How the Elite Bastards will control the Wild Wild Web.

[ThePythonicCow]

I just finished listening to a Jesuit Priest and a technical geek who has a good working relation with the FBI discuss, with their full support, how Google (surely a CIA ally) and the little known corporations that control Internet security and domain name services (these map URL's to numeric IP addresses), will be locking down the Wild Wild Web, so that only "approved" websites will be trusted by ordinary users.

I anticipate that ProjectAvalon.net, and many other a site, will be branded as a "security risk", within a few years. If we convert the forum from HTTP to HTTPS (encrypting our traffic), then we could avoid the "security risk" label, at the risk of remaining available on the web "at the pleasure" of the security certificate issuing agencies.

(By the way, neither Ilie nor I yet know of a practical way, within our abilities and budget, to convert Avalon to HTTPS.)

===

You too can listen to this discussion. It is this week's Security Now podcast, between Steve Gibson (of http://grc.com) and Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ (that's Father Robert Ballecer, Society of Jesus). Ballecer is filling in for the usual host, Leo Laporte, on this week's Security Now podcast, while Leo is on vacation. Steve Gibson openly acknowledges that he has had a good working relationship with the FBI, in a story he tells, starting at 21:34.

For an example of what concerns me, starting at 56:22, you can hear Steve Gibson explain and defend how Google is using it's dominating position in browser's, with its Chrome browser, to increasingly shame and marginalize sites (such as ProjectAvalon) that still use unencrypted HTTP.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xabTAL5cgCM

Here's a nine page pdf document, Steve Gibson's "Show Notes", providing in some detail the same content: Security Now 578 Show Notes (pdf).

So ... it seems that we're damned if we do (convert to HTTPS, requiring a "license", security certificate), and damned if we don't (labeled as a security risk.)

This looks to be shaking out like licensing and regulation in so many other arenas. I can still drive a car without insurance or a license plate ... on my private property, but not on public roads. I can still administer medical care to myself or those close to me without any medical licenses, but not to the general public. I can still offer myself or others close to me legal advice, but not to the general public. I can still broadcast radio signals without an FCC license, but only if they are sufficiently weak that no one more than a short distance away can receive them. I can still carry a firearm, in some places, but only if I get the proper license, and not if I have a felony criminal record or mental insanity diagnosis in the past.

They don't need to take ProjectAvalon.net down. They just need to make the general population shun us, and control whether or not we can get the license (security certificates, from agencies they ultimately control) that would be required to avoid Google's "Red Scarlett Letter A" mark of being an untrusted, insecure, website.

Once again, centrally controlled organizations are using "security" concerns to crank up their control over once free and open activity, over a multiple year period.

[uzn]

It´s already happening. Got a new Laptop and the first time I surfed ProjectAvalon from it the Screen turned red and it informed me that this site is unsafe. Than I had two Options either not go there or go there on my own risk. That will scare of some People that surf to Avalon for the first time.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by uzn (here)
It´s already happening. Got a new Laptop and the first time I surfed ProjectAvalon from it the Screen turned red and it informed me that this site is unsafe. Than I had two Options either not go there or go there on my own risk. That will scare of some People that surf to Avalon for the first time.

Yes, there's one or two "anti-virus" tools on Windows that have been causing such reports, for sometime now.

[Pam]

Of course all this licensing will generate revenue for governments to waste. If you are licensed how much easier will that be to find some reason to tax these licensed businesses? It's the same old business model, take control and make them pay till it bleeds, oh so similar to organized crime.

[uzn]

You are right Paul, I am using McAfee, that became an asset of Intel not long ago. And McAfee puts out a red Screen with a warning.

[Gurudatt]

Opera seems to have come up with a VPN/Proxy. People should stop using Google products as they are the main source of malware infections through their plugins.

[Citizen No2]

There are reports that the Russians' have put up a fire-wall to block all access to porn sites unless you have a paid porn account, and hence, your details. Not too much of a stretch to see what other types of sites this could be applied to.

We know it's coming.

Internet 2.0


Regards.

[EWO]

(By the way, neither Ilie nor I yet know of a practical way, within our abilities and budget, to convert Avalon to HTTPS.)

