Over the weekend I stumbled across a thought-provoking opinion piece by the Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson where he proposes repealing the Internet because of the threat of cyberwar.   Now at first it seemed as though he was making a classic overstatement designed to draw the reader in, only to withdraw, make a point and clarify what he really meant about the importance of that statement.  However, it genuinely seems that he feels we would be better off without the internet and avoid all the “bad stuff” that goes with it.

If I could, I would repeal the Internet. It is the technological marvel of the age, but it is not – as most people imagine – a symbol of progress. Just the opposite. We would be better off without it. I grant its astonishing capabilities: the instant access to vast amounts of information, the pleasures of YouTube and iTunes, the convenience of GPS and much more. But the Internet’s benefits are relatively modest compared with previous transformative technologies, and it brings with it a terrifying danger: cyberwar. Amid the controversy over leaks from the National Security Agency, this looms as an even bigger downside.

In a report, the Defense Science Board, an advisory group to the Pentagon, acknowledged “staggering losses” of information involving weapons design and combat methods to hackers (not identified, but probably Chinese). In the future, hackers might disarm military units. “U.S. guns, missiles and bombs may not fire, or may be directed against our own troops,” the report said. It also painted a specter of social chaos from a full-scale cyberassault. There would be “no electricity, money, communications, TV, radio or fuel (electrically pumped). In a short time, food and medicine distribution systems would be ineffective.”

It’s pretty easy to be taken in by this Charlton Heston plot-level apocalypse scenario (I love those movies by the way).  There are threats that are real, but there are also untold benefits that have thus far outweighed the risks overall.  As for the threat of cyberwar, well that comes with the territory.  Technology is a double-edged sword.  One side works to your benefit, giving you access to a world of information, the other side works against you, potentially giving out information to a world unknown to you.   That’s the deal.  The threat of cyberwar has little to do with the actual internet.  Read that again.  Nothing.

Cyberwar is possible in part because of ignorance and the placement of sensitive data where it doesn’t belong without taking proper and constant precaution.   That precaution has a cost to it associated with constant vigilance and significant technology investments.  That extends to people as well.  Everyone that has access to the internet, except for Samuelson apparently, loves and uses the internet.  Most people are oblivious about how this internet thing actually works and that means an incredible amount of exposure.  Many people have no idea about what privacy means to them or even a hint of how to do anything securely.  They have no qualms about giving up their data and their metadata when it comes to their relationship with the internet, the phone company, anyone.  This is the front line of security – it starts with people.  There’s been a disconnect between delivering the web experience and tying in, emphasizing security from day one and that’s more of a problem than the internet itself.   So many people humming along in their existence, not knowing or caring that any threats exist – they instinctively base their trust on the false sense that if something has a password- that’s secure, if it’s against the law – someone will stop whoever’s doing it, that their constitutional rights are maintained in a digital age and we can trust that somehow all these things are set already.  Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Samuelson is right on the point that cyberwar is already happening.  It’s a real danger, our infrastructure is vulnerable at points– but as long as the defense stays ahead of the offense well then this won’t even register in the national consciousness.  It could be that just around the corner or down the street, the day that cyberwar offense may overcome the defense, where the right set of conditions and parties with the wrong intent come together and deal a crippling blow to this country.   However the tide is turning, the threats are being neutralized, and data is mostly making this possible.  The recent revelations that this country actively monitors, collects, and analyzes data about other countries is that very idea in action.   That is our data advantage and one we should keep, it bolsters our cybersecurity now and in the future on a global level.

Not to disparage Mr. Samuelson any further, but the following quote of a mixed blessing the low social impact of the internet couldn’t be any more wrong:

Internet’s social impact is shallow. Imagine life without it. Would the loss of e-mail, Facebook or Wikipedia inflict fundamental change? Now imagine life without some earlier breakthroughs: electricity, cars, antibiotics. Life would be radically different. The Internet’s virtues are overstated, its vices understated. It’s a mixed blessing — and the mix may be moving against us.

The internet is perhaps the most critical part that is this country.  Everything essentially depends on it.  From food, to gasoline, to banking, to power – it’s the lifeblood of business, retail, and health.   This kind of flame-bait in the article is misguided, irresponsible, and it lacks merit.  Just know that this kind of thinking is now out there.