![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
photosinensis.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
techrecoveryAs we all know, there are a large number of people on the Internet that have no business being here. Sometimes, they’re doing idiotic things like setting up cron scripts to reboot their Linux-based webserver on a daily basis or changing the hostname on their server because it doesn’t match their primary domain. Other times, they’re putting underage gay wizard porn on your computer without your consent. Some are trolls looking to kick up shit and disrupt communications on the Internet. Spammers, too, are a major annoyance. You’ve got your pedophiles, cyberterrorists, script kiddies, Halo assholes, torrent poisoners, and n00bs. Other people are just old farts that think that you “send…an internet” over “a series of tubes” that have somehow gotten themselves elected to the United States Senate. And of course, you’ve got those clueless computer users with a Dell that have allowed their computer to be turned into a botnet zombie. No matter who they are, they are people that should not be connected to the Internet, nor even own a computer.
Something must be done about the menace.
While we cannot keep a fool and his money together (doing so might be a dangerously bad idea), we can ensure that the Internet is a safe haven for those that want to exchange ideas and do business without major interruption, much like in the real world. Therefore, I propose that there be a protocol to remotely disconnect a user from the Internet.
It’s relatively simple to get a Media Access Control address and an Internet Protocol address from a computer with which you are connected. What this protocol does is sets up a daemon on an IP-based network’s routers that monitors which MAC addresses are connected, as well as the IP addresses they have been assigned and when those addresses are matched. Furthermore, this daemon monitors the open network on an unused port to collect information about stupidity complaints from a certain IP address. Once a certain score is reached from an IP address, the router will refuse any connections sent from that IP address as long as the MAC address is the same. Exemptions will be made for cybercafes, data centers, schools, libraries,, and public computer labs, where other users may be needed–though these sites will be required to keep logs of users’ computer use for disconnection purposes.
After this time, the MAC address user will be contacted by his or her ISP and administered a test on basic computer skills. If this person and all others in his or her household pass the test, they will be allowed back on the Internet with a warning. If three such events occur, efforts will be taken to determine the troublesome user and shoot that person. If the person fails, their Internet service will be canceled, their computer confiscated, their credit cards flagged against the purchase of anything more technically advanced than a wheel or box of matches, and a tattoo will be placed upon their heads in the event they try to change their credit card numbers or pay in cash.
These efforts will at least reduce the Internet’s stupid population. We’re still working on a way to choke people over standard TCP/IP.
Something must be done about the menace.
While we cannot keep a fool and his money together (doing so might be a dangerously bad idea), we can ensure that the Internet is a safe haven for those that want to exchange ideas and do business without major interruption, much like in the real world. Therefore, I propose that there be a protocol to remotely disconnect a user from the Internet.
It’s relatively simple to get a Media Access Control address and an Internet Protocol address from a computer with which you are connected. What this protocol does is sets up a daemon on an IP-based network’s routers that monitors which MAC addresses are connected, as well as the IP addresses they have been assigned and when those addresses are matched. Furthermore, this daemon monitors the open network on an unused port to collect information about stupidity complaints from a certain IP address. Once a certain score is reached from an IP address, the router will refuse any connections sent from that IP address as long as the MAC address is the same. Exemptions will be made for cybercafes, data centers, schools, libraries,, and public computer labs, where other users may be needed–though these sites will be required to keep logs of users’ computer use for disconnection purposes.
After this time, the MAC address user will be contacted by his or her ISP and administered a test on basic computer skills. If this person and all others in his or her household pass the test, they will be allowed back on the Internet with a warning. If three such events occur, efforts will be taken to determine the troublesome user and shoot that person. If the person fails, their Internet service will be canceled, their computer confiscated, their credit cards flagged against the purchase of anything more technically advanced than a wheel or box of matches, and a tattoo will be placed upon their heads in the event they try to change their credit card numbers or pay in cash.
These efforts will at least reduce the Internet’s stupid population. We’re still working on a way to choke people over standard TCP/IP.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 01:08 am (UTC)much easier.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 01:24 am (UTC)While people can't be banned from the Internet, locations can be unless they go through considerable time, trouble, and expense. You might not be able to prevent a driver from driving unless you throw them in jail, but you can keep a car from being driven by booting or impounding it. You can also keep it from being driven above a certain speed by mechanical means.
Keep in mind one other thing - the stupid population of the Internet, much like the stupid population offline, is profitable to certain people. They are the ones that answer spam email, provide their computers and broadband for botnets, and do whatever their politicians tell them. The people that profit aren't going to wholesale reject an RFC like this (many ISP's already boot computers that are running rampant with virii, for instance), instead they would rather modify it into something that sounds good but is in reality useless.
But instead of shooting lusers, which lead to many of us having jobs, can we shoot the spammers and virus writers and such?
no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 01:40 am (UTC)You also make a point about spammers being able to comment. Therefore, we find the spammers and kill them all.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 04:45 pm (UTC)shouldn't be too hard then!
no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 02:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 02:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 05:27 am (UTC)I just want to see the RFC for punching people in the face over standard TCP/IP.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 10:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 11:31 am (UTC)One way to clear out at least some of the problem might be to rig up a family of exploit-abusing viruses, email trojans, all the usual stuff, which would simply infect every computer they could. They'd then exchange IP addresses/hostnames with each other. Every so often, they'd pop up a window saying (in the system language) "Warning: the following sources are trying to hack or damage your computer!" followed by five or so randomly picked IPs/names and the button choices of [Protect Me] [Blow Them Away!] [Do Nothing].
The first option would patch the local machine's exploit holes, including all the ones that the original exploit got in through, and then delete the virus, worm or trojan itself.
The second option would send a packet to the named infected machines, causing them to patch themselves and suicide in the same way.
When not popping up windows or patching local machines, the infection would act as normal self-replicating code, trying to infect any other machines it could reach.
Advantages:
* The only effect on white hats would be the occasional phone call about the popup - this could be rolled into the usual educational spiel about AV/spam, email practices etc.
* The effect on the internet community would be a slight spike in lag as millions of infected users forced each other to patch their systems, and then a huge dropoff in botnet/virus traffic.
* The effect on the black hats would be that all of a sudden, a huge chunk of their botnettable/vulnerable playspace would disappear.
It'd be even more fun if the infection stuck around after patching and acted as a giant distributed spamblocking/spamtracking service. All of a sudden, the kind of users who never patched their system and never ran protective software would stop receiving (and being able to respond to) 99% of spam. I wonder how that would affect profitability?
Of course, there would be a huge flamefest over the nature of the infective software family. Some would see it as a positive thing, others as just another example of internet pollution. I'd guarantee that plenty of people would get their knickers in a knot over it, either way. It'd probably get added to AV and malware lists, which would be fine as its primary targets would not be computers with up-to-date protection in place.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 11:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 04:53 pm (UTC)One could make target selection a matter of voting, i.e the more stupid the lusers are, the more votes for deletion with extreme prejudice.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 08:07 pm (UTC)Still...
no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 08:28 pm (UTC)which one could do by setting up a distributed computing network, like SETI@home and with a core of enthusiasts.
I mean think of it... it involves Orbital laser weapons nuking spammers and Lusers. How many geeks do you think could resist that?!
no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 05:43 pm (UTC)