2

From the Editors

Each day brings new examples of how information and communication technology

(ICT) is reshaping the lives of people around the world. To one degree or another,

the digital revolution has arrived in just about every corner of the globe. In recogni-

tion of this, representatives of the world’s nations will gather in Geneva this

December for the World Summit on the Information Society to discuss how access

to ICT might be achieved for all people.

On the Internet and the World Wide Web, people are governing, learning, commu-

nicating, debating, “politicking”, shopping, and experimenting—conducting all kinds

of interactions in ways only made possible by ICT. The Internet has brought into

being a virtual world that, like the universe itself, is expanding every moment, full of

promise, hope, and not a little mystery. But challenges remain if it is to achieve its

full promise. The United States, in partnership with other governments, internation-

al organizations, and citizens of many countries, is committed to assisting people

around the globe to meet these challenges so that this virtual world becomes a help-

ful and productive part of their everyday lives.

Among the articles in this edition of Global Issues, senior U.S. government officials

outline priorities for Internet development and discuss U.S. assistance programs to

help develop ICT skills, training, and access in developing countries. A U.S. law-

maker describes how the Internet can help create a more open and transparent soci-

ety, and a scholar reviews efforts to bring the Internet into elementary and secondary

schools. Finally, private sector experts explore the problems and challenges of pro-

tecting computers and the information they contain.

We hope that by considering the variety of issues and concerns presented in this

journal, readers will gain a greater understanding of and appreciation for the digital

revolution and their potential role in it.

A New Way of Governing in the Digital Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Information technologies and Internet transactions are changing the relationship between governments and their citizens.By Charlene Porter, Managing Editor of this edition of Global Issues

Staying Safe in Cyberspace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24A security specialist provides a primer on what the home computer user needs to know and do to protect his machine from intruders. By Lawrence R. Rogers, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

global issuesAn Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State

November 2003 Volume 8, Number 3

3

The Digital Dimension of Development: A Strategic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5The freedom to innovate, create, and share ideas is critical to development, a top U.S. diplomat writes. The U.S. government isutilizing information and communications technology to achieve development goals.By Ambassador David A. Gross, U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, U.S. Department of State

E-government: The Next American Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Government can use the Internet to provide better and more efficient services to citizens. By U.S. Representative Tom Davis, Chairman, House Government Reform Committee

Bringing Africa Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12A U.S. program started in 1996 is expanding Internet connectivity in African nations. By Lane Smith, Coordinator, Leland Initiative, U.S. Agency for International Development

Connecting with Eurasia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16With the help of alumni from its educational and cultural exchange programs, the U.S. government is promoting Internet skillsand computer knowledge among diverse populations in Eurasia. By Barry E. Ballow, Director, Office of Academic Exchange Programs, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State

Table of ContentsThe Evolving Internet

❏ FOCUS

❏ COMMENTARY

4

Bridging the Digital Divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28An understanding of grassroots realities, pooling of resources, and a favorable regulatory system are among the many elementsnecessary in an effective approach to narrowing the digital divide. By Teresa Peters, Executive Director, Bridges.org

Bringing the Internet to Schools Effectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32International research shows a proper approach is key to achieving educational results when advanced technologies and theInternet are introduced into schools.By Janet Ward Schofield, Professor of Psychology and Senior Scientist, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh

The Frontiers Ahead: A Dialogue on the Progress and Promise of the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36Internet authorities discuss the transforming influence of information technologies over the past decade. Panelists are Lee Rainie of the Pew Internet and American Life Project and George Sadowsky of the Global Internet Policy Initiative

❏ ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42An excerpt from the Bush administration strategy for cybersecurity released in February 2003.

Attacks on the Internet in 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Malicious code incidents in 2003 reveal the vulnerabilities of the Internet.Abridged testimony by CERT/CC Director Richard Pethia

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51Books, documents, and articles on the Internet and information technologies.

Internet Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54A list of sites on the World Wide Web offering further information on the Internet and information technologies.

Global IssuesAn Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State

ejglobal@pd.state.govEditor ......................................................................William PetersManaging Editor......................................................Charlene PorterText Editor .......................................................................Jim FullerInternet Editor .................................................................Tim BrownContributing Editors ..................................................Jenifer Bochner...........................................................................Cynthia LaCovey.............................................................................Vicki Silverman..............................................................................Gerri WilliamsReference and Research ...............................................Lynne Scheib..................................................................................Joan Taylor

Art Director ....................................................................Chloe Ellis

Publisher....................................................................................Judith S. SiegelExecutive Editor .........................................................................Guy E. OlsonProduction Manager .............................................................Christian LarsonAssistant Production Manager .....................................................Sylvia ScottEditorial Board: .........................................................................George Clack...............................................................................................Kathleen R. Davis

The Bureau of International Information Programs of the U.S. Department of State providesproducts and services that explain U.S. policies, society, and values to foreign audiences.The Bureau publishes five electronic journals that examine major issues facing the UnitedStates and the international community. The journals—Economic Perspectives, Global Issues, Issuesof Democracy, U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, and U.S. Society and Values—provide statements of U.S.policy together with analysis, commentary, and background information in their respectivethematic areas.

All issues appear in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish language versions, and selectedissues also appear in Arabic and Russian. English-language issues appear at approximately aone-month interval. Translated versions normally follow the English original by two to fourweeks.

The opinions expressed in the journals do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of theU.S. government. The U.S. Department of State assumes no responsibility for the contentand continued accessibility of Internet sites linked to herein; such responsibility resides sole-ly with the publishers of those sites. Articles may be reproduced and translated outside theUnited States unless the articles carry explicit copyright restrictions on such use. Potentialusers of credited photos are obliged to clear such use with said source.

Current or back issues of the journals, and the roster of upcoming journals, can be found onthe Bureau of International Information Programs' International Home Page on the WorldWide Web at http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/journals.htm. They are available in several elec-tronic formats to facilitate viewing online, transferring, downloading, and printing

Comments are welcome at your local U.S. Embassy or at the editorial offices:

Editor, Global Issues & Communications Bureau of International Information ProgramsIIP/T/GICU.S. Department of State301 4th Street, S.W.Washington, DC 20547United States of AmericaE-mail: (ejglobal@pd.state.gov)

5

Over the past decade, breathtaking advances ininformation and communications technology (ICT)have changed the way we live, learn, and dobusiness.

Whether it is responding more rapidly to healthcrises like SARS (severe acute respiratorysyndrome), delivering education to the under-served, increasing government transparency, orcreating new forms of commerce, technology istransforming our world.

A top U.S. diplomat says the

freedom to innovate, create, and

share ideas is critical to develop-

ment. He describes how the U.S.

government is utilizing information

and communications technology

to achieve development goals.

FOCUS

The Digital Dimension of Development: A Strategic Approach

By Ambassador David A. GrossCoordinator for International Communications and Information Policy

U.S. Department of State

"In the new century, growth will be based on informationand opportunity. Information drives markets, ensures arapid reaction to health crises like SARS, and brings newentrepreneurial opportunities to societies....The keys toprosperity in an information economy are education,individual creativity, and an environment of political andeconomic freedom. An environment of economic andpolitical freedom is the sina qua non for the kind ofprogress we are talking about."

Secretary of State Colin L.PowellBefore the World Economic Forum

June 22, 2003

6

ICT has become the newtool for achievingeconomic and socialdevelopment. In fact, agrowing global consensushas emerged in recentyears that information-based technologies arefundamental to meetingbasic developmentobjectives.

The future prosperity andwell being of all nations,including the UnitedStates, now depend inpart on our ability toaccess and use these newtools effectively.

For much of the world, however, that remains anelusive goal. The number of Internet users in theworld today exceeds 500 million but some 40percent of that number live in the United States.Over the past 10 years, global telephone penetrationrates have doubled, but there are still moretelephone landlines in New York City's borough ofManhattan than in all of Africa. On the other hand,technology is dramatically changing things almosteverywhere—for example, there are now manymore wireless phones in Africa than traditionallandline phones.

World Summit on the Information Society

The upcoming United Nations World Summit onthe Information Society (WSIS), scheduled forDecember 10-12 in Geneva, will focus precisely onthese challenges.

The summit, the latest in a series of U.N. summitsfocused on development, will be attended by morethan 50 heads of state and government from aroundthe world. A second phase of the summit will be heldin Tunis, November 16-18, 2005. Leaders frombusiness, civil society, and international organizationsare contributing to preparations for both phases.

The summit's mission is to outline a clear vision anda concrete plan for putting ICT into the service ofdevelopment.

What considerationsshould guide theSummit's work?

Development beginswith freedom. Thefreedom to innovate, thefreedom to create, andthe freedom to shareideas with peoplearound the world are thefoundation of a global,inclusive informationsociety. Our overridingvision for theinformation society isone that expandspolitical and economicfreedom by offering our

citizens the opportunities to access and utilizeinformation to better their lives.

More specifically, we believe success in makingfreedom possible and crafting an ICT-for-development agenda depends on three fundamentalbuilding blocks.

A Strategic Approach

First, we believe countries should focus on creatinga domestic policy environment that encouragesprivatization, competition, and liberalization, andthat protects intellectual property.

Private investment is by far the largest source of fundsfor the development, deployment, maintenance, andmodernization of the world’s communications andinformation networks and facilities. Public policiesthat do not actively invite such investment simplydelay development.

Around the world, there are encouraging signs thatrules favoring competition are paying big dividends.In Uganda, for example, a price war broke out lastyear in the country's competitive telecommu-nications sector. Costs per minute for telephonecalls tumbled and some firms scrapped fees. Theresult has been more opportunities for entrepreneursand cheaper rates for all users.

Second, it is critical to build human capacity. Users

“Our overriding vision for theinformation society is one thatexpands political and economicfreedom by offering our citizensthe opportunities to access andutilize information to bettertheir lives.”

Ambassador David A. Gross

7

must have the ability to effectively use ICT tools.Without adequate education and training, infra-structure investments will yield little.

Teachers, school children, health professionals,citizens, and business people must have theknowledge needed to take full advantage of distancelearning, e-healthcare, e-government, and e-businessapplications.

To be used effectively, ICT tools also must beadapted to local needs. Local content that reflectslocal culture and is in the language of the users'choosing is vital to sustaining the effective use ofICT. The U.S. government believes such contentshould be widely available.

At the same time, content restrictions must beavoided. Uncensored print and broadcast mediaprovide independent and objective information andoffer a vehicle for citizens to openly and freelyexpress their opinions and ideas.

Artificial barriers that unnecessarily restrict the freeflow of information and news are the enemies ofinnovation, retard the creation of knowledge, andinhibit the exchange of ideas that are necessary forpeople to improve their lives.

The realization of the many "digital opportunities"that ICT tools make possible depends on access toinformation. Electronic government, for example,can increase government transparency,accountability, and accessibility and lead to betterdevelopment decisions as long as governments areprepared to share information with their citizens.

Third, users must be able to use ICT withconfidence if the economic and social benefits ofthese technologies are to be achieved. Networksecurity ICT tools and networks can never be madeinvulnerable to attack. But countries can protecttheir ICT infrastructure by adopting effective,substantive, and procedural laws.

Companies, consumers, and citizens can contributeas well by raising awareness and implementingwidely recognized network security guidelinescompiled by the United States and its partners inthe Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment. Together we can create a global

culture of network security that protects all users, nomatter where they live.

In addition to creating the right policyenvironment, building human capacity, andprotecting networks, governments also must avoiderecting new hurdles that will undermine efforts toharness ICT to development goals.

Whether it is weakening intellectual propertyprotections, limiting press freedoms, or injectinggovernments unnecessarily into the technicalmanagement of the Internet, such misguided stepscan quickly reduce choice, stifle innovation anddemocracy, and raise costs.

Partnerships for Development

The U.S. government's involvement in WSIS isonly one aspect of our commitment to using ICT tofoster development. Over the years, many of ourassistance programs have incorporated ICT toachieve economic and social goals.

The Digital Freedom Initiative (DFI) is one of theleading examples of the U.S. government's (USG's)commitment to using the latest tools to achievelongstanding development goals. The programbuilds on previous USG initiatives, including theLeland Initiative, which was launched in 1996, andthe Internet for Economic Development, which waslaunched in 1999.

The DFI promotes the use of ICT by entrepreneursand small businesses in developing countries andleverages existing infrastructure to improve accessto local, regional, and global markets. It also assistscountries in creating a pro-competition policy andregulatory environment that will help entrepreneurshipblossom.

The pilot program was announced in March 2003 ata White House ceremony and was first launched inSenegal. At the October 20-21 Asia-PacificEconomic Cooperation (APEC) leaders meeting inBangkok, President Bush announced that Peru andIndonesia would join the program.

Over the next five years as many as a dozencountries may be invited to join the initiative. The U.S. government advances ICT-for-

8

development through numerous other programs.These include:

• Literally hundreds of individual U.S. Agency forInternational Development projects that use ICT toaddress health, education, and capacity issues;

• State Department-sponsored "e-logistics" work-shops that provide practical real-world advice todeveloping country business owners, especiallysmall and middle size enterprises eager to improveproductivity and expand into new markets;

• Regulatory and technical training programssponsored by the U.S. Telecommunications TrainingInstitute, which, over the past 20 years, has graduatedmore than 6,200 ICT professionals from 163developing countries; and

• A $30 million Internet Access and TrainingProgram (IATP) that develops Internet skills andcomputer knowledge among diverse populations inEurasia while promoting the free flow ofinformation and ideas.

Whether it is these programs, a new initiative topromote the spread of wireless technologies, orefforts to raise awareness about the value of"electronic government," all our ICT-for-develop-ment programs rest on the building blocks outlinedabove.

We believe that these building blocks can help allcountries achieve their digital progress and prosperityagendas, thereby helping the children and generationsto come.

A member of the U.S. Congress

explains how information tech-

nologies can help government

better serve citizens.

9

Electronic government can reinvent the waycitizens and businesses interact with thegovernment. As an elected representative of thepeople of Virginia and a congressional leader ininformation technologies, I share this belief with theBush administration and many of my colleagues inthe U.S. Congress.

E-government is not just a theory or concept; it’salready a reality, and destined to expand. Given timeand resources, e-government really can revolutionizeAmericans’ relationship with their government.

We often talk about how e-government can makegovernments more efficient and less costly, andcertainly that’s an important part of the equation.Just as important, however, are the ways in which e-government can better serve our citizenry.Americans see the benefits of e-government goingbeyond its capability to provide better or more cost-efficient services. They regard it as a way forcitizens to become better informed and moreinvolved in government.

Online government services provide information onlawmakers voting records, and the ability forconstituents to offer comments on legislation ormonitor hearings over the Internet. E-governmentgives citizens the ability to access online studentloan applications. It can spare the public long waitsin line to register a car or renew a license.

The Internet has made communicating with myconstituents easier and faster. In recent years theamount of correspondence I've received on any andall issues has increased exponentially, due mostly toe-mail letters. I've installed a software program inmy offices that allows me to quickly sort thesemessages and respond in a timely manner. This is a

E-Government: The Next American RevolutionBy U.S. Representative Tom Davis

Chairman, House Government Reform Committee

10

win-win scenario. I'm betterable to gauge where myconstituents stand onimportant issues, and I’mable to respond to themmore quickly than tradi-tional mail service permits.

