At the recent Davos Economic Forum held in Switzerland, Craig Mundie, Microsoft’s chief research and strategy officer, suggested that we may have reached a point where, before a computer user could access the Internet, the user would need to meet specific criteria.
The long and the short of it is – in order to connect to the Internet a user would need to be licensed. Mundie drew the same analogy that we drew here two years ago, with respect to this issue, when he stated:
“If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance’
So would requiring a license to use the Internet make it a safer place for all of us? Would requiring a license from the “Department of Computer Literacy”, protect us from the ever increasing exposure we all face to Trojans, Spyware, Scareware, Viruses, Phishing Scams, and Identity Theft, and more?
Consider this – car drivers must be educated, practiced, and licensed in order to drive a car. But, does this ensure absolute road safety for all? Not in practice it doesn’t. Far from it.
A licensing requirement doesn’t stop drunk drivers from getting into a car and killing innocent victims. And it certainly doesn’t eliminate our exposure to the speeders, tailgaters, and the road ragers that seem to plague our highways. Licensing then, doesn’t seem to eliminate the risks we face on the road.
Still, the need to prove competency behind the wheel, while it doesn’t eliminate all risks, is effective in reducing risk exposure to manageable, and acceptable levels.
So, would an Internet license requirement reduce risk exposure to manageable and acceptable levels?
Unlike the need to be educated and practiced, in order to qualify for a driver’s license; to access the Internet all that is required is a modem attached to a computer. There’s no need to prove qualifications. There’s no need to prove an awareness of the very real dangers that the Internet presents.
So why should you care about this? Why do I care? It’s pretty simple really – unaware computer users simple don’t know, what they don’t know, when it comes to adequately protecting themselves – and by extension, you and me – on the Internet.
For the last two years, or more, I have had members of my group query every client on the state of Internet security, and the protective measures they have instituted to ensure both their own safety, and the safety of their systems, while connected to the Web.
While not in the realm of a scientific survey, nevertheless, the results from this survey are far more than just anecdotal evidence.
Here’s the scoop – a significant majority (more than 70%), simply do not care about, or understand, the vulnerabilities and issues that surround computer system security.
Common responses included:
Security applications are too confusing and hinder my “fun” by slowing down system response time.
I didn’t know I shouldn’t click the ‘YOU ARE A WINNER!!!!’ banner.
My anti-malware application has let me down – how was I supposed to know I was downloading a bad program!
I’m not sure how my machine got infected – it just happened.
I like to download from Crack sites and Peer-2-Peer networks. So what?
I got a popup saying I was infected, so I clicked on it. What else was I supposed to do!
I didn’t know I was supposed to read the End User License Agreement – I don’t even know what that is.
I thought I had Windows update activated.
What do you mean I should update ALL my applications?
What’s a Firewall – never heard of it?
On the face of it, it might appear as if these types of responses are somehow not very typical. Unfortunately, these responses are not only typical, but characteristic of the majority of the home computer users’ my group comes into contact with every day.
Comment from a forum: “In the past, the Internet consisted, mostly, of smart people in front of dumb terminals. Now, the reverse situation dominates”.
Look, I have no doubt that the problem is multifaceted, and the above comment shouldn’t be taken (necessarily), at face value. There’s little doubt, that part of the problem is simply fear. People do not understand computers, so they are afraid of them in a sense.
Secondly, people generally, are simply not interested in learning about computers sufficiently to make the fear go away. The question is, of course, should they need to know anything other than how to turn on a computer? Should users be forced to comply with a license requirement. Well, maybe not.
Computer experts seem to agree that it is often flawed computer software, and not just inadequate user knowledge, or lack of proper procedure, that contributes to the proliferation of unsecured computer systems and cyber-crime, on the Internet.
It seems to me then, what is needed as a good first step, rather than compulsory licensing, are machines that are designed with simple, but internally sophisticated operating systems, secure and easy to use for the majority of users; where limited user interaction is required to maintain the security of the system.
Equally as important, in my view, is a concerted level of effort from law enforcement, at every level, to actively pursue those who continue to cause havoc on the Internet.
We now live in the age of the “Interconnectedness of All Things” in which we are beginning to enjoy the development and availability of large numbers of Internet connected devices. There is no doubt that this will lend new strength to computer-aided crime.
