RG> A Linux firewall is actually an integral part of the O/S
RG> itself. IE, the firewall code doesn't run "on top" of the
RG> operating system (like windoze based "solutions"), it is
RG> actually a PART of it.

> Oh durr... and that makes difference, does it?

 What makes the difference, is that Gates has built Internet Explorer
into the O/S. Only a fool would give a web browser prime control of
the O/S, even if you did it to kill Netscape and make a few hundred
billion. *That's* the main difference between Windows and Linux as
they are now; not the firewall.  

> What has made the internet grow, is not the net approach and its
> protocols, it is cheap satellite communication using downtime.
> What we now need, is a centralised system

RG> No, that is what we DON'T want. One of the main strenghs of the
RG> Internet is that it ISN'T a centralised system. It is/was
RG> designed specifically to avoid this. The idea being that if any
RG> one took out any part of the internet the rest of it would
RG> still remain functional.

 I *know* that, and back in Kennedy's time with a Red under the bed,
and Russians at the door that made a lot of sense... but where's the
sense in it now? We've moved on... 

RG> Having a centralised system means that a hacker would be able
RG> to target the central core and take out the entire network.

 You mean if he took out a satellite, now? Do you *actually* believe
that the NSA in America hasn't *already* centralised the Net? I'll lay
short odds that every message on the net passes through Fort Meade on
its way to wherever - ALREADY.

RG> One mans spam is another mans ham. I don't want ANYONE
RG> filtering my email for me. I prefer to do my own filtering
RG> thank you.

 We don't need to filter; we need a system that prevents spam... like
Fido did. We need a system where the user is able to *enable* ham if
he wants it, rather than filter spam it after it arrives and fight a
constant and continuing battle with programmers more clever and
persistent than you are.

 I don't know how many times a day you answer the phone to find a
beggar on the other end, with clicks and a delay, and an Indian accent
as often as not, indicating that the call is coming rom a call centre
on the other side of the world, but I average one-a-day. It's got to
the stage when I lift the phone, hear the clicks and delay, and just
leave it off the hook. I run the FAX between 5:30 and 6:30 so I can
cook and eat my evening meal in peace... and the bastards adapted! Now
I don't get any calls between 5:30 - 6:30, they are always before or
after. What am I supposed to do: pay $120 for an answering machine, or
use 101 and disconnect the bell? I am sick to death of paying a phone
bill for the conveninece of fucking beggars and purveyors of spam!

> Aside from the pathetics downloading porn, the major legal use
> for the net is email and information exchange, but we have a
> monster where every email may contain a virus,

RG> Emails don't contain viruses, the attachments they contain may
RG> do though.

 For Christ's sake stop stating the obvious, as if you have
dicscovered something new and important. And you're wrong, besides! IE
gives direct access to the Windows O/S. All you have to do is come in
through the modem with a clever trick and it's yours for the taking.

 And please, don't ask me what trick. You're on the net, look it up
for yourself.

RG> The difference is subtle, but also important. It makes the
RG> difference as to whether you can get an infection just by
RG> READING the email or whether you have to ACTIVELY OPEN the
RG> attachment to become infected. 

 Durr...

> the informastion is suss,

RG> No more suss than information obtained from any other source
RG> (newspapers, etc).

 The difference is that you know the publisher. On the net, who the
fuck knows *where* it comes from?

> and money exchange is attracting criminals.

RG> And what is your solution to this? Ban internet banking? close
RG> down all online stores?

 My solution is a different system; one where every user is logged,
well-known, and easily traced back to his front door... just as the
FBI and NSA has operating at present for the sole benefit of the USA. 
It would need a central hub, or perhaps a few hundred hubs around the
world, and just as access is impossible at present without a fully
qualified address, then we need a fully qualified sender, complete
with telephone and an actual address.

 Fido ran like that for years, and the few times a node crashed, it
was a simple matter ot reroute without losing mail. It would be even
*easier* nowadays. The satellites themselves could be the hubs (or
the cable terminals, or Telstra, locally).

RG> Why limit this to just the internet? Banks and shops have been
RG> good targets for criminals for as long as they've existed.

 The *reason* to make the Net more secure, is so that people will use
it, securely. It's a broken system... so fix it. What else can you
expect of a system set up by uniwankers?

RG> you can't protect you money by putting it in a safe - people
RG> break into safes too.

 That is no reason to leave it in a box outside with a sign that
says: PLEASE TAKE ONE.

Regards,
Bob



--- BQWK Alpha 0.5