Skynet

[Eiji Takanaka]

What do you fine folk make of the "full-scale" internet model that the cia are going to apparently start building? Is it possible?, is it a good idea?

[Dry Lips]

What do you fine folk make of the "full-scale" internet model that the cia are going to apparently start building? Is it possible?, is it a good idea?

Wot? Where did you hear about this? Do you have any references to share with us?

[3Miro]

What?

[SoFl W]

I read something about someone saying if you want better Internet security you would have to build a separate Internet, but I didn't read about it being planned or being built. I wouldn't be surprised if the government already had their own private cables/fiber already in use. (You know... for our safety and security) ;)

[Famicube64]

I'll sell you a tinfoil hat for $20. If you're interested, that is. :P

[wojox]

It's so Top Secret even the CIA doesn't possess a Need to Know. :P

[3Miro]

I read something about someone saying if you want better Internet security you would have to build a separate Internet, but I didn't read about it being planned or being built. I wouldn't be surprised if the government already had their own private cables/fiber already in use. (You know... for our safety and security) ;)

I am sure many organizations have isolated networks that are not connected to the Internet. The government may have something like that on a larger scale, but what does any of that have to do with Skynet.

[1clue]

I think you watch too many science fiction movies with stars who later came to be Governors in California.

There can be no separate "Internet" with a capital I. If it hooks to the first one it is by definition part of the first one. There can be and are private "internets" by any organization which wants to build one, but it's not cheap and the idea that the CIA would be building one that has large scope is ludicrous.

That said, the part about better security and such that SoFI W is talking about sounds a lot like IPV6. The thing is though, that's already out there and is the main protocol in Asia, and pretty much anywhere else that somebody wants to do it.

IPV6 allows encryption at a much lower level, and can refuse connection with any host which does not match that key. Maybe that's what you're thinking about?

[MasterNetra]

What do you fine folk make of the "full-scale" internet model that the cia are going to apparently start building? Is it possible?, is it a good idea?

Is it possible certainly. but if you worried about a "Terminator" Scenerio, don't be. Its hollywood. And remember kids Hollywood != Real Life.

[Bart_D]

What do you fine folk make of the "full-scale" internet model that the cia are going to apparently start building? Is it possible?, is it a good idea?


It's so Top Secret even the CIA doesn't possess a Need to Know. :P

They should not be concerned about our opinion of it. Whether we think it is a good idea or not should not be of concern to them. And it should not affect them. As I'm sure they already do.

[Bandit]

There can be no separate "Internet" with a capital I.
A lot of high end telecommunication companies like ATT, Comcast and few others actually DO want to create a 2nd internet and charge a premium for using it. Which would lead to less funding for the current network we have in place now. See Net Neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality)


But its no skynet.. These folks dont want to kill us, they just want to bleed you dry instead.. :(

[3Miro]

The OP has apparently left the thread. My guess is that he post a meaningless comment and then watches to see what kind of discussion will come from that. This may be a part of a social experiment, but if not, it is pretty lame.

[1clue]

A lot of high end telecommunication companies like ATT, Comcast and few others actually DO want to create a 2nd internet and charge a premium for using it. Which would lead to less funding for the current network we have in place now. See Net Neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality)


But its no skynet.. These folks dont want to kill us, they just want to bleed you dry instead.. :(

You don't get it.

Lots of private concerns DO have a separate network. However while they may be more secure in some fashion within that network, they still connect to the Internet so they are by definition part of the Internet.

IBM had what was called I2 more than 10 years ago. It was real, it connected all of IBM's internal sites and possibly also was available to some of their customers. It was supposed to be more secure because they required better authentication of each user. Don't know how that all turned out.

As for Net Neutrality, I don't think it's even theoretically possible to implement that. We could have laws that say it's so, and they may help prosecute some of the worst offenders, but there's no way to guarantee it.

The Internet is constantly changing, and to some degree that new Internet has happened again and again already. The first big jump I remember is when it was first approved for use by commercial interests. There was a lot of paranoia then, the people who didn't want that change thought the world would end.

Temper what people say with what is reasonable to expect.

That there are new tools to track users and to extensively validate who you're connected to, that's not even remotely secret. Everybody wants that except the people who are doing something nefarious. That it would be initiated by the CIA, that's pure cold-war propaganda. It's initiated by economic forces in the commercial sector, it's funded by those forces and the rest of us will be dragged along whether we want to be or not.

