InformationWeek

August 16, 1999

Secret CIO:
Trust Us, We'll Protect You

Once again, our society faces important decisions about government involvement and personal privacy

Secret CIO hen a new technology is introduced, two things generally happen. The first is that we are not sure how it ultimately will be employed.

Alexander Graham Bell predicted his new device, the telephone, would be used primarily to listen to music. He was not alone in thinking the telegraph was all that was needed to communicate between individuals--Western Union turned down the rights to the invention.

In the videocassette-recorder war, Sony's technically superior Beta format lost out to VHS because the original Betamax machine did not have a start timer and could record for only an hour--not enough time to tape a movie. Sony didn't understand that the market would be for watching entertainment at a time convenient to the viewer.

The second element is the difficulty society has in determining what rules--of etiquette and law--should govern the use of the invention. The social rules for using a new gadget are normally an extension of existing behavior: A gentleman holds a door open for a woman, so when Elisha Otis invented the modern elevator, women entered the elevators first.

After a while, we assume there is no other way of acting and are offended if the rules are broken. When cell phones were introduced, they were expensive, and owning one implied affluence. It was considered chic by some to leave them by their plates in fancy restaurants. Today, such behavior is frequent but viewed as boorish.

Where we really have trouble is determining not the social customs--which take care of themselves--but the legal rules encompassing the use of new technology.

Our judicial system is based on precedent. When automobiles were introduced, we could look to rules governing horse-drawn carriages to provide some guidance upon which to regulate their use--setting speed limits, determining which side of the road to drive on, and so forth. But what do we do when the precedent is vague or nonexistent, as in the case of the Internet?

We are at the beginning of a set of interlocking decisions concerning such issues as taxation, encryption, and right to access which will influence society far beyond the boundaries of IT. For years we have been struggling with the meaning--and the limits--of arguably the most important decision: individual privacy in the Internet era.

The latest and most significant issue is the federal government's plan to monitor military, civil, and private-sector computer networks to detect unauthorized intrusion. The proposed Federal Intrusion Detection Network, or Fidnet, is defined in a 140-page government report, which, although labeled "For Official Use Only," has been leaked to the public.

The purpose of Fidnet is laudable--the protection of the military, civilian government, and private-sector networks by the year 2003. Funding of $1.5 billion is proposed in the next fiscal year.

Some say we should be delighted the government is taking steps to protect us. Others are concerned about potential government monitoring of private traffic, saying the best defense against hacking is good intrusion-detection software, not government oversight.

We have serious decisions ahead. To what extent are we willing to give up individual privacy for the potential protection of society as a whole? How much do we trust our government officials not to misuse their power?

These are difficult questions, but not new ones. I am reminded of a vignette of the days of the Constitutional Convention. As the story goes, a citizen approached Benjamin Franklin as he walked from the meeting hall:

"Dr. Franklin," the citizen asked, "what form of government have you given us?"

Franklin's reply was succinct: "A republic, if you can keep it."

Herbert W. Lovelace is the CIO at a multibillion-dollar international company. Herb practices his day job under an alias and has changed the names of colleagues to protect the guilty. Send him E-mail at lovelace@home.com. He'll provide real answers--and whimsical comments--to your questions on InformationWeek Online at www.informationweek.com.