of two things will happen in the future: either a watershed security moment such as a digital Pearl Harbor; or death by a thousand small security breaches. Either scenario will bring an end to the generative PC/Internet combo and will harken an era of controlled appliances.
Zittrain says society will pay a steep price for securing the 'Net.
``If the PC ceases to be at the center of the information technology ecosystem, the most restrictive aspects of information appliances will come to the fore,'' he predicts.
Zittrain makes a compelling argument for the benefits of the generative PC/Internet combination. He says generative systems foster innovation -- particularly disruptive innovation -- while nongenerative systems such as appliances provide ease of use and security.
Zittrain says tinkerers have created most of the 'Net's key innovations -- free Web-based e-mail, hosting services, instant messaging, social networking and search engines -- which were created by individuals or groups of hobbyists rather than leading IT manufacturers. The same trend is happening with content, as Internet users democratize the creation of political commentary, music and movies that were previously controlled by the publishing, recording and movie industries.
``Generativity at the technical layer can lead to new forms of expression for other layers to which nonprogrammers contribute -- culture, political, social, economic and literary,'' he writes. All of which is at risk if there's a significant lockdown of the Internet's technical infrastructure, he says.
Manufacturer control
Besides loss of generativity, tethered appliances are a threat because they can be controlled remotely by manufacturers. The iPhone, for example, seeks out and erases user modifications. Zittrain finds it ominous that appliance manufacturers can change these products after end users have bought and installed them. He says this feature of appliances creates an increased threat of intervention by regulators.
``The most obvious evolution of the computer and network -- toward tethered appliancization -- is on balance a bad one,'' he writes. ``It invites regulatory intervention that disrupts a wise equilibrium that depends upon regulators acting with a light touch, as they traditionally have done within liberal societies.''
Zittrain cites three ways that manufacturers can control tethered appliances: preemption, meaning that they can design against particular uses; specific injunction, meaning they can remotely change the product in response to legal action such as a court order; or surveillance, meaning they can use the appliance to provide information about the end user to the manufacturer. Zittrain points out that the FBI can eavesdrop on any automobile with an OnStar navigation system just as it can turn a cell phone into a microphone. Similarly, makers of digital video recording systems can cause a feature to self-destruct if required to do so in a patent infringement law suit.
Web 2.0 threat
Zittrain sees similar threats with software-as-a-service Web sites, which he says are less generative than original PC software. With these Web 2.0 applications, PCs become dumb terminals merely running the Web browser, while all the functionality and data is hosted by the service provider. The end user has no control over changes made to the application. For example, Google could cancel its GoogleMaps service at any time, which would affect many mapping applications that were built on this service.
``The key move to watch is a sea change in control over the endpoint: lock down the device, and network censorship and control can be extraordinarily reinforced,'' he warns.
As an alternative to tethered appliances and Web 2.0 sites, Zittrain offers up the community-oriented approach of Wikipedia for solving the cybersecurity dilemma. In Chapter 6, Zittrain offers a glowing review of Wikipedia, from its humble origins to its success as one of the Internet's most popular Web sites. What Zittrain likes about Wikipedia is that it has few rules, it has a transparent process for editing articles, it fosters discussion, and it has a core of dedicated participants.
``Wikipedia rejects straightforward democracy, favoring discussion and consensus over outright voting, thereby sidestepping the kinds of
Post new comment