Unless we develop a rational approach to the underlying security issues surrounding the Internet, cyber crime will continue to flourish, and successful attacks on computers over the Internet will continue to proliferate.
But, a license to drive the Internet superhighway as apart of the solution?
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
– George Washington
If you found this article useful, why not subscribe to this Blog via RSS, or email? It’s easy; just click on this link and you’ll never miss another Tech Thoughts article.

I have watched this Internet licensing “issue” unfold lately on some of the tech news sites and blogs.
I find Mundie’s analogy to licensing automobiles and drivers to be disingenuous–and flawed. Government licensing of drivers and vehicles is premised on public safety considerations, clearly within the scope of government regulation.
A more apt analogy might be a comparison to the FCC’s regulation and licensing of public airwaves. But even that analogy falls short, because while FCC regulation of broadcasts is necessary due to limited radio spectrum available and the need to avoid interference, there is no inherent limitation with the Internet, because there is room for everyone to access and use the Internet.
But the most fundamental flaw in any licensing proposal would of course be the insurmountable First Amendment issues that would arise. The government, in attempting to regulate the Internet based on content, would clearly run afoul of constitutionally-protected free expression. It would be like trying to license journalists.
Hey Stormin’ Norman,
I see two different issues here. * First – the right to free speech.* Clearly, in those countries where freedom of expression is entrenched in a Charter, or a Constitution, or is granted by common law or exception, (a minority of countries), Governments would be required to make a notable, and convincing effort, to be successful in enforcing a licensing requirement.
Could this be done successfully? I have no doubt.
We, in North America, or in first tier industrialized countries, often fail to recognize that the Internet is truly representative of the world at large. Personal, or political views that we hold, may not reflect the views of the greater masses.
*Second – the issue of safety*. The Internet is, more and more, being used as a vehicle for purposes that in some instances, can be, and are in fact, viewed by some Governments as being a threat to the security of the State and by extension, its citizens.
We don’t have to look far to see how the effect of Government legislation can be wielded to curb human/individual rights, in the name of security/safety. The Patriot Act, in the U.S., should serve as an object lesson.
There’s no disputing the power of Propaganda, and if the “guiding lights” decide that we would all be better served by the instituting an Internet license, those of us who would object, are in for one hell of a fight. Reason, and logic, be damned!
Bill
The basis of this issue is the fact that the Internet is the first medium in history in which ordinary people could have access to a vast audience, and do so with anonymity. Prior to that, mass-media was strictly the domain of a relatively small (and wealthy) group of people. Those owners enjoyed central control over their media outlets, and ordinary people had little, if any, access to it. There is no central control over the Internet and that frightens some people.
We must be vigilant.
Stormin’ Norman,
I couldn’t agree more – “We must be vigilant”.
Best,
Bill
Bill,
I know this – the idea of an Internet license goes against my grain.
I can see though, just how divisive an issue this could become, and why it needs to be discussed NOW.
Liam
Hey Liam,
Fundamentally, I’m opposed to any expansion of the “nanny state”. I can look after myself, and my right to do so shouldn’t be open to interpretation, or restriction. There are those who disagree with this philosophy of course. So yes, this could be a very divisive issue.
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
Bill
Hey Bill,
I don’t like the idea of a licensing system. I agree people should educate themselves about security, but manufacturers and software makers have a responsibility to make hardware and software that is secure. How many times do we have to apply patches to Windows, Internet Explorer, Firefox etc etc etc. People pay big money to upgrade their operating system and they have a right to expect that it is secure.
Secondly, no government has the right to censor the internet. As you know, the Australian government is trying to force ISP companies to apply mandatory filtering. Their is much opposition to this. The government has been quiet of late, because we have an election this year. If they get back in, we WILL have this censorship foisted on us. Some of us will know how to get around this, but most won’t.
Education is the key. And proper security apps.
Cheers
Hey Mal,
“People pay big money to upgrade their operating system and they have a right to expect that it is secure”. This expectation is hardly unreasonable.
Like everyone else, I suspect, I’ve been following the “Toyota Saga”, and I can’t help but wonder – what would happen if the software industry was held to the same standard? Chaos comes to mind.
When I first became aware of the ISP filtering issue in Australia, I found myself drawing comparisons to the, less than admirable, restrictions in place in China. I’m not convinces that the proposed restrictions in Australia, don’t amount to the same thing. Censorship for safety – how illogical is that? This proposal needs to be defeated, and thrown out with the trash.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment on this issue.
