With or without a 2nd Internet, crime will exist online as it does offline. Indeed, working with victims of any crime drives home just how damaging crime is to the individuals affected as well as to the community in general.

W3C is already working on re-architecture of Internet, and there already exists a "2nd internet" for academic institutions. In the end though, as others have pointed out, we could have 30 Internets and we'd still have crime problems.

International enforcement and codifying common definitions of cybercrime is critical, and it's in its infancy now. As the judge who attempted to shut down Wikileaks last week lamented, technology has already far outrun existing law.

It would, I think, be helpful if a consortium of law schools around the globe worked together to create model laws that could, and would, be enforced in their countries. Similarly, we need to develop common trial procedures and punishments. We need to clearly define whose reponsibility it is to investigate and prosecute cybercrime in all countries (including our own).

Influencing the next Administration will be critical if we are to make progress on these issues. It would be best if law enforcement and intelligence leaders (past and present) would start establishing those relationships with the advisors of all the candidates now so as to be prepared to start work in those first 100 days.  

I agree with Mr. Dempsey that the Internet is a new world but like everything else in our previous world it has two sides and may end up being used for good inspite of itself. I feel strongly about the improved communications that it has already made possible for everyone yet there remain many that it has not been able to reach, even indirectly. Those connections to everyone are fundamental to both the Internet’s overall success and our collective future as well. Unfortunately I do have some general concerns about the Internet’s evolution and the control-versus-openness issues, not to mention security and the differences between legal systems throughout the world. That’s like trying to define the fine line between love and hate and will undoubtedly take a very long time to resolve.

Since I consider myself to be a 'greater-than-average' user of its technology, I have published a fact-based novel about the Internet in an attempt to demystify it and connect with the non-technical people out there. By combining fact and fiction and positively showing how such technology might change the world, I am trying to stimulate thoughts within the minds of the public at large and with those in particular who have already chosen political or technical careers and are shepherding these technologies.

The Last Transition..., the ultimate Internet adventure, is a free web download that is also available in paperback for connecting with those that you want to include in your world. It might also provide you with some food for thought about the politics of technology, which is no small factor in today’s world. Bear that in mind the next time you hear terms like 'Internet regulation', 'electronic surveillance' and 'GWOT' being used in the same speech.  

I agree that a second web is not necessary. Especially when those who really want access for criminal means will find access.

I am also one who tracked a spammer right down to his address a few years back, but when I tried to turn it in, no one wanted it. The person hijacked my email address and used it as a return. I had over 2000 returned emails in my box at one point. And the email provider wasn't even interested, much less the FTC. Even the rather large, prominent mortgage company who's name they were using to promote their scam wasn't interested. (And it was a scam I believe as they were saying the was from this mortgage company. But when you went to the site, definitly looked wrong and the company name was no where there. The "mortgage company" listed tracked to the spammer. AND as stated, they used MY email address for all their returns.) Funny...they (mortgage company whose name spammer stole) are now in financial trouble.... And when I googled the spammers name at the time, I found he was quite well known and big trouble. But, as I said, no one bothered to do anything about him.

I do wholeheartedly believe that more could be done if only the various offices would actually pay attention when something is reported. With the African scams, those could be stopped or at least slowed. If a reporter can meet in person with the scammer and quite easily, with a hidden camera at that, so could law enforcement. If someone like myself could track a scammer in less than 2 days, with no background in doing this sort of work, then what could the experienced law enforcemen agent do? Much better than me, I would expect.

I've gotten to the point where I don't report anything any more. When things are handed over on a silver platter, and there is no interest, then why bother? 

It really makes me mad to read something like this from a former FBI man.  Again a government offical trying to come up with an idea to cover up their own short commings.  Building a second internet will solve nothing.  I suggest that the FBI get off their lazy a** and enforce the laws that are on the books.  The same goes with the FTC in regards to spam.

I have been a Systems and Network Engineer for over 30 years.  I have been involved with  several cases of network intrusions and called the FBI in on the case but to no avail.  The case was not their concern.  When talking with the agents you could tell they had no idea about the technology involved with the case.  In short. "Where were you when I needed you?"  Laws are meaningless without enforcement.

