In a recent blog, inter alia, I used the analogy of a car number plate to suggest if every internet user had to have one it might help reduce the level of bad behaviour online. Guess what? It seems something like it already exists. It isn’t in widespread use and apparently there is stiff resistance in some quarters to it being rolled out further.
I learned this from an article in New Scientist published on 12th August. The authors, Sally Adlee and Carl Miller, were not advocating the solution they described so well. On the contrary they ended their piece with these words
So yes, we could fix the internet and do away with all the crooks, trolls and general troublemakers. But perhaps these malcontents are the price we pay for a free and open online society.
Adlee and Miller appear to think the most important value of the internet is as a political instrument in the fight against tyranny, oppression and totalitarians everywhere. In this they mirror all the noble optimism of the early years of cyberspace.
Yet across the whole world today a much overlooked fact is children constitute the largest single constituency of internet users. Thus, whatever else we might hope, want or imagine the internet to be it is every bit as much a medium for youngsters and families as it is a weapon in the armoury of liberal democracy.
Adlee and Miller glibly engage with high level geopolitics at the expense of any evident or deep concern for anything else. In this respect they remind me a little of guys in their late 60s or 70s who wear kaftans. Their sentimental attachment to the Summer of Love is sweet but so at odds with contemporary reality you worry.
A unique, permanent and traceable identifier – a handle
In the early 1990s someone called Robert Kahn, a co-developer of TCP/IP, created a system which would allow for the creation of a permanent, unique and traceable digital identifier, the shorthand for which is a handle. A handle could be assigned to every phone, laptop, document or part thereof. It could be attached to anything, including people.
Thus, instead of the internet being based on simply routing anonymous data packets from A to B, with handles the internet would, in effect, be connecting digital objects. I couldn’t send or receive an object unless I had a handle myself.
What is more it looks as if the technical standards which would allow the global deployment of a handle based system have already been agreed somewhere within the UN system. Countries like China, Russia and some Arab states want to start rolling it out. This has set alarm bells ringing.
A database of handles is required
The system hinges on a record being created and maintained of every handle. These must find their way into a database. In all probability the databases would be administered nationally and integrated into a global system. The DNS comes to mind.
Let’s say my unique identifier is RKW48, my smartphone is RKW48a, my laptop is RKW48b and so on. If the database is controlled by my government or the police who decide I am being a nuisance and they want to cramp my style they could just “switch off” RKW48 and that’s it. I’m offline.
The dangers are obvious, but so are the advantages
It is therefore easy to see the danger, but equally I think it is getting increasingly difficult to justify not doing something that would help make the rest of the world be a safer place solely on the grounds that some Governments might not enter into the spirit of it and use the same technology to do bad stuff.
We’ve already been through that argument in respect of filtering and blocking web pages containing child abuse images. Yes, it is true some Governments have used the same techniques to restrict access to materials which they think threaten their grip on power, but that cannot be a good enough reason to say to children who have been raped in Aberdeen or Arkansas that they must suffer images of their humiliation being accessible to anyone with a mind to look when tools are available that could at least get rid of some if not all of the horrible pictures.
AI is becoming the new form of filtering and blocking. Societies all around the world are saying they have had enough. On a global scale a “peasants’ revolt” is underway. It is unstoppable and irreversible.
Too many disparate and irreconcilable aims?
Adlee and Miller say
If (the handles solution) is adopted globally, the new regime might just destroy the online world as we know it.
Another way of saying the same thing might be to ask how much longer the present day internet can continue to accommodate so many diverse interests?