In order to access it, you would need to identify with a digital "fingerprint" which would sing all your traffic, meaning nothing would be anonymous. No one could DDoS a site, because they would have to publish who they were.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^][v]#161,803
Old internet: http
New internet: https
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,805
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
No. Try reading the article, you are way off. They want personal digital signatures on all traffic, and compartmentalizing all sites in the "new internet".
When you use SSL/TLS a key is generated on the fly for encryption/signatures. This would require all traffic to be signed.
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,807
Interesting though, this could also mean a universal login. If everything is signed automatically, there is no reason to request a password or username.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,808
> No one could DDoS a site, because they would have to publish who they were.
DDoSing is done by putting worms into lots of people's computers turning them into zombies. So hackers will stay anonymous.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,811
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,821
@161,808 (C) > DDoSing is done by putting worms into lots of people's computers turning them into zombies. So hackers will stay anonymous.
Please stop with the sentence fragments.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,824
Even just: Hackers stay.
That is a complete sentence.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,837
@161,831 (ltamake !!onnLC5KY8)
".secure" sites require everything to be signed. If you proxy it will still have your signature attached.
Proxies protect your IP, and .secure doesn't rely on your IP to verify you.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,838
@161,830 (E)
It's a dependent clause without a connecting independent clause.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,841
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
"Hackers will stay anonymous" is a complete sentence, you retarded, fat, basement-dwelling, racist piece of 15-year-old shit. Stay in high school.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,844
@previous (E)
It was made a dependent clause with the unnecessary addition of a coordinating conjunction (the word "so"), so of course it's incomplete.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,847
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Adding "So," doesn't make it any less complete. That's why I pointed out that it just needed a comma.
ltamake !!onnLC5KY8 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,851
@161,844 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU) > So hackers will stay anonymous
"Hackers" is the subject, "will stay" is the verb clause, and "anonymous" is a direct (?) object. The word "so" doesn't matter.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,855
> The seven coordinating conjunctions used as connecting words at the beginning of an independent clause are and, but, for, or, nor, so, and yet. When the second independent clause in a sentence begins with a coordinating conjunction, a comma is needed before the coordinating conjunction: > Jim studied in the Sweet Shop for his chemistry quiz, but it was hard to concentrate because of the noise.
> Sentence fragments happen by treating a dependent clause or other incomplete thought as a complete sentence. You can usually fix this error by combining it with another sentence to make a complete thought or by removing the dependent marker. > Incorrect: Because I forgot the exam was today. > Correct: Because I forgot the exam was today, I didn't study. > (or) I forgot the exam was today.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^][v]#161,901
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
You can still start a sentence with words like "so" and "therefore" and not use them as coordinating conjunctions just like you can start a sentence with "what" and have that sentence not be a question.
"Therefore, hackers will stay anonymous."
"What Walter doesn't realize is that he is retarded."
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#161,911
@previous (E)
You know what? I'm done trying to educate you. You have shown nothing but complete resistance to learning advanced grammar, so I've given up on you, you miserable piece of shit.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#161,916
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
This sounds so… familiar…
dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#161,918
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#161,948
@161,911 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
So says the stubborn 15-year-old shithead.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#161,959
This thread would make Kimmo cum.
r04r joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#161,965
@161,837 (A)
If it's only signed (not also encrypted) the proxies could just take the plain bit, sign it with their own key, make the request and respond with their own key.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#162,108
So, what's the grand scheme to ensure that everyone keeps their digital fingerprint/private key/whatever information secure?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#162,123
@161,965 (r04r)
It looks like it will be targeted for use with banks, and other institutions that need security. It will probably be encrypted for that very reason. Even the "current/common internet" is switching over to SSL/TLS, I'm sure the sites on the new domain will include default encryption.
As for the proxy rewriting traffic, and signing it with it's own key, that would mean anyone using the proxy would be sharing the same account, because it looks like it will be used as an authentication system (it is an authentication system that is, but it looks like it will be utilized by websites).
Also, there may be a law saying anything you sign is your responsibility. A DoS through a proxy would be the responsibility of the proxy for signing the malicious packets.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#162,143
Minichan is full of grammar-crazed pedophiles who miss anontalk.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#162,169
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#162,405
@161,807 (A)
and no more aspies making sockpuppets to defend their stupid opinions. :)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#162,414
@previous (J)
What does that have to do with a universal login?
you must go derper replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#162,610
@previous (A)
everyone can only make one account. duh.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#162,613
Completely retarded idea that will never happen. > The proposal also contains some controversial provisions, however. For one, it would allow the government to monitor traffic for potential cyber-attacks. And it would require users to prove their identity, perhaps by fingerprint, before gaining access, eliminating a fundamental concept of the modern Internet -- anonymity.
Allow the government to monitor every single thing we do? Oh, okay.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#162,614
@previous (K)
It wouldn't replace the internet we have now. It would be like a second internet, with different rules for security reasons. If you want anonymity, you come here, but you could, if you wished, do things like online banking on this super-secure, monitored internet. Sounds like a good idea to me.
jump joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#162,619
@161,911 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Just because you are right, doesn't mean you are wrong for bitching about grammar.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#162,824
@162,613 (K)
Most people wouldn't care. It would only be for certain sites, like their bank, and would be convenient.
"What do you have to hide?" Would be brought up a lot. When people start inconveniencing themselves to avoid detection it will look suspicious.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#162,825
@162,614 (E)
The initial idea, for an opt-in area is appealing to me as well. But again, it's naive to think that it will stay opt-in forever. Eventually the whole net will involve these signatures.