Legislative initiatives inwhich I’m involved aredescribed on Web sitessupported by mycongressional office and the House GovernmentReform Committee, which I chair. On these Webpages, I'm able to inform the public in "real time"about what we're voting on, what we'reinvestigating, and what services are available.Constituents can turn to my Web sites for routineinformation about when the House ofRepresentatives might vote on a bill of interest, orfor information that can help in an emergency, suchas a recent hurricane that struck my district and theentire mid-Atlantic region.

Constituents can also go online to join hearings thatare held before the Government ReformCommittee. When top administration officialscome before my panel testifying about homelandsecurity, emergency preparedness, or Internetvulnerabilities, the public can view the hearing in aWebcast just as if they’d made the trip toWashington. This all represents good governmentat its best.

Yet while the potential benefits of e-government areplentiful, the remaining challenges are profound.While the federal government is certainly makingprogress, in too many areas we’re still moving at “oldeconomy” speed.

Most government entities have Web sites, and moreand more constituents are communicating with theirrepresentatives via e-mail. Governments are movingto the Internet for basic transactions, onlineprocurement, and information dissemination.Despite these positive trends, federal, state, andlocal governments are still in the early stages ofrecognizing the real potential of e-government.

There is still much work to be done. We need tofind new and innovative ways to make services more

user friendly. The Web-savvy citizen of the 21stcentury is accustomed tothe standard of serviceprovided by commercialWeb sites, and will acceptnothing less from govern-ment sites.

We need more effectiveleadership and management.We need to develop a

stronger “citizen-as-customer” focus. We need morereliable software and hardware. We need moresophisticated technical expertise.

The federal government has created more than20,000 Web sites, so information can be hard tofind. Some information remains difficult to locatebecause some agencies remain focused on postingtheir priorities rather than the services theircustomers demand.

We need to better assuage concerns about security,privacy, and access. By more than two-to-one,Americans say they want to proceed slowly ratherthan quickly in implementing e-governmentbecause of concerns about security, privacy, andaccess. Americans view e-government through thesame lens with which they view the Internet: verypositive, but not entirely trusting.

The high degree of interdependence andinterconnectivity between information systems,both internally and externally, exposes thevulnerability of the federal government’s computernetworks to both benign and destructive disruptions.This factor is important to understanding how wedevise a comprehensive and flexible strategy forcoordinating, implementing, and maintaininginformation security practices throughout thefederal government as the rising threat of electronicterrorism emerges.

Finally, the government has a moral obligation toaddress digital divide issues so that computers andInternet access are not available only to those whocan afford these technologies and the opportunitiesthey provide to reach out to government and theworld. I want ALL of my constituents to be able tocontact me via e-mail, not just the ones with a

“Yet while the potentialbenefits of e-governmentare plentiful, the remainingchallenges are profound.”

Tom Davis

11

personal computer in their homes. Creativity in thisregard will be vital. We should consider, forexample, whether we can post computer kiosks inour grocery stores or shopping malls to create equalaccess and opportunity to take advantage of theease and convenience of obtaining governmentservices online.

Indeed, with the advent of lightning-speedcommunications enabled by the Internet, thenetworked world is creating new demands ongovernment services from consumers—demandsthat require immediate response. With the abilityfor citizens to e-mail and communicate with federalagencies directly, Congress and the administration

must efficiently manage the federal government byproviding the resources to make sure thegovernment can deal with new demands.

As we continue to move forward, we must ensurethat our government is utilizing the latesttechnologies to improve operational efficiencies,ensure confidentiality and privacy of information,and streamline the delivery of services. I think if weuse technology to our advantage, it will prove to bethe best vehicle we have for the creation andmaintenance of good government.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author anddo not necessarily reflect U.S. government policy.

Since 1996, the U.S. Agency for

International Development has

been working closely with African

leaders and the private sector to

bring Internet connectivity to

Africa, through a program

celebrating a U.S. Congressman

who had dedicated his career to,

and lost his life while, promoting

development among countries on

the continent.

12

The U.S. Agency for International Development(USAID) has been working for seven years to helpAfrican leaders bring information andcommunication technology (ICT) to their countriesand to teach their citizens how to use it. USAIDprograms, based in partnerships with local-levelinstitutions and private-sector donors, haveprovided an estimated 2 million Africans withInternet access, a number that is growing daily.

That figure represents a significant proportion ofthe total 8.9 million Africans now online.1 Thanks tothese pioneering efforts, an ICT success story isemerging, showcasing the positive results that canbe achieved when African policy-makers andentrepreneurs are brought together with the besttechnology and know-how that the United Statescan offer.

These achievements have been accomplished undera program we call the Leland Initiative. It is namedfor Mickey Leland, a U.S. Congressman from thestate of Texas who died in a plane crash while on afamine relief mission to Ethiopia in 1989.Throughout his career, Congressman Leland foughtto bring the benefits of development to the peopleof Africa. The Leland Initiative was launched in June1996 to help bring the information revolution toAfrica in tribute to Congressman Leland’sdedication and commitment to people everywhere.

In the mid-1990s, only a handful of countries inAfrica had Internet access. This usually was limitedto slow and expensive e-mail service in the capitalcity. Today, all 44 sub-Saharan African countrieshave access that, in most cases, extends to cities andregions far beyond the capital. Hundreds of Internetservice providers (ISPs) have sprung up, andthousands of cybercafes offer fee-paying customersaccess to computers connected to the Internet. The

Bringing Africa OnlineBy Lane Smith

Coordinator, Leland InitiativeU.S. Agency for International Development

13

Leland Initiative established the principal Internetgateway and national connection for 10 of thosecountries.2 In 16 additional countries,3 the LelandInitiative and the local USAID missions havedelivered access to major institutions such asuniversities, parliaments and private sector groups.In all countries, citizens experience the impact ofLeland in the form of a more vibrant market, betteraccess, and lower prices.

The accomplishments of this initiative must bemeasured in more than technology and access,however. Courageous African leaders saw theLeland Initiative as an opportunity to changegovernment monopolies in telephone services, thetraditional but discredited approach. African andU.S. private sector entities responded vigorouslyand rapidly to the opportunities that these policiescreated. With the groundwork laid by the LelandInitiative, private companies have invested capital,established businesses, built infrastructure, andaggressively pursued new business opportunities.

The Leland Principles

The Leland Initiative was conceived to work inseveral substantive areas that we’ve called the three“P’s,” which stand for policies, pipes, and people.

In the policy area, USAID established oneimportant principle with the 1996 launch of theLeland Initiative. We would only work with thosecountries willing to adopt modern, Internet-friendlycommunication policies based on low prices, theintroduction of competition, and the free flow ofinformation. Leland experts offered to help Africantelecommunications leaders reach out to the privatesector to implement these policies.

“Pipes” mean the hardware, the communicationtechnologies that link people to ISPs, ISPs to thenational gateways, and these, in turn, to theworldwide Internet backbone. The Leland Initiativeexperts installed state-of-the-art telecommu-nications equipment to national capitals and trainedphone company staff in its use. Leland experts alsoprovided technology to link private Internetservices businesses to this equipment and devisedmodels for getting connections out to underservedareas and the secondary cities.

Helping people build the skills and knowledge baseof an information industry was the third objective ofthe Leland Initiative. We intended to helpindividuals and institutions apply the powerfulinformation and communication tools of theInternet to achieve social and economic developmentand improve the lives of African citizens.

Ten nations joined the Leland Initiative on theseterms in 1996. In partnership with the U.S.-basedtelecommunications corporation AT&T, USAIDshowed government regulators in these first-roundcountries how to set affordable wholesale prices forInternet circuits that would still yield a healthy rateof return on the investments that their governmentshad made for the circuits. AT&T’s involvementhelped national phone company officials—accustomed to monopolistic telecommunicationspolicies—view the private sector as a partner, ratherthan as an opponent to be controlled. In eachcountry, Leland arranged meetings among thestakeholders—government officials, telephonecompany officers, private entrepreneurs, universityand school leaders, NGOs and the like. Throughthese meetings, Leland helped the parties hammerout transparent—and minimal—licensing pro-cedures. In each Leland country, multiplecompanies responded to these opportunities toenter the Internet business, ready to invest anaverage of $40,000 each to participate.

When the policies were in place, USAID turned tothe U.S. technology sector, using firms in Utah,California, Virginia, Maryland, and elsewhere todesign modern satellite-based Internet gateways tobring efficient high speed Internet into the nationalphone companies. We introduced both wired andwireless technologies to link these gateways to thenew ISPs and to give them telephone lines overwhich customers could access the Internet. Newwireless technologies continue to be provided tounderserved neighborhoods and people; cybercafesand neighborhood access centers are now a majorgrowth point for the Internet.

The initial 10 countries that signed on to the termsof the Leland Initiative made rapid progress in theirtelecommunications sectors, progress that wasnoted by neighboring governments. Countries thathad spurned participation upon the initial offeringin 1996 saw that their policies of high prices and

14

state and private monopolies were not achieving theresults obtained by nations that had adoptedInternet-friendly policies. In the late 1990s, theseinitial holdouts began to sign agreements to pursuepolicy reform, to lower prices, and to allowmarketplace competition.

Increasing Skills

Proper hardware and sufficient access are only ofvalue when people know how to use informationtechnologies to improve their lives and theircommunities. Recognizing this, USAID embarkedon a major effort to increase the capacity of Africanpeople and institutions to use information resourcesin education, business, agriculture, and democracybuilding.

The Leland Initiative has trained thousands ofindividuals in strategic use of the vast internationalinformation resources that the Internet provides.These people represent every sector of society—government, business, nongovernment organizations(NGOs), education, and health care. They applythese skills today to invigorate economic activity,increase human potential, spur development, andcreate more civic participation and greatertransparency in government.

The Internet-based development activities that areproducts of the Leland Initiative are varied:

•. Partnerships between African and U.S.schools strengthen in-country capacity to usethe Internet in the educational process, andfoster on-going relationships.

•. Education officials are uniting disparateuniversities in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, SouthAfrica, Mali, and Guinea into nationalnetworks, the fundamental building block ofthe rapidly globalizing educational world.

•. Private sector trade and investmentactivities are strengthening the ability ofbusiness associations to use the Internet.

•. Internet-based networks of democracystakeholders from the executive, legislativeand judicial branches are increasing trans-parency, promoting democracy and building

better governments. The business sector provides some of the mosttangible evidence of the progress made in theseareas. We provided equipment and training to helpsmall-business owners develop their skills andidentify strategic information resources. Within sixmonths, all the companies involved in the projecthad increased their revenue by 60 percent. Many ofthe enterprises were able to find better sources forraw materials and equipment through the Internet,thus reducing their operating expenses andincreasing their competitiveness.

Another success story was in the formation of awomen’s business network. With membership fromGhana, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, and theUnited States, the Women’s Business Networkpromotes use of the Internet in developing traderelationships, expanding access to critical marketinformation, and establishing e-business linkagesbetween African and U.S. companies. More than140 African businesswomen created their own, self-reliant U.S.-Africa Women’s Business Alliance. Fortybusinesswomen have set up Web sites to bettermarket their products and services, or have begunadvertising their goods over existing sites.

In KwaZulu Natal Province in South Africa, LelandInitiative experts helped the Black Farmers Unionset up Internet information centers. Internet accessat these centers allows more than 1,200 farmers touse banking services online, and thus avoid a 128-kilometer roundtrip to the closest urban area servedby financial institutions. They also have real-timeaccess to information on the price and availability ofkey agriculture inputs such as fertilizer and seed,rather than conducting transactions through costlyand inefficient middlemen.

The Future

The results and the lessons derived from USAID’sseven-year experience with the Leland Initiativehave become the basis for the informationtechnology component of the Global DevelopmentAlliance, the U.S. Government’s business model forsustainable development through partnershipsamong governments, nongovernmental organ-izations, businesses, and educational institutions.Public-private efforts are underway to achieve avariety of goals that will strengthen the role of ICTs

15

in Africa. USAID has engaged partners fromgovernment, education, and the private sector todevelop improved education and training programsto produce an African cadre of skilled ICTprofessionals and experienced regulators. U.S.universities, corporations, and NGOs are providingexpertise, software, and equipment to strengthenpoorly resourced African universities.

These partnerships work toward helping Africansmeet one of the key challenges of the 21st century–stimulating economic and social development.Distance learning, telemedicine, e-commerce, ande-government all hold great promise for African andAmerican interests alike. The Leland Initiative hasalready introduced millions of Africans to theadvantages that information technologies canprovide in enhancing the quality of life and building

better societies. It is our challenge now to continuethis work and expand our efforts to the millionsmore who still have not entered the digital age.

1. International Telecommunications Union Statistics at a Glance, October 2003. http://www.

itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/Internet02.pdf

2. Cote d’Ivoire, Benin, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique,

Rwanda.

3. Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria,

Lesotho, Liberia, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

A number of institutional Web sites supported by the LelandInitiative demonstrate its achievements. They are available at:www.nettelafrica.org, www.kenet.org, www.ncc.gov.ng, www.makerere.ac.ug

16

The U.S. government is

promoting Internet skills and

computer knowledge among

diverse populations in Eurasia.

For decades the U.S. State Department has beensponsoring educational and cultural exchangeprograms for citizens around the world to promotemutual understanding. The department has alwaystried in one way or another to maintain links withalumni of these programs. For alumni in Eurasia,that effort moved into cyberspace in a formal andcomprehensive way in 1995 with establishment of anetwork of public access Internet sites throughoutthe region.

The program that established the network offers, inaddition to mere Internet access, Web site design,training, and distance learning, and it encouragesInternet-based activities between alumni, thegeneral public, and counterparts in the UnitedStates. The program has built a network ofprofessionals in the 12 countries of Eurasia whocommunicate daily, sharing lesson plans, engagingin community service projects, and connectingcitizens of those countries with U.S.-basedresources and counterparts.

Background and History

The State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (http://exchanges.state.gov) createdthe program in 1995, calling it the Internet Accessand Training Program (IATP). Two organizations share management responsibilities for theprogram—Project Harmony in Russia (http://www.projectharmony.org) and the InternationalResearch and Exchanges Board (IREX) in Belarus,Moldova, and Ukraine, and in the Caucasus andCentral Asian countries (http://www.irex.org).

The main goals of the IATP are to expandknowledge and use of the Internet in order to fosterthe free flow of information and ideas acrossnational borders; to provide Internet access to

Connecting with Eurasia

By Barry BallowDirector, Office of Academic Exchange Programs

Bureau of Educational and Cultural AffairsU.S. Department of State

exchange-program alumni as well as targetedmembers of the general public; and to providetraining in using the Internet and accessing theresources on the World Wide Web.

