I love how the guys who come up with this magically assume that it'd be somehow enforceable and wouldn't leave the internet a barren wasteland.

And if some countries don’t agree with or don’t pay attention to the agreement, just cut them off.

He really has quite a naive understanding of foreign policy.

Wow that's an unexpected statement coming from the CEO of a major security firm. It's obviously extremely uninformed with respect to the nature of the internet, and more broadly, information dissemination. The gating issue isn't the expense or bureaucracy, but the fact that there's a market for information and if you make the web boring it will go elsewhere. We have the technology now -- or rather, the knowledge to build the technology -- and there's no other way it could go. Makes me nervous about Kaspersky's approach to security. In fairness, the view proposed in the OP is probably not exactly what he meant, and his view of IT is colored by spending his time immersed in the technological underworld and its machinations. It's probably understandable to wish for order when all you see are viruses and botnets emerging from third world countries daily, but it still doesn't nearly excuse promoting the concept of "internet police," even if they were at all plausible from an implementation point of view.

It's very good that Kaspersky is not responsible for rules of Internet.

Guys with similar mindset created rules for .ru domains and now it is simpler to sell own kidney then transfer .ru domain from one person to another (And this bureaucratic system less secure).

What, just a week after we hear of Craig Mundie wanting the same thing?

There's also that same underlying idea about the internet never being intended for the public, and anonymity being an unfortunate, undesirable side-effect of the way it grew out of control (whereas it's really a wonderful side-effect that both greatly expands what the internet can be used for and means that there's not all the stifling red tape briefly mentioned in this article).

It's very sad and scaring to continually see these people come out and tell that the internet needs much more control, without the smaller bit of understanding on why this would be very damaging to freedom and human rights.

It was not long ago that a Microsoft exec suggested an internet patent and now we are already talking about passports and internet police!

I hope that journalists will start to point out why this is terribly wrong and not only report what has been said. Too many times a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the accepted truth.

He is not alone. I was once at a conference workshop where Prof. David Cheriton (Stanford, Cisco, Arista) vehemently argued that anonymity on the Internet was detrimental as a whole and should be done away with.

Without real anonymity comment-threads everywhere on the net would suddenly become much more civil.

Of course we would also lose the tremendous benefit of the information people are willing to share without any fear of it coming back to them.

On balance, those benefits are probably much more valuable than "order".

Simple: just don't do business with them.

And I want users to use the latest versions of their browsers. And I don't get my hopes high!

It is very sad to hear that someone in his status says things like that.

I wonder how the employees at Kaspersky feel about his statement.