Skip to main content
Casualties of War

In future, everything I write should carry a Government health warning.

Last week, the 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. There is a difference, of course, between being apocalyptic and alarmist and if one is simply drawing attention to a problem, for example, the correlation visible in data from Symantec and the NCC Group, between Broadband penetration and Internet-based attacks, then asking awkward questions should be in the public interest.

It’s clear that we hold opposing views of the problem but I would argue that actions speak louder than words and I’ve seen very little of the former to encourage greater confidence in ‘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. I have the figures from BT for the number of open relays and open proxies on the network but as these are ‘Off the record’, I can’t reveal them but I can tell you that these are not insignificant.

Several quick phone calls and I find people agreeing that Government is not doing enough to educate the public and promote a culture of awareness where Internet security is involved. Lot’s 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 companies like BT. One of my sources who once held a senior InfoSec role in Government, comments, “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. If the Broadband ISPs are doing very little in the way of real customer education, then The Information Assurance Coordinator should be reconsidering Government’s role”. After all, if 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 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 taxpayer’s money on promoting the on-line equivalent of ‘Safe Sex’.

I don’t believe that this argument holds water. The Internet is, on a regular basis, exposing the most vulnerable members of our society to material, which would be unacceptable in the physical world. Chat rooms, Spam, viruses, hacking, fraud, and the list is almost endless. Government wants everyone to have access to the Internet by 2006 and yet to use the Rail Track 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? Is it Government’s role to spend taxpayer’s money on better educating society on the safe use of this new medium of communication or is Government simply acting as regulator and facilitator? Is how we deal with the challenges of Pandora ’s Box, once it’s been opened in the home, really a matter for the service providers and not one for Government?


Popular posts from this blog

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.

In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…