How Much Power Should the Internet Police Have – And Who Are the Internet Police?

Time to look at a sensitive, exponentially issue-inducing question: who should police the internet and how much policing should they, or anyone, be allowed to do? In this blog, we will be looking at the topic of domain name policing in particular.

We are constantly reminded of the anonymity and opportunity the internet affords its users. These freedoms are one of the founding principles of the internet: that it be an open canvas on which anything can be painted and anyone we want can view it. The internet was supposed to be a virtual land where the most typical, average person could stake a claim and make a small piece of it their own.

Like all newly-settled worlds, however, it cannot remain so forever. Various organizations have come about to monitor the internet and keep its users and their information safe. The Internet Corporation for the Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit in contract with the U.S. government, exists to manage internet addresses and oversee the addition of new domain suffixes. The most popular suffixes currently in use are .com, .net, and .org.

 A recent article on CNET.com once again brings to light the issue of domain name – and ultimately internet – governance. The United States government, among other governments both national and local, is looking to gain more power to allow or deny domain names. This has been a battle that has been raging in the internet background for as long as it has existed, and is a topic filled with shades of gray. For the past seven years, the domain suffix .xxx has been contested over by three camps: those who wish to use it, those who wish that it not be used at all, and those who wish not to be forced to use it.

Many adult content webmasters want to have the suffix .xxx be as useable as .com or .org, to give them their own space on the internet and make them easier to find. Currently .xxx is not a functioning domain. The United States government and many conservative organizations do not want the .xxx domain to exist, seeing it as comparable to allowing an adult video store on the same block as the white house.  On another end of the argument are those who see this new domain as a way to keep all of these adult content websites in one centralized location, so no one can accidentally stumble upon them or so they can be blocked more easily. Some adult content webmasters, and some webmasters who have sex education information on their websites, or others whose main purpose is not adult content but some exists on their site, do not want to be forced to join this new domain.

 Over 115 new domain name proposals are expected this year, and some raise controversies, such as the .gay domain. Whose responsibility – or right – is it to say whether or not the .gay or .freetibet domains can be used? If the former were used, it may upset millions of conservatives. If the latter were used, it may upset a government with rule over billions of people. Yet what about the people who want to use those names? What about their rights? They aren’t breaking any laws.

The debate over domain name allowance is explosive because it induces issues about freedom of speech and how much of a role governments should be able to play in the direction and access of the internet. Another example of governmental power over the internet is seen recently in Egypt, where the government shut down the internet in the entire country in an attempt to control its people. Is it right for a government to control something that belongs to no one, and yet belongs to everyone?

Product Spotlight – McAfee SaaS Web Protection

More and more businesses are looking for a good way to protect themselves against the litany of harmful viruses, spyware, and other malware that comes from the web.  In my article Web & Spyware Defense I cover some of the technologies that are effective at defending your business from web-based threats.  Here, I’d like to focus on the one of the products we believe balances effectiveness with cost, the best.

McAfee SaaS Web Protection  is a service provided by McAfee (formerly MX Logic) that effectively “scrubs” incoming and outgoing web traffic to ensure web threats don’t get in or out of your network.  It also provides options for limiting access to certain sites and can generate some valuable reports on web activity (by user, device, site, etc.).  Additionally, it includes a simple, straight forward user interface and has a price point under $3 per device per month.

How it works

The architecture of the solution is very simple: your company’s Internet/web traffic is routed through McAfee SaaS’ servers and scrubbed for harmful software.  Basically, it is a standard, cloud-based solution.

Effectiveness

We have deployed this solution for a number of our clients and it simply works.  There is no substitution for seeing how a product or service works in an actual production environment and this is one that lives up to the hype.

Note: Cloud solutions are often incredibly valuable solutions, but like any technology, they aren’t for every business.  At ITP we always recommend reviewing technology solutions within the context of your specific business goals, culture, processes and people.  Of course, if you need some help with that we’ve got some great people here at ITP that can help.

Options For Defending Against Spyware

Spyware is everywhere and it’s costing businesses and organizations a ton of money in lost productivity alone.  Traditional methods of combating spyware (such as installing software on your systems) have proven mostly effective.  The problem is that mostly effective isn’t really good enough.  So what other options are there?  Currently, I believe the two most viable options currently are:

• Deploy a device onsite
• Subscribe to a service

Onsite Protection

Devices like Barricuda Networks Web Defense device 

and others work by filtering web traffic through their device which resides at your office between your firewall and your LAN (traditionally).  It functions as a filter both for incoming and outgoing traffic and is quote robust from a configuration and reporting standpoint.

Benefits

• Powerful
• Robust functionality
• Granular reporting

Drawbacks

• Large upfront cost
• Annual maintenance costs
• Allows “malicious” traffic to utilize your bandwidth
• Need to maintain hardware

Service-based Protection

Service-based protection such as McAfee’s Web Protection Service works in a similar fashion to the onsite protection model except that the “filtering” occurs offsite.  Basically, your web traffic is routed through your service-provider’s systems.  In this model you don’t need to purchase hardware or maintain it – you just redirect your web traffic through their systems.

Benefits

• Easy to set up
• Very low initial cost
• Stops malicious traffic before it gets to your network
• No hardware maintenance or upgrade costs
• Highly effective

Drawbacks

• Recurring monthly cost
• Adequate reporting functionality

With these options, the days of combating spyware with just onsite software are probably coming to an end.  Don’t get me wrong, onsite software is still necessary, but in all probability, adding another layer of defense is probably a solid, cost-effective decision at this point.