Are the arteries of the internet really in danger of becoming clogged up?

There has been much debate recently over the capacity of the internet to cope with the growing popularity of high-bandwidth services such as online video.

Some ISPs have been moaning in particular about the impact of the hugely successful BBC iPlayer -­ a complaint that has been received with derision from web users, not least those writing to Computing’s letters page (letters.computing.co.uk).

The irony is not lost on those who recall the early days of broadband, when ISPs accused content providers of doing too little to provide sites that would encourage users to upgrade from dial-up connections.

But now the father of web gurus, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has raised another arterial issue -­ that the problem is not too much content, but too much useless content.

Berners-Lee fears that the internet will lose credibility as a business and consumer tool because of the spread of false, misleading or simply annoying information ­ the web equivalent of spam for email. Would you really trust Wikipedia as a 100 per cent reliable source, for example?

All these debates are inevitable for what is, after all, a very young technology in terms of mainstream use. Barely 10 years ago the internet was unheard of outside of tech-savvy circles. Ten years after the car was invented, people still thought it necessary to walk in front of them waving a red flag to warn passers-by.

The reality is that the internet shows no signs of slowing down in either popularity or connectivity. The government and the telecoms industry are slowly waking up to the need to invest in next-generation broadband infrastructure. And the iPlayer demonstrates the benefit of providing quality content to the right audience.

There is no need for a healthcheck yet. IT leaders need to be aware of the issues under debate, but should not be deterred from investing in a future where information and connectivity are the lifeblood of business and government.

It is difficult to tell if green computing is today’s hot topic, or if people are getting fed up hearing about it.

A good turnout and high-profile speakers at last week’s Green IT 2008 conference in London suggests the environment is very much a topic for debate among IT leaders.

But casual conversation among delegates included talk of too much “greenwash” and inboxes overflowing with eco-messages.

There is no shortage of comment on the subject, and organisations are keen to promote their credentials ­- all of which is a good thing. Huge steps have been taken in the 18 months since Computing launched its green computing campaign, when best practice was thin on the ground.

Given the accumulated learning in such a short time, it seems churlish to say that we are running out of new ideas. But there is a whiff of repetitiveness.

For all the debate, the same themes are cropping up time and again ­ do the easy things first; green IT is more about saving money than saving the environment; and the difficulty of measuring and benchmarking environmental credentials, to name some of the most common.

Green technology is very much on the agenda for IT leaders, but is not at the top. The reality is that only so much progress will be made if the subject is under the spotlight purely for topical reasons, and a desire to be seen to be doing something. Until green computing is part of everyday computing, little will really have been achieved.

So, how do we take that step?

One respected commentator, Freeform Dynamics analyst David Tebbutt, put it well in conversation with Computing -­ green IT needs a jolt. It needs a fresh kick-start to go beyond being trendy and become a business essential. The nature of that jolt is yet to be apparent.

But it is sorely needed to finally make sure that the case for green is black and white.

The realisation is growing that data protection is not somebody else’s responsibility.

Moves to make individuals liable for the loss or disclosure of personal information held by public sector bodies or by companies are an inevitable response to the data loss scandals we have seen in recent months.

Until now, the Data Protection Act has focused responsibility on senior executives of an organisation, who are held to task for failures of staff under their charge. But the reality is that those workers are rarely motivated by the need to protect their bosses or their employer’s reputation.

When someone else takes the blame, why should you care if you make a mistake?

The most common concern of IT leaders looking to introduce data protection or risk management policies is how to create a culture that supports the rules and regulations put in place. Having a policy is one thing ­ making staff buy into it can be quite another. Ultimately, a culture exists only in the collective hearts and minds of a group of individuals, it cannot be imposed from above or through a set of rules.

From a government perspective then, legislation appears to be the only answer.

But no law will be effective ­ other than in increasing the prison population ­ without education to go alongside it.

Data privacy is perhaps the biggest single challenge facing the technology industry. Information security is not the issue ­ technical controls exist to secure the vast volumes of electronic data being generated ­ but the access to, and authorisation of the use of that data is about people, not technology.

For every government employee who inappropriately accesses citizen records (see www.computing.co.uk/2215705), how many would protest if someone did the same to their personal details?

People need to realise the impact on others of their actions, and to be given training and advice to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities. The best way to do that is to ask the question: What if it were you?

Government has been wholeheartedly – ­ if not always successfully ­ – embracing the potential for technology to improve services to citizens, but the politicians have some way to go.

As local councils across the country go to the polls today, few candidates can claim to have turned to the internet to boost their appeal to voters.

The leaflet pushers have been as active as ever ­ – the tree count for all the paper thrown straight into voters’ rubbish bins in the past month must be huge ­ – but this new-fangled computer stuff seems to have passed our potential representatives by.

In London, where the highest-profile election is taking place, none of the candidates looked at the possibility, for example, of using social networking to engage with voters; nor have they made much mention of IT’s potential in improving the citizens’ lot. Ken Livingstone’s jocular anticipation of chips in our heads may not win him another term as mayor, but his Tory rival Boris Johnson can hardly claim to represent the internet generation either.

How different things are in the US, where the battling Democrat candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have put the web at the centre of their campaigns. The forthcoming presidential elections will be the most internet-enabled we have seen.

Perhaps part of the problem lies in the culture of secrecy surrounding technology in parliament.

Only now, after a series of data protection scandals, has the Information Commissioner been given the go-ahead to spot-check Whitehall departments for compliance. And MPs want to improve transparency by gaining access to departments’ management information systems instead of having to wait for annual paper-based reports.

The internet ethos is built on openness ­ – not a quality often associated with politicians. If our elected representatives could grasp how IT can connect them with citizens, not only would they be closer to our tech-enabled culture, but perhaps more open with us all.