Best,
Bill
Hi Bill,
I think control of the internet, and licensing, is what many governments and corporations
( microsoft, google) would love to happen, but I don’t think they could possibly achieve it.
People are just too educated nowadays, except in surfing safely (myself included lol) to accept mass control of their freedoms any longer. The internet has just added to those freedoms, and that scares the bejesus out of those in power.
I don’t believe in curtailing those freedoms. If they really want a safer world, including the internet, they should concentrate on the criminal fraternity, leave ordinary people alone.
Except they’re not interested in the criminals are they? They want mass control, mass manipulation and masses of brain dead automatons to hang on their every word and do their bidding.
I’ll get off my soap box now. lol
Great post, Bill.
No Paul, don’t get off your soapbox. Stay there and shout it out! – *”I think control of the internet, and licensing, is what many governments and corporations ( microsoft, google) would love to happen”.* I guarantee you, that those who have a functional understanding of History, and are therefore concerned with creeping infringement of personal freedoms, will support your every word.
Technology has liberated us in ways that were undreamed of, not so many years ago, and we now have the wind at our back. We’ll be damned if we’ll change course now.
To quote the American Civil War hero,David Farragut – “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!!”
Best,
Bill
Dear Bill,I dont know what political party you lean to but the Dems are killing this country,Never in my life did I think our country wold be killed by the enemy within.Im sicken ,by these lemmings.Im sorry but this needed to be said.
Hi Rose,
Well, I live in Toronto, Canada, which means I’m a Canadian.
But 80% of my family, numbering in the hundreds, are Americans. In fact, I graduated High School in Rochester N.Y.; then back to Canada for post secondary education. Consequently, I have more than a passing acquntence with your political system, and the current issues. Or, at least the issues as reported on CNN’s American Morning, which I have on in the early morning while I write, before heading out for the day.
Politically, I’m a believer in what Winston Churchill reportedly said “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” I saw the back end of forty a long time ago.
Best,
Bill
I sent you an email bill
Yes you did – thank you Rose.
I expect you now have my response.
Best,
Bill
Thats so true!
Bill,
This idea is very flawed. If this were to become a law, It would make it harder for the normal citizen who actually cares and takes measures to protect themselves and never acts malicious to actually have internet access but yet still allow the people that don’t care or act malicious to have access to the internet because that type of person will not be trying to gain access to the internet in the legal way. There will be many ways around it just like there is with everything else.
This is very similar to the gun laws which are about as effective as holding nitro glycerin in a wet paper bag.
Stepping off the soapbox now.
Tex
Hey Tex,
Stay on the soapbox – you’ve brought up an interesting comparison. The gun law analogy is perfect.
Thanks for your input on this issue.
Bill
Hi Bill,
A very provocative post my friend, lots of interesting responses. A license to go online will never happen even though at times I’d like to revoke some people’s internet privilege. How would someone log-in and remain anonymous?
As for people expecting software to “just be secure” it’s not going to happen. As Steve Gibson says “software wants to break” and today we demand a full featured online environment, and features break security every time. We download programs that seem simple, but their size is in megabytes not kilobytes as was the norm a long time ago. Expecting a operating system that is gigabytes in size to have no security flaws is not possible at this time. Some of the exploits you see are tiny, yet they cause a buffer overflow and next thing you know you are hosed.
So my point is, people need to be more educated and proactive about their own security. Read blogs like yours and help themselves, because frankly the government can’t protect you, unless they take your freedom away completely, not an acceptable option.
One thing about the new US President is, that he is tech savvy and actually understands the threats, not sure the last one was that interested in technology.
If you really want to be freaked out about the possible threat of technology read Daemon, by Daniel Suarez, a great read and very geeky. What more could you ask for?
Cheers
Mark
Hey Mark,
Anonymity – what’s that? Unless the user is extremely tech savvy (name 2, other than you and me), staying anonymous on the Internet, just isn’t in the cards.
I totally agree, an operating system with no flaws is just a pipe dream. The key to this is really a hardware issue, and some progress is being made on this front. But, I suspect this is a long way off yet.
I share your view on Obama; he is tech driven, and understands the issues. That’s gotta help.
Thanks for the tip on Daemon, by Daniel Suarez. I’ll be at the Library on Monday, and I’ll be sure to pick that up.
Best,
Bill