So far, the Bureau of Educational and CulturalAffairs has spent nearly $30 million on IATP inEurasia, and the results have been profound. IATPhas counted more than 2,500,000 users, supporteddevelopment of more than 6,000 Web sites, andprovided training for more than 210,000individuals. In addition, IATP has 79 open accesscenters in 54 regions of Russia, and a total of 140sites in Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, and the Caucusand Central Asian countries.

The Russian Experience

Under Project Harmony’s guidance, the IATPprogram in Russia has focused on enabling localcitizens to participate in the global Internetcommunity. Emphasis has been placed on fosteringcivic leadership, harnessing Internet technology,and facilitating cross-cultural learning.

IATP has 79 centers across the country, of which 41are based at regional libraries, 22 at universities, and16 at other facilities. Each host institution providesan educational coordinator and a technicalspecialist. All partners provide fully remodeledoffice space and furniture, and they cover monthlyInternet connection, staff salary, utilities, andsecurity costs. A key goal for the centers is to beself-sustaining once U.S. government support ends.

Center staff recruit exchange program alumni toparticipate in Web design courses and thematictraining, and they encourage them to teach classesfor the general public. All centers are open for aminimum of 20 hours a week for alumni and generalpublic Internet access, and they offer an additional20 hours of training for such diverse groups as non-government organization (NGO) workers, women’sorganizations, individuals with disabilities, andorphans. Four centers are dedicated to exchange-program alumni and persons with disabilities. Manyprogram participants engage in community servicework and many also have acquired sufficient Webdesign skills necessary to gain fruitful employment.

The U.S. Embassy in Moscow cooperates closely

with Project Harmony to administer the AmericanCorners program in Russia. American Corners,launched more than three years ago at the initiativeof former U.S. Ambassador to Russia James Collins,is a scaled down, high-tech version of Americancultural and educational centers in other parts of theworld. A large portion of their collections are onCD-ROM.

The embassy has even taken this concept a stepfurther, creating a U.S. Virtual Consulates Program.Virtual consulates, offering visa information andforms via an embassy-produced Web site, areavailable at IATP centers in several regions of Russia.

This year, IATP added several new elements. One,done in partnership with the World Bank Institute,is the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), whichgives alumni access to more than 25 distancelearning courses. The VLE, available to all IATPcenters free of charge, provides courses on a rangeof topics, among them public speaking, NGOmanagement, resume writing, leadership, managinga board of directors, geometry, and databasedevelopment. Each online course is limited to 25students and is always facilitated by a professionalinstructor. During each course, an assistant isselected to study the notes and techniques of theinstructor so that he or she can lead the course inthe future.

IATP conducts outreach to the smaller republics ofRussia. For instance, a project conducted in theRepublic of Mari El led to creation of an extensiveeducational network there as well as a team ofinformation technology specialists. Alumni of theTeachers for Excellence in Education (TEA) andPartners in Education (PiE) exchange programs areimplementing a similar effort in the Republic ofKalmykia, for which the republic’s ministry ofeducation is providing substantial financial support.Similar projects have been implemented in theSamara and Irkutsk regions.

IATP offers all alumni 50 megabytes of computerserver space to develop their own Web sites and e-mail services. Not surprisingly, the StateDepartment relies principally on e-mail to keep intouch with alumni and inform them of U.S.government assistance programs.

17

18

IATP in the other Eurasian Countries

IREX administers more than 140 IATP centers acrossBelarus, Moldova, and Ukraine as well as thecountries of the Caucasus and Central Asia in closecooperation with U.S. embassies there.

IATP provides computer workstations, a server, aprinter, a scanner, related cabling, and power back-up systems for each center. IATP also provides a siteadministrator who often works with partnerinstitution personnel to administer the site. Thepartners commonly cover costs for the center’sroom, renovations, utilities, and security. In somecases, partner institutions contribute computerequipment.

The centers offer the Step-by-Step TrainingProgram to members of targeted organizations suchas community groups, educational institutions,libraries, and NGOs after identifying their needs.Through this program, schools have acquiredcomputer hardware and begun doing their owntraining, and newspaper associations have workedwith IATP to create e-mail networks to share newsstories and photographs.

In Tajikistan, the Step-by-Step Training Programhas already resulted in the first Web site dedicatedto combating tuberculosis. The Web site is currentlyfilling up with information about the specifics of thedisease and its reach in Tajikistan, and it serves as aforum for Tajik doctors dealing with the illness.

In Spitak, Armenia IATP is using the Step-by-StepProgram with children, teaching them to use theWindows and Linux operating systems to createpersonal Web sites. The children of Spitak nowmaintain an online newspaper and a Web radiostation, participate in Web-design groups, andcreate their own animations. Some of these childreneven assist IATP trainers throughout the region.

Spitak can now boast a cadre of young people withhighly marketable and practical technology skills.

The IATP Mobile Training Program is closelyaligned with the Step-by-Step Training Program. Asthe name implies, the Mobile Program takestraining on the road to organizations that have theirown computers, providing users with trainingtargeted to their organization’s particular needs,such as the creation of a mailing list.

IATP is the largest Internet development program inthe region, and all of its sites have a standard lookand feel. Key to this standardization is earlytraining for IATP center staff, both in computer andInternet basics as well as in specialized areas such aslibrary science.

In many cities, councils of exchange-programalumni work with community groups to identifytraining needs, advertise the services of IATP sites,and raise awareness through special workshops onsuch subjects as trafficking in persons, HIV/AIDS,and culture and life in the United States. Alumni canoften contribute specialized knowledge aboutspecific academic or professional fields they studiedin the United States. For example, members of analumni council in Ferghana, Uzbekistan recentlytaught computer skills to more than 60 professionalswho work in the fields of natural sciences andcommunity organizing.

In eight short years, IATP has established a dynamicand growing network of computer and Internetusers in Eurasia, linking them with each other andwith their counterparts in the United States andaround the world. Jobs have been created,knowledge acquired, associations established, andmutual understanding promoted—all testimony tothe power and effect of cooperative engagement inan environment of open and free communications.

19

The Internet delivery of government informationand services, e-government, has been a fact ofonline life since 1996. In the fast-moving pace ofdigital technology, several evolutionary cycles in e-government have developed in that time. Now e-government is on the brink of a new era when itcould work to transform government’s servicedelivery and interaction with citizens, according toa number of surveys and experts. In so doing, e-government could also change the traditionalstructures of government and citizens’ perceptionsof them.

In the United States, the federal government, as thelargest single government entity, is at the forefrontof this transition. The federal portal FirstGov.govoffers an entry point to the full range of governmentservices, programs, and agencies, and it does so in auser-friendly manner that has been widely praisedby independent evaluating organizations andinformation technology specialists.

State, city, and county governments have also movedrapidly over the past several years to establish anInternet presence. All 50 U.S. states have establishedan online presence. The International City/CountyManagement Association (ICMA), a professionalorganization comprising local government managers

COMMENTARY

A New Way of Governing in the Digital AgeBy Charlene Porter

Managing Editor of The Evolving Internet

Information technologies and

Internet transactions are changing

the relationship between

governments and their citizens.

20

and administrators, conducted a survey in 2002 oflocal governments with populations in excess of2,500, finding that 75 percent have put a Web siteonline.

The quality and quantity of the information andservices provided online by all these differentgovernment entities range across a wide spectrum,the result of thousands of individual decisions madein city halls, council chambers, and state housesacross the country. Recognition of that divergentquality and usability brings on the next stage in e-gov’s evolution—the challenge to identify the bestpractices of online service delivery and the bestmethods to use advanced information technologiesto deliver the greatest payoff for governments andthe citizens they serve.

If governments can rise to that challenge, they standto transform the belief held by publics of practicallyall cultures and political systems—that governmentis inefficient, slow, and unresponsive. “The evolutionof electronic government represents a bold new wayof doing the state’s business to provide a governmentthat serves its citizens and businesses productivelyand more efficiently,” according to a study conductedby the National Governor’s Association (NGA).

The Council for Excellence in Government is anindependent Washington-based organization closelymonitoring the pace and progress of governmentonline. Council Vice President for E-governmentDavid McClure said in an interview with Global Issuesthat online service delivery has already begun tohighlight what’s been wrong with the old methods.“The inefficiencies of the existing processes arealready starting to show themselves. The Interneterases a lot of that inefficiency,” McClure said.

The Council for Excellence in Government andprivate sector underwriter Accenture released a pollassessing perceptions of e-government by citizensin April 2003. E-government services received highmarks, according to the more than 1,000 citizenssurveyed by Hart-Teeter Research. More than 60percent who were Internet users expressed interestin conducting basic transactions with governmentonline—services such as filing a change of address,renewing a driver’s license, or obtaining a birthcertificate or marriage license.

Of those online users who had already accessedsuch services, 67 percent said that dealing with thegovernment was easier and more convenientbecause of the online service, and 74 percent saidthat the benefits of e-government will likely grow inthe years to come and improve governmentoperations overall.

“They don’t have to go stand in line to get a driver’slicense renewal,” McClure said. “They don’t have towrite a letter; they can interact with the governmentvia e-mail....It’s convenient.”

The Evolutionary Stages

McClure’s study of the movement of governmentsonline since the late 1990s has allowed him toidentify several stages in the process. Governmentslarge and small, local and national, go throughmuch the same developmental process, he said, inthe United States and in other nations. The firststage is bringing a Web site online and establishinga presence, which usually offers little more thanbasic information. Next a government will developan interaction with citizens and create a channel foran online exchange of information. Then theagency will advance to the transaction phase—allowing users to reserve a campsite at a public park,renew a driver’s license, pay a business license fee,etc.

The phase now beginning in many governments,

Evolving Internet Facts

• Half of all Americans and three-quarters ofAmerican Internet users already have used agovernment Web site to find information orconduct transactions.

• When asked to name the most importantpotential benefit of e-government, 28 percent ofAmericans cite greater government accountabil-ity to its citizens, 19 percent say greater effi-ciency and cost-effectiveness, 18 percent saymore access to public information, and 13 per-cent say more convenient government services.

Source: Hart Teeter/Council for Excellence in Government

21

McClure said, is transformation, “figuring out howcan you make the best use of this dynamicinteraction you now have with people—citizensand businesses—so that you can redesigneverything in your process behind it to make itmuch more efficient.”

One of the progressive trends in governments’ onlineservices is to provide information in a thematicfashion, rather than in a bureaucratic fashion dictatedby the structure of the government agencies that arethe custodians of that information. On the federallevel, for instance, a wide array of agencies maintainpublic lands that offer recreational activities. Now,online users can explore all those opportunities atRecreation.gov without having to know whichgovernment agency has jurisdiction over what.

The state of Massachusetts has established a thematiconline clearinghouse for businesses attempting tostart an enterprise in the state.MassMeansBusiness.com is an Internet portal thatconsolidates information from state agencies,municipalities, and private sector firms who are allhoping to encourage new business and improveeconomic development in Massachusetts. The portalconsolidates information resources for a potentialbusiness investor in a way never previously achieved.

Projects such as these represent the new trends, butnot the entire reality. General characterizationsabout the state of e-government are impossible tomake because of the uniquely localized ways it isdeveloping. Teams of technocrats, bureaucrats, andelected officials in governmental entitieseverywhere are working to combine their ideas,resources, and priorities in the design andmaintenance of online government services. Theirindependent actions form a mosaic from which afull picture is yet to emerge.

Citizens themselves are getting more opportunitiesto contribute to the design of their online services.McClure says municipalities in increasing numbersare surveying citizens about the types of servicesthey want to see online. When cities take that step,McClure said their online products get higherapproval ratings from citizens. “[The cities] ratehigher, they’re delivering focused services. They’renot trying to do everything. It makes a hugedifference,” McClure said.

There’s another bonus that emerges from thisapproach, according to the Council for Excellencein Government survey. People who reportedsuccessful online interactions with government likegovernment more. “Their trust in government, theiracceptance of government goes up tremendously,”McClure said.

The Obstacles

Ensuring privacy and security in transactionsbetween government and online citizens is a highpriority for both the people who use the servicesand for the people who provide them. A survey ofgovernment information technology specialistsfound that 80 percent of respondents identified theprotection of confidential and sensitive informationas a critical priority for their agency. The study,conducted by Lightspeed Systems—an informationtechnologies (IT) company—also found that amajority of these technology specialists reportedthey do not have solutions to these problems.

“When gone unrecognized, IT issues such as privacyprotection, system intrusion, offensive e-mail, andspam considerably drain IT resources at governmentagencies, costing these institutions a tremendousamount of time and money,” Lightspeed PresidentRob McCarthy told Government Technology magazinein October. “And the survey indicates not manyagencies have solutions in place.”

Despite the positive reviews of e-governmentservices that emerged from the Council forExcellence in Government survey, 46 percent ofparticipants expressed strong concerns that theironline interaction with government couldcompromise their privacy, or the security ofpersonal information.

McClure said the findings reflect the high standardsthat the public holds for government’s obligation toprotect the privacy of citizens. “All it takes is oneincident, and trust in government would slide 20(percentage) points and everything would be pulledoffline.”

The expectation of privacy varies from one nationto the next, however, and some nations—notablyCanada, the United Kingdom, and Singapore—have moved ahead of the United States in the types

of online transactions they offer involving thecollection of private information. The Council forExcellence in Government survey finds that citizensin other countries have fewer concerns aboutprivacy than Americans do and are more acceptingof government compilation of personal informationthat could occur through online transactions.

Ensuring that all citizens receive an equal level ofservice from government is a concern about e-government identified in a report prepared by a taskforce organized by the ICMA. Even whilegovernments move online, they are still providingservices in person, on the telephone, and throughtraditional mail. The ICMA report finds thatgovernments will be challenged to provide an equallevel of service through all those channels.

“Simply because someone e-mails rather than mailsa complex request does not mean, in practice, theissue should be rectified any faster,” said the taskforce report.

Access and equity of service delivery are noted as

problems in a study conducted by the TaubmanCenter for Public Policy at Brown University andreleased in September 2003. A review ofgovernment Web sites maintained by the 70 largestU.S. cities concluded that only 20 percent of themcomply with an international Web standard fordisability access, and only 13 percent comply with astandard outlined in U.S. law.

“Government Web sites need to do much more tomake themselves accessible to all Americans,” saidTaubman Director Darrell M. West in a press releaseannouncing the September findings. “Web sitesmaintained by city agencies are flunking basicdisability access standards for the visually andhearing-impaired.”

There’s also a language barrier online, Taubman found.Only 13 percent of the city government sites surveyedoffered any form of foreign language translation. Asecond Taubman study surveying state and federalgovernment sites found a higher level of online multi-linguality. Sharing a border with Mexico and home to asignificant Hispanic population, the state of Texas was

22

International E-gov Users Agree Information And Transactions Easier

E-gov makes it easier and more convenient to:

Stay informed about government services Conduct transactions with the government

Source: Hart Teeter/Council for Excellence in Government

named by Taubman as the national leader in this areawith 55 percent of its Web pages offered in a secondlanguage (http://www.texas.gov/home.jsp?language=esp)

The federal government took an important steptoward overcoming the online language barrier inOctober with introduction of a Spanish languageversion of FirstGov.gov. WWW.espanol.gov willserve 28 million Spanish speakers in the UnitedStates, according to the General ServicesAdministration (GSA), the agency that overseesfederal online offerings.

