[egof]

Im certain when licensing first came out for automobiles the idea was ludicrous no one wanted it, but as more people gained access to cars the more it became apparent that for everyones safety rules are needed. With rules came licensing so that we know you had at least looked at the rule book. Some years later communities required safety inspections of the automobile.

[programble]

I say yes because there are too many dumb people who should not be trusted on the internet.

[no2pencil]

I say no, because it's up to the computer user to regard their own safety. Who would decided? I'm sure large company software manufacturers would have their hands in the final say, & the next thing you know I've got to buy a license, software, & a different OS to go onto the internet.

Besides, this will never happen (imho). As too many business would lose out on advertising revenue & ISP's don't make it a habit of telling potential customers no.

[egof]

Im certain when cars started out all the people who owned then also said it would never happen.

[Choscura]

I say no, for a few reasons.

First, if you're intelligent enough to have the creative stupidity to be killed by an internet connection or by using a computer in any way it is designed to be used, you should probably be allowed to die. Physical safety isn't an issue with the internet, except- possibly- with things like the webcam-rifle website from a few years ago, or possibly if future terrorists devise bombs which are triggered by sad smileys on facebook status pages.

Second, Every influence that the internet has on you is ultimately controlled by you. Every situation that can possibly arise because of the internet ultimately comes down to a choice you have the freedom to make.

Third, the primary intent (at least on paper) is to communicate and deliver information from everyone to everyone. If you're on the internet, you want information, even if it's just to know what your friend is thinking about- eg, maybe you want to double check your terrorist friend's facebook page for sad smileys. Restricting access to information to only a select group of people that meet some pre-requisite criteria is something we all would vocally condemn in any other place, or worded in any other way: hiding it behind the name of 'licensing' shouldn't be any different.

[Raynes]

egof, on 10 March 2010 - 04:45 AM, said:

Im certain when cars started out all the people who owned then also said it would never happen.

Computers aren't cars.

[egof]

Its called a simile, showing how cars started there were no licenses then years later poof rules abound.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile

[Raynes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer

See? Different things. You can't get in a head on collision with a semi with a computer when you're drunk.

[Tom9729]

I said yes for both, although when I think of computer inspections I am thinking more along the lines of mandating that your ISP has to contact you if they believe your PC is part of a bot-net, possibly disconnecting you if you refuse to fix the problem.

You people who are saying that surfing the web drunk (for example) is not analogous to drunk driving are taking the comparison too far. Your actions on the Internet _do_ affect other people and you should be held accountable for them, even if the repercussions of being a bad "Internet user" aren't as serious as the repercussions of being a bad driver.

Basically I think when you sign up for an Internet connection you should be forced to attend a class/workshop on Safe Surfing in order to get a license. Classes should be offered for free through your ISP. Your license is bound to your connection, and you are held accountable for the actions of anyone using your connection (eg. spouse, kids, friends, wifi freeloaders).

Obviously there are flaws in this that I overlooked.

[TriggaMike]

With the computer industry growing I can see why this is more and more of a worry. There is a lot of monetary gain, and a lot of monetary loss everyday on the internet.

Now, with the idea of licensing. Licensing your internet connection is a flawed idea for many reasons.

1) Public access points. How will this work? Am I licensing my laptop now? My Phone? My Netbook? Technically a MAC address then would be your "license".

2) Public access to computers. So if I license a computer, and other people use it, how does liability work? How do I keep my license secure? Do I lock my computer like a car? If I leave my car open, someone steals it, and runs over an old lady, do I get charged with murder? No I don't. If someone takes over my computer, and uses it to launch a DDOS, do I get charged with millions in loss?

3) Fuzzy proof of use. Who was using the computer? When you're driving a car and it's licensed, people can see you, and know who you are. If you hit someone, they know you were the driver. Either you stole the car, or the person who lent it to you is partially liable for lending you the car, or it's your car. How does this work with a computer? A shared computer? A family computer?

I just don't think there is solid enough proof of who is using the computer and when. It's hard to enforce anything via license with the current state of computing, computing laws, international laws, and how the communication structure works.

This post has been edited by TriggaMike: 10 March 2010 - 03:31 PM

[Pwn]

TriggaMike, on 10 March 2010 - 04:29 PM, said:

If I leave my car open, someone steals it, and runs over an old lady, do I get charged with murder? No I don't. If someone takes over my computer, and uses it to launch a DDOS, do I get charged with millions in loss?

Actually, if someone steals your car and the car wasn't locked when they stole it, that is, no apparent signs of forced entry, then you are liable, at least in part, for their actions. Well, at least in the USA.

Having said that, you sign an agreement spelling out the terms of service when you sign up for internet access. If you provide a commercial service with your computer, you're subject to a different TOS than a private customer. There are already rules/laws in place and this poll is frivolous and unnecessary IMO. Unless, of course, you are lobbying to change everybody's internet experience and are using this poll as evidence of some sort, then I'd have to say I'm against your idea wholly.

BTW I didn't vote.

[TriggaMike]

Pwn, on 10 March 2010 - 05:45 PM, said:

TriggaMike, on 10 March 2010 - 04:29 PM, said:

If I leave my car open, someone steals it, and runs over an old lady, do I get charged with murder? No I don't. If someone takes over my computer, and uses it to launch a DDOS, do I get charged with millions in loss?

Actually, if someone steals your car and the car wasn't locked when they stole it, that is, no apparent signs of forced entry, then you are liable, at least in part, for their actions. Well, at least in the USA.

If the thief is clean enough, or you have a specific kind of car, entry can be gained without showing any visible damage to the car. How can you possible determine 100% sure that a car was unlocked or the thief was just really good?

[Tom9729]

TriggaMike, on 10 March 2010 - 10:03 PM, said:

If the thief is clean enough, or you have a specific kind of car, entry can be gained without showing any visible damage to the car. How can you possible determine 100% sure that a car was unlocked or the thief was just really good?

If your car is involved in a hit-and-run accident (for example), and someone catches your license plate number I'm pretty sure you're going to (at least initially) be considered a suspect regardless of whether or not you were in the car or knew about it.

This post has been edited by Tom9729: 10 March 2010 - 08:17 PM

[Locke]

egof, on 10 March 2010 - 02:23 PM, said:

Its called a simile, showing how cars started there were no licenses then years later poof rules abound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile

It's actually called a metaphor. You only used as once in your original post, and it wasn't tied to the "simile". It was used as an expression of growing quantity over time.

Sorry. It's the Terminology Nazi in me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

Raynes, on 10 March 2010 - 02:33 PM, said:

You can't get in a head on collision with a semi with a computer when you're drunk.

All the cool kids can.

[nooblet]

Anything is possible but like the idea of net neutrality, a lot of people are going to be against the idea of needing a license to operate a computer (or more accurately access the internet). That said, ISPs and telecommunication companies will fight this for obvious reasons. The likelihood of this happening is slim.