like? 283

Posted by Zonk
from the hampster-dance-for-the-next-generation dept.
Kraisch writes with a link to the Guardian website, which again revisits the subject of reconstructing the internet. This time the question isn't whether it should be done, but what should the goals of a redesign be? From the article: "'There's a real need to have better identity management, to declare your age and to know that when you're talking to, say, Barclays bank, that you're really doing so,' said Jonathan Zittrain, professor of internet governance and regulation at the Oxford Internet Institute. At the moment we are still using very clumsy methods to approach such problems. The result: last year alone, identity theft and online fraud cost British victims an estimated £414m, while one recent report claimed 93% of all email sent from the UK was spam ... Many ideas revolve around so-called "mesh networks", which link many computers to create more powerful, reliable connections to the internet. By using small meshes of many machines that share a pipeline to the net instead of relying on lots of parallel connections, experts say they can create a system that is more intelligent and less prone to attack."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Does the 'Next Internet' Look Like?

Comments Filter:
  • It looks like (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eviloverlordx (99809) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:12PM (#20076735)
    1984.
    • by HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) * <lajollahomeless@hotmail.com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:18PM (#20076857) Homepage Journal
      Maybe 1985. I want color.

      Seriously. How about plain text, maybe a standard color and graphics set, no embedded content, downloadable material only. We could even let the government have their infinite monitoring system. If it were all plain text then there'd be no secret to it. To make encoded binary workarounds undesireable, limit the whole sha-bang to 4800 bps. That'll please the recording industry too. Blank CD sales will go through the roof.

      Draw a few lines to keep the network secure. Let the crowd whine and cry that it's too difficult to download a file and open it locally with the appropriate application. Those people never really wanted or needed computers anyway. Let them go back to playing dominos or Yahtzee or something.

      Do you realize how many problems we could solve by putting the open network back on the terms that it should never have left?
      • Re:It looks like (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:34PM (#20078655)
        Do you realize how many problems we could solve by putting the open network back on the terms that it should never have left?


        The OP meant 1984 in an Orwellian sense. Which is much likelier than the scenario you describe.

        I dread an overhaul of "The Internet", whatever that even means, because there is no way in hell it would be allowed to be the Wild West that it is today. It would certainly be much more like television or radio in that large corporations would "broadcast" to you and user generated content would be completely on their terms. Gone would be the days where anyone could start up a website about anything; some sort of expensive license would be required and personal pages would be relegated to whatever version of Myspace or Facebook still exists. Anonymity would, of course, be impossible.

        The goverment and communications companies were taken by surprise the first time around.. That's not happening again.
      • From TFS: last year alone, identity theft and online fraud cost British victims an estimated £414m

        My Question: How much did it cost British victims to have a correct identity and have a clerical error or other problem occur with their accounts? I bet it's 10-20 times this number. Which goes to show, there are bigger problems. I hate it when newsies put a dollar figure on something like this. Identity is not really a big problem in groupthink anyway--just abstract the individual as an average of t
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:42PM (#20077233)
      Given that the primary activity of a civilized person is commerce, the new web needs to be optimally efficient for reliable business exchanges.

      That means that any and every participant can be identified. Anonymity leads to fraud and hence it cannot be tolerated. If you post anything, it should always be possible to trace that back to you.

      Also, there should be good record keeping of all online activity, not just for receipt verification but also for legal purposes. This gives the added benefit of making cyber-terrorism more difficult, and enabling a wider range of response options for law enforcement.

      Also, there should be very tight controls on the sorts of actions that people can take online. The duplication of intellectual property is illegal, so the system should be designed in such a way that makes this nearly impossible to do (and easy to observe and pinpoint when done). A good way to do this would be to have a central registry of file transfers that administers file transfer licenses on a case-by-case bases. Vendors can pre-authorize the repeated distribution of their products while individuals will need to individually authorize each file they want to transfer. The files in question will, of course, have copies preserved for tracking purposes.

      Lastly, better controls on encrypted data exchange need to be put in place. When everyone and his brother can encrypt their communications it becomes impossible to enforce the intellectual property laws which serve as the backbone of the new economy. Ideally individual users would never be able to encrypt anything unless working within the some pre-approved context, such as development on a government contract or what-have-you. Again, some central agency should serve as the distributor of encryption licenses, granting them in bulk to vendors as appropriate for the nature of their business.

