A Separate Internet Could Curb Cyber Threats, Former CIA Chief Says

Stop us exposing their corruption they mean.

So, who is allowed to be on this separate internet? Anyone as long as they have positive I.D.?

Because if so, then I'm thinking that major businesses who want to provide the best security to their customers will want to hop on over to the secure internet A.S.A.P. Especially those with peoples' credit card info. Everyone from banks to Amazon to Bestbuy to Facebook. Pretty soon ANY business that collects personal info and wants to be taken seriously will HAVE to be over there, just for credibility's sake. Eventually the only things left on this old internet would be... sites and online shops that nobody trusted. Or sites that protest the Secure internet.

Huh... this must be how the radio star felt when video came along.

Originally posted by Violater1

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I must have misread because in the quote you supplied I thought it said 'voluntarily' and 'separate' and in the article it says:

The proposed solution: a dot-secure safe zone (basically, a separate Internet) where things like financial institutions, sensitive infrastructure, government contractors, and the government itself can hide behind heavier defenses.
Your fourth amendment privacy rights wouldn't apply here, as you would consent to give them up upon entry; as when walking onto a military base or into an airport, users would have to show detailed identification and credentials to get in. Those who want to remain anonymous on the Web can still frolic about in the world of dot-com, but in the dot-secure realm you would have to prove you are you.

Emphasis mine..

Still, if you want to start crying like they've said they're going to monitor EVERYTHING against people's will (which it clearly doesn't) carry on....

edit on 10-7-2011 by AgentSmith because: (no reason given)

What part of "Fourth Amendment rights to privacy are voluntarily foregone " do you not understand. It is Against The Law to remove any part of this. Ask some of the attorneys that respond to this OP. You can NOT voluntarily forgo Any of your rights. What the General has implied, goes against his oath, and IS treason!

What part of VOLUNTARILY don't you understand?

This whole .secure TLD is a VOLUNTARY deal... meaning YOU HAVE TO VOLUNTEER... if you want to give up your right to privacy then it's your choice.... I'm not going to use a .secure domain.. ever... but I could see why some big businesses would.

Ya... let's all make personal blogs with .secure... I don't see it being used for anything other than business' and paranoid people.. outside of the government sites. You guys are severely over-reacting to this....

Originally posted by CAELENIUM
Every computer that connects to the Internet has an "Internet Protocal" number abbreviated as IP. Mine is 86.144.164.42. Every computer therefore can be instantly traced by who ever might want to do a trace. So already there is no such thing as privacy on the Internet. Hackers are already traced in this way. Public terminals usually know the full identity, name and home address, of anyone using their computers. In fact the IP system is going to be upgraded soon to accomodate the vaste numbers of users expected now that computers are more mobile. Anyone using the FTP "file transfer protocol" understands the IP system. Politicians are idiotic. What do they ever understand about anything ?

AVE RAEGINA CAELINA LA DEUS NOSTRA CAELI LA VERA DEUS

edit on 10/7/2011 by CAELENIUM because: (no reason given)

It's very easy to avoid being caught. IP tracking is not effective.

double post

The CIA wants to make a separate, safe internet? No, the CIA only wants an internet where they are the monopoly of cyber security.

reply to post by AgentSmith


All free countries have pretty much the same stuff as the constitution, at common law anything lawful goes.

The right to live in the pursuit of happiness in any way, shape or form, so long as you do not cause harm or loss to your fellow man. However, you practically have no rights unless you claim them. Not saying no is a yes at law. An unrebutted statement stands as truth.

This is just a contracted 'please search the crap outta my data and I consent to it' internet service. It'll no doubt be a zillion times faster too, or else hardly any one would bother.
Echelon network filters a large amount of internet/comms data around the world and searches through it anyway. It's been going on for many years. They just don't have explicit consent until someone is using this new 'intarnet 2' or whatever they will call it.