Why cant you add the certificate? Who is the IT technical person that manages the forum.
You can get cheap $10 certificates from Comodo that doesnt require complicated company validations, just simple email validation.
https://www.namecheap.com/security/s...es/comodo.aspx


Im assuming this forum runs on some sort of linux apache server.
Adding HTTPS requires editing the web config and adding a connector for https port 443 and path to certificate file and key.
This is a vbulletin forum, im sure you can google lots of solutions for adding https

http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/forum...l-in-vbulletin

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by EWO (here)
Why cant you add the certificate? Who is the IT technical person that manages the forum.
You can get cheap $10 certificates from Comodo that doesnt require complicated company validations, just simple email validation.
https://www.namecheap.com/security/s...es/comodo.aspx

It's not the cost of the certificate that is the problem. One can get perfectly fine certs from https://letsencrypt.org/ for free.

Where we run into more difficulties involves issues with our content and web server software.

For example, we'd have to handle, somehow, mixed http/https content. Member's posts have many embedded images, videos, pdfs, etc specified with insecure http links. Modern web browsers might be configured to complain about or block such insecure http content if they are asked to load such within the context of a secure https page.

Ilie and I are the technical people who manage the form .

[ThePythonicCow]

What's needed is federated, de-centralized, control of the Web .

Given the global span of the Web, that might seem like a practical impossibility.

But notice that the Web is easily divided by its top level domains, such as .com, .net, .org, .info, and .gov. Imagine that the security rules were decided separately for each such top level domain.

Some would be "wild and wooly" (perhaps .xxx or .sex), and some would be more strictly administered. Institutions that care about their reputation and that deal with sensitive information, such as banking, financial, medical, ... would find it necessary to pass muster for the more strict rules of a "respected" top level domain, such as ".com". Top level domains such as .info or .net (as in ProjectAvalon.net) could be a bit more lax than those for .com, where the banks and such resided.

Browsers could alert you to "traveling on the dark side" when you were visiting a website under a less safe top level domain, but such would be a reasonable and informed choice by the user.

The idea that the necessary solution is for "us" (a single over-arching powerful entity, actually) to impose uniform all encompassing constraints is a convenient cover story of the elite fascist bastards.

[Justplain]

Though I'm no internet techie, couldnt a browser and search engine be found, or created, that would ignore the bogus security/control conventions adopted by the fbi/cia/nsa? It would become a very popular net surfing mechanism.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Justplain (here)
Though I'm no internet techie, couldnt a browser and search engine be found, or created, that would ignore the bogus security/control conventions adopted by the fbi/cia/nsa? It would become a very popular net surfing mechanism.

Yes - I have a dozen web browsers on my systems, which I use for checking things out now and then. Most of them don't pay much attention to such issues ... they get and display what they can, as best they can.

However most people use, and will always use, one of the few dominant browsers. Presently those are Chrome, Firefox, Safari, IE, Opera and Edge. If the Project Avalon forum doesn't work well with them, that's a problem. These major browsers can be expected, sooner or later, in my estimation, to be increasingly fussy about the security of web pages, including whether they are entirely https encrypted.

[shaberon]

That would thwart a lot of new traffic.

I don't use any of their "apps", although I do use the search engine. If it shows a security risk, you can query the issue and it will give its best guess and you simply decide if you want to proceed. Automation of practically blocking plain ol' http and the like, yes, you wind up with more "guided tour". Most of the (American) websites are repellent to me by design, but as long as they get traffic, they will continue to breed...bad news for the low budget indies, you have to grow in the shade.

[Antagenet]

It's possible that new blockchain social media sites and apps will create safe uncensored places for us to meet so that the regular
internet will become old technology. Looks up https://www.synereo.com/ https://steemit.com/created/ https://www.yours.network/
as examples of people trying to create a whole new internet.

[Lifebringer]

Do you think like "John in Patmos" that those spying for the alphabet, will also be awakened and also in position to help or hold back what they think the agencies paranoia wants?(Snowden) "To just spy on everybody and everything, for supposed control."

[good point]

Posted by Antagenet (here)
It's possible that new blockchain social media sites and apps will create safe uncensored places for us to meet so that the regular
internet will become old technology. Looks up https://www.synereo.com/ https://steemit.com/created/ https://www.yours.network/
as examples of people trying to create a whole new internet.