“President Bush, through his e-gov initiative,challenged the government to employ the latest intechnology to create a more efficient, citizen-centered, federal government," said GSAAdministrator Stephen A. Perry, announcing thelaunch of the Spanish site. "FirstGov en Español is yetanother example of making it easier for the public tointeract with federal government agencies," he said.

The Future

Governments large and small increase their onlinepresence day-by-day, even as they struggle todetermine what services citizens want, how theymight be provided, and how they might be funded.Even amidst this swirl of immediate activity, apicture of what the future might look like is takingshape in the vision of some analysts.

The ICMA task force found “(E-)governmentservices help to ‘democratize’ local government in apositive way. Web site resources boost transparency,

increase access to policymaking, and increaseaccountability from government leaders.”

That positive outlook must be balanced againstanother possible outcome, according to the ICMAreport. “(T)he rate at which information is receivedcan also pose a hazard if it abbreviates thedemocratic thought process.”

The prospect of increased transparency ingovernment is one foreseen by many of the Internetfuturists who watch the trends in e-government. Astudy released jointly in May 2003 by theFederation of Government Information ProcessingCouncils and the GSA finds, “The use of e-gov canbe an important tool of democratic governance,facilitating the transparent, two-way opencommunication that makes government-of-the-people possible.”

Government jurisdictions throughout the UnitedStates and around the world are at many differentpoints along the evolutionary e-governmenttimeline. But authorities watching the trends seemto agree that advanced information technologiesand their users have the momentum to compel moreopenness and transparency from governments largeand small.

Charlene Porter is the managing editor of this journal andwrites on communications issues for the Office of InternationalInformation Programs, U.S. Department of State.

This article is based on a survey of current opinions, and doesnot necessarily reflect U.S. government policy.

23

A computer security specialist offers

instruction and guidance on how to

prevent intruders and infected

software from getting into your home

computer system.

24

The Internet is a great communications and researchtool as well as a source of entertainment for millionsof people around the world. It is also a security risk.Malicious computer programs have been used toattack computer systems hooked up to theworldwide Internet, damaging computer programsand gaining access to confidential information.News reports of these attacks have brought to theworld new meanings for old words such as "virus,""worm," "infection," and "crash"—part of afrightening vocabulary that can intimidate those justbeginning to use this new technology. What does itall mean and how can those less experienced Internettravelers navigate the hazards more safely?

Computer security has its similarities to theprecautions most people take to secure their home,family, property, and person in an uncertain andsometimes dangerous world. Locking the doors atnight, avoiding dangerous neighborhoods, andkeeping an eye on one’s wallet have their corollariesin sensible computer use.

The Threats

Your home computer is a popular target forintruders, because they want what you may havestored there: credit card numbers, bank accountinformation, personal background information, andanything else they can find. With such information,intruders can take your money, even steal youridentity. But it is not just money-related informationthey may be after. Intruders also want yourcomputer's resources, meaning your hard diskspace, your fast processor, and your Internetconnection. They use these resources to attackother computers on the Internet. In fact, the morecomputers an intruder uses, the harder it is for lawenforcement investigators to figure out where theattack is coming from. If intruders can't be found,

Staying Safe in CyberspaceBy Lawrence R. Rogers

Senior Member of the Technical StaffSoftware Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

25

they can't be stopped, and they can't be prosecuted.

Intruders go after home computers because typicallythey are easy targets. When connected to high-speed Internet connections that are always turnedon, these computers are all the more easy forintruders to find and attack.

How do intruders break into your computer? Insome cases, they send you e-mail with a virus.Reading that e-mail activates the virus, creating anopening that lets intruders see what is inside yourcomputer. In other cases, they take advantage of aflaw or weakness in one of your computer'sprograms—a vulnerability—to gain access. Onceinside, they often install new programs that let themcontinue to use your computer—even after youhave plugged the holes they used to get into yourcomputer in the first place. These so-calledbackdoors are usually cleverly disguised to blend inwith the other programs running on your computer.

So, think of your computer as you would your houseor your apartment. For example, you know that ifyou have a loud conversation, someone next doorcan probably hear you. You probably routinely lockthe doors and close the windows when you leave,and you don't give the keys to just anyone. If astranger shows up at the door, you don't invite himinside until you have made some discriminatingjudgments about his intentions. If you're approachedby a salesperson, you don't start handing him moneyuntil you've decided whether he's legitimate and hisproduct or service is reliable and desirable. Theseare the same kinds of judgments that you must makewhen browsing the World Wide Web on the Internetand deciding whether the information youencounter and the messages you receive are helpfulor harmful.

E-mail Security

Electronic mail—e-mail for short—is one of thebiggest threats to your home computer. Byunderstanding how e-mail works, and by takingprecautions in how you go about reading andwriting messages, you can reduce this securitythreat.

When you exchange e-mail with someone, themessages sent between you and that person pass

through several computers before they reach theirdestinations. Think of this conversation as takingplace in an Internet "room," a very, very big room.Anyone, or, more accurately, any program, alongthe conversation path can probably understandwhat is being said, because most Internetconversations are not concealed or hidden in anyway. Consequently, others may be listening in,capturing what you send, and using it for their ownbenefit.

E-mail-borne viruses and worms often arrive inattractive, enticing packages, much like the printedadvertisements we receive via traditional maildesigned to sell us something. By all appearances, aninfected e-mail message appears to be something wewant to read from someone we know, not amalicious virus or worm poised to destroy our data,exploit our hard drive, and hijack our computer'sprocessing power.

There are steps you can take to help you decidewhat to do with every e-mail message with anattachment that you receive. You should only read amessage that passes all of these tests:

1. The Know test: Is the e-mail from someonethat you know?

2. The Received test: Have you received e-mail from this sender before?

3. The Expect test: Were you expecting e-mailwith an attachment from this sender?

4. The Sense test: Do the subject linedescribing the contents of the e-mail messageand the name of the attachment both makesense? For example, would you expect thesender—let's say your mother—to send youan e-mail message with the curious, possiblymystifying subject line "Here you have, ;o)"that contains a message with an attachment—let's say “AnnaKournikova.jpg.vbs?” Amessage like that probably wouldn't makesense. You know your mother doesn't followworld tennis, and probably doesn't know whoKournikova is. In fact, it could be an instanceof the so-called Anna Kournikova worm thatbegan infecting computers around the worldwith malicious code in February 2001, and

26

reading it would damage your system.

5. The Virus test: Is this e-mail infected? Todetermine this, you need to install and run ananti-virus program.

Preventing Viruses

It’s helpful to think about viruses in the same way thatyou think about that stranger who has comeknocking at the door. It is your responsibility toprofile or evaluate anyone who enters your livingspace. Anti-virus programs do much the same thing.These programs look at the contents of each file,searching for specific patterns that match a profile—called a virus signature—of something known to beharmful. For each file that matches a signature, theanti-virus program typically provides several optionson how to respond, such as removing the offendingpatterns or destroying the file.

Viruses can reach your computer in many ways—through floppy disks, CD-ROMs, e-mail, Web sites,and downloaded files. All need to be checked forviruses each time you use them. In other words,when you insert a floppy disk into the drive, checkit for viruses. When you receive e-mail, check it forviruses using the tests described above. When youdownload a file from the Internet, check it forviruses before using it. Your anti-virus program maylet you specify all of these as sources to check eachtime you encounter or use them. Your anti-virusprogram may also do this automatically.

You often have the chance to react to viruses whenthey've been discovered on your home computer.Depending upon the specific characteristics of thevirus, you might be able to clean the infected file. Oryou might be forced to destroy the file and load anew copy from your backups or original distributionmedia. Your options depend upon your choice ofanti-virus program and the virus that's been detected.

Patching

Sometimes a would-be intruder may attempt toenter your home through a broken window.Software programs that you run on your computercan also have "broken windows," and cyberspaceintruders are constantly searching to exploit suchopenings.

A Brief Glossary Excerpted from the Webopedia DictionaryOnline for Computer and Internet Terms

Download: To copy data (usually an entirefile) from a main source to a peripheraldevice. The term is often used to describe theprocess of copying a file from an online ser-vice or bulletin board service to one's owncomputer.

Intruder: An adversary who is conductingor has conducted an intrusion or attackagainst a victim host, site, network, or organization.

Trojan Horse: A destructive program thatmasquerades as a benign application. Unlikeviruses, Trojan horses do not replicate them-selves but they can be just as destructive.One of the most insidious types of Trojanhorse is a program that claims to rid yourcomputer of viruses but instead introducesviruses onto your computer.

Virus: A program or piece of code that isloaded onto your computer without yourknowledge and runs against your wishes.Viruses can also replicate themselves.

Vulnerability: A feature or combination offeatures of a system that allows anadversary—the intruder—to place thesystem—your home computer—in a statethat is both contrary to the desires of thepeople responsible for the system—you—and increases the risk of undesirablebehavior in or of the system.

Worm: A program or algorithm that repli-cates itself over a computer network andusually performs malicious actions, such asusing up the computer's resources and possi-bly shutting the system down.

A comprehensive glossary of Internet terms isavailable at http://www.webopedia.com/

Just as you would repair the broken window to secureyour home, you must fix the vulnerabilities inprograms running on your computer. Most vendorsprovide patches, sometimes free of charge on theirWeb sites, for this purpose. When you purchaseprograms, it's a good idea to see if and how thevendor supplies patches. Just as appliance vendorsoften sell extended warranties for their products,some software vendors may also sell support fortheirs. Vendors send notices to product owners whena safety-related problem has been discovered.Registering your purchase through the warranty cardor online gives the vendor the information they needto contact you if there is a recall or a software fix.

Program vendors also provide a service allowingyou to receive patch notices via e-mail. Throughthis type of service, you can learn about problemswith your computer before intruders have thechance to exploit them. Consult the vendor's Website to see how to get e-mail notices about patches.Some programs include features that automaticallycontact the vendor’s Web sites to look for patches.These automatic updates tell you when patches areavailable, and they download and even install them.

While the patching process is getting easier, even tothe point of automation, it is not yet foolproof. Insome cases, installing a patch can cause another

seemingly unrelated program to break. Thechallenge is to do as much homework as you can tolearn what a patch is supposed to do and whatproblems it might cause once you've installed it.

Conclusion

Today's Internet evolved from a 1960s project thatwas designed to allow scientists and researchers toshare ideas and resources via computer technology.The element of trust was key to the endeavor,shaping many of the practices, procedures, andtechnologies that are still in place today. As theInternet has become a global forum for com-munications and commerce, relying principally ontrust has proven to be inadequate. Today's usersmust treat the Internet with the same wariness andcaution they would carry into any unknownenvironment. While the Internet superhighway stillhas many potholes, sharp bends, and occasionalaccidents, today's users can safely journey throughthose hazards when they apply the types of cautionsthey already know and use in everyday life.

The Software Engineering Institute is a federally fundedresearch and development center and the home of the CERT®Coordination Center, a center of Internet security expertise. Amore detailed explanation of all the issues discussed here isavailable at http://www.cert.org/homeusers/

A CERT representative describes the global damage done byviruses this year in the Additional Resources Section of thispublication.

© 2003 Carnegie Mellon University

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author anddo not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S.government.

27

Evolving Internet Facts

CERT/CC defines a security incident as the actof violating an explicit or implied security policyrelated to the laws, rules, and practices for man-aging and protecting computer systems.

Number of security incidents reported:

1988: 6

1992: 773

1996: 2,573

2000: 21,756

2003: 114,855 (January-September only)

Source: CERT/CC Statistics 1988-2003

28

Information and communications technology (ICT)is a key weapon in the war against world poverty.When used effectively, it offers huge potential toempower people in developing countries anddisadvantaged communities to overcomedevelopment obstacles, address the most importantsocial problems they face, and strengthencommunities, democratic institutions, a free press,and local economies. Yet a digital divide separatesthose who can access and use ICT to gain thesebenefits, and those who do not have access totechnology or cannot use it for one reason oranother. There are a wide range of projectsunderway aimed at bringing ICT to people indeveloping countries. But in order for ICT to have areal impact on people's lives, it is crucial thatdevelopment efforts go beyond computers andconnections to ensure that people have real access toICT so they can use it effectively to improve theirlives.

The digital divide between countries is usuallymeasured in terms of the number of telephones,computers, and Internet users. Between groups ofpeople within countries, it is usually measured interms of race, gender, age, disability, location, andincome. It is difficult to gain an overallunderstanding of the digital divide, the proposedsolutions, and what is having a real impact, whenthere are multiple definitions of the problem,conflicting views on whether it is getting better orworse, and various opinions on the key factorsaffecting it.

Bridges.org. is an international non-profitorganization based in Cape Town, South Africa.The organization promotes policies and laws thatfoster widespread ICT use, and works at thegrassroots level to help people understand ICT andits practical utility. Bridges.org has seen that the

Installing computers and con-

nections in underdeveloped

communities is only part of

what is needed to put informa-

tion and communications tech-

nology to use for socio-

ecoomic development. An

understanding of grassroots

realities, pooling of resources,

and a favorable regulatory sys-

tem are among the many ele-

ments necessary in an effective

approach to the digital divide.

Bridging the Digital Divide By Teresa Peters Executive Director

Bridges.org

29

digital divide is growing around the world, despitethe fact that all countries and all groups withincountries, even the poorest, are increasing theiraccess to and use of ICT. This is because people inICT "have" countries and groups are increasing theiraccess and use at an exponential rate. At the sametime, ICT "have-nots" are increasingly excludedfrom jobs, participation in government processes,and public discourse on the issues that affect theirlives, leaving them politically and economicallypowerless. Countries and communities face thethreat of being left further behind if they do notaddress the growing digital divides. However, theinfusion of ICT can intensify existing disparities.ICT alone is not enough to solve long-standingimbalances and can make inequalities worse if notapplied wisely.

The digital divide is a complex problem, presentingboth practical and policy challenges. It is alsoapparent that solutions that work in developedcountries cannot simply be transplanted todeveloping country environments: solutions mustbe based on an understanding of local needs andconditions.

What is being done?

Governments, businesses, individuals, andorganizations have studied the issues at stake in thedigital divide and drafted a range of valuablereports—from statistical analyses to in-depth casestudies. Most offer recommendations for tacklingthe problems, usually suggesting specific groundlevel initiatives and policy reforms. Many also coverthe wider issues that impact on digital divides, suchas e-commerce, information society, andinternational trade. Major international initiatives,such as the G-8's Digital Opportunity Task Force(DOT Force) and the World Summit onInformation Society (WSIS), bring together leadersand decision-makers from around the world for aconsultation process to determine the key factorsand how to address them. Several organizationshave undertaken "e-readiness" assessments todetermine a country's readiness to integratetechnology and e-commerce and establish abenchmark for regional comparison and public andprivate sector planning. Unfortunately, there issignificant duplication of effort in these studies andrecommendations, and too few of the suggestions

are followed up in practice. There is a lot of talk, butnot enough action.

