warf wrote:
> Given that I have ascertained absolute privacy is impractical and every
> advance in mal-tactics results from the challenge of defeating security
> hardening improvements: There must be a pragmatic way to design a
> worldwide web that is inherently safe no?
>
Aaah, but you forget to include the key detail...Safe from what? You
can measure secure unless you set the standards that define it. And
what would you want as a service level from that network.

> Would it, or is it, possible to have various levels of security like the
> trusted zones our browsers allow? I understand the ultimate
> determinations of 'undesirable practices' would be subjective but; For
> EG; countries with lax legal systems could be placed in an echelon
> selectable for access but shielded from self determined 'safer' zones.
> Moderation of newsgroups is an example on a content basis, physical
> access by backbone telecom providers to other jurisdictions must surely
> be selectable because the systems are designed to make billing and usage
> assessment a fundamental property no?

The determination of origin by country is very difficult. You can't
rely on domain names, since the registries are open and commercial.
Routing information isn't reliable for country of origin. So trusted
domains are a difficult thing to establish. Someone already said EDI.
That would help to know who your exchanging data with, but the question
of trust is bigger and harder to answer.

>
> I also understand MSoft would be the first to be culled for providing
> the back doors in the OS most often used at the user level.
Intentional back doors? I think we call them features and capabilities :)

As for unintentional back doors, all software is vulnerable. The more
complex it has, the more holes it has, and security software is likely
to have security holes. If you want a safe internet experience break
out with lynx or another text browser, and then make sure that all the
extensions are disabled, so that you end up with the ability to get text
and display it. It's still likely to have problems, but a lot fewer
then what your used to.

>
> IOW, if forced to start from scratch, _could_ a more workable system of
> WWWeb be designed with consumer interest paramount? _Would_ is a whole
> other topic.
>
> warf.

Starting from scratch, we could build a lot of things different. Many
technologies were designed early on with security and trust concepts
considered. But concessions were made for functionality and
performance, and if they weren't then the potential of the Net may never
have been realized and it would have languished as a geek tool for
colleges and researchers.

Right or wrong, I think evidence shows that consumers will happily
accept risk for more. We are a world of excess, super-size me to the
Gut Buster whether I need it or not. It's more so it's better. Given
the choice of 24 oz. of lap burning piping hot coffee in a flimsy to go
cup or 16 oz. in an extra reinforced insulated spill-proof travel mug,
most people will take the risk and get more coffee. We make the same
choices with our technology.

dMn