Internet experts suggest better alternatives to 'single gateway'
THE "single gateway" idea touted by the government is neither an effective tool to prevent cyber-attacks nor a good way of blocking websites that insult the monarchy, academics and Internet experts warned yesterday.
Rather, it is a “big brother” approach that would cause uproar and damage to the digital economy, they said. The authorities would be better placed, they said, to rethink the design and execution of the plan.
Bhume Bhumiratana, a cyber security specialist, said a single gateway, no matter if it is used at organisation level or national level, generally has only one purpose – to easily and quickly control Internet traffic.
Bhume said other countries’ governments use more efficient and more transparent tools to control Internet traffic they consider a threat.
“The single gateway is not an efficient way to block websites that insult the monarchy. It cannot completely control the flow of information since the Internet is designed to be difficult to block,” he said.
It was also an ineffective way to prevent a cyber threat from attacking the system, he said, adding that in fact, it makes it easier for such attacks to take place.
Yunyong Teng-amnuay, one of Thailand’s Internet pioneers and a former lecturer at the Department of Computer Engineering at Chulalongkorn’s Faculty of Engineering, said the single gateway was a policy not a technical definition. It was a logical concept of the government’s management.
Currently, national security and especially the monarchy were being attacked and the government had no tools to handle this. The existing method was to ask service providers for help but some actively cooperate and others do not.
“So, the use of the single gateway [by the government] appears to go cold turkey or [is] a ‘big brother’ approach to handle the problem. It could lead to resistance and damage the digital economy and e-commerce plan,” he said.
In his opinion, the solution was that the government could cooperate with service providers to use tools to block inappropriate websites that insult the monarchy.
To control websites that insult the monarchy, Bhume said the government need only issue a law forcing IIG service providers to block
those websites within an agreed
period of time or ask the National Broadcasting and Telecommunic-ation Commission to revoke their [IIG] licences.
The government should also be transparent, he said. It should let IIG service providers get a court order to revoke the government’s block on websites if they can prove the sites did not insult the monarchy.
Tools are available to get IIG to control the sites other than using the single gateway to control mass usage, Bhume said. “The government should put the brakes on the single gateway. It should rethink it and study it carefully by inviting the public to participate,” he said.
Yanyong said the government should create public confidence and sincerely explain what they are doing and what the objective is. These tools can also be applied to address other social demons like gambling and pornography, he said.
“The government and the people should compromise and listen to each others’ concerns and together find a resolution to address the problem while upholding human rights,” Yunyong said.
Pravit Chattalada, an IT expert, said the government should allow market forces to propel the Internet, drive competitiveness and seek innovative alternatives to mitigate public alarm in resolving complex security issues.
Currently, there are 10 IIG service providers, he said. The government should take control through cooperation with these providers with an agreement on what kind of the traffic must be controlled and assuring trust and confidence between the parties. This is the best approach.
“Changing the name [single gateway] would make no difference if the intent and function [of the move] are still unclear,” Pravit said.
The government should work with the private sector on what specific kinds of traffic it wants to control. The single gateway, by way of being a single pipe, should not do since it runs counter to technologies and the nature of the digital world.
Once it thinks of a single pipe, the government should be prepared to cope with enormous investment on system reliability, safety, redundancies and maintenance, he said.