Numerous on-the-ground initiatives are working toprovide technology access and help put technologyto use in underserved populations. There are anenormous number of efforts, ranging from projectsthat create public centers where poor people can usetelephones and computers, to those that incorporateICT in healthcare, to programs using innovativetechnology in small business applications. Theseefforts are driven by organizations that range fromthe smallest NGO working in remote areas—suchas SchoolNet, Namibia's efforts to put computers inrural schools—to the largest multinationalcorporations, such as Hewlett Packard's $1 billion"E-Inclusion" initiative to promote hardwareinnovations suitable for developing countryenvironments. Many initiatives address specificaspects of the range of issues, but too often theyneglect related factors that limit their success. Forexample, too many community access projectsproviding computers and connections in rurallocations do not become self-sustaining becauselocal people do not use their services—often theyhave failed to address the role of the center in thelocal economy or the need for locally relevantcontent. There is a need for a holistic approach tocover the range of issues to create effective andsustainable uses for technology that are integratedinto local society.

What more is needed? Real Access

Providing access to technology is critical, but itmust be about more than just physical access.Computers and connections are insufficient if thetechnology is not used effectively because it is notaffordable; people do not understand how to put itto use; people are discouraged from using it; or thelocal economy cannot sustain its use. ICT projectswill only be widely successful in developingcountries when all of the other componentsnecessary for the effective integration of ICT intosociety are in place. Bridges.org calls this real accessto ICT, and its work looks at twelve interrelatedfactors that determine whether ICT can beeffectively used by people:

• Physical access: Is technology available andaccessible to people and organizations?

• A p p r o p r i a t etechnology: Is theavailable technologyappropriate to localneeds and conditions?What is the appropriatetechnology according tohow people need andwant to put technologyto use?

• Affordability: Istechnology affordablefor people to use?

• Capacity: Do people have the training and skillsnecessary for effective technology use? Do theyunderstand how to use technology and its potentialuses?

• Relevant content: Is locally relevant contentavailable, especially in terms of language?

• Integration: Is technology use a burden topeoples’ lives, or is it integrated into daily routines?

• Socio-cultural factors: Are people limited intheir use of technology based on gender, race, orother socio-cultural factors?

• Trust: Do people have confidence in technologyand understand the implications of the technologythey use, for instance in terms of privacy, security, orcybercrime?

• Legal and regulatory framework: Do laws andregulations limit technology use? Are changesneeded to create an environment that fosters its use?

• Local economic environment: Is there a localeconomic environment favorable to technologyuse? Is technology part of local economicdevelopment? What is needed to make it a part?

• Macro-economic environment: Is technologyuse limited by the macro-economic environment inthe country or region, for example, in terms ofderegulation, investment, and labor issues?

• Political will: Is there political will ingovernment to do what is needed to enable the

integration of technologythroughout society, andpublic support forgovernment decision-making?

Overall, a pooling ofresources and experi-ences is needed. Dealingwith the digital divide isbeyond the scope of anysingle initiative. Whileit is important fororgan-izations doing

community ICT projects to meet the needs of theirclients as comprehensively as possible, the issues atstake in international and domestic digital dividesare huge, and organizations should cooperate totackle problems collaboratively. Private sectorprograms and philanthropic efforts are vital too,although there is room for improvement.

For-profit programs are successfully expandingaccess to technology to increasingly larger groups,but often fail to adequately address the needs of thepoorest countries, and the poor citizens withincountries. In isolation they can exacerbate divisionswithin countries since privileged groups are moreable to afford and use the technology. Donationsand philanthropic programs have demonstrated theuseful application of technology amongunderserved populations, but in many cases theyhave failed to produce sustainable, widely replicablemodels. The digital divide is not a new problem. Weshould learn from previous experience in fields suchas economic development, technology transfer, andsustainable development. Many of these ongoingprograms have an impact on the digital divide, andcoordination will benefit everyone.

Getting government policy right is also critical

Governments can play a fundamental role increating an environment that will foster technologyuse and encourage investment in ICT infrastructure,development, and a skilled workforce. Governmentaction is also important in spreading the benefits oftechnology throughout society, and governmentshave the power and mandate to balance the needs oftheir citizens for long-term economic growth andsocial prosperity. However, translating a vision into

30

“The issues at stake in internationaland domestic digital divides arehuge, and organizations shouldcooperate to tackle problemscollaboratively. ”

Teresa Peters

31

practical steps that fit the local context is not asimple matter. Leaders need to have a realisticappreciation for what ICT can—and cannot— dofor their countries and communities, and they mustlead effectively and bolster public confidence in thepath they take.

A range of projects are underway in developingcountries to integrate ICT in a number of criticalareas, including education, healthcare, government,trade, and small business support. However, theseprojects frequently encounter obstacles that directlyor indirectly relate to the country's policyenvironment. Examples include projects that rely ontechnology or infrastructure use that may be limitedby current laws or regulations, such as laws thatcontrol or ban the use of satellite, wireless, or Voiceover Internet Protocol (VoIP) technologies. Thereare ICT projects that may be hindered by a generallaw or regulation, such as fiscal or customs policiesthat limit cross-border trade in computingtechnologies. A significant problem is projectsworking in a particular area, such as healthcare,where current laws or regulations impede ICT use,such as privacy and data protection laws governingthe handling of electronic health data.

Many national leaders have embraced ICT and areready to promote a legal and regulatory environmentthat will enable its widespread use. But often at theworking level, government officials do notunderstand the implications of existing policies thatmay hinder ICT use, nor the changes they need tomake to create a more favorable environment.

Although the development aid industry generates atremendous volume of reports, advice, and analysesaimed at helping developing countries in the policyarea, developing country governments frequently saythat such recommendations do not show sufficientunderstanding of local needs and conditions.

Some governments have subscribed to e-strategiespromulgated by outsiders, but at a practical levelthey lack the political will to drive change becausethey do not enjoy widespread public support for anICT-focused approach. Often this is becausegovernment officials fail to engage stakeholders inframing the e-strategies, so they do not have publicbuy-in for their long-term plans. In some cases thegovernment has partnered with the country'sbusiness and civil society sectors to promote ICT-enabled development at the ground level, but thevarious stakeholder groups lack the experience andresources to give effective input.

To cross the digital divide and put ICT to effective useto improve people’s lives, countries and communitiesmust be "e-ready" in terms of infrastructure, access,training, and a legal and regulatory framework that willfoster ICT use. If the digital divide is to be narrowed,these issues must be addressed in a coherent,achievable strategy that is tailored to meet local needs.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author anddo not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S.government.

Evolving Internet Facts

Continent Users (k) Users per10k inhabitants PCs per 100 inhabitants

Africa 8,941.7 111.25 1.26

Americas 207,579.8 2,441.76 28.98

Asia 211,392.8 584.75 4.43

Europe 167,883.4 2,099.69 21.14

Oceania 10,571.4 3,333.60 42.29

World 606,369.1 994.01 9.87

(K=1,000)

Source: Global Internet Access by Continent, 2002, International Telecommunications Union

32

Internet access is spreading rapidly in primary andsecondary schools around the world. Virtually 100percent of schools are connected to the Internet incountries such as the United States, Australia,Finland, Canada, and Great Britain. The Internet isalso fast becoming widely available in schools fromScandinavia to Israel to Korea.

Almost daily, countries are making decisions withmajor educational and financial consequences aboutwhether to connect schools to the Internet, whatkind of connections to use, and to whom to permitaccess. Unfortunately, education officials do notalways give sufficient thought to the adoption ofInternet and other computer-based technologies inschools. Sometimes computer technology isacquired as a symbol of modernity rather than forcarefully planned educational purposes. Further-more, since the Internet is generally seen as adesirable resource, pressures mount on schools tobroaden access in classrooms before plans havebeen formulated for its effective use there.

This article will briefly discuss four issues thatshould be considered in making decisions aboutInternet access in primary and secondary schools:its cost relative to alternatives; the need forsubstantial technical and pedagogical support; thealignment of school, Internet, and communitynorms; and the alignment of schools’ goals and theInternet’s educational potential. Much of thisdiscussion is based on a five-year study of Internetuse in a large urban school district in the UnitedStates. The Internet version of this article providesfull footnotes and documentation atwww.usinfo.gov/journals/itgic/1103/ijge/gj09.htm

In addition, the views and experiences of scholarsand educators from around the world have alsoinfluenced this paper. Some of the issues

Bringing the Internet to Schools EffectivelyBy Janet Ward Schofield

Professor of Psychology and Senior ScientistLearning Research & Development Center

University of Pittsburgh

Installation of computers and

Internet access in schools

must be preceded by careful

consideration of how to best use

and support the technology.

33

mentioned, like cost, are obvious. Others are moresubtle, but are nonetheless likely to have a strongimpact on how Internet access influences educationalprocesses and outcomes.

Cost relative to alternatives

Bringing the Internet to schools is not cheap.Providing Internet access for students in the UnitedStates took an initial investment of roughly $110billion and entails continuing costs of nearly $30billion a year. Indeed, the U.S. government hasspent more than $7 billion just on subsidies forInternet connections in schools since 1997. Indiahas announced plans to spend the equivalent ofroughly $2.5 billion to bring e-learning to 600,000schools during the next four years. Costs areespecially high when schools must purchasecomputers with sufficient power to navigate theInternet and when all students are provided with apersonal, Internet-ready laptop computer, as is donein some programs in the United States.

Internet service will also increase on-going schooloperating costs. For example, technical innovationsoften make perfectly usable computers close toobsolete with regard to Internet use in five to sevenyears because older computers cannot interact wellwith evolving network requirements and resources.Furthermore, maintenance and technical support forInternet use is also a continuing expense.

Given the substantial cost of obtaining Internetaccess and supporting its effective use, a questionarises about whether the expenditures necessary tobring widespread Internet access to all classroomswould be more productively devoted to otherthings, such as additional teachers, especially incountries where labor is relatively inexpensive incontrast to the cost of computer hardware andconnectivity. Also, given rapid technologicalchange, careful consideration of anticipatedtechnological developments and their impact oncost and capabilities is important before spendinglarge amounts on Internet access.

Need for substantial technological and pedagogical support

Frequently, those bringing computers to schoolsspend too much on hardware and connectivity and

too little on activities necessary for effectivecomputer use, such as professional development andsupport for teachers. Countries in which largeinvestments have been made to bring the Internet toschools have increasingly begun to recognize theimportance of setting aside substantial funds forprofessional development and on-going technicalsupport. Nonetheless, finding the right balancebetween expenditures on hardware, software, andsupport is a difficult problem that has not beensolved. Lack of adequately developed informationtechnology skills among teachers impedes the use ofinformation and communication technology inmany countries.

To use the Internet effectively, educators typicallymust increase their technical skills and theirknowledge about the Internet. They also have todevelop a vision of how it can contributeproductively to their work. These are not simpletasks. Resources increasingly are being developed toaid educators in these regards, though theiravailability varies from language to language.Finally, many teachers may not have the time or the

Evolving Internet Facts

• In fall 2002, 99 percent of public schools in theUnited States had some basic access to theInternet, contrasted with 35 percent in 1994when the National Center for Education Statisticsfirst started estimating Internet access in schools.

• U.S. public schools have made consistentprogress in expanding Internet access in instruc-tional rooms (i.e., classrooms, computer, andother labs, library/media centers) from 3 percentin 1994 to 77 percent in 2000 and 92 percent in2002.

• In 2002, the ratio of students to instructionalcomputers with Internet access in public schoolswas 4.8 to 1, an improvement from the 12.1 to 1ratio in 1998, when it was first measured.

Source: “Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools, Fall 2002,”released October 2003, National Center for EducationStatistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education.

34

inclination to make use of these resources, making itcrucial that there be readily available professionaldevelopment activities and on-going support forthem.

Alignment of school, Internet, and community norms

The Internet can connect students to informationand people around the world. It allows students totake courses not offered in their schools, to interactwith experts unavailable in their communities, tofind new audiences for their work, and to participatein collaborative projects that they could neverundertake locally. For example, in one Internetproject students interacted with members of ascientific expedition in Antarctica. In another,students in many communities in the United Statesworked collaboratively with scientists to collect andanalyze data on acid rain, with students in distantschools contributing data from their own region.However, connection to the outside world may alsoexpose students to content that is unacceptablewithin their communities and to individuals whoseideas or behavior may also be deemed unacceptableby teachers and parents.

Norms, values, and behaviors vary markedly fromculture to culture. When Internet content isinconsistent with local mores, educators sometimescurtail Internet use in schools. Indeed, use can be socircumscribed as to undermine a substantial portionof the Internet’s potential educational value. Forexample, in one school teachers allowed highschool students to visit only pre-approved Websites, due to fears that they might encounterinappropriate material. This practice dramaticallyreduced the resources these students could accessand impeded development of certain kinds ofInternet-related skills.

Strategies have been developed to help deal withincompatibilities between local norms and valuesand those accessible via the Internet. Acceptable usepolicies often specify the kinds of materials thatstudents are permitted to seek out. In addition,filters can be used to try to block materialsconsidered inappropriate, although they alsoinadvertently block some unobjectionable andpotentially useful material. Online and othereducational resources may also help students learn

how to avoid danger or exploitation by individualsthey may encounter on the Internet. For example,numerous organizations have developed Web sitesthat provide students with Internet safety tips. Twoare www.NetSmartz.org and www.CyberSmart.org.However, such resources are more readily availablein English and other world languages than in thelanguages of many countries now connectingschools to the Internet. Where clashes betweenlocal norms and those of the Internet are serious andwidespread, and where community influence overschooling is strong, Internet use may be curtailedand/or highly controlled, thus limiting its potentialvalue for education.

Alignment of school goals and the Internet'seducational potential

Merely placing computers in schools does notguarantee effective use. Use depends on factorssuch as the extent to which teachers believe thetechnology helps them reach valued goals and theease with which use fits into everyday classroompractice. For example, teachers who place very highpriority on their students learning new informationand ideas make more use of the World Wide Webthan do those who place more emphasis onstudents' mastery of basic skills.

Whether the Internet fosters skills and experiencesthat are emphasized by existing tests is also likely tostrongly influence the degree to which it is used inschools. Use of many kinds of computerapplications can facilitate student achievement.Indeed, a recent comprehensive analysis of studiesconducted between 1994 and 2000 on theeffectiveness of educational software concluded thatits use in schools is associated with gains in readingand mathematics achievement. But, the Internet isso new that strong evidence about its effectivenessin fostering various academic outcomes is notreadily available, although many teachers do highlyvalue its use in their work.

One of the great advantages of the Internet is that itcan help students pursue their own individualinterests. However, in many countries, national orregional exams play an important role in deter-mining the futures and reputations of individualstudents and educational institutions. Such examstypically presuppose a common set of knowledge

and skills that are tested. If the Internet leads tomore diverse and individualized learning forstudents, such learning seems unlikely to raisescores on standardized examinations. This may welldiscourage teachers and educational institutionsfrom taking maximum advantage of what theInternet has to offer.