      Such an Internet would make it much more difficult for people to commit IP crimes, thus freeing up law enforcement resources to focus on other matters. Also, it would allow businesses to easily keep very accurate track of the activities of their clients, and trade this information with one another for demographic marketing efficiency. The greatest benefits of all go to the consumer, of course, since they will have convenient access to online products of every variety for very affordable prices...that alone being more than enough justification for requiring them to absorb the costs of all the data-tracking that needs to be done in order for this infrastructure to exist.

      The future is so bright, I need to dim my monitor!
      • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:50PM (#20077353) Homepage Journal
        This is easy, the new internet looks like...

        AOL!
      • Re:It looks like (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @05:13PM (#20077691) Homepage Journal
        "Given that the primary activity of a civilized person is commerce, the new web needs to be optimally efficient for reliable business exchanges.

        That means that any and every participant can be identified. Anonymity leads to fraud and hence it cannot be tolerated. If you post anything, it should always be possible to trace that back to you.

        Also, there should be good record keeping of all online activity, not just for receipt verification but also for legal purposes. This gives the added benefit of making cyber-terrorism more difficult, and enabling a wider range of response options for law enforcement.

        Also, there should be very tight controls on the sorts of actions that people can take online...."

        Wow....I don't even know where to start to reply to this, I seriously hope this is a troll and no one truly wants this. If you were serious, man, I'd be scared to live in your world.

        That first statement...I dunno, I work, I earn money, but only to live and have fun...it is NOT my primary concern. And commerce can and did exist quite well before the internet. Believe it or not, commerce was a late commer to the internet age...it wasn't invented for commerce, and I see no reason it should change and lose the things that make it great just to accomodate commerce. If they want a separate network for that, ok, but, not the common internet.

        I can see the 'wild west' days of the internet coming to a close already, kinda sad. I personally like it unregulated, where any crackhead is free to spout off anything they want, and rant as long as their modem holds out. In the midst of all that's out there, I've found some interesting stuff, and some valid viewpoints that have changed my views on many things.

        I hope they never take away the ability for Joe Sixpack or Thomas Genius to freely get on and publish what they want. That scares the govt. and those in power in some cases. That's why anonymity is often needed too.

        If they lock down the internet (Web, USENET, etc...), it sure will make a day of surfing around a lot less fun and informative.

      • Delicious irony, Mr. AC...
      • by Duhavid (677874)
        Well, hello, Mr Whitacre,

        I didn't think you liked slashdot.
      • by jez9999 (618189)
        You forgot the tax charged to every internet user in the world, to be paid to all RIAA member companies. This will ensure that a steady stream of quality IP continues to flow from creative American minds.
      • Given that the primary activity of a civilized person is commerce, the new web needs to be optimally efficient for reliable business exchanges. That means that any and every participant can be identified. Anonymity leads to fraud and hence it cannot be tolerated. If you post anything, it should always be possible to trace that back to you.

        Rather ironic that this little monograph was posted Anonymous Coward, eh?

    • If you can't beat the criminals, just slow them down to the point that it is more lucrative to go back to traditional crimes like robbing corner stores.
    • Yeah, but we'll still party like it's 1999!
    • by nurb432 (527695)
      Yep, you beat me too it.

      It will be a dark repressive place, devoid of any humanity or honest information.

      Dont throw away your modems, i can see the world of local dialup BBS's returning.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Eravnrekaree (467752)
      These sorts of schemes to restructure the internet make me uncomfortable, because it is fine as it is. From some of the comments I hear from these people it also shows they often know very little about how the internet works, such as "instead of having parallel connections it might be better to have a mesh connection with computers sharing an internet connection". These people sound like they have no idea about network design, for instance, in many cases, networks do multiplex data from many different compu
  • by Skreech (131543) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:13PM (#20076749)
    A series of pipes.
  • It looks just like any other Unix implementation. Maybe a little black cube with some multi-colored letters on top. I call them sprinkles.

