46 
The internet is pretty integral to our everyday lives; without it I wouldn’t even have a job right now. But there are quite a few downers to the interconnected world we live in, and according to cybersecurity expert Professor Alan Woodward from Surrey University, it’s broken beyond repair and we should start over.
Woodward doesn’t blame the internet as such; “the internet was never intended to be a secure network,” he says. But he reckons that our attempts to make it secure, to protect our purchases, our privacy and our online lives, are just plain ineffective.
“[E]vidence suggests that our efforts to secure the internet are becoming less and less effective, and so the idea of a radical alternative suddenly starts to look less laughable.”
The solution, it seems, is to adopt a more secure, more solid base for our interconnections. IPv6 could provide that, but it’s going to take quite a lot of effort to get the whole internet to switch over, even if we are running out of IPv4 addresses.
“I think that the current internet can only survive if adequate global governance is applied and that single, secure technology is mandated.”
Of course Woodward admits that’s a herculean task at best, and could call in violations of free speech and the very freedom of the internet as it stands now. We’ve all been worried by the recent SOPA and ACTA moves by governments, and they were only to do with intellectual property, not the internet protocol itself.
Still, I see his point. I don’t agree with it, but what the Professor is saying is that he feels that we need some sort of institution to steer the internet over technology, to make sure the best technology is adopted not the easiest. Right now the internet is almost going through its own type of evolution. It’s not always the best thing that develops, it’s the one that’s easiest, the one that propagates and survives.
I hope the internet as a whole jumps on the IPv6 bandwagon and switches us all over, and that it really does enable a more secure pathway for our private information. There’s not a hell of a lot us consumers can do about it though, other than lobby our ISPs and institutions. Time to get writing that email, letter or picket sign then. [BBC]
Image credit: Internet from Shutterstock
There is is certain logic in going for a “year zero” policy, but only if we can get the last few wrinkles ironed out of the system. I see these as mostly pertaining to paid content, copyright and fair access. Only once you have agreement on these will you be able to make a new net that won’t end up like the current net.
I can’t imagine anything worse than an “agreed” internet. Agreed would mean whatever big business could buy, and that’s not an internet that would be half as interesting as the current one. The internet is the free source of information and communication it is due to the fact that nobody controlled its building. A reboot would be disastrous for the consumer.
but an “agreed” internet would, by definition have to be agreed by both content providers and content users along the lines of “we agree to provide you with content for a reasonable price, in return you may use it on any device and in perpetuity (unless otherwise agreed by a rental contract), you also agree not to pirate or otherwise share this content”.
Obviously boundaries for reasonable use of content (ie fan sites featuring screen captures) would need to be agreed too.
I accept that an internet of “you will have what we give you and do what we say” would be a bad thing, but that isn’t what I was talking about.
No, because I think it’s actually impossible to have agreement. No matter how much you say consumers can decide not to go along with it, how much power do you think they actually have? To draw a painful political example, how many lib dem voters do you think wanted the conservatives to have power? I would imagine not many, yet there Cameron is, ruling the country. Those at the top more or less do what they want.
So what you are saying is that if something is hard or is likely to not go as planned it shouldn’t be attempted? I’m fully aware that getting all “sides” of the internet to agree to behave themselves seems like a fools dream, but I would be worthwhile to attempt.
What I’m saying is that the situation now is at least livable with. I can envisage it getting a lot worse. I don’t think it’s worth the risk. But risk assessment is a tricky prospect, so I’m going to bow out here, as we’re obviously in unmovable positions. (Like most arguments on the net.)
Well I don’t think we are disagreeing really. Maybe I just have a more optimistic (or naive or stupid if you prefer) view of the human race and what it can do if it tries
I tend to agree with Alan Woodward. I believe we are only a matter of time away from major attacks on the 13 main root name servers. 10 out of the 13 are highly vulnerable as they are using BIND the other 3 have adopted NSD.
I’m still very sceptical about IPv6 – NASA nor the Defense Information Systems Agency have switched their root name servers to IPv6.
I think this is an incorrect viewpoint the professor has.
You are always going to have an arms race with the internet, that has always been the case, just that now more people live elements of a personal life online, and a percentage of them are getting sick of unfair regulation and the how the net is just becoming an online catalogue.
The internet is slowly splitting into two segments, and has been for a while, a safe over-net and an unsafe under-net – but this is just life, you have places you go at night and places you don’t go, buying shoes in a high street or buying drugs down a back alley.
It is far bigger and better than the whims of the few, and anyone that tries to impose rules on the net will just cause it to go darker quicker – surely it is better to encourage people to be seen and safe in an over-net, than doing anything in an under-net?
EDIT:
In theory he is 100% correct. But it’s easier said than done even the likes of SIPRNET has its vulnerabilities and has been breached many of times.
In a world where theft is justified by calling it ‘sharing’ and corporations spend huge amounts of money in IP litigation, this will remain a pipe dream