Conclusion

Many potential educational benefits can flow fromInternet use in primary and secondary schools. TheInternet can help teachers obtain and shareinformation easily, develop their skills in manyfields, and communicate with other educators aswell as with the community their school serves. Forstudents, it can provide a potentially invaluablemeans of gathering information as well as of

communicating and collaborating with thoseoutside of their schools and communities.

Thus, although Internet use in primary andsecondary schools holds great potential, importantquestions remain regarding the financial trade-offsthat are necessary to bring about high levels ofclassroom access, how best to realize its educationalpotential, and how to measure its effectiveness.

Work on which this essay is based was funded by ContractNo. RED-9253452 with the National Science Foundationand Grant No. 199800209 from the Spencer Foundation.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author anddo not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S.government.

35

36

Online space is a new world created by humanhands, ingenuity, and imagination. It grows largerevery hour of every day, and as it does, it becomesmore and more a reflection of the real world ofeveryday life and human interaction. The traveler inonline space may find it enlightening, beautiful,charitable, and wise. But the journey can also takeone to places where vulgarity, ignorance, anddishonesty exist as they do in the physical world.

Global Issues Managing Editor Charlene Porterdiscussed these contradictions and the state of theInternet with two professionals in the field. LeeRainie is the director of the Pew Internet & AmericanLife Project, a research organization studying howthe American public is adapting online. GeorgeSadowsky is the executive director of the GlobalInternet Policy Initiative, a group working to assistforeign governments in taking advantage of theInternet’s benefits.

Question: The “evolving internet” mirrors an imagefrequently used to illustrate the course of humanevolution. The first primates come down from thetrees, begin an upright stride across the plains, andprogress through several stages of development tobecome Homo sapiens. Compare our evolution inuse of the Internet to that image. Where would youplace us today on that developmental path?

Sadowsky: I think we’re still swinging from thetrees. The metaphor is a very good one. Manypeople seem to think that the Internet sprang full-blown from I don’t know what anatomical part ofsome god or goddess. In fact, the development ofinformation technology generally has been goingon for hundreds of years. The Internet, although itis only about 40 years old now, relies on a lot oftechnical developments that came from previoustechnologies.

The Frontiers AheadA Dialogue on the Progress and Promise of the Internet

Lee Rainie, Director, Pew Internet & American Life Project George Sadowsky, Executive Director, Global Internet Policy Initiative

Two authorities discuss

how Internet technologies

have reshaped our lives,

and how they will continue

to do so in the future.

37

We haven’t seen anythingyet, even though we’ve seenan enormous amount ofdevelopment from thebeginning of computers inthe 1950s to something nowwhich appears like magic tomost people. We can getinformation from anywherein the globe—almost instant-aneously. We have comm-unication with so manypeople almost anywhere inthe world. So many services are being layered on thismagical transport device. Still, I think we’re going tosee a lot more, we just don’t know what it is yet, butit will come.

Rainie: I actually would place us in the metaphor ata different place, but endorse a lot of what Georgewas saying. I think that we’re standing erect now.We have our basic civilian clothes on, and we’resizing up the materials for the jumpsuit that we willwear in the spaceship. We haven’t picked out all thematerial yet, and we’re still experimenting with whatwe want, but we now are seeing the possibilities thatwill exist in the not very distant future—computingthat will be everywhere, access that will beeverywhere, communication that can take placefrom anywhere to anywhere.

Q: Access anywhere, anytime, but to anyone?Surveys now show about 600 million people usingthe Internet worldwide out of a global population ofmore than six billion. As users in the developed worldbecome ever more sophisticated in their use of thetechnologies, billions more don’t know them at all.Does that mean the digital divide is narrowing orwidening?

Rainie: I think for the short term it might widen.The people who have access are privileged in a waythat people who do not have access are not.

There are five basic things that you get with theInternet that make life better for you. You can takebetter care of yourself. You can learn more than youused to. You can become a much better economicagent, both as a consumer and a producer. You canbecome a better citizen, so your power in the worldgrows. And finally, you become a better social

agent. You can communicatewith more people in moreways, form more bonds, andlearn more things using theInternet.

The pace is acceleratingalong those five dimensions.People who do not haveaccess are going to be leftbehind for the short term.There are bigger problems intheir lives, though, than lack

of access to communications technologies. Medicalconditions are poor. The basic economic conditionsare poor. Once those aspects of their lives improve,then it makes sense to worry about giving themaccess to information technologies.

The other thing that’s easy to see in the future is thatwe won’t depend on wires nearly as much as we donow, and the devices we use to access the Internetwill be simpler.

Sadowsky: All new technologies diffuse from thetime when they are introduced to the time whenthey have essentially saturated whatever populationthey are going to saturate. I think if you want tocompare the diffusion of the Internet in the world,you should compare it with a few other things. Thefastest diffusing technology I think was thetelevision set. We went from the first commercialnetworks in the early 1950s, through the 1960s and1970s when television was widely establishedthroughout the world. So I don’t think we shouldtake the Internet to task for not diffusing fastenough. It’s going as fast as it can.

In many countries, although not all, the privatesector is the fundamental motivating force thathelps that diffusion go as fast as possible.

Q: The digital divide will be a major issue on thetable at the upcoming World Summit on theInformation Society (WSIS) to be held in Decemberin Geneva under the sanction of the U.N. GeneralAssembly. What are your expectations for thesummit?

Sadowsky: I think it will end with substantialagreement on platitudes, and very little actual

“You can communicatewith more people in moreways, form more bonds,and learn more thingsusing the Internet.”

Lee Rainie

38

results. That observation would apply to both theGeneva summit this year and the Tunis summit inApril of 2005.

Everybody expects a lot from informationtechnology, and information technology can bring alot to the table, but the summit has strayed verymuch into the socio-political dimension, and it’strying to use information technology as a focus tosolve many, many different problems.

There are also some fundamental disagreementsamong the countries. I read some of the accounts ofthe latest PrepCom (Preparatory Committee of theWSIS, held September 15-26), and thedisagreements are in the area of who is going to payfor it, who is going to control it, and what kind ofinformation is going to be allowed to circulate.Those are very fundamental divisions that existtoday among the cultures.

The money issue isn’t much of a division, there justisn’t enough of it, and people have differentpriorities.

So I think the initial results will be euphoriafollowed by not very much of anything.

Rainie: One of the big tensions that will emerge inGeneva centers on whether access to thistechnology is an entitlement—an essential privilegeof the human condition. No other technology hasever been discussed in that way. This speaks to thepower of the Internet. We know that access toinformation, and better access to people, can makelife better. The question is: To what degree is accessto the Internet a right? That leads to discussionabout who pays for it, and who gets to control theproduct.

It would be nice if there could be some consensus inGeneva about where we’re going, the essentialconditions under which the Internet is going tofunction. Then, we could leave it to each individualculture to decide how much government controlthere should be, how much should be left to theprivate sector, to what degree educators should beinvolved, to what degree there should be credibilityscreeners for information, etc.

Q: Let’s turn to e-government, the effort by

governmental entities large and small to interactwith their publics online and to offer informationand services to them. Some experts say thatgovernmental entities will only truly progress in thisendeavor if they are able to transcend the problemsthat citizens have typically complained about –slowness, inefficiency, excessive bureaucracy. Howdo you gentlemen assess the rate of progress in thisarena of online activity?

Rainie: Clearly, a lot of people who run governmentagencies are having new kinds of conversationsabout what business they are in, whom they aretrying to serve, and who are their masters? Thoseare good questions to be asking. In many respects,the issue isn’t whether we should move governmentinformation and services online, but how we shoulddo it that best suits the needs of our citizens.

One of the biggest arguments in information policyin the United States is to what degree shouldgovernment disseminate information in anenvironment where bad guys might learn usefulthings. Americans are all for transparency and all formaximum disclosure until the word “terrorist” entersthe conversation. Then they are ready to pull backand say, “No, I’m ready to leave questions about whatinformation to release to the people who run mygovernment. Let them determine what seems safest.”

Sadowsky: I agree with that. I tend to work more indeveloping countries, and what I see are the initialsteps—sometimes timid, sometimes brash, sometimesknowing what’s happening, and sometimes not—toward implementing initial e-governmentfunctions. One of the problems we have in manygovernments—and to some extent in the U.S.government too—is that there are vested interestsopposed to transparency. That’s terribly importantto try to understand and work around. One of thehopes for improving the democratic climate indeveloping-country governments is that e-government functions can be instituted and can leadto greater understanding among people about howtheir governments work, and greater interactionbetween citizens and members of their government.

I understand in Britain there is a service that allowsany person in the country to e-mail theirparliamentarian and have a pretty good chance ofgetting a response. That happens in the United

39

States when people write the President and theletters are shuffled around and finally a response isgiven. But the immediacy that the Internet creates,the ability to have direct contact with people ingovernment, is terribly important, I think, foropening up governments and making people feelthey have a part in the governmental process.

Q: Everything you’ve said is premised in the notionthat government wants to respond to citizens.There are certainly any number of governments inthe world that don’t care to be responsive. Canthese technologies force them toward greaterresponsiveness?

Rainie: I think that’s inevitable. It won’t be the casethat every ministry will produce all the informationall the citizens want. But the Internet gives newpower and new voice to gadflies, whistleblowers,and people inside the agencies who are anxious todisclose what they know.

All the force is toward disclosure, openness, andresponsiveness, but these policy issues are going tobe argued over a long period.

Sadowsky: These are very enabling and excitingtechnologies. In the case of governments that arenot particularly friendly toward the Internet interms of implementing e-government applications,there are other considerations. A governmentdoesn’t look at the Internet just to provide e-government. Typically what I’ve observed in mywork in the developing world is that governmentswill look at the Internet as a way to get on theglobal e-commerce train, and that train is leavingthe station. That message is being broadcast andgovernments are listening. To the extent that e-commerce provides the motivation, the Internet isgoing to invade that country, and eventually thekinds of uses that are made of it in terms of enablingbusiness relations suggest that governments aregoing to make good use of it also.

Vinton Cerf, one of the fathers of the Internet, said,“The Internet has never retreated.” In fact, it doesn’t.Once it gets in, it’s going to spread. It will play outin different ways in different countries, but theInternet is going to increase its presence and therewill be pressure on government to revolutionize theway it deals with its citizens.

Q: Internet surveys show that some of the Web sitesreceiving the greatest traffic are involved withunsavory and mundane activities—pornography,gambling, the sale of diet pills. Do those findingstemper your optimism about people using thetechnology to become better citizens, improve theirsocieties, and make a better world?

Sadowsky: That is a very important issue right now.I would argue that all technologies are neutral andtheir value depends on what use is made of them. Iwas just reading a book about the development ofthe atomic bomb, and the hope at the time of theSecond World War that the bomb could beforgotten and nuclear power plants would eliminateour dependence on fossil fuels. Well, we can seewhat happened with that.

With the Internet, I think there’s more hope that thepositive side will win, and the miscreants who areflooding our networks with spam1 will eventuallylose. I don’t know how that’s going to happen.

We have to separate the pornography challengefrom the spam challenge. I think spam is a majorchallenge and we’re going to have to find out howto deal with that before our technology is reducedto something that is mundane and ineffectivebecause of what is essentially a denial-of-serviceattack2 by all the spammers of the world.

Evolving Internet Facts

• 25 percent of America’s e-mail users say theyare using e-mail less because of the electronicjunk mail known as “spam.”

• 75 percent of U.S. e-mail users are botheredthat they can’t stop the flow of spam, no matterwhat they do.

• 70 percent of U.S. e-mail users say spam hasmade being online unpleasant or annoying.

Source: “Spam: Hurting E-mail and Degrading the InternetEnvironment,” by the Pew Internet & American Life Project,October, 2003

40

Rainie: The genius of the founding fathers andmothers of the Internet was to make it a systemdependent on what happens at the ends of thesystem, not the center of the system. That meansthe online environment has the same good featuresand bad features of all human endeavors. It’s goingto be chaotic and ugly sometimes, uplifting andenlightening other times.

Everything that happens in the human condition isreflected in the online world. Online and offline,you’ve got predators, as well as people who helpcure others. Online and offline, you’ve got hackers,as well as people who solve other people’s problems.Online and offline, you’ve got people who commitfraud, as well as people who are good Samaritans.

Q: You both are professionally involved in the Internet,but certainly this technology has touched yourpersonal lives as well. Give me an anecdote about howyour own life has changed because of the Internet.

Sadowsky: I have been in this business a long time.I started with the Internet in 1986, and prior to thatI was doing work in developing countries for theUnited Nations. One of the things that has radicallychanged is the ability for me to have a communityof friends and colleagues that spans the world.

I was in Rwanda as a technical specialist for theUnited Nations in 1981. I was doing a debuggingsession on a computer we had bought to do thecensus. I had to ask the manufacturer of thecomputer a question, so I tried to make a telephonecall from Kigali to Dayton, Ohio. Two weeks later,I gave up. There was no way I could do it, thecommunications were so poor. The telexes didn’t gothrough, the intermediaries to forward the telexesweren’t there. The radio-telephone wasn’t workingsometimes; it was only open two hours a day.

Now I communicate with every one of my friends inevery capital of the world, instantaneously, withouta problem, knowing the message will get through. Ican work in this virtual community—as large or assmall, as general or as specialized, as I want—toaddress what I want to do, and I do it with success.That opens up all kinds of possibilities in addition tomaking the world a much smaller and potentiallyfriendlier and more understanding place.

This is going to happen to people generally, andmaybe 20 years from now it won’t be unusual for achild in school to have a “pen pal” in half the countriesof the world.

Rainie: My network has changed dramatically, too.Many more people are in it, which adds some stressto my life. Many more people have a claim on mytime and attention. I’m sitting here today because ofthe Internet. People at the State Department foundme and my work through some kind of onlinesearch. Half the calls that come into our office, halfthe invitations that we get to talk to people aboutour research, come from people who have found usonline. My network is growing daily.

The other dimension of my work life that isradically different is that it has ballooned. I work athome and do “home” stuff at work. I shop at work, Ibook my airline tickets at work, and I occasionallyplay games, but I also read my e-mail before I go tobed, and the first thing when I get up in themorning. I take my laptop on vacation with me tostay on top of my e-mail. I feel like I spend muchmore time “on the clock” than I used to.

A third thing that has changed in my life is mySunday nights. I have teenage children, and theyhave very different school lives than I had. Whenyou had a major school project in the past, you hadto go to the library a couple days ahead of time tomake sure you had all the research you needed forthe project. Nowadays, I can’t count how manySunday night miracles we’ve had in my family whenassignments were due on Monday, but none of theresearch had been done beforehand. The library hasbeen closed for the whole day. Yet we can go onlineto find all the material we need to make sure theprojects get done.

Q: Some skeptics out there are fearful that yourteenagers and their peers are growing up with thebelief that the sum total of human knowledge is onthe Web. What are your concerns that a whole body ofknowledge could be lost because the Internet generationlost the habit of going to the library and looking it up?

Sadowsky: It’s definitely an issue. I would argue thatprobably less than 5 percent of the world’s knowledgeis online, although it’s increasing rapidly andultimately it’s all going to be there.

