I’m all for advances in technology to protect users but why do some companies seem to handle things so clumsily and just not think how it is going to affect the end users? Sometimes these actions can actually be damaging to other trading companies.

I have two examples of just this happening today.

Firstly with regard to Mozilla rolling out a new policy when it comes to SSL certificates (this will be within Firefox 3). Essentially if you self certify or get an unapproved provider to sign the certificate any users of Firefox 3 will get a massive scary message - the kind that most people have a little panic and push the back button.

Mozilla are trying to do the right thing but in too bullish a way. If a certificate is actually invalid this of course should be displayed but if it is simply by an unapproved provider an alternative message should be provided.

In the case of SSL certificates they are provided for two reasons.

1. To encrypt data sent to and from the server.
2. To authenticate the website is what it says it is.

The second point can only be trusted when a third party reputable provider issues the certificate and this is what Firefox is trying to protect against. Why not have a bit more user friendly message that explains that? If a self certified certificate is being used simply to ensure secure transfer of data strictly speaking the certificate is not invalid so why say it is?

My second annoyance is with McAfee and their SiteAdvisor system they have in their security software. Every McAfee’s users’ search engine results pages have icons put next to each result to signify if McAfee has tested if the site as safe or not.

Sounds like a good idea yes? Certainly gives piece of mind for the average user however if as a company you are unlucky enough still to be in McAfee queue for testing websites it’s not such good news.

If a user is confronted with a red cross next to a search result (failed McAfee’s tests) you’d understand people avoiding it like the plague but how about if they have a yellow exclamation mark next to them?

Well for the average users they too would avoid this like the plague - why take the risk?

So when a company I’ve been working with had this very problem (and notably their competitor’s have already been awarded the magic green tick) I contacted McAfee to see if they could move things along. A brick wall is about the best description - wait your turn. Hardly the response you want when an action by another company could actively be turning away paying customers.

I’m not saying that McAfee shouldn’t have come up with this solution just the implementation is lacking. Surely a more carefully categorised queuing system could have ensured no uneven roll-out through competitors? Or maybe if such a thing was to happen there could be conditions when a website could be fast tracked?

Just a bit of an update with things happening with regards to online regulation and protection. Further to the posts I’ve written about whether social media networks need regulation there have been some additional moves made by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) who govern the age ratings for video content and video games.

It seems the BBFC are to introduce age ratings for downloaded content and games - obviously this is voluntary as the anonymity of the Internet means it’s virtual impossible to uphold. However as I’ve mentioned before parents must take more responsibility for this and at least the tools for them to use to do so are becoming ever more available. If parents’ methods of protecting their children is made as easy as possible you are only going to see them being increasingly adopted.

In addition there is an interesting post about the issue of informed consent posted by dot life. It correctly states that the current situation is a bit of a farce - since when do people read terms and conditions online? However a working group has been appointed to come up with recommendations by the end of the year. Hopefully with several country’s Information Commissioners and firms like Microsoft and Facebook involved there might be interesting results. Perhaps recommendations for online privacy best practices for online companies to aspire too?

There is a lot being discussed at the moment with regard to regulation of games after the Byron review last week and now this seems to have spread to social networks after Ofcom published a report about children using social network websites (Download the Ofcom social networking report).

As usual the media have turned on the evil Internet again but when you look through this hysteria there is an interesting argument here. Online regulation isn’t easy as due to the Internet’s very nature it evolves quickly (too quickly for Government intervention perhaps) and there is a degree of anonymity which also means enforcement becomes more difficult.

In addition some would say regulation would stifle the freedom that is currently available.

Personally I can’t see how regulation is going to work, essentially most schemes with regard to online regulation seem to be badly conceived and I’m not convinced Governments have a clue about the underlying issues.

I think application providers and websites should take responsibility for this in the regard that they should provide the tools within the system for privacy and protection rather than requiring various shock headlines to make them change their policies.

This still leaves a gap for who is going to ensure that children use the systems available and I’m afraid this for the most part should come down to parents. Currently it would seem that many parents don’t understand issues surrounding the social Internet but I don’t see this as an excuse. Outside of the virtual World parents keep on top of developments related to their children - this should be the same for when their child logs on.

Certainly there is a case for education here and maybe a Government should formulate a swifter response to the moving goalposts online. There are already independent sites for advice such as Safe Social Networking but maybe a more inventive and proactive approach is needed.

Any other opinions would be welcomed.