[Infowarrior] - Microsoft's Police State Vision? Exec Calls for Internet "Driver's Licenses"

[Richard Forno]

February 01, 2010
Microsoft's Police State Vision? Exec Calls for Internet "Driver's  
Licenses"
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000676.html
Greetings. About a week ago, in Google and the Battle for the Soul of  
the Internet, I noted that:

Even here in the U.S., one of the most common Internet-related  
questions that I receive is also one of the most deeply disturbing:  
Why can't the U.S. require an Internet "driver's license" so that  
there would be no way (ostensibly) to do anything anonymously on the  
Net?

After I patiently explain why that would be a horrendous idea, based  
on basic principles of free speech as applied to the reality of the  
Internet -- most people who approached me with the "driver's license"  
concept seem satisfied with my take on the topic, but the fact that  
the question keeps coming up so frequently shows the depth of  
misplaced fears driven, ironically, by disinformation and the lack of  
accurate information.

So when someone who really should know better starts to push this sort  
of incredibly dangerous concept, it's time to bump up to orange alert  
at a minimum, and the trigger is no less than Craig Mundie, chief  
research and strategy officer for Microsoft.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos two days ago, Mundie explicitly  
called for an "Internet Driver's License": "If you want to drive a car  
you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a  
car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have  
to have insurance."

When applied to the Internet, this is the kind of logic that must  
gladden the heart of China's rulers, where Microsoft has already  
announced their continuing, happy compliance with the country's human- 
rights-abusive censorship regime.

Dictators present and past would all appreciate the value of such a  
license -- let's call it an "IDL" -- by its ability to potentially  
provide all manner of benefits to current or would-be police states.

After all, a license implies a goal of absolute identification and  
zero anonymity -- extremely valuable when trying to track down  
undesirable political and other free speech uttering undesirables. And  
while the reality of Internet technology suggests that such identity  
regimes would be vulnerable to technological bypass and fascinating  
"joe job" identity-diversion schemes, criminal penalties for their use  
could be kept sufficiently draconian to assure that most of the  
population will be kowtowing compliantly.

I used the term "police state" in the text and title above, and I  
don't throw this concept around loosely.

The Internet has become integral to the most private and personal  
aspects of our lives -- health, commerce, and entertainment to name  
just a few on an ever expanding list. While there are clearly  
situations on the Internet where we want and/or need to be  
appropriately identified, there are many more where identification is  
not only unnecessary but could be incredibly intrusive and subject to  
enormous abuse.

And I might add, it is also inevitable that serious crooks would find  
ways around any Internet identification systems -- one obvious  
technique would be to divert blame to innocent parties through  
manipulation and theft of associated IDL identification credentials.

It was perhaps inevitable that the same "Hide! Here come the  
terrorists!" scare tactics used to promote easily thwarted naked  
airport scanners and domestic wiretapping operations, not to mention  
other PATRIOT and Homeland Security abuses, are now being repurposed  
in furtherance of gaining an iron grip on the communications  
technology -- the Internet -- that enables the truly free speech so  
terrifying to various governments around the world.

It's true that some persons advocating police state IDL concepts are  
not themselves in any way inherently evil -- they can for example be  
well-meaning but incredibly short-sighted.

However, I would be less than candid if I didn't admit that I'm  
disappointed, though not terribly surprised -- especially in light of  
Microsoft's explicit continuing support of Chinese censorship against  
human rights -- to hear a top Microsoft executive pushing a concept  
that is basic to making the Internet Police State a reality.

In the final analysis, evil is as evil does.