    Oh, you mean after the Web 2.0 bubble bursts [slashdot.org]? Probably like a deflated weather balloon just waiting for capital to be pumped in for Web 3.0.
    • No, the NeXT Internet runs WorldWideWeb. Other UNIX implementations only get telnet, mail, USENET and Gopher.
  • by Zontar The Mindless (9002) <plasticfish@info.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:15PM (#20076773)
    Same as the old Internet...
  • by necro2607 (771790) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:15PM (#20076775)
    What should the "next internet" be? Wireless. Configuration-less. Always connected. High speed. Low cost. Cross-platform, cross-device, and accessible by even the simplest devices (wristwatch syncing to online time server?). Access/infrastructure not controlled by single corporations.

    Ever seen the Ghost in the Shell [wikipedia.org] movies and series? Make that "Net" real. :)
    • by CastrTroy (595695) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:35PM (#20077123) Homepage
      I don't see why you'd want a wristwatch [wikipedia.org] to be contacting the internet. They only drift by about 10 seconds per year, and any extra exactness that you'd get from syncing with the internet, would probably be lost in battery life. The only time my watch drifts any noticable amount is when the battery is low, at which point it would probably be unable to contact the internet anyway.
  • Sure we could have identity- at the cost of allowing either the government or a business 100% access to our surfing habbits. No thanks. Not to mention that it still wouldn't work- you'd need some way of identifying yourself to the computer, and thats still a weak link. Humans are easily tricked.

    Mesh networks? Interesting for some uses, useful for places with no cellular or wifi connectivity. Otherwise just a hassle- low speed, sharing issues, and a high risk of man in the middle attacks.

    I'll keep th
    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:48PM (#20077327) Journal
      I want identity in the sense that SILC provides. I have no way of knowing who a given 'fred' is, but I do have a way of ensuring that the 'fred' I'm talking to today is the same as the 'fred' I was talking to yesterday. If mapping a person or corporation's online entity to a physical identity is important then it should be done out of band, or via a trusted third party.
      • Uh huh, and you expect everyone will trust the same 3rd party? For instance, everyone else seems to trust Verisign. I sure as hell don't! Verisign certainly wants to provide such a service through their Digital Signatures. People really aren't biting though. Article is redundant, and pointless. Just someone calling themself a journalist who has nothing else to write about.
  • by thatskinnyguy (1129515) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:16PM (#20076805)

    "Many ideas revolve around so-called "mesh networks", which link many computers to create more powerful, reliable connections to the internet"
    Sounds like Web 3.0 will be built on one massive Beowulf Cluster after another connected together by a "series of tubes".
    • by wolfemi1 (765089)

      Sounds like Web 3.0 will be built on one massive Beowulf Cluster after another connected together by a "series of tubes".

      But, for the love of god, WILL IT RUN LINUX?!?

  • Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by orclevegam (940336) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:16PM (#20076809) Journal
    We don't need a new internet, the internet serves a purpose, and it does it well. What we need is something like the internet but designed to solve particular problems. A network with certified identity of all participants would be good for banking, and financial transactions, although it would be terrible as a internet replacement because part of the good of the internet is the possibility of anonymity. Similarly, I think the push to cram ever more rich functionality into JS and AJAXish things is probably a bad idea, when what we really need is a application browser in the same vein as a web browser. Don't take working systems and cram more stuff into them, make new systems designed to do what you want.
    • by fbjon (692006)

      Similarly, I think the push to cram ever more rich functionality into JS and AJAXish things is probably a bad idea, when what we really need is a application browser in the same vein as a web browser.
      Like flash?



      Uh.. put that knife down..

  • by garlicbready (846542) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:16PM (#20076815)
    exactly the same as the old one
    except with more high quality Blu-Ray porn of course
  • There is no next. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by clubhi (1086577)
    This internet fad is about to die. BTW, it's kind of funny how close this is to an article about the next web bubble bursting... It seems like to me we would need a lot of programmers to work on the next internet.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:21PM (#20076911)
    "Identity Management" implies the existence of "Identity Managers", which I find a bit distasteful.

    Also, a non-anonymous internet provides even more incentive for identity theft. "No, no it wasn't me who was looking at gay porn. See, look at the ID"
  • By using small meshes of many machines that share a pipeline to the net instead of relying on lots of parallel connections, experts say they can create a system that is more intelligent and less prone to attack.


