The world of IT security is overload with jargon. Which is a real problem because the people most at risk - small businesses and consumers - need clear, trustworthy guidance. Sadly, a lot of it is coming from software vendors and security specialists who struggle to express themselves in good, everyday English.

Full disclosure: I do a lot of work in this area. Some of it, like my fortnightly column on bCentral and my regular features in Infosecurity Today, goes out under my name. A lot more, done under the banner of my copywriting agency, Articulate Marketing, is anonymous. I’m part of the problem and, I hope, part of the solution.
One example is the confusion over viruses. The public understand the word ‘virus’. It is a strong metaphorical word and widely used. However, the security industry likes to talk about viruses, worms, trojans and malware. I understand the taxonomy - it depends on how they spread - but why obscure the message? I mean it would be like the car industry insisting that we refer to saloons or hatchbacks but never, ever use the word car.
Another example, on a more philosophical level, is the obsession with talking about risks and threats. Nobody died using the internet (well, except that Korean guy who died playing video games for a week). So this kind of approach has two consequences.

• First people are more nervous about using the internet instead of taking the simple steps they need to take to be safe.
• Second, it distracts attention from some of the issues that are largely ignored in the discourse about online safety. For example: privacy, the digital divide, access for people with disabilities, standards compliance and interoperability and the role of the government and big business.

This obsession is even more in evidence when it comes to child safety online. There’s an entire industry creating websites and printed material stuffed with lurking strangers. Does anyone stop to ask if this is actually the most effective approach? Or are we so obsessed with nannying everyone that we’re forgetting to help them?

One interesting voice in all this is SAFT which is trying to adopt a more positive approach. They’re the only people I’ve heard talk about ’source criticism’ and what children *actually* do online. Another site that’s quite cool is the Dutch Waarschuwingsdienst, which is an alerting and warning site - their alerts are pretty clear, even with my limited Dutch. I think Get Safe Online is pretty good too - comprehensive and detailed.
I don’t want to dwell on the negative examples. But somebody once said that we get the internet we deserve and if we leave it to fear-mongers and the tabloids we’ll get the internet safety culture we deserve too.