• silicon.com
• Management
• CIO Insights

By silicon.com, 27 October 2005 11:20

This week we have published two articles in which weaknesses in the latest government-backed secure computing venture have been highlighted.

The problem we have here is that the 'Get Safe Online' initiative is a great idea. It's a much-needed awareness campaign which makes the most of private sector companies' funding and consumer reach to get across the message of secure computing.

But our concern is that it is in danger of launching today as an expensive exercise in being seen to do something, rather than actually doing something. Our apparent criticism to date is because there is still time to iron out some significant problems.

Firstly, we were shocked to hear that a number of large consumer ISPs have not been consulted at this stage and that interest from the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) was actually rebuffed. We appreciate it is early days and the initiative has only launched today with a selection of founding sponsors - who were able to stump up considerable cash - but even in terms of establishing what could be achieved and what goals might be set out, it seems an incredible oversight not to have tried everything to get the large consumer ISPs, such as Telewest, involved from day one.

The ISPs would have been able to give the clearest insight into what is actually achievable. By putting the ball in their court, Get Safe Online could have injected more momentum into a trend which is already seeing ISPs accepting they will have to embrace security, not just as a value-add or as a token gesture but as a business necessity.

Significant ISP involvement from day one would have been a statement of intent - intent to make a difference not just intent to get a message across.

Secondly we were concerned that the pricing structure for becoming a sponsor has proved something of a barrier to entry for parties who would undeniably be able to bring knowledge and experience to the table.

And it's not smaller independents we're talking about here. At the time of writing, AOL has confirmed it was invited to sign up but declined to meet the £150,000 sign-up fee.

"As a general rule, we offer in-kind support rather than financial support for initiatives of this kind," wrote an AOL spokeswoman who confirmed the company will maintain a dialogue with Get Safe Online.

We wholly understand that charities and initiatives such as Get Safe Online must present a business case in order to secure their very existence but hopefully with nine private sector companies on board - which equates to at least £1.35m pledged in sponsorship - the initiative might move away from the rigid structure which threatens to create a ring-fenced pool of knowledge. Currently, for example, that pool includes only one company working in email security, one consumer ISP and one hardware manufacturer.

Of course it is important that the likes of BT, Dell, eBay and Microsoft are on board - and why not take some money off them in the process - but this initiative should also be fostering collaboration across the IT industry, not creating a culture of the haves and the have-nots in terms of who the public can identify as a force for change.

An initiative this well-intended doesn't deserve to fail on day one. In all honesty, silicon.com would love to see it succeed but it has some work to do and hopefully our lighting a fire under two key issues will make them consider the need for changes, starting today.

We would urge Get Safe Online to put the ball in the ISPs' court, invite them all to get involved but also understand there is value, beyond the financial, in speaking to these companies.

In fact we would hope Get Safe Online doesn't turn away any reasonable suggestion of involvement again, in the way the ISPA was turned away. Let the founding sponsors have their day in the limelight, basking in the promise of 'corporate social responsibility', but then let's get on with actually making a difference.