You talk about how your heart broke when a business owner lost his business in a breakin.  Well I have set in on one of those meetings and handed the agent proof of who did the breakin all the trace routes and logs to hang to guy but did the FBI arrest him?  No.

Send the FTC enough proof on a spammer to put him away for years and see what they do.  Nothing!  Since the CANSpam Act spam has risen 40% now 92% of all email traffic is spam.

A second Internet will solve nothing.  Any system can be hacked.  It is just a matter of time, effort and a little talent. So it would just be a mattter of time before that system was as screwed up as the one we have now.

If the government reall wants to fix things then why doesn't it pressure Microsoft into fixing their broken by design operating system?  This in itself would cure most of the ills we have on the network today.  Why?  Well Microsoft puts lots of money into the pockets of your friends in the "Public Sector"  Why doesn't MS fix the problem.  They are making too much money from it being broken and sellling you Band-Aids to fix it.  You know...  Greed!

I suggest that you talk with your former buddies in the "Public Sector" and tell them to do their jobs and yes part of the job is to learn the technology involved with the case.  When someone breaks in a network you need to have an idea what a netowrk is and what a server is before you can presue a case.  The laws are in place so....  Just fix it!

We don't need a second mess to keep up with.  Lets just fix what we got. 

Patrick,

It's an interesting idea.  The bad news is: It's been tried, in many forms.  But the core problem isn't technical; it's economic.  As long as fraud is cheaper than non-fraud, there will be fraud.

The good news is: There are people working on this.  I'm one of them.  The time is ripe, and we have answers.

I'd love to talk more; please e-mail me at jay@responsibilid.com.

Unfortunately, my reason for writing this article has been overshadowed by the focus people are putting on my suggestion of a second, more secure Internet.  The main catalyst for writing this article was to bring to everyone's attention the fact that the same positives that the Internet provides for information sharing, also create negatives in terms of "bringing to task" those that wish to use the Internet for illicit purposes.  I am certainly not talking about revamping the current Internet, nor do I think we should.  I am not talking about taking away a person's freedom of speech or their anonymity on the Internet, nor do I think we should.   I am also aware that the official "Internet 2" has been around for quite some time and I have had the privilege of being brought up to speed on exactly what the purpose of that "Internet 2" is.  I do realize what a daunting task something such as "Internet #2 (for public use)" would be and that is why it was only a very small part of my article. 

In my short time with the FBI, I sat across the table from countless victims of senseless crimes; for me it was cyber crimes. Unless you've had the unfortunate task of sitting there and explaining to a weeping, 65 year old business owner that the last 40 years of his work just went down the drain because some 17 year old from overseas thought it would be "fun" to destroy all the company records...or sit there with the single mother of three and explain that her credit is completely destroyed because a group of 19-20 year olds decided to open 15 credit cards using her identity...or talking with the son, father and grandfather that passed down the family business through three generations, until a denial of service all but bankrupted them...then you probably have no idea why I would suggest a more secure Internet.  But to be honest, conveying this idea was not my goal.  What I wanted to bring to everyone's attention is, regardless of the technology we have or will have, and no matter whether we can track individuals activity or not, we still run into the issue of legal process between countries.  If you take a minute to step away from the "freedom of speech" line of thinking and consider what your city, state, country would be like if the law enforcement organizations and legal bodies didn't have the ability to apprehend a thief, a murderer, etc simply because they stepped outside a certain jurisdiction, then you might understand where I am coming from with this article.

I'll allow you that we might not be able to write "perfect" code.  But we can write correct code where correct code is code that meets specification.

You have to test it one instruction at a time to do it but that is what is required by the "all branch tested" requirement in the original Notes on Structured Programming.

 I have played with the concept myself personally and by my own experience I will say that code which has been tested and verified 1 instruction at a time is different from code that has only been regression tested

 the difference is that where the code has been verified one instruction at a time the program will be correct whereas when regression testing is used the best we can say is that the program "seems to be OK, for the most part".

how many people are buying GM units with "On Star" included? 

 On Star even calls the cops and send yer location for ya if ya crash into something.  You can get a remote unlock if ya lock yer key in the car, and yes -- the car can be turned off by remote control