The House of Lords' e-crime report shows what little Whitehall knows about the reality of the Internet, says Ed Wilding


The House of Lords' science and technology committee reported on 10 August that the government should do more to protect Internet users from 'cybercrime' and safeguard the growth of e-commerce.



The report criticised the 'laissez-faire' attitude to Internet security by government, Internet service providers (ISPs), and hardware and software manufacturers. It also deplored a 'Wild West' culture where end-users alone must protect themselves from online fraud, vandalism and delinquency.



Is there a whiff of the nanny state here? It is not the first call to regulate the Internet, nor will it be the last. The idea of UK plc, in all its post-colonial decay, imposing its will on the global information channel is charming and quaint, and wildly silly.



Regulating the Internet is as improbable as house-training a great white shark. Of course, the Internet is like the Wild West - all humanity is represented, the good, the bad and the ugly. Governments would love to censor and control the Internet - after all the Chinese and the Iranians do so with limited success - but it is a tendency best resisted.



So should we fund and appoint a team of 'cybercops' to track down the 'cyber-criminals'? Personally, I would rather something effective was done about yobs, vandalism, stabbings and shootings. There are plenty of laws to deal with crime, be it on our streets or on the Internet. We just need to apply them properly. No gimmicks, no 'anti -social cyber behaviour orders' or other such ineffectual nonsense.



And what happened to the existing crimes on the statute book, which are simply aided or abetted by technology? Why make 'cybercrime' distinct? Fraud is fraud, sabotage is criminal damage. By appending 'cyber' to everything we just end up confused.



The police - when motivated to deal with fraud and computer-assisted misdemeanours - are adept at using computer technology to process evidence, to gather intelligence and to prosecute. A central e-crime reporting facility has been proposed. To do what? Some might say this is just jobs for the boys, as well as a means for the government to report every six months that e-crime is being reduced.



We simply need to wise up to the Internet and exercise the same caution we might if we were in a street market. We must remember that:

l There is never implicit, guaranteed trust when you communicate or trade with people you have never met;

l Your bank will never ask you for your password or account details;

l You do not have any rich, recently deceased relatives you have never heard of; and

l You have not won some obscure lottery you never entered.



Are we really going to make the providers of services, software and hardware responsible for our security online? In these litigious days, this would be a huge disincentive for them to continue assisting us.



If consumer confidence in e-commerce is low, it is because there is a general awareness that the Internet is an inherently hazardous environment. It always was and it always will be. In recognition, any online trader or bank has a direct commercial interest in the security of its systems and processes, and needs no directives from government or anyone else to ensure that its customers are protected. The technology to do so is readily available and widely used, but comes, inevitably, with a price tag.



Edward Wilding is chief technical officer at Data Genetics International