    That sounds like a man-in-the-middle attacker's dream. I like today's system of "connect directly from my desktop to my bank". Count me out.
  • The "new internet" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lendrick (314723) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:26PM (#20076985) Homepage Journal
    The new internet, if it ever comes to pass, will be designed by governments and large corporations. This will mean the following:

    * No more anonymity. You'll need to identify yourself just to get onto the network, and protections will be in place to keep you from hiding behind a proxy. Your computer's unique ID will be registered in your name, and it will be available to the FBI, CIA, and RIAA upon request (no warrant required).

    * Large barrier to entry. No more setting up your own server without getting special permission to act as a server. There will be a barrier between servers and clients, and consumers will be second-class citizens in this regard.

    * Probably less spam. Tighter controls will make it harder for spammers to get their unwanted traffic into the intertubes. Also, now that it's possible to implement an email tax, email spam could be made prohibitively expensive.

    * Better security. Locking the internet down will help somewhat in keeping the criminal element out, because it will (theoretically) be a lot easier to trace where they're coming from.

    So, you win some, you lose some. There's a use for this kind of network, but only for secure transactions. I don't think a "new internet" is something that anyone here would want to use.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dachannien (617929)
      Less spam, but more ads. Digital signatures through encrypted browsers with DMCA-backed hack prevention to prevent filtering out the ads. More ads means more annoying ads, to distract you from the other ads on the same page.

      In general, I'd take our current Intarweb over that, warts and all.

    • by halcyon1234 (834388) <halcyon1234@hotmail.com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @05:43PM (#20078081) Journal

      A couple disagreements:

      * Probably less spam. Tighter controls will make it harder for spammers to get their unwanted traffic into the intertubes.

      Correction, less unauthorized spam. You'll get more than your daily dose of Real Official Good For You spam straight from whoever owns the Internext.

      * Better security. Locking the internet down will help somewhat in keeping the criminal element out, because it will (theoretically) be a lot easier to trace where they're coming from.

      I'd lean heavily on the "theoretically" part. There's still registered handguns killing people, licensed drivers doing illegal things on the road, and scammers using Ma Bell's network. The Internext might change the frequency and face of Bad Shit Going Down, but won't eliminate it.

    • by Tom (822) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:01PM (#20078311) Homepage Journal
      I doubt the "better security" part, but maybe that's just because I work in that industry.

      Large corporations are horrible with regards to security. It's a rare exception that they have better security. More importantly, on this level they will - if at all - have the better security for them, not for the users. Which means we will face the same virus, trojans and bot networks problem as right now, with the spam coming right out of those owned machines.

      The most likely bullet point that you forgot to mention is this one:

      * It won't work. There will be 500 incompatible, competing, closed protocols for everything. And players like MS will add new variations on purpose all the time, so every time the market consolidates, it'll be splintered again, except among less players.

    • by yoha (249396)
      The new internet, if it ever comes to pass, will be designed by governments and large corporations. This will mean the following:

      The first internet was designed by governments and large corporations, and yet we don't have any of those things you mention.
  • Privacy concerns (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CaptainPatent (1087643) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:27PM (#20077005) Journal
    Wiretapping and privacy concerns are already very prevalent as even at this point in time it isn't outrageously hard to track someone down online unless they are very good at covering tracks. I can't imagine how bad this would be when such information is kept and record as a standard.
    I view this much in the same way as why a presidential election is kept as a secret ballot. Much of the information about browsing history and activities can reflect both positively and negatively on your own personal views which one should have the ability to keep private if they wish. In this way we can choose our religious, moral and personal views much more freely and need not tolerate unwarranted persecution.
    I just hope this idea isn't being considered too seriously.
  • by east coast (590680) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:33PM (#20077089)
    Where is that idiot with the goatcx photo when it's finally appropriate?
  • Whatever the change, it will be evolutionary not revolutionary. We've got too much invested to have another red-letter day like the USENET Great Renaming.

    Within a few years, expect almost every computer to have a TPM-like chip installed. It will be up to the user and the operating system to provide support for this chip. However, banks and similar web sites may refuse to talk to customers who are not using these chips.

