"Speaking to more than 100 security and privacy experts, President Clinton's top advisor on cybersecurity said a new, secure Internet is needed to insure that the country is not hurt by an attack from cyberspace.
"This idea may be ridiculed and is out there... but we need to bifurcate cyberspace: We need to have a secure zone in cyberspace and then we can leave the rest of it as it is today," said Richard Clarke, the National Security Council's national coordinator for security, counter-terrorism, and infrastructure protection....
Whattaya think?
edited: damn title got cut off. Should have read "new internet?"
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Dec 10, 2000 11:55 AM ]
posted on December 10, 2000 12:24:24 PM new
I think they need "bicarb" and a lie-down.
"In this zone, privacy and security could be achieved, as long as there is no anonymity."
- Richard Clarke, NSC
How does he square "privacy" with "no anonymity"? How does nonanonymity assure security? Last time I looked at the FBI's "Wanted" sheets at the post office, I saw names under all those faces. It's ridiculous--he's complaining about the commingling of secure and insecure networks. Solution: Clarke should improve the security on the existing secure networks, and quit channelling Ed Meese.
posted on December 10, 2000 04:12:53 PM new
Duh. He's talking about a zone with limited access where every user is known. It would prevent, or at least limit the ability to breach sensitive data by unknown and unauthorized others.