41

With both published and online material, you havethe similar problems of truth and reliability. Justbecause information appears in 12-point typedoesn’t make it true. What does it represent? Just aswas true with books years ago, material online maycarry more authority not because of the content butbecause of the form in which it is presented. That’sa danger we’re going to get over, just as we all learnhow to tell fact from fancy and how to evaluatedifferent opinions.

We’ll learn to deal with these things. This is atechnology that presents new challenges, and we’lllearn to develop our abilities to determine theveracity of a source and stabilize a source so that wecan be certain of the reliability of online information.

Rainie: You also have to recognize that the Internetis giving a new life to endangered human knowledge.The Internet is being used in wonderfully creativeways by local cultures to preserve their languages,their artifacts, and to keep their traditions going inways that local institutions have abandoned.

Recently I heard about a medieval scholar who putan unbelievably rich database online from sourcesaround the world. Think of the value of that kind ofscholarship and that kind of archive for otherpeople around the world. It only takes one person toput the Dead Sea Scrolls on line, and then everyother person who’s interested has access to it.

To think about the new possibilities for story tellingand communicating is enormous. We haven’t yetfound our best ways to do storytelling online, butwhen we do, it will combine the great powers of

text with the immediacy of images and do it in waysthat are wholly new.

Sadowsky: This is a tool that enables individuals todo a lot of things that they otherwise wouldn’t beable to do. The ability for curiosity to thrive hasbeen given a totally new life by the Internet. Oneperson in a developing country can use the Internetto educate himself or herself in ways that wouldhave been totally impossible just 10 years ago. Wecertainly have enough problems in this world thatwe need the best minds applied to them. We needall the creativity we can get. As far as I can tell,intelligence is pretty evenly distributed around theworld. We’re not making as good use of thecapabilities in the developing world. The Internet isa really strong tool for helping people to feed on theknowledge base and contribute to solving theworld’s problems.

1 Spam is electronic junk mail, generally advertising. Spam can consume a

significant amount of network bandwidth, and can potentially slow down or even

crash network systems and even slow the World Wide Web.

2 A denial-of-service (DoS) attack is an attack on a network that is designed to

bring down the network by overloading it with useless traffic.

Lee Rainie and George Sadowsky participated in thisdiscussion at the State Department’s Bureau of InternationalInformation Programs in Washington, D.C.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the interviewsubjects and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of theU.S. government.

42

Cybersecurity is cited as a critical

element of homeland security in a

national strategy crafted by the

Bush Administration.

In February 2003, the White House released TheNational Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, a 76-pagedocument outlining a sustained, multi-facetedapproach to safeguarding the nation’s vitalcommunications technologies. The strategy wasdeveloped after several years of intenseconsultations among thousands of individuals—officials at all levels of government, experts from theprivate sector, and other concerned citizens. Thefollowing excerpts reflect the course the UnitedStates pursuing to protect the complex, inter-connected, computer-based systems vital to today’ssociety.

Critical Priorities for Cyberspace Security

The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspacearticulates five national priorities including:

I. A National Cyberspace Security ResponseSystem;

II. A National Cyberspace Security Threat andVulnerability Reduction Program;

III. A National Cyberspace Security Awarenessand Training Program;

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace A White House Report

43

IV. Securing Governments' Cyberspace; and

V. National Security and International Cyber-space Security Cooperation.

The first priority focuses on improving our responseto cyber incidents and reducing the potentialdamage from such events. The second, third, andfourth priorities aim to reduce threats from, and ourvulnerabilities to, cyber attacks. The fifth priority isto prevent cyber attacks that could impact nationalsecurity assets and to improve the internationalmanagement of and response to such attacks.

Priority I: A National Cyberspace SecurityResponse System

Rapid identification, information exchange, andremediation can often mitigate the damage causedby malicious cyberspace activity. For those activitiesto be effective at a national level, the United Statesneeds a partnership between government andindustry to perform analyses, issue warnings, andcoordinate response efforts. Privacy and civilliberties must be protected in the process. Becauseno cybersecurity plan can be impervious to concertedand intelligent attack, information systems must beable to operate while under attack and have theresilience to restore full operations quickly.

The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspaceidentifies eight major actions and initiatives forcyberspace security response:

1. Establish a public-private architecture forresponding to national-level cyber incidents;

2. Provide for the development of tactical andstrategic analysis of cyber attacks andvulnerability assessments;

3. Encourage the development of a privatesector capability to share a synoptic view ofthe health of cyberspace;

4. Expand the Cyber Warning and InformationNetwork to support the role of DHS incoordinating crisis management for cyberspacesecurity;

5. Improve national incident management;

6. Coordinate processes for voluntary parti-cipation in the development of national public-private continuity and contingency plans;

7. Exercise cybersecurity continuity plans forfederal systems; and

8. Improve and enhance public-privateinformation sharing involving cyber attacks,threats, and vulnerabilities.

Priority II: A National Cyberspace SecurityThreat and Vulnerability Reduction Program

By exploiting vulnerabilities in our cyber systems,an organized attack may endanger the security ofour Nation's critical infrastructures. Thevulnerabilities that most threaten cyberspace occurin the information assets of critical infrastructureenterprises themselves and their external supportingstructures, such as the mechanisms of the Internet.Lesser-secured sites on the interconnected networkof networks also present potentially significantexposures to cyber attacks. Vulnerabilities resultfrom weaknesses in technology and because ofimproper implementation and oversight oftechnological products.

The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspaceidentifies eight major actions and initiatives toreduce threats and related vulnerabilities:

1. Enhance law enforcement's capabilities forpreventing and prosecuting cyberspace attacks;

2. Create a process for national vulnerabilityassessments to better understand the potentialconsequences of threats and vulnerabilities;

3. Secure the mechanisms of the Internet byimproving protocols and routing;

4. Foster the use of trusted digital controlsystems/supervisory control and data acquisitionsystems;

5. Reduce and remediate software vulnerabilities;

6. Understand infrastructure interdependenciesand improve the physical security of cybersystems and telecommunications;

44

7. Prioritize federal cybersecurity research anddevelopment agendas; and

8. Assess and secure emerging systems.

Priority III: A National Cyberspace SecurityAwareness Training Program

Many cyber vulnerabilities exist because of a lack ofcybersecurity awareness on the part of computerusers, systems administrators, technology developers,procurement officials, auditors, chief informationofficers (CIOs), chief executive officers, andcorporate boards. Such awareness-based vulner-abilities present serious risks to critical infra-structures regardless of whether they exist withinthe infrastructure itself. A lack of trained personneland the absence of widely accepted, multilevelcertification programs for cybersecurity professionalscomplicate the task of addressing cybervulnerabilities.

The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspaceidentifies four major actions and initiatives forawareness, education, and training:

1. Promote a comprehensive national aware-ness program to empower all Americans —businesses, the general workforce, and thegeneral population—to secure their own partsof cyberspace;

2. Foster adequate training and educationprograms to support the Nation's cybersecurityneeds;

3. Increase the efficiency of existing federalcybersecurity training programs; and

4. Promote private-sector support for well-coordinated, widely recognized professionalcybersecurity certifications.

Priority IV: Securing Governments' Cyberspace

Although governments administer only a minorityof the Nation's critical infrastructure computersystems, governments at all levels perform essentialservices in the agriculture, food, water, publichealth, emergency services, defense, social welfare,information and telecommunications, energy,

transportation, banking and finance, chemicals, andpostal and shipping sectors that depend uponcyberspace for their delivery. Governments can leadby example in cyberspace security, includingfostering a marketplace for more secure technologiesthrough their procurement.

The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspaceidentifies five major actions and initiatives for thesecuring of governments' cyberspace:

1. Continuously assess threats and vulner-abilities to federal cyber systems;

2. Authenticate and maintain authorized usersof federal cyber systems;

3. Secure federal wireless local area networks;

4. Improve security in government out-sourcing and procurement; and

5. Encourage state and local governments toconsider establishing information technologysecurity programs and participate in infor-mation sharing and analysis centers withsimilar governments.

Priority V: National Security and InternationalCyberspace Security Cooperation

America's cyberspace links the United States to therest of the world. A network of networks spans theplanet, allowing malicious actors on one continentto act on systems thousands of miles away. Cyberattacks cross borders at light speed, and discerningthe source of malicious activity is difficult. Americamust be capable of safeguarding and defending itscritical systems and networks. Enabling our abilityto do so requires a system of internationalcooperation to facilitate information sharing, reducevulnerabilities, and deter malicious actors.

The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspaceidentifies six major actions and initiatives tostrengthen U.S. national security and internationalcooperation:

1. Strengthen cyber-related counterintelligence efforts;

45

2. Improve capabilities for attack attributionand response;

3. Improve coordination for responding tocyber attacks within the U.S. national securitycommunity;

4. Work with industry and through inter-national organizations to facilitate dialogue andpartnerships among international public andprivate sectors focused on protectinginformation infrastructures and promoting aglobal "culture of security;"

5. Foster the establishment of national andinternational watch-and-warning networks todetect and prevent cyber attacks as theyemerge; and

6. Encourage other nations to accede to theCouncil of Europe Convention on Cybercrime,or to ensure that their laws and procedures areat least as comprehensive.

The complete text of The National Strategy to SecureCyberspace is available at www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb.

46

Disguised under ominous names like Blaster,Slammer, and Sobig.F, malicious computer code hasbrought more havoc to the Internet in 2003 thanever before. Releases of malicious code by unknownperpetrators have prompted heightened concernabout the vulnerability of the Internet at the sametime this worldwide system becomes ever moreimportant to global communications andeconomics. The following document is anabridgment of testimony that CERT CoordinationCenter Director Richard Pethia presented to theU.S. Congress September 10 on the viruses andworms that have swept through the Internet in 2003and actions needed to confront them.

The complete version of Mr. Pethia’s testimony is available at http://www.cert.org/congressional_testimony/ Pethia-Testimony-9-10-2003/

Introduction

The CERT Coordination Center (CERT/CC) wasformed in 1988 as a direct result of the first Internetworm. [The worm] was the first computer securityincident to make headline news, serving as a wake-up call for network security. In response, theCERT/CC was established by the DefenseAdvanced Research Projects Agency at CarnegieMellon University's Software Engineering Institutein Pittsburgh. Our mission is to serve as a focalpoint to help resolve computer security incidentsand vulnerabilities, to help others establish incidentresponse capabilities, and to raise awareness ofcomputer security issues and help peopleunderstand the steps they need to take to betterprotect their systems. We activated the center injust two weeks, and we have worked hard tomaintain our ability to react quickly. The CERT/CCstaff has handled 260,000 incidents, cataloged andworked on resolutions to more than 11,000

Attacks on the Internet in 2003Congressional Testimony

Richard PethiaDirector, CERT Coordination Center

The Internet is vulnerable to

attack today, and will remain so in

the foreseeable future.

47

computer vulnerabilities, and published hundreds ofsecurity alerts.

Today, with continued sponsorship from theDepartment of Defense and from the Department ofHomeland Security, we continue our work anddisseminate security information and warningsthrough multiple channels—a Web site(www.cert.org), an online vulnerability database,and an electronic mailing list of more than 161,000addresses. We have relationships with major mediaoutlets that help us distribute accurate informationabout major security events to the broadcommunity. We also work with over 600technology vendors to facilitate their response toproduct vulnerabilities and warn the community ofvulnerabilities that require immediate attention.

The CERT/CC is now recognized by bothgovernment and industry as a neutral, authoritativesource of data and expertise on informationassurance. In addition to handling reports ofcomputer security breaches and vulnerabilities innetwork-related technology, we identify andpublish preventive security practices, conductresearch, and provide training to system administrators,managers, and incident response teams.

Growing Risk from Worms and Viruses

Worms and viruses are in a more general category ofprograms called "malicious code." Both exploitweaknesses in computer software, replicatingthemselves and/or attaching themselves to otherprograms. They spread quickly and easily fromsystem to system. By definition, worms areprograms that spread with no human interventionafter they are started. Viruses are programs thatrequire some action on the part of the user, such asopening an e-mail attachment, before they spread....

Today, worms and viruses are causing damage morequickly than those created in the past and arespreading to the most vulnerable of all systems – thecomputer systems of home users. The Code Redworm spread around the world faster in 2001 thanthe so-called Morris worm moved through U.S.computers in 1988, and faster than the Melissa virusin 1999. With the Code Red worm, there were daysbetween first identification and widespread damage.Just months later, the Nimda worm caused serious

damage within an hour of the first report ofinfection. In January of this year, Slammer hadsignificant impact in just minutes.

The figures ... show how quickly Slammer infecteda significant number of computer systems. It showsthat Blaster was slightly slower than Slammer, butstill much faster than Code Red. After 24 hours,Blaster had infected 336,000 computers; Code Redinfected 265,000; and Slammer had infected 55,000.Figure 2, “Comparing Blaster and Code Red in theFirst 18 Hours,” shows the growth in the number ofcomputers reached by the Blaster and Code Redworms in the first 18 hours. In both cases, 100,000computers were infected in the first 3 to 5 hours.The fast exploitation limits the time security expertslike those at the CERT/CC have to analyze theproblem and warn the Internet community.Likewise, system administrators and users have littletime to protect their systems.

After the initial surge of infections from the Blasterworm and subsequent patching, the impact reacheda steady state of 30,000 computers in any givenhour.... The Blaster worm is still active andcontinues to have impacts on computer systemsacross the globe.

Impact of Worms and Viruses

At best, worms and viruses can be inconvenient andcostly to recover from. At worst, they can bedevastating. Virus and worm attacks alone haveresulted in millions of dollars of loss in just the last12 months.

In the 2003 Computer Security Institute/FederalBureau of Investigation Computer Crime andSecurity Survey (www.gocsi.com), viruses were themost cited form of attack (82 percent ofrespondents were affected), with an estimated costof $27,382,340. The lowest reported cost to avictim was $40,000, and the highest was $6 million.The Australian Computer Crime and SecuritySurvey found similar results, with 80 percent ofrespondents affected by viruses or worms. Of thevictims, 57 percent reported financial losses,totaling $2,223,900. According to the Australiansurvey, one-third (33 percent) of the victimsrecovered in less than one day, and 30 percentrecovered in one to seven days. The other 37

48

percent took more time, including twoorganizations that believe they might never recover.

So far, damages from the Blaster worm are estimatedto be at least $525 million, and Sobig.F damages areestimated to be from $500 million to more than $1billion (Business Week, the London-based mi2g atwww.mi2g.com, among other reports in the media).The cost estimates include lost productivity, wastedhours, lost sales, and extra bandwidth costs. TheEconomist (August 23, 2003) estimated that Sobig.Fwas responsible for one of every 16 e-mail messagesthat crossed the Internet. In our own experience,Sobig.F has accounted for 87 percent of all e-mail toour cert@cert.org address since August 18. We havereceived more than 10,000 infected messages a day,or one message every 8.6 seconds.

