MiWiFi .v. Gatekeepers Inc.

Posted on | April 29, 2007 | 16 Comments

Don was quick off the mark to report on our conversation over a pint on Friday evening. His concept of MiWiFi is one that, were he and East Lothian to find a way to pull it off, could be a model for others across the world who are eager to find the ‘holy grail’ of education networks: one that is open to anyone to use as they wish, while offering the required level of security for those who need access to local instititutional network applications and data. The MiWiFi concept would permit anyone to get connected anywhere within the institutional network, using any device they wished including their own laptop or PC, in a way that does not compromise the need for secure access to institutional network services for those who require them.

I could not help but be struck by the parallels in attitude and intent between Don’s post and that of Graham Wegner on the same evening. Both are desparate to find a way past that stultifying approach that deems that education networks ought to be as secure as we can possibly make them, when, of course, the absolute opposite is the case: we need to make education networks as insecure as we can get away with. Think about it!

A bolted-down network, one that puts in place all those gatekeepers we know so well, that cannot distinguish between a network for educational purposes and a network for any other purpose, simply cannot be an education network at all. Genuine, open, transformational learning cannot take place in a closed environment. QED.

The wrong people are too often given control over education networks; these are people who, somehow, are able to determine what is good for teachers and learners not on the basis of educational thinking or practice (or educational apiration) but on the basis of what works in a corporation or in an office environment or in any other networking environment where tight security is deemed necessary (rightly or wrongly). Some of them have even been teachers in the past!

Here in Scotland, since local government reorganisation in 1996, there has been a wholesale consolidation of local authority networks so that most schools in the country find themselves having to operate within an environment that is designed primarily to expedite the ‘business’ of local government. The result, as in so many educational settings worldwide, are educational networks that are being choked by the sentinels who know better than the educators or the learners what is needed for teaching and learning with technology today. It is a nonsense!

MiWiFi could be the way ahead. I wonder how many out there are already trying something similar at anything more than the level of a single school?

Technorati Tags: don ledingham, graham wegner, miwifi, scottish local government

Category: architecture, censorship, education, ict, politics, scotland, technology

Comments

16 Responses to “MiWiFi .v. Gatekeepers Inc.”

Ian Stuart
April 29th, 2007 @ 8:49 pm

John
As part of our school of Ambition Project we have placed a total wifi coverage in the school.
Every teacher has a Tablet PC. Every teaching area with a wireless projector. Leading to every pupil having their own devices.
This creates an open environment
This is all great until we want to talk outside the network.
The secuirity of the network is used as the justification for the limitations underchild protection law.
I would love to make full use of social networking but obviously I have to be safe secure and legal
David Gilmour
April 30th, 2007 @ 12:14 am

This problem isn’t unique to education. There are two reasons for it: the governance arrangements and the IT strategy.

First, the governance of security. When IT security became important, IT departments created security roles. The people who ended up in these roles were

often those who could frighten their managers with impressive horror stories about incomprehensible threats. Many of them live in a world completely

detached from their organisation, in a culture where your status is determined by your level of paranoia. It’s rational for them to make things as secure as

they can, because they have no responsibility for anything else.

In this context, whether people can get their job done can easily become less important than achieving security. It’s also a situation ripe for exploitation

by vendors of expensive software, but that’s a separate issue.

The hard bit is striking the right balance between an acceptable level of security and getting the job done. Although staff throughout an organisation may

moan about over-zealous security, it’s notoriously difficult to get organisations to accept the risks implicit in any easing of an established security

regime. Maybe this is just another aspect of the current aversion to risk of any sort?

The IT strategy has a big impact too. In Scotland, education is run by councils who are under severe cost pressure. Within councils, IT is a kind of hygiene factor; it’s important only if it’s missing. The important thing is to minimise costs, and

that’s why we see the adoption of centrally managed, locked down, standardised systems. I don’t think it’s anything to do with the individuals. It’s well established that doing this lowers costs.