I've been pushing the idea of new internets at college for years now. The whole new internet will have to distance its self from the mainstream . . .. Even going back to using older hardware, making its simplicity more ubiquitous. Shun the establishment mass production. It's a very threatening idea to the establishment. Say, build it then they will come. The danger is that big business won't allow competition at the grass roots. Users risking their privacy and the safety of their device by connecting to a service they pay for, instead of own. Can they make the technology cheaper? It will be easier to address the costs that hosting a website than the developers need to keep up with technology. Of course, the material constraint and the educated man power to build the servers, protect them and inform the people. Whether or not everyday access to these sites addresses is open with or without a certificate should be largely up to the web master and the client software. At what point does using the internet become discretionary activity? Can you put a price on freedom? Can you make it materialistic? I don't think going around condemning invalid web certificates and banning access is any more constructive than violence used by radical terrorists. To expand on that point, I want to make this clear: NTIA like Steve Gibson told us, privatizing the networks remains a lot of work. The shifting controls of the internet need to remain a world wide web. If the global internet structure authorizes certificates of encrypted protocol, they can destroy p2p! Bad DNS from ISP, you name it! It's consumer fraud. How many domestic arrests for using a computer to commit a crime by simply establishing a home connection that can't be spied up on by big brother? I'm not a web admin but I grew up with Windows all my life.

[TargeT]

Posted by Paul (here)
What's needed is federated, de-centralized, control of the Web .

Given the global span of the Web, that might seem like a practical impossibility.
.

Simple solution, very practical:

Change Is Coming: How the Blockchain Will Transform the Domain Name Business

Put the word "blockchain" together with the acronym "DNS" and what do you get? Just like that 1980s commercial in which chocolate collides with peanut butter, you get a result that's really quite remarkable — blockchain-based domain names. This new hybrid could change the way the system works in important ways.he term "blockchain" refers to the underlying technology that powers Bitcoin, a distributed data store that achieves a state of consensus. Every node on the network will agree about the historical facts, with minimal reliance on trusting central authorities.

The Domain Name System (DNS) is used every time you interact with resources on the Internet. This system allows us to turn easy-to-remember names such as "CoinTelegraph.com" into useful IP addresses such as "141.101.125.184". Your computer needs the latter, but you can more easily remember the former. DNS provides this mapping function between names and addresses, much as a phone directory lets us look up a person's phone number, given their name.
Hey, You Got Blockchain on My DNS

The current DNS is a distributed network that lets machines easily find IP addresses. The DNS is operated according to rules established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the organization that approves new top-level domains (TLDs), such as .com. It awards the contracts to registry operators, such as Uniregistry, who operate the TLDs, and accredits registrars, like GoDaddy, who sell the rights to use domain names.

The current system is hierarchical in nature, both technically and politically. Technically, this system's root servers (think central database) represent a high-value attack vector, and a single point of failure that could by itself take down large chunks of the Internet with a single incident, as threatened by Anonymous in 2012.

Politically, the decision-making power is concentrated within the governing body making the rules of operation and letting the contracts. This represents a source of significant risk in terms of potential for corruption, and is susceptible to coercion by those entities with great power.

There is plenty to say about the benefits to consumers that next-generation Domain Name Systems will provide, and plenty more to be said about the impacts on individual privacy, Internet security, domain name thefts and seizures, and on basic human rights issues, such as freedom of speech. However, I'd like to focus today on the impact these systems are likely to have on the domain industry.
Registries Operate the DNS

Registry operators run or oversee the operation of root servers. They are the authoritative source of information about where to go to resolve all domain names for a given TLD. Think of this as a large, central database for domain name information. They are obviously constrained by their contractual obligations to ICANN. They are also constrained by the legal frameworks under which they operate.

Registry operators establish guidelines by which they will conduct the launching of new TLDs. National governments and large corporations apply considerable pressure to put mechanisms in place to protect their own interests.

In order to prosper within the system, registry operators currently need to satisfy these most powerful stakeholders. Before general registrations are allowed, registries administer sunrise periods, where those with registered service marks and intellectual property concerns can have a chance to secure the names they want.

Similarly, governments want to collect accurate contact information for registrants. This makes it possible to take action against registrants, which can be useful in many contexts, but can also be easily abused by governments determined to stifle dissent or control the flow of information within their borders.

The Blockchain Offers New Flexibility

Registry operators are going to find increased flexibility and more varied opportunities when they begin to launch new blockchain-based TLDs. The result will be the ability to tailor a TLD to specific market niches more effectively. They will be able to "bake the rules into the code" and customize a TLD for specific use cases, even if powerful constituencies may be strongly opposed.

A registry operator may, for example, decide in the case of one TLD to make all contact information optional, making it possible to have domain names that cannot easily be seized by governments or stolen by thieves. Alternately, they could decide to enforce stringent contact-info requirements, which would allow strong claims to be made about the website operators in that TLD. Registries will be empowered to draft the rules of operation according to the needs of the market being served, as opposed to doing what it takes to get approval to launch.