It is already here, it's operating on the REGULAR Internet, and the CIA probably thinks it's more of a hindrance than a help.

[Dry Lips]

Is this perhaps what the OP referred to?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Skynet_%28Terminator%29

[sffvba[e0rt]

Skynet is a backup plan if the Mayans aren't able to sabotage CERN in creating a black whole to eat up the universe...


404

[Bandit]

You don't get it.

...........
No my response was to:

There can be no separate "Internet" with a capital I.

And the fact is yes they can. Not the other jibber jabber you had posted..

Many other corporations and the military DO have private networks mostly ran by satellite.. This is not new news..

[1clue]

No my response was to:


And the fact is yes they can. Not the other jibber jabber you had posted..

Many other corporations and the military DO have private networks mostly ran by satellite.. This is not new news..

I already said that in my first post.

My point is that none of them are The Internet, with a capital I. They will not replace the Internet, they can only become part of the Internet or remain separate. Eventually the least-funded networks will vanish or become so obsolete they can't talk to anything else, and fall off the network.

Shoot. I've set up my own "internet" before. Have two hubs/switches in your home with a Linux box router between them, not hooked up to the outside world, and you got an internet.

Most corporate internets are encrypted/tunneled over the Internet. Some pay for point-to-point "PVC" (permanent virtual circuit) dedicated connections, but not very many, and since they charge per mile of circuit they get incredibly expensive to have global, national or even state-wide scope. If a corporation buys a PVC they usually just connect their satellite office to the main office.

[Bandit]

I already said that in my first post.

My point is that none of them are The Internet, with a capital I. They will not replace the Internet, they can only become part of the Internet or remain separate. Eventually the least-funded networks will vanish or become so obsolete they can't talk to anything else, and fall off the network.

Shoot. I've set up my own "internet" before. Have two hubs/switches in your home with a Linux box router between them, not hooked up to the outside world, and you got an internet.

Most corporate internets are encrypted/tunneled over the Internet. Some pay for point-to-point "PVC" (permanent virtual circuit) dedicated connections, but not very many, and since they charge per mile of circuit they get incredibly expensive to have global, national or even state-wide scope. If a corporation buys a PVC they usually just connect their satellite office to the main office.

Now your making sense and I agree with you. But the hardware companies I mentioned like Comcast, ATT and about 5 others I cant remember do want to build a "high speed" network that they can jointly own and charge a premium to business hosting over it and a premium to users using it. For example if Comcast in my area was to get their super net, then they would charge me extra to use netflix. But yea thats in that link I posted.

[1clue]

Now your making sense and I agree with you. But the hardware companies I mentioned like Comcast, ATT and about 5 others I cant remember do want to build a "high speed" network that they can jointly own and charge a premium to business hosting over it and a premium to users using it. For example if Comcast in my area was to get their super net, then they would charge me extra to use netflix. But yea thats in that link I posted.

I'm a Comcast customer. I know what you're talking about, but that's not a special network at all, only a newer one with higher bandwidth.

I was in college when the Internet was made available to the public. I've seen endless changes in speed and features over the years. I remember working for a company who paid about $6000 a month to get a 2400 baud leased line, and thought it was a great deal.

There exists no "free" internet. All you get is a bunch of networks, each with an owner, and some of which allow traffic to cross it to go from one point to another for a fee.

There is no "cloud" that matches what you see in network diagrams. That cloud was shorthand for some network that you either didn't know the details of, or that you didn't want to write down the details of.

As for charging a higher fee, they can't charge too much or nobody will buy into it. With an ISP like Comcast it's really simple to understand. If you can't convince consumers that your network is better than some other network, then you don't get customers. Out of business. The end. As newer equipment comes online, the older "slow" networks will vanish, just because the ISP chooses not to sell access to them anymore. Eventually they will force the existing users who remain to change or they will cripple their bandwidth until they have no choice but to change or cancel service.

With a private company, which creates an internet of their own for internal use, it becomes a bit more complicated.

[KiwiNZ]

2011 the year of the conspiracy theory.

[1clue]

You made me laugh out loud.


2011 the year of the conspiracy theory.

Right behind 2010, 2009, 2008...

[3Miro]

Skynet is a backup plan if the Mayans aren't able to sabotage CERN in creating a black whole to eat up the universe...


Yea, it is all on the murals of Denver airport. Glad to see someone else being able to see the truth out there ...

[Shpongle]

I think op may be referring to this http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/061711-national-cyber-range.html

[Bandit]

I'm a Comcast customer. I know what you're talking about, but that's not a special network at all, only a newer one with higher bandwidth.