Of course, this minimum cost strategy is at odds with what’s being asked of education. In working to create a modern education system we’re finding that IT

isn’t just a hygiene factor, it’s of strategic importance. That in turn means there’s a need to experiment, and innovate, which isn’t easy in a locked-down,

standardised environment. It means that in modern education classroom ICT maybe isn’t as suitable for outsourcing as previously thought, as Digitalkatie is finding.

When we look back on this period, we’ll probably see this distinction more clearly. Perhaps as more evidence emerges of the strategic importance of education ICT, it will become easier to justify an alternative to the minimum-cost, standardised approach? Meantime, I’m just relieved to be in East Lothian, where the IT team, including security, work in an effective partnership with education staff.
John Connell
April 30th, 2007 @ 12:32 am

David,

I’m so glad to read the detail in your comment, because you are able to provide the proof of what I am trying to say!

I have enough experience of the milieu to be able to verify your summary – but your own words point to the inherent problem: that those who think a network is network is a network are, bluntly, wrong! Cost-effectiveness may be a justification, and a persuasive one, but, at the end of the day (to quote any footballer ever interviewed) the ‘hygiene factor’ will be shown to be destructive of the requirements of education for openness, genuine interaction and knowledge creation!

I look forward to the fruits of that partnership you mention!
Jim Buchan
April 30th, 2007 @ 7:56 am

A very interesting read above. It seems to me that the ‘fear of having to deal with some wrong doing’ is the driver that causes education networks to be ‘nailed down’. I think that I do understand that basic drivers that have lead to the status quo.

I would take the view that if we want to make education and learning a truly lifelong experience then we need to provide a model of connectivity which provides access when and where we need to or want to learn.
It is important in my view that we do this in a way that provides some measure of accountability so that any ‘wrong doing’ or network abuse can be identified and the perpetrators dealt with. This means that we cannot have a complete free for all.

I would support any move to ‘open up the network’ to provide easy access for users who want to learn any where any time.

In the education environment, UKERNA has introduced a service called EduROAM see (http://www.ja.net/development/aa/lin/index.html)
I would like to see this sort of service made available throughout Scottish LA networks.

The basic principle is that all access is authenticated and that the users home organization is responsible for providing a remotely accessible authentication mechanism which can be accessed from any other participating organizations network.

Of course this service is designed with JANET connected organizations in mind which of course includes all Scottish Local Authorities. So there should be some opportunity to develop an environment where users can roam from one network to another and be able to access the services they need to learn or teach.

In my work situation, I can connect to my organizations LAN with relative ease, but if I visit the organization next door, which is funded by the same department of the Scottish Executive, I cannot connect to their network. If both organizations were to participate in EduROAM then respective employees should be able to move between the two network with relative freedom.

Of course I should state that this system works in a way that prevents a roaming user getting access to the visited organizations network services. Only access to the Internet is made available – which is exactly what ‘visitors’ need in my experience.

I look forward to a time when I can visit any school or any LA/public body premises and have basic connectivity available via my mobile device and the host schools network. As we roll out services like Glow I am sure that there will be developing need for users to roam with relative freedom.
John Connell
April 30th, 2007 @ 9:47 am

I see, Jim, that the EduRoam trademark belongs to TERENA (the Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association). By coincidence, I’m speaking at the annual TERENA event being held in Copenhagen on the 24th of May. I should have known the Research Networks would be ahead of the game on this, and that UKERNA would be a key player!

Would I be right in thinking that the EduRoam approach, while it would be a superb move forward in this area, only enables roaming where those connecting are already members of affiliated organisations? I guess this would still not enable access for just anyone?
Hilery
April 30th, 2007 @ 10:01 am

My instincts are to welcome open environments. But .. when searching for images to illustrate the story of Mary Queen of Scots I found such fuzzy pictures that I typed in ‘beheading’. And immediately was sickened by the images that appeared. I shut down instantly. Young people might not. I’m an innocent in the world of the internet – probably more so than many of our children. However, I do think there is a case for protecting young people from pictures of men in hoods with ropes around their necks. I know this was in what is meant to be an already ’safe’ environment. Would access for all make it better?
Jim Buchan
April 30th, 2007 @ 10:02 am

Yes that is right John – a closed by trusted group!
John Connell
April 30th, 2007 @ 10:06 am

Jim, Is it Shibboleth-based, by any chance?
John Connell
April 30th, 2007 @ 10:11 am

Hilery – your question is the critical one that we need to ask whenever we discuss opening up networks. For me, however, I would ask how secure and how ’safe’ are the networks that young people are using at home and elsewhere to go onto the Web? If we tie down education networks we can congratulate ourselves that we are protecting young people from tasteless (and worse!) images, videos, etc. However, what influence can we have over their connecting habits elsewhere?

