Zittrain's excellent essay reflects a tension that will only grow. For, recently, the forces which exploit the generative Internet to illicit ends have organized in ways that will accelerate losses of those who want to use it to make their lives easier and/or better. The code being developed to exploit Internet users is marvelously sophisticated, the syndicates buying and deploying the code have rapid distribution systems. They can improve/update their exploits on the fly. They can even change what a user sees on his or her screen to make it different from what is really being reported (in, say, a bank statement).

And yet, much of this is not necessarily a reflection of the generative Internet's weaknesses. Rather, it's a reflection of weak engineering practices. To get deployed, bots use a number of weaknesses in software, holes in Web site's and other technical glitches, loopholes and even some features that are used in ways the developers didn't intend.

No doubt curbing poor coding practices by professionals and limiting the coding capabilities of amateurs would have similar effects to moving to an appliance-based world--it slows down innovation--only it's not clear one could even curb poor coding practices effectively at this point, because there is so much insecure code deployed and available for use.

Developers of this weak code would argue that the code so complex in its design and interactions with other code that it can't be secured. This is meant as a defense but can be taken as an indictment. Some biologics are so complex in their design and interaction that they can't be controlled. Only we regulate who gets to use them and where and when and how.

Zittrain ultimately, remains optimistic about saving the generative Internet; I'm less sanguine.

Great essay !!

Over the past decades Internet has achieved what organizations like WTO , G8 , UN etc could not achieve i.e. bringing information and people together on a single platform which offers equality for all its participants.

I believe the 'generality' of the Internet is an asset for humankind where people of all races , economic backgrounds can come together. This is something which religions have not been able to achieve over the last centuries.

Although there are risks posed by the bad code communities , i think the spirit of goodness will prevail . To make a comparison , you cannot start controlling marriages just because divorce rates are on a rise .

Let the spirit of Internet remain free for this spirit brings hope to a big part of earth's population in developing countries.

What the Internet needs is recognition such as a Nobel Prize for its contribution to humankind world wide.

Zittrain describes the internet as a totally eqalitarian and open society - no one is privildged and no one is excluded. Thus anyone can come into your house (read code, machine, etc.) and you accept him as friendly until proven otherwise. He is free to take your money or wife or whatever until you recognize him as dangerous. And indeed, the next time he comes, he is still accepted as friendly. Alas! real life shows us that such freedom and trust will be exploited by many people to their advantage. The question is then: How can we impose (enforce) rules of internet behavior than preserve most of the value of the open internet and yet prevent the bad guys from exploiting us too much?

Excellent essay !! Will become a classic reading. I look forward for the book.
One of the Internet problems is that its use is free. This is a real "Tragedy of the Commons" (look for the term on Wikipedia). A solution, maybe hard to swallow for some: make ISP pay to their government a small amount (say the equivalent of one cent of an US dollar) for each e-mail, file transmission or posting like this one, and authorize them to recover the costs from their users. The technology is available, open and free, search "Altivore Carnivore Echelon" on Google. I don´t mind paying a little more to my ISP if the spammers are shut off, and making them pay for each e-mail sent is the only way to effectively shut down the abuses: they always find a way around the filters, and it may help some "friends" to contain their impulse to share everything with the whole world. Traffic coming from countries that do not impose such a tax would be easily stopped by e-mail filters.

I do hope that Mr. Zittrain include something along these lines in his book.

Maybe the Internet as such does not need saving, precisely because of it's generative nature. We do need to be concerned with the "walled gardens" and keeping things open. Work on the next generation networks has begun, and it will likely address some of the stunning design gaps that were engineered into the Internet to produce rapid, viral growth, at the expense of more secure alternatives. Many problems of the Internet could only became apparent to many when they became the norm. Now that it's here, it's on people's radar to solve the problems, not necessarily through mechanisms which would damage that generative nature, but in ways that would enhance it. High quality dialog can help prevent us from falling into the W.E. Coyote loop of pointless lack of support.

-pb

I liked the article!

But we need someone to watch out for our Internet, don’t we? In this wild west of places, Zittrain hints at shoot out style O.K. Corral encounter. With “zombie computers” and the new business model for “bad code” producing sleeper cell “bot nets,” only an online Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday can protect us all from this invisible enemy within the Internet Cloud. The stock market in the U.S.A. was once outlawed when shares were sold for bogus ventures; eventually, in a free market, with slight government pressure where needed, most of the bad will get eaten away by the good – or so we all hope.