Variable pricing schemes become much more viable, too, as pricing can become a function of a carefully crafted algorithm that reflects the registry's priorities. If they are concerned about the rate at which two- and three-letter strings are registered, they can simply tweak the pricing algorithm to reflect those values. Perhaps the registry wants to use a sliding-price model for most domain names in a TLD, where the registration cost is reduced each day until a target is reached, as Emercoin did. Or perhaps for those two- and three-letter domain names, they want to utilize an auction-style pricing model, as Bitshares does. Such priorities are easy to implement via blockchains, and require no approval from anyone.The Blockchain Could Reduce Operating Costs

Currently, decisions about launch parameters must be approved by ICANN and be implemented by written, enforceable policies. In the future, these parameters could and will be written not as clauses in legal contracts, but in code! The result will be the elimination of ambiguity, less legal wrangling, and more flexibility for the registries.

Registry operators face the prospect of significantly lower-cost structures as well. Marginally profitable operations, or even those operating at a slight loss, may look viable if migrated to a blockchain. With no compliance costs and the elimination of expensive interaction with ICANN, the cost to operate a TLD ought to be reduced significantly.

Paired with variable pricing and auction models, registry operators will have greater control over costs and more pricing options than ever before. This should translate into more varied offerings for consumers and more room for innovation from those who operate TLDs.
Isn't DNS Dead Yet?

Governments could launch TLDs with the specific intention of using them for voting and fairly distributing benefits. Human rights organizations could launch them to promote free speech online, or encourage whistleblowers. Innovative companies could identify market opportunities and launch TLDs specifically crafted for a particular niche.

Perhaps the most important change will be the ability of small operators, or even individuals, to launch TLDs for whatever purpose they want. It could be that services involved with coordinating networks of smart, connected devices will launch limited-access TLDs in order to control upgrades, enable hardware leasing, or any number of other purposes that are hard to predict today.

Despite the claims from many that a perfect storm of factors is making domain names obsolete, the indicators suggest otherwise. The naysayers cite the prominence of mobile apps, and the convenience of things like Facebook pages, Etsy stores and more. But after basically stagnating since the late 1990s, the Domain Name System is about to undergo big changes. Stick around, DNS is not done.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/chang...-name-business

Posted by Justplain (here)
Though I'm no internet techie, couldnt a browser and search engine be found, or created, that would ignore the bogus security/control conventions adopted by the fbi/cia/nsa? It would become a very popular net surfing mechanism.

Here it is in action:
https://blockstack.org/

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by Paul (here)
What's needed is federated, de-centralized, control of the Web .

Given the global span of the Web, that might seem like a practical impossibility.
.

Simple solution, very practical:

Change Is Coming: How the Blockchain Will Transform the Domain Name Business

I'm skeptical .

Replacing our current centralized DNS servers with blockchain DNS servers sounds nice, but I suspect doesn't solve the primary problems I was concerned with, when I started this thread.

My primary concerns were the interlocking vice grip of (1) shifting most users over to normally only interacting with HTTPS encrypted websites (Google is leading the way here, with Chrome's increasing bias against HTTP sites), and (2) central control of the SSL certificates required for acceptance by these browsers.

Neither of these concerns focused on the DNS problems.

I will grant however that DNS problems, such as the ease with which nation-state actors can substantially limit access to "forbidden" websites by knocking them out of the DNS servers, which are also centrally administered, have actually been a more serious problem in recent years.

However, use of blockchain technology, to replace centrally administered DNS servers with a distributed database, is not a fix, in my estimation. Blockchain technology could remove a current vulnerability of our DNS services, the few critical central services, from attack from those with limited means. However, since distributed blockchain databases can be dominated by one major player (think a "New World Order World Government" here) with overwhelming compute power, and since distributed blockchain technology depends critically on some sophisticated, fairly young, software, which can be covertly backdoored by nation-states (or a world-state), this doesn't protect us from the Elite Bastards ... only from sundry little bastards.

[TargeT]

Posted by Paul (here)
Replacing our current centralized DNS servers with blockchain DNS servers sounds nice

well, the blockchain would be distributed on many computers not just servers. "users" host the blockchain, not anything centralized.

Posted by Paul (here)
Neither of these concerns focused on the DNS problems.

Yeah, I just think DNS is way more important.. haha I do agree, the certificate issue has been a concern ever since we found that STUXNET had "valid certificates"

Posted by Paul (here)
I will grant however that DNS problems, such as the ease with which nation-state actors can substantially limit access to "forbidden" websites by knocking them out of the DNS servers, which are also centrally administered, have actually been a more serious problem in recent years.

DNS is the bottleneck of control, we HAVE to shatter it.. certificates (so far) are a minor annoyance at worst (you still can go to "Bad cert" sites).

