Day 4 Thoughts: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Sheel: The discussion on the BGP problem, although technical, was particularly interesting. Here's a question: if a full swap out of IP version 4 to 6 were to take place, could we then institute a full Secure BGP program at the same time? Perhaps I'm trying to combine two pieces of separate technical puzzles, but the point is this: perhaps we could focus on upgrading security at the same time as switching to IPv6. | Sheel: The discussion on the BGP problem, although technical, was particularly interesting. Here's a question: if a full swap out of IP version 4 to 6 were to take place, could we then institute a full Secure BGP program at the same time? Perhaps I'm trying to combine two pieces of separate technical puzzles, but the point is this: perhaps we could focus on upgrading security at the same time as switching to IPv6. | ||
Daniel: A key issue concerning cybersecurity seems to be the current lack of incentives for some actors to enhance security features of their products, services or practices on the internet. Do you envision a push for more control / oversight / monitoring to be exerted by platforms (Facebook, Amazon, eBay etc.) over developers that are constrained by their channels (developer kit, technical requirements for integration, framework for generating HITs and so on)? I can easily imagine users demanding such actions from aggregators of code or content, in progressive louder voices. In countries with a tradition of strong consumer protection, this is a step short of imposing liability over them. But would that move result in efficient solutions for internet "secure environments"? | |||
Revision as of 06:50, 8 January 2010
Sheel: The discussion on the BGP problem, although technical, was particularly interesting. Here's a question: if a full swap out of IP version 4 to 6 were to take place, could we then institute a full Secure BGP program at the same time? Perhaps I'm trying to combine two pieces of separate technical puzzles, but the point is this: perhaps we could focus on upgrading security at the same time as switching to IPv6.
Daniel: A key issue concerning cybersecurity seems to be the current lack of incentives for some actors to enhance security features of their products, services or practices on the internet. Do you envision a push for more control / oversight / monitoring to be exerted by platforms (Facebook, Amazon, eBay etc.) over developers that are constrained by their channels (developer kit, technical requirements for integration, framework for generating HITs and so on)? I can easily imagine users demanding such actions from aggregators of code or content, in progressive louder voices. In countries with a tradition of strong consumer protection, this is a step short of imposing liability over them. But would that move result in efficient solutions for internet "secure environments"?