1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

The inventor of the World Wide Web has unveiled a plan for a new secure internet

By mongeese ยท 34 replies
Sep 30, 2018
Post New Reply
  1. This whole thing hinges on what they call "Secure User Pod". IMHO there are a whole lot of assumptions right there. How will it be secure, if connected to the internet hackers will just switch to hacking Pod's. Plus the Pod is on Inrupt's servers, are they magically not hackable? As well I'd be concerned having everything about me (including as the article says "the name of your Labrador") in one place connected to the internet.
  2. gamerk2

    gamerk2 TS Maniac Posts: 253   +159

    You are omitting a very important part:

    The 4th Amendment protects against searches and seizures of personal effects by the Federal government. It does NOT protect you from voluntarily giving up access to your personal data to publicly trades companies as part of their Terms of Service.

    So yes, no such right exists.
  3. mbrowne5061

    mbrowne5061 TS Evangelist Posts: 1,202   +665

    Even then, there really is no reason for Vimeo to *have* to monetize differently. They're still selling targeted ads at the end of the day, the difference is that an individual user can revoke access to their data - entirely - at any point.

    Where the risk to the POD plan comes in is when companies just start copying data they receive, and keeping their own secret 'POD' files on their users. The user kills access to their approved POD, and the company feigns compliance, while keeping their own records on the user intact so they can continue to sell it - only now they have even greater confirmation when selling a profile that they are selling the data on a specific user a company is trying to target.
  4. Arionic

    Arionic TS Member Posts: 24   +15

    So the article says that you select what data to share with what sites, and afterward, you can change the selection OR remove it entirely, which would make your data disappear from that company, correct?

    Am I missing the part where websites and companies don't store or collect certain data on their own? This isn't going to halt anything, just make the data collection game have another obstacle.
  5. Nitrotoxin

    Nitrotoxin TS Addict Posts: 142   +96

    You are correct, I edited the post and reworded it to fit how I really feel.
  6. p51d007

    p51d007 TS Evangelist Posts: 1,959   +1,229

    Good luck, hope it is successful! But the likes of Google, Siri, Amazon, Bing, CIA, NSA, KGB etc...WON'T allow it if they can help it. ;)
  7. fktech

    fktech TS Maniac Posts: 526   +138

    Al Gore invented the internet, he said so...
  8. bobc4012

    bobc4012 TS Booster Posts: 99   +41

    He was just one of many participants. But Joe Biden actually takes credit for it (and I bet you would have voted for him). See: https://washingtonsblog.com/2011/12...in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html . President Clinton had also proposed a bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. See: https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal95-1100489 . The current Act was passed 98-1 by the Senate, therefore, using your logic, all those Senators should never have been re-elected. If you read the 4th Amendment:
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
    The keywords are "unreasonable searches" and "probable cause". It becomes like "what the definition of "is" is.
    I don't totally disagree with you regarding the 4th Amendment. It might work if all the people involved were being honorable and did the right thing, but as we have seen with this election and the FBI with their phony FISA application, there is too much dishonesty within the government - both with elected and non-elected.
    As for Kavanaugh, we don't know how he would actually vote if the case that the 4th Amendment was being violated came to the SC. All the members of the Senate had his cases that he dealt with as a judge and could have asked that question, If they didn't, then there might have been some reasonable explanation for any ruling he made.
    If you are saying we can't take the chance, then we can say that about every nominee to the SC (or any federally appointed judgeship). We already have too many un-elected judges who try to make law from the bench rather than follow the Constitution.
  9. mailpup

    mailpup TS Special Forces Posts: 7,397   +625

    Back on topic please. Thank you.
  10. Danny101

    Danny101 TS Guru Posts: 758   +287

    Just a concern of mine. May not be anything. I will be following this Web 2.0. closely With all the data breaches and mis-use, something has to change.

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...