    What will the future hold? Some entities, like Banks, will insist on stronger authenti
  • By using small meshes of many machines that share a pipeline to the net instead of relying on lots of parallel connections, experts say they can create a system that is more intelligent and less prone to attack.

    Well Excuse Me, But, two attack vectors are immediately apparent:

    The single pipeline is a single point of failure.

    Low power jamming, or simple data flooding, of the mesh.

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:41PM (#20077217) Journal
    The root cause of identity theft is that the credit industry wants to lend without too much of checking and authentication. If someone has an impulse to borrow, they want to lend it immediately before the moment passes. If they issue a few bad loans they consider it cost of doing business. If criminals take advantage of it and borrow both the identity and the money, the credit industry does not care because there is no serious liability to the lender who lent the money. A few thousand dollars, big deal, cost of doing business for them. It is the victims of id-theft who raise a hue and cry.

    ID theft is not limited to the internet. The waiter who takes away your credit card, or people who steal from your mailbox, or people who file a change of address form to intercept your mail, or employees who have access to the credit card numbers in the sales/accounting dept, employees in doctor's offices or hospital billing dept, can steal identities.

    It is stupid to assume id theft is an internet problem or to find technical solution for it when there is no incentive for the credit industry to cut down on it. If a lender damages my credit rating by lax lending, the lender is liable for a sum like 10% of my annual income. Then they will clean up their act in a hurry.

    • by Braino420 (896819)

      If criminals take advantage of it and borrow both the identity and the money, the credit industry does not care because there is no serious liability to the lender who lent the money.

      I noticed this in TFA too; you guys need to switch credit card companies if they make you pay for unauthorized use of your credit card. I've had it happen to me before, someone just stole my CC#, I told the CC company and they took it from there (it was around $200 spent online). It was a Visa CC from USAA but I also have a B

  • But hopefully we can adopt the Australian [hankstruckpictures.com] method.
  • Again, a mesh network will only be as secure as the individual system on the network. Once a compromise is found, then all computers in the mesh can be compromised if they are all running the same OS or software. Even having the mesh itself run checks on each other and disabling/re-installing on the corrupt systems will only work so long against any real attack or rapid prorogation security breach.
  • by lawpoop (604919) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @04:54PM (#20077415) Homepage Journal
    I personally would like to see a decentralized, encrypted p2p network. Using PKI, we could create a system where you send an encrypted email out into the p2p network. It's passed around until it gets to its intended recipient, who has the decryption key. Since it's encrypted, nobody else can read it. Because of the PKI, you can be certain of who sent you the email, that it's really from them, and that nobody intercepted it on its way.

    Now instead of just email, change this to any kind of data. Create your own username with a private key, and you can use it to get access to data directed to you on any machine connected to the PKI network.

    Want anonymity? Just create another identity.
    • Freenet is very similar to this, but suffers from being incredibly slow. I loved the idea when I first heard of it, but after trying it and having to wait 5 minutes for any sort of content to load I gave up on the idea. The problem is that there needs to be some way to intelligently perform routing, just passing data down the stream doesn't cut it in a decentralized environment.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AnyoneEB (574727)
        I think a large part of FreeNet's slowness comes from anonymity being one of its goals. Although it is a good feature, anonymous communications tend to be very slow. In general, I do not think anonymity is required for anonymous communications and a system like FreeNet could be used when necessary, taking the performance it associated with it. I think you could probably design a protocol such that content gets signed so you always know who it is from and then knowing an IP address they have used as well is
    • Yes (Score:2, Interesting)

      by newr00tic (471568)

      Good enough idea, but internet[0] can already do this.

      Proceed to shitlist everyone that you've yet to arrange a keyswap with, and enjoy fully encrypted communication.

      (--If both parties agree that a bond via electronic communication is 'important enough,' you'll soon see your f[r]iends converted to encryption in an eyeblink..)

      Should you wish to 'invite' more people once they turn responsible, you're free to do so.

      (Effectivity by using lowest acceptable sanity-denominator.)

  • It's not as if the Internet is going to be turned off one day and the guys in the hard hats will say "okey folks, turn on the new one!".

    The Internet as we know it will always improve a series of small steps and as time goes by it will get faster, and improved. The one year your local Telco will offer 512k DSL lines, the next they suddenly have 4mbit lines available. But inbetween there was 768k, 1024k, etc.

