The government sees fit to nanny us about health, safety,
the law and citizenship, yet appears surprisingly reluctant to
issue us guidelines on using broadband internet, says Simon
Moores.
Last week, e-envoy Andrew Pinder accused me of being an
alarmist at a time when he believes, entirely correctly, that the
information security debate would benefit from a rational
assessment of the problems.
It’s clear that Pinder and I hold opposing views of the problem,
but actions speak louder than words, and I’ve seen very little of
the former to believe that "Government knows best".
Broadband promotion, I am told, has nothing to do with
government, it’s an industry initiative and, as a consequence, it’s
up to the latter to tackle the security problems that arise from
its use.
And I'm not alone. Others agree that the government could do
more to promote internet security. Lots of money is spent on
brightly coloured UK Online taxis, but dealing with the nastier
consequences of the World Wide Web is mainly left to the likes of
BT.
“People have to realise that big [broadband] pipes work both
ways and there’s no one-way valve to keep the unwanted side of the
internet out," said one of my sources, who once held a senior role
in government. "If the broadband ISPs are doing very little in the
way of real customer education, then the Information Assurance
Co-ordinator should be reconsidering government’s role”.
Fair point. If the government is so keen to encourage us to ride
the information superhighway, shouldn’t it be doing more to
publicise the hazards of high-speed surfing?
We now run into the "casualties of war" argument and the one I
like least. If the government stresses the dangers of the internet
too vigorously, then it’s possible that broadband growth will slow
as people worry about the risks instead of accepting the greater
benefits of being a joined-up society.
The e-Envoy has his trains and motorways analogy, which reminds
us that we spend disproportionate millions on rail safety in
contrast with road safety and we should accept that the internet is
a safe environment for most of us, and that it’s not really up to
Government to spend taxpayers' money on promoting the online
equivalent of safe sex.
I don’t believe that this argument holds water. The internet is
exposing the most vulnerable members of our society to material,
which would be unacceptable in the physical world. Chat rooms,
spam, viruses, hacking, fraud - the list is almost endless.
Government wants everyone to have access to the internet by 2006
and yet to use the Railtrack argument as a response to Andrew
Pinder’s transport analogy, the issues surrounding surfing safety
are mostly the responsibility of private companies who wish to sell
connectivity and not confidence.
Should every broadband internet connection carry a health
warning, or are we happy to accept that a percentage of the
population, MPs included, will become victims of ignorance?
What do you think?
Should the government spend taxpayers' money on educating
society on the safe use of the internet?
Tell us in an e-mail
>> ComputerWeekly.com reserves the right to edit and publish
answers on the website. Please state if your answer is not for
publication.
Setting the world to rights with the collected thoughts and
opinions of leading industry analystDr Simon
Mooresof Zentelligence.
Acting globally, Zentelligence (Research) advises
governments, suppliers, business and the media on the evolution,
application and delivery of leading-edge technologies and
specialises in the areas of eGovernment and information
security.
For further information on Zentelligence and its research,
presentation and analyst services visitwww.zentelligence.com