Everything You Needed To Know About the Internet In May, 1994 168
harrymcc writes "On Saturday, I picked up a copy of a book called How To Use the Internet at a flea market. It was published in May, 1994, and is a fascinating snapshot of the state of the Net at that time — when you had to explain to people that it wasn't a good idea to say 'thank you' when issuing commands to a machine, and the World Wide Web was an alternative to Gopher that warranted only four pages of coverage towards the end of the book. I selected some choice excerpts and wrote about them over at TIME.com."
How quaint (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA:
Online etiquette: “Flaming is generally frowned upon because it generates lots of articles that very few people want to read and wastes Usenet resources.”
That horse made it out the door long ago. Entire websites and careers are built on that now.
Ahem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How quaint (Score:5, Insightful)
The phenomenon known as Eternal September [wikipedia.org] was new and little understood back in those days.
Re:Poignant (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: E-mail: âoeNever forget that electronic mail is like a postcard.
I said this the other day.
It made people angry.
So, like, whatever, man. If you don't want people reading your stuff, encrypt it. Not every country has the same laws. Not every country has the same 3 letter agencies. And just because it's not been revealed by Snowden's archive yet doesn't mean it's not happening.
--
BMO
Re:Netscape tonight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poignant (Score:5, Insightful)
In many ways we get all up an arms about Governments and Corporations "spying" or "profiling your information" however the internet wasn't ever really meant for private information.
Those two statements do not clash.
Postcards are not meant for private information, either. But a government agency systematically intercepting and reading them would still run afoul of the wiretapping laws.
Remember this fact if you are going to choose a SaaS or Cloud solution. Not that using such systems are Bad or Evil like RMS likes to claim, however if you are going to trust your information to an outside source, you better be sure that you could handle a breach.
That depends entirely on your threat model and your own capabilities. For many small companies who can't afford to have any in-house security know-how, an outside service provider could actually reduce the probability of a breach.
The problem with SaaS and Cloud solutions isn't that they are inherently less secure or anything like that. The real problem is the all-your-eggs-in-one-basket issue. If a major cloud provider ever has a serious breach, everyone has been breached, not just one unlucky target.
Re:Poignant (Score:3, Insightful)
Non-sequitor. No matter the source or the means, a government or a corporation having such extensive knowledge about a group can and will use that information for abuse*.
It sure doesn't help when (1) the government consistently has actively pursued a policy to eliminate any standard means of wide scale encryption to ensure private communication on the internet and (2) intentionally worked towards crippling the effective of the standards they do enforce (with possibly some exceptions). Even still, networks exist that do functionally undermine those efforts. Either that or the governments of the world are willfully allowing numerous terrorists to run free, regardless of their seeming willingness to drone strike (with collateral damage) all those they view as worthy of death. Or the governments, even with all that information, are still not omniscient.
Good encryption is akin to putting a DVD in a block of cement and then dropping it off at a random place in the universe. Locks are akin to tissue paper by comparison.
Any serious work you want to do on a SaaS or Cloud solution, you want to trust the provider to produce good results, which you inherently can't do; further, an information breach would be inherently detrimental to your cause as it would undermine the faith in your work even further. For non-serious work, why would you go through the bother and expense? More importantly, how much non-serious work do you have that you'd care to have an information breach?
*Note, I speak of the colloquial use of the word "abuse" and not the selective reinterpretation that often accompanies such collection efforts which chooses to effectively undefine abuse.
Re:Poignant (Score:4, Insightful)
It's odd that when someone points out flaws in a system, they are considered to be whining.
Re:Poignant (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure you felt better after passing that little sermon, but quality of life in Western Europe and Scandinavia, which still has at least some social democracy, is way better than in the US except for the few at the top (those few also giving the impression that the US is "richer").
Ideology is for freshmen and propagandists - reality combines principles and practical compromise. This is one reason why RMS has been successful, I think: his main licences are surprisingly practical, when they could try (and fail) to do a lot more to prevent the things he dislikes.
Re:Poignant (Score:5, Insightful)
Something that often gets lost in a dispute about freedom is that it's never the human alone who is free (except he is really alone and no one in his vincinity), it's always the organisation of the humans into groups and relationships that gives various degrees of freedom.