For all anyone knows this might already be being done. If it's not it could save the government a lot of money when it comes time to build the next version of the web. The current system uses IP addresses formatted in such a way that the root servers can pretty much look through something akin to a phone book to determine the address the user is looking for. These addresses are based on a very specific format. Anything that's not in that format won't be recognized and the browser will display a message saying something like "page not found". There's no reason a second version of the root server phone books couldn't be created though. The format for addresses in this phone book would be entirely different (and each address would be encrypted to help prevent line snifferes from even coming close to guessing what it is). Once in place government agencies could send messages using the web in a layer that's outside the current system, opening whole new channels at a minimal cost.
Speaking of the web, it's far more vulnerable than most people, and most governments for that matter, think it is. And I'm not talking about hackers here. Nor am I going to say exactly how it could easily be compromised.
Comments (3)
Managing the web is not a role for US government!!
As an IT professional and someone who wishes there were both more opportunity for anonymity and more believable accountability on the Internet, I wish your proposal would work but in fact it can't for many reasons.
First, IPv6 sounds like the increased address space you're proposing, however the addresses aren't encrypted. The problem with encrypted addresses is that you'd effectively be turning the Internet from a roadmap into an underground railroad. Might sound attractive until you realize the huge amount of unnecessary work involved.
Second, despite its history in ARPAnet, the Internet shouldn't be managed by government. This last haven of pure democracy mustn't be co-opted by government any more than it has already been by corporations.
And finally, obscurity of IP addresses isn't nearly as important to security as increased ability to trust others on the internet, in combination with ability to truly protect your privacy on the internet.
I realize that responsibility for the web is maintained by ICANN, not the US government. That organization is heavily weighted in favor of the US though, regardless of whether or not it should be. So as to the first response, ICANN could let each country develop its own phonebook (laymen's language) and then just host it on the root servers.
As to the second comment, I'm not proposing the increased space afforded by IPv6 (at least I don't think I am). I'm proposing alternate address naming schemes. For example, alpha-alpha.numeric-alpha, would become a valid address in the alternate phonebook.