With the Foundation for Information Policy Research [F.I.P.R] (a leading digital rights activist) and Sir Tim Berners-Lee (the founder of the World Wide Web) warning about threats to our privacy online. What does the future of the Internet look like for the average user?

First, we need to consider what the threats are and why they have come to the fore. The Internet, at its inception, offers us all an unprecedented opportunity for freedom of expression. What’s more, it presents a tantalizing opportunity for us to fight for control of the mass media away from the traditional power brokers. In essence, it means that we no longer need to suffer the indignity of being force-fed the “official view.” The Internet is truly democracy in action.

Now I think we all recognize that most of us use the Internet as a means of communication or as a source of entertainment. So it won’t surprise anyone that statistics (according to Alexa.com) reveal that the sites that get the most visitors (excluding major search engines) are either social networking, file sharing, or porn sites. While this perhaps doesn’t reflect the “Internet for the Greater Good Theory” well, it does at least demonstrate that the Internet is a user-driven system that truly reflects the entire sphere of human interest (no matter how low).

However, the same statistics also reveal that the top 100 most visited sites (again, excluding search engines) still only account for a small proportion of total Internet traffic. The internet is vast and diverse, there is a wealth of information out there, and a healthy degree of skepticism is required for just about everything. Nevertheless, the potential for genuine freedom of ideas remains.
For that reason, it is with a feeling of foreboding that I take note of the recent remarks by both Sir Berners-Lee and the FIPR. Far from offering freedom for all, the Internet has actually become the greatest threat to our individual privacy since the advent of the printing press. Unfortunately, this seems to be due, in large part, to our own carelessness. The information we post to sites like Facebook, YouTube, and for that matter, this one is not only viewable by virtually anyone else, but it will also remain in perpetuity (unless we remember to delete it, of course).
It’s easy to see that a little more discretion is required for those of us who wish to maintain our privacy. This seems like a simple enough step to preserve our security, but unfortunately it may not be enough. Not only are our governments losing massive amounts of our personal data, but there is also a much more pervasive threat to our personal freedom.

The market research company “Phorm” has recently been negotiating with three of the UK’s largest ISPs (BT, Virgin Media and Talk Talk) and contracts appear to have been agreed. Phorm, among others, has the technology to analyze the browsing habits of any individual and can provide advertisers with the data they need to deliver “personalized advertising.” There has been some debate as to whether this should be an ‘opt-in’ or ‘opt-out’ element of your Internet service provision but, either way, we are all going to have to inspect our service agreements very carefully. .

For its part, Phorm (already a multinational corporation) insists that it does not maintain permanent Internet clicktrails and offers an Internet security service by warning users when they are about to enter details on phishing sites. . Despite these claims, Facebook has already used statistics collected in this way within its much-criticized ‘Beacon’ system and the projected annual revenue generated by BT, should they use Phorm’s services, has been estimated at more than £ 80 million ($160 million). Therefore, it seems unlikely that the objections will be heeded.

More worrisome perhaps is the possibility of misuse of the same technology. For example, it would allow insurance companies to increase premiums for customers who frequently visit HIV prevention sites; governments could monitor the online activities of anyone they deemed ‘undesirable’ without judicial jurisdiction; banks could reject credit for ‘reckless spending’. This is not to mention the criminal potential.

So whatever the future holds, it seems inevitable that the days of surfing the web without needing to consider protecting our privacy along the way are long gone.