I was in college when the Internet was made available to the public. I've seen endless changes in speed and features over the years. I remember working for a company who paid about $6000 a month to get a 2400 baud leased line, and thought it was a great deal.

There exists no "free" internet. All you get is a bunch of networks, each with an owner, and some of which allow traffic to cross it to go from one point to another for a fee.

There is no "cloud" that matches what you see in network diagrams. That cloud was shorthand for some network that you either didn't know the details of, or that you didn't want to write down the details of.

As for charging a higher fee, they can't charge too much or nobody will buy into it. With an ISP like Comcast it's really simple to understand. If you can't convince consumers that your network is better than some other network, then you don't get customers. Out of business. The end. As newer equipment comes online, the older "slow" networks will vanish, just because the ISP chooses not to sell access to them anymore. Eventually they will force the existing users who remain to change or they will cripple their bandwidth until they have no choice but to change or cancel service.

With a private company, which creates an internet of their own for internal use, it becomes a bit more complicated.

Trust me I know what your talking about :) I used to work for one of the first ISPs in the state here back when you was in college. ;-)

But back on to what we was talking about, many larger companies such as Microsoft and many many more plus a large amount of congress here in the US are fighting against it making it illegal to charge anything extra other then a standard network usage/maintenance fee that they charge local ISPs. See many folks dont understand how the system works. For example here is Mississippi phone companies such a ATT charge extra for long distance service. Which would be acceptable if you make a call that goes onto another companies network. But if ATT owns the networks between here and say Alabama, why do they charge long distance charges for us to make calls to the next county over or state. Simple.. GREED.. It doesnt cost them a red penny more to make any call, anywhere as long as it stays on ATTs network. But its that GREED that they have that makes them think they are entitled to more money, they think they can essentially tax us more. But federal law prohibits this and this is why they wanted to build a separate world wide web.

[Docaltmed]

All I can say is that if the Doctor has to reboot the universe again, I get Amy Pond this time.

[1clue]

...
See many folks dont understand how the system works. For example here is Mississippi phone companies such a ATT charge extra for long distance service. Which would be acceptable if you make a call that goes onto another companies network. But if ATT owns the networks between here and say Alabama, why do they charge long distance charges for us to make calls to the next county over or state. Simple.. GREED..

Not nearly so simple as that.

They don't just set up the network and leave it there. Equipment breaks down, somebody digs a hole right where the cable went, protocols change in ways that the hardware doesn't support, normal corrosion of lines happens, and all of that has a cost.

If ATT owns the network then they have people in trucks go out and repair or replace old equipment. If they don't own the network then they pay a fee to somebody who owns the equipment.

Even if you are IBM and you have a line from Rochester MN to Poughkeepsie NY, and absolutely nobody except IBM uses that line, then that line costs you a lot of money to build, and then costs a lot more to maintain. Even if IBM dug the trench and strung the cables themselves. Or bought the satellite, or whatever mechanism it is that transfers the data.

[vehemoth]

2011 the year of the conspiracy theory.

I thought that was 2012 :)

[Eiji Takanaka]

Sorry yes of course....link... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14157975

[Eiji Takanaka]

haha perhaps it was my error, i saw scale model in skim-reading and assumed a full-scale model. My bad. ;)

[Eiji Takanaka]

Apologies for an uncharacteristic error on my behalf ;), it was not my intention to overhype. None the less i think it has encouraged some interesting discussion, about the internet, in general. =) There is a seperate network i can think of, that connects science experiment 'based' computers together, i cannot remember the exact terminology of it, but its basically a super fast backbone, between various academic societal buildings. That is independent of the 'internet'. For example piping the massive amount of information resulting from the experiments at the LHC in geneve, switzerland, to various other countries and universities around the world. It is perfectly feasible then is it not, that there could be more than one other completely isolated 'internet'. But then i suppose we can easily come back to arguing semantics, define an internet. "internet", "inter-network". More than one interconnecting network. Computer networking in this world is far more complex i think than being able to sum up with 'internet'. If we go back to the osi 7 layer model, then the 'internet' is about layer 4 is it not? (correct me if i'm wrong). Therefore what about the layers and network protocols beneath that? Transport layer/link layer/Hardware e.t.c? I think the 'internet' is a very fickle, ambiguous tag for what we call the world wide web. Interesting discussion anyways, thanks for participating guys and gals....=)