[LINK] Cornficker clones

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

Karl writes,

> > It may seem only fair that if the world is going to ask [ISPs] to
> > police the net, and, takedown perhaps major sites, they should be
> > re-imbursed for this role.
> 
> Stephen, have you just bought shares in an ISP or something?
> 
> There seems to be a theme developing in your communications that the
> taxpayer should starting subsidising ISPs. Regards, K.


Haha, Karl, & fair enough question. And, have zero connection with any
group which makes money from the net in any way at all. And, have zero
intention to do so in future. But, you're right.  Because the Internet
is now global property, in a sense, and future stability of the net is
waaay beyond individual companies, or, even groups such as ISOC, ICANN,
IANA, W3C and CERT etc, and is now vital to world economies, i believe
that public monies should indeed be allocated to its protection. As to
how this might best be done, i don't know. But as everyone benefits to
a greater or lesser extent by the net, or will do so, why shouldn't we
expect to pay for increased protection of it not just for access/space.

Like you, i don't wish to pay more for anything, unless i have to. But
probably also like you, i regard the net as an essential world service.

And as such, i'm not sure that leaving it's continued stable operation
as being the responsibility of predominately commercial companies only
is the right thing. I'd be happpy to hear of governments, or whomever,
(perhaps with the exception of the US Gov), paying anything at all for
it's operation, besides helping provide the pipes so we can receive it.

It's simply too important. And, the cornficker problem, may be seen as 
a classic example. As far as i've read about it, (quite a bit) one can
see little public monies thus far being spent on what is now a 'public'
asset (in a sense). Hence, i think many might *almost* be happy to pay
more for it (gasp!) via taxes or whatever. So, now, cornficker clones? 

I think it will be a 'major' problem, and it's apparent from the world
response to cornficker, that we need new ways to deal with issues. And,
take-down is just such a *pathetic* response, it seems woeful that it's
currently necessary. Can't we do better? Surely our registrars can't be 
our last line of defence yet it seems they currently are. It seems just
ridiculous, as most of us may completely agree. My whole point is this,
we *must* have better defences than user-voluntary virus scanning, then
takedowns. So, just maybe some of our left-field thinkers on Link might
have a flash of brilliance.  It seems it may take some major left field
thinking to solve this problem. And, it's people like you when prompted
to putting your minds to it, that may save the collective day, for all.

Right now, no one else will, (afaik) besides commercial companies. Sure
it's their cash cow, but, it's also a *lot* more than that to the world.
So, yes, i think we should indeed be paying for it's upkeep. How, or to
whom, remains to be seen. We pay to maintain the UN, so why not the net.

Cheers,
Stephen