Implications for the Future

The significance of our recent experience withBlaster and Sobig.F lies beyond their specificactivity. Rather, the worms represent a largerproblem with Internet security and forecast what wecan expect in the future.

My most important message is that the Internet isnot only vulnerable to attack today, but it will stayvulnerable to attack in the foreseeable future. Thisincludes computers used by government organizations at all levels and computers used at researchlaboratories, in schools, in business, and at home.They are vulnerable to problems that have alreadybeen discovered, sometimes years ago, and they arevulnerable to problems that will be discovered inthe future.

The implications for federal, state, and localgovernments, and for critical infrastructureoperators, are that their computer systems arevulnerable both to attack and to being used tofurther attacks on others. With more and moregovernment and private sector organizationsincreasing their dependence on the Internet, ourability to carry on business reliably is at risk.

Reactive Solutions are Limited

For the past 15 years, we have relied heavily on theability of the Internet community as a whole toreact quickly enough to security attacks to ensure

that damage is minimized and attacks are quicklydefeated. Today, however, it is clear that reactivesolutions alone are no longer adequate. To brieflysummarize the factors:

• The Internet now connects over 171 millioncomputers and continues to grow at a rapid pace. Atany point in time, there are millions of connectedcomputers that are vulnerable to one form of attackor another.

• Attack technology has now advanced to thepoint where it is easy for attackers to take advantageof these vulnerable machines and harness themtogether to launch high-powered attacks.

• Many attacks are now fully automated and spreadwith blinding speed across the entire Internetcommunity, regardless of geographic or nationalboundaries.

• The attack technology has become increasinglycomplex and in some cases intentionally stealthy,thus increasing the time it takes to discover andanalyze the attack mechanisms in order to produceantidotes.

• Internet users have become increasinglydependent on the Internet and now use it for manycritical applications as well as online businesstransactions. Even relatively short interruptions inservice cause significant economic loss and canjeopardize critical services.

These factors, taken together, indicate that we canexpect many attacks to cause significant economiclosses and service disruptions within even the bestresponse times that we can realistically hope toachieve. Aggressive, coordinated, continuallyimproving response will continue to be necessary,but we must also move quickly to put othersolutions in place.

Recommended Actions—What Can SystemOperators Do?

Addressing the threat of worms and viruses is noteasy. With approximately 4,000 vulnerabilitiesbeing discovered each year, system and networkadministrators are in a difficult situation....

49

In the face of this difficult situation, there are stepssystem operators and their organizations can take tohelp protect systems:

Adopt security practices. It is critical thatorganizations, large and small, adopt the use ofeffective information security risk assessments,management policies, and security practices. Whilethere is often discussion and debate over whichparticular body of practices might be in some way"best," it is clear that descriptions of effectivepractices and policy templates are widely availablefrom both government and private sources,including the CERT/CC....

Keep skills and knowledge current. Systemoperators should attend courses that enhance theirskills and knowledge.... They need to keep currentwith attack trends and with tools that help themprotect their systems against the attacks. Thesecurity problem is dynamic and ever changing withnew attacks and new vulnerabilities appearing daily.

Help educate the users of their systems. Systemoperators must provide security awareness programsto raise users' awareness of security issues, improvetheir ability to recognize a problem, instruct themon what to do if they identify a problem, andincrease their understanding of what they can do toprotect their systems.

Recommended Actions—What Can TechnologyVendors Do?

The steps available to system operators will help,but will only solve parts of the problem.Technology vendors are in a position to prevent thespread of worms and viruses more effectively.Although some companies have begun movingtoward improvement in the security of theirproducts, there is a long way to go. Softwaredevelopers do not devote enough effort to applyinglessons learned about the causes of vulnerabilities.The CERT/CC continues to see the same types ofvulnerabilities in newer versions of products thatwere in earlier versions.

Additional vulnerabilities come from the difficultyof securely configuring operating systems andapplications. These products are complex and oftenshipped to customers with security features

disabled, forcing the technology user to go throughthe difficult and error-prone process of properlyenabling the security features they need....

It is critical for technology vendors to produceproducts that are impervious to worms and virusesin the first place. In today's Internet environment, asecurity approach based on "user beware" isunacceptable....

Recommended Actions—What Can theGovernment Do?

The government can help by taking a multi-pronged approach. Actions that I believe should beinvestigated include the following:

Provide incentives for higher quality/moresecurity products. To encourage product vendorsto produce the needed higher quality products, weencourage the government to use its buying powerto demand higher quality software. The governmentshould consider upgrading its contracting processesto include "code integrity" clauses—clauses thathold vendors more accountable for defects,including security defects, in released products andprovide incentives for vendors that supply lowdefect products and products that are highlyresistant to viruses....

Information assurance research. It is critical tomaintain a long-term view and invest in researchtoward systems and operational techniques thatyield networks capable of surviving attacks whileprotecting sensitive data....

Thus, the government should support a researchagenda that seeks new approaches to systemsecurity. These approaches should include designand implementation strategies, recovery tactics,strategies to resist attacks, survivability trade-offanalysis, and the development of securityarchitectures....

More technical specialists. Government identi-fication and support of cyber-security centers ofexcellence and the provision of scholarships thatsupport students working on degrees in theseuniversities are steps in the right direction....

50

More awareness and training for Internet users.The combination of easy access and user-friendlyinterfaces have drawn users of all ages and from allwalks of life to the Internet. As a result, manyInternet users have little understanding of Internettechnology or the security practices they shouldadopt. To encourage "safe computing," there aresteps we believe the government could take:

• Support the development of educational materialand programs about cyberspace for all users. Thereis a critical need for education and increasedawareness of the security characteristics, threats,opportunities, and appropriate behavior incyberspace....

• Support programs that provide early training insecurity practices and appropriate use. This trainingshould be integrated into general education aboutcomputing....

The National Cyber Security Division (NCSD),formed by the Department of Homeland Security inJune 2003, is a critical step towards implementationof these recommendations. The mission of NCSDand the design of the organization are well-alignedto successfully coordinate implementation of therecommendations that I have described here.However, implementing a "safer cyberspace" willrequire the NCSD and the entire federal

government to work with state and localgovernments and the private sector to drive bettersoftware practices, higher awareness at all levels,increased research and development activities, andincreased training for technical specialists.

Conclusion

Our dependence on interconnected computingsystems is rapidly increasing, and even short-termdisruptions from viruses and worms can have majorconsequences. Our current solutions are notkeeping pace with the increased strength and speedof attacks, and our information infrastructures are atrisk.... We can make significant progress by makingchanges in software design and developmentpractices, increasing the number of trained systemmanagers and administrators, improving theknowledge level of users, and increasing researchinto secure and survivable systems. Additionalgovernment support for research, development, andeducation in computer and network security wouldhave a positive effect on the overall security of theInternet.

© 2003 Carnegie Mellon University

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author anddo not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S.government.

51

Books and Documents

Barnett, AndyLIBRARIES, COMMUNITY, AND TECHNOLOGYMcFarland & Company, 2002, 168 p.

Bimber, BruceTHE INTERNET AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACYCambridge University Press, 2003, 284 p.

Castells, ManuelTHE INTERNET GALAXY: REFLECTIONS ON THEINTERNET, BUSINESS, AND SOCIETYOxford University Press, 2003, 304 p.

Cooper, Joel, and Kimberlee D. WeaverGENDER AND COMPUTERS: UNDERSTANDINGTHE DIGITAL DIVIDELawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, 176 p.

Franda, MarcusLAUNCHING INTO CYBERSPACE: INTERNETDEVELOPMENT AND POLITICS IN FIVE WORLDREGIONSLynne Rienner Publishers, 2001, 297 p.

Mack, Raneta LawsonTHE DIGITAL DIVIDE: STANDING AT THE INTER-SECTION OF RACE AND TECHNOLOGYCarolina Academic Press, 2001, 191 p.

Marshall, Stewart, Wallace Taylor, and Xing HuoYu, editorsCLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: TRANSFORMINGREGIONAL ECONOMIES AND COMMUNITIES WITHINFORMATION TECHNOLOGYGreenwood Publishing Group, 2003, 267 p.

Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J. Tolbert, and MaryStansburyVIRTUAL INEQUALITY: BEYOND THE DIGITALDIVIDEGeorgetown University Press, 2003, 208 p.

National Academy of Engineering, ComputerScience and Telecommunications BoardCRITICAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRO-TECTION AND THE LAW: AN OVERVIEW OF KEYISSUESNational Academy Press, 2003, 104 p.http://www.nap.edu/books/030908878X/html/

Norris, PippaDIGITAL DIVIDE?: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, INFOR-MATION POVERTY, AND THE INTERNET WORLD-WIDECambridge University Press, 2001, 320 p.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopmentOECD GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURITY OFINFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS:TOWARDS A CULTURE OF SECURITYOECD, 2002, 30 p.http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,2340,en_2649_33703_15582250_1_1_1_1,00.html

Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment, CouncilSEIZING THE BENEFITS OF ICT IN A DIGITALECONOMYOECD, 2003, 28 p.http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/42/2507572.pdf

Servon, Lisa J.BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: TECHNOLOGY,COMMUNITY, AND PUBLIC POLICYBlackwell Publishing, 2002, 288 p.

Bibliography

52

Spooner, TomINTERNET USE BY REGION IN THE UNITED STATESPew Internet & American Life Project, 2003, 105 p.http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/pew_internet_region_082803.pdf

U.S. Executive Office of the PresidentTHE NATIONAL STRATEGY TO SECURE CYBERSPACEU.S. Executive Office of the President, 2003, 60 p.http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/

Wallsten, ScottREGULATION AND INTERNET USE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIESAEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies,2003, 29 p.http://aei.brookings.org/admin/pdffiles/phpvP.pdf

Warschauer, MarkTECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION:RETHINKING THE DIGITAL DIVIDEMIT Press, 2003, 274 p.

Articles

Arunachalam, SubbiahINFORMATION FOR RESEARCH IN DEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY –FRIEND OR FOE? Bulletin of the American Society for InformationScience & Technology, Vol. 29, No. 5, June/July 2003, pp. 16+

Berkowitz, Bruce and Robert W. HahnCYBERSECURITY: WHO’S WATCHING THE STORE?Issues in Science and Technology, Vol. 19, No. 3,Spring 2003, pp. 55-62http://www.nap.edu/issues/19.3/berkowitz.htm

Cerf, Vinton G.MUSINGS ON THE INTERNETEducause Review, Vol. 37, No. 5, September/October2002, pp. 74-84http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0256.pdf

Chabrow, EricSYMANTEC VP NAMED FEDERAL CYBERSECURITYCHIEFInformation Week, No. 956, September 22, 2003, p. 30

Curry, AndrewCAP, GOWN, MOUSEForeign Policy, No. 134, January/February 2003,pp. 102, 104

Dickey, Christopher, and othersTUNING IN, TURNING ONNewsweek (Atlantic Edition), Volume 142, No. 8,August 25, 2003-September 1, 2003, pp. 46+

Hamm, Steve, and othersEPIDEMICBusiness Week, No. 3848, September 8, 2003, p. 28

Holden, Stephen H., and othersELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT AT THE LOCALLEVEL: PROGRESS TO DATE AND FUTURE ISSUESPublic Performance and Management Review, Vol. 26,No. 4, June 2003, pp. 325-344

Huang, Hai, and othersTRUST, THE INTERNET, AND THE DIGITAL DIVIDEIBM Systems Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2003, pp. 507-518http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/423/huang.pdf

James, JeffreyFREE SOFTWARE AND THE DIGITAL DIVIDE:OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FORDEVELOPING COUNTRIESJournal of Information Science, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2003,pp. 25-35

Kalathil, ShanthiDOT COM FOR DICTATORSForeign Policy, No. 135, March/April 2003, pp. 42-49

Kenny, CharlesDEVELOPMENT’S FALSE DIVIDEForeign Policy, No. 134, January/February 2003, pp. 76-77

Leslie, MitchPROJECT HELPS INTERNET HAVE-NOTS SEARCHTHE WEBScience, Vol. 301, No. 5633, August 1, 2003, p. 573

53

Lindsay, Beverly, and othersTHE INTERNET: CREATING EQUITY THROUGHCONTINUOUS EDUCATION OR PERPETUATING ADIGITAL DIVIDE?Comparative Education Review, Vol. 47, No. 1,February 2003, pp. 112-122http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CER/journal/issues/v47n1/470103/470103.web.pdf

Marshall, PatrickCYBERSECURITYCQ Researcher, Vol. 13, No. 33, September 26, 2003(entire issue)

Murphy, CaitTHE HUNT FOR GLOBALIZATION THAT WORKSFortune (Europe), Vol. 146, No. 7, October 28, 2002,pp. 61-66

Steinberg, JamesINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & DEVELOPMENT:BEYOND ‘EITHER/OR’

Brookings Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, Spring 2003,pp. 45-48http://www.brookings.edu/press/review/spring2003/steinberg.htm

Sterling, BruceTHE CYBERSECURITY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXWired, Vol. 11, No. 1, January 2003, pg. 86http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/view.html?pg=4

Swail, Watson ScottHIGHER EDUCATION AND THE NEW DEMO-GRAPHICS: QUESTIONS FOR POLICYChange, Vol. 34, No. 4, July/August 2002, pp. 14-23

Warschauer, MarkDEMYSTIFYING THE DIGITAL DIVIDEScientific American, Vol. 289, No. 2, August 2003, pp.42-47

Aidworld Information Technologieshttp://www.aidworld.org/hi/home.html

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society atHarvard Law Schoolhttp://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/

Bridges.orghttp://www.bridges.org

Center for Democracy and Technologyhttp://www.cdt.org/

Center for Digital Governmenthttp://www.centerdigitalgov.com/

Center for Technology in Governmenthttp://www.ctg.albany.edu/

CERT Coordination Centerhttp://www.cert.org

Computer Security Institutewww.gocsi.com

Digital Divide Networkhttp://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/

First Monday: Peer-Reviewed Journal on theInternethttp://firstmonday.org

Global Internet Policy Initiativehttp://www.internetpolicy.net/

Institute for Security Technology Studieshttp://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/

InterConnectionhttp://www.interconnection.org/

International Research and Exchanges BoardInternet Access and Training Program (IATP)http://www.irex.org/programs/iatp/

Internet Security Alliancehttp://www.isalliance.org/

Internet Societyhttp://www.isoc.org/

Internet SocietyInternet Historieshttp://www.isoc.org/internet/history/

National Science FoundationSocial and Economic Implications of InformationTechnology: A Bibliographic Database Pilothttp://srsweb.nsf.gov//it_site/index.htm

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation andDevelopmentInformation and Communication Technologieshttp://www.oecd.org/topic/0,2686,en_2649_37409_1_1_1_1_37409,00.html

Process Control Systems Cyber Security(PCSCS) Forumhttp://www.pcscs.org/

Professionals for Cyber Defensehttp://www.uspcd.org/

Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Societyhttp://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/

U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityCritical Infrastructure Assurance Officehttp://www.ciao.gov/

World Resources InstituteDigital Dividendhttp://www.digitaldividend.org/

54

Selected Internet Resources