Posted by Paul (here)
However, use of blockchain technology, to replace centrally administered DNS servers with a distributed database, is not a fix, in my estimation. Blockchain technology could remove a current vulnerability of our DNS services, the few critical central services, from attack from those with limited means. However, since distributed blockchain databases can be dominated by one major player (think a "New World Order World Government" here) with overwhelming compute power, and since distributed blockchain technology depends critically on some sophisticated, fairly young, software, which can be covertly backdoored by nation-states (or a world-state), this doesn't protect us from the Elite Bastards ... only from sundry little bastards.

I don't agree with almost all of your assertions here

Firstly: DNS is super vulnerable to a ton of attacks in its current form; it's one of the biggest things we look for in my arena. It's commonly paired with other attacks also, it's a cornerstone of "hacking" at this point.

the distributed database would stop almost ALL attacks in their current forms and prevent governments from "shutting down" domains or sites based on their whim.


Bitcoin can't even be dominated by a single group with out notice, the community is very aware and wary of any dominant group controlling too much of the blockchain & appropriate changes are already being implemented.

This is a sqeeky new toy.. but once the minor bugs are worked out I think we have the solution to hierarchy control & it's based in voulentarism.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by TargeT (here)
well, the blockchain would be distributed on many computers not just servers. "users" host the blockchain, not anything centralized.

Yes, blockchain tech runs on PC and user hardware as well as on server hardware. I was using the word "server" to refer to the software ... a blockchain service software process (aka "server") runs on a variety of hardware, large and smallish.

Posted by TargeT (here)
Yeah, I just think DNS is way more important

Yes, so far the DNS issue has been way more important.

In this thread, I put forth the concern that, once most users are weaned from "insecure" HTTP, then the ability to control DNS certs will become more of an issue.

Posted by TargeT (here)
DNS is the bottleneck of control, we HAVE to shatter it.. certificates (so far) are a minor annoyance at worst (you still can go to "Bad cert" sites).

"so far" -- yes .

Posted by Paul (here)
However, use of blockchain technology, to replace centrally administered DNS servers with a distributed database, is not a fix, in my estimation. Blockchain technology could remove a current vulnerability of our DNS services, the few critical central services, from attack from those with limited means. However, since distributed blockchain databases can be dominated by one major player (think a "New World Order World Government" here) with overwhelming compute power, and since distributed blockchain technology depends critically on some sophisticated, fairly young, software, which can be covertly backdoored by nation-states (or a world-state), this doesn't protect us from the Elite Bastards ... only from sundry little bastards.

Posted by TargeT (here)
I don't agree with almost all of your assertions here

Yes - I didn't expect much agreement, with anyone, on my skeptical opinion of blockchain technology. I'm a blockchain heretic ... not many of us right now .

Posted by TargeT (here)
Firstly: DNS is super vulnerable to a ton of attacks in its current form

Agreed.

DNS vulnerabilities can be worked around -- I run my own DNS services, and cache and save all lookup results, going back years, so I could still get to any site that had the same IP as before, even if all the public DNS services I use (I have 9 of them listed in my /etc/resolv.conf at present, not counting my own DNS servers) became non-cooperative. However that's not for the faint of heart or less than ambitious geek.

Posted by TargeT (here)
the distributed database would stop almost ALL attacks in their current forms and prevent governments from "shutting down" domains or sites based on their whim.

The current attacks - yes - a blockchain DNS would thwart them big time.

But the current attacks are like terrorist events - more dangerous to humanity because of the tyranny they justify than because of the attacks themselves.

For example the worst "terrorist attack" on record so far, the infamous 9/11, killed some 3000, but has justified the killing of upwards of a million in the subsequent wars, justified the Fascist takeover of the US government, and justified the destruction of perhaps a half-dozen nation-state governments.

Similary, current DNS (and cert and "insecure" http) attacks and vulnerabilities are serving as the justification for more sophisticated solutions. The Elite Bastards won't quit until they have us using systems that only they can hack.

Posted by TargeT (here)
Bitcoin can't even be dominated by a single group with out notice, the community is very aware and wary of any dominant group controlling too much of the blockchain & appropriate changes are already being implemented.

This is a sqeeky new toy.. but once the minor bugs are worked out I think we have the solution to hierarchy control & it's based in voulentarism.

Like the Web itself, and like the Airwaves used by radio and TV before, the Elite Bastards will never stop, and continue to have some success in, trying to achieve control. Blockchains will be found to be, in my expectation, more "nuanced" in their strengths and weaknesses than is currently realized.