    --deckert

  • by Animats (122034) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @05:00PM (#20077503) Homepage

    There are only a few major issues:

    • Identifying sellers. If you're a seller, you can't be anonymous. That's the law in California and the European Union, but enforcement is weak. We're dealing with that at SiteTruth [sitetruth.com], where we try to find the business behind the web site. If we can't, we downgrade their search ranking.
    • Identifying buyers. That's a problem for the credit card industry. If they really considered it a problem, they'd fix it. They have the tools. One-time credit card numbers, confirmation by cell phone, smart credit cards - solutions are known.
    • Spam Spam by legitimate businesses mostly died with CAN-SPAM, because anything clearly identifiable can be easily filtered. Everything left comes from crooks. And not very many different crooks. Notice how few different spams get through your filters. What's left is a law enforcement problem. Someday the main Viagra spammer will be found and arrested, and that problem will shrink. The US SEC is working the pump-and-dump problem.
    • Vulnerable clients Make Microsoft financially liable and the problem gets fixed, fast.
    We don't need to redesign the Internet, much as some telcos would like to so they can raise rates. All the major problems are at the endpoints.
  • It's a big ball of wires and tubes, but that's not important right now.
  • by kabocox (199019) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @05:21PM (#20077813)
    English not being the dominate net character set. The main character sets of the Indian, Chinese, and Russian languages being dominate in most net content and urls.

    Just having most Chinese and Indians on the net. The governments quickly find that they don't need grand cultural firewalls. China and India making editing/expanding wikipedia a primary school class that students start in elementary school and have every year thereafter.
  • by Joe the Lesser (533425) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @05:28PM (#20077911) Homepage Journal
    Fry: Wow. In my day, the only reason people went on the Internet was pornography.

    Professor Farnsworth: Actually, that's still the case.
  • It'll look exactly the same, but more glowy.

    And better, um, fonts.
  • by ThousandStars (556222) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:08PM (#20078383) Homepage
    The "next" Internet looks like this one, except with censorship and less spam.



    I'll take the spam.

  • Privacy (Anonymity), Accountability, Connected.

    Pick 2.

  • by CodeBuster (516420) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:28PM (#20078589)
    The trap which the Guardian falls into, and it is a common one among the public, is the notion that because people now use the Internet for certain tasks, which it was not specially designed to accommodate but rather *could* accommodate in a layered approach, that it must be redesigned to carve out special support for tasks which it now coincidentally supports, but may or may not in the future. They forget that among the original design goals of the Internet (the ARPANET rather) was to have the most robust, generic, expandable, and scalable system possible, even at the expense of support for more specific and advanced features which could be built on top of the basic protocols anyway (and they have been). In networking it is not so much what one puts into a protocol, but rather what one judiciously leaves out in order not to limit what can built on top. The basic protocols of the Internet have served us well for over 30 years now and really do need to be changed much if at all. If they want to offer new "services" then they should submit their proposals to W3C and build a special banking layer which clients must support, on top of basic HTTPS, to support the features that they want so that the principle of least knowledge applies. Alas, the principles of good engineering and good software engineering are lost on the consumer society which loves all-in-one devices that do nothing really well and don't force people to think about really *good* solutions.
    • by Bluesman (104513) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @07:45PM (#20079373) Homepage
      Amen.

      The layered approach is the greatest thing ever. The network we use today looks nothing like it did in the 80's, and yet nobody had to build a "new Internet" to get us here. Does anyone remember the big wavelength division multiplexing upgrades in the 90's? Or the shift away from ATM? No, you don't, because it happened without you having to realize it. (I know, unless you work for a communications company...)

      In order to have this flexibility, you need to have a dumb network at the base, that simply routes packets as quickly as possible. Any tradeoff designed to increase performance will adversely affect flexibility, and I think we can all agree the flexibility is a huge win.

  • I want it (Score:3, Funny)

    by uberjoe (726765) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @07:56PM (#20079475)
    just like the internet is now, but with porn. Lots and lots of porn. . .oh wait. Nevermind.
  • hmmm. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lehk228 (705449) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @10:17PM (#20080671) Journal
    WINTERMUTE

Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.

Working...