I think we need to open up networks where we can, but we then need to educate young people (that’s what we do, after all) about the dangers that exist out there, and we need to educate them about how they can protect themselves on the Web. Of course, the first group that would require education in this area would be the teachers themselves!
John Connell: the blog » Blog Archive » Cluetrain and Open Networks
April 30th, 2007 @ 11:05 am

[...] MiWiFi .v. Gatekeepers Inc.04/30/2007 10:11 am9 Comments [...]
Jim Buchan
May 1st, 2007 @ 7:39 am

EDURoam is not a Shibboleth based service at the moment – it is based on RADIUS. Apprarently there are currently 60 organisations in the UK participating in the scheme. This is probably due to the fact that it does take some effort to to join these scheme coupled with fact that it is optional.

Here is a short extract from the Janet Roaming Service Deployment Guide

“The JANET Roaming Service facilitates roaming access to network resources
by relocating the authentication overhead from the visited organisation (i.e.
the physical location of the resource to which a guest is requesting access)
to the home organisation with which that person is affiliated (e.g. as a
student or member of staff), where it may be assumed that they already have
existing credentials for access to their local resources when back at base. This
authentication referral is accomplished via a hierarchical RADIUS (Remote
Authentication Dial-In User Service: see section 4.2) core infrastructure. The
JANET Roaming Service infrastructure allows these existing accounts to be
authenticated in a roaming context, saving the visited organisation the need to
administer temporary accounts for individual visitors.”

See here for further details
http://www.ja.net/roaming/

Jim
Jim Buchan
May 1st, 2007 @ 7:55 am

Yes there are two different threads in this conversation in my view.

One is “giving users the ability to access the network wherever they are” and the other is concerned with “the content which is visible or accessible to the user when they accesses the network – from anywhere”.

A roaming user who is not connected to his/her home network might be able to see a different view of the internet as the access policy in the visited organization my differ from the users home organization. So a school user will have one policy applied when in school and another when accessing the internet from home.

We could have parallel discussion about setting up a roaming filter service as opposed to a roaming access service.

When a child or teacher accesses the internet from home it is likely that the access policy of the ISP will be much less restrictive. One concern I have here is that we as educators prepare both children and school staff to operate safely in that “real world” environment. It is necessary to encourage good practice and raise awareness about the real dangers that do exist in an unfiltered Web connection.

The following web site is where the Internet Watch Foundation maintains is basic list of banned sites. This is a basic starting point for any Internet filter policy and is likely to be used by most if not all filtering systems which are used in Education.
Josh Howlett
May 2nd, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

I was pointed to this discussion by John Chapman of Becta.

It’s interesting to see a discussion of JANET Roaming (JRS) and eduroam in a UK school’s context. Until recently, eduroam (in the international context) was primarily an HE/FE activity, although we are seeing increasing participation from schools sectors in other European countries.

Any JANET Connected Organisation is eligible to participate in JANET Roaming (and by extension, eduroam). I’d be delighted to talk to any JANET customer who is interested in learning more about JANET Roaming or eduroam in general (or come along to TNC 2007 in Copenhagen where I’ll also be talking about eduroam!).

best regards, josh.
Neil Livesey
May 2nd, 2007 @ 3:43 pm

I can’t help but feel that we’ve boxed ourselves into a corner. On one hand we want to protect young children from the vagaries of the internet and on the other we want them to have the opportunity to explore, learn, create, share and collaborate. I like many others in the past tried to apply a technological solution using “gatekeeper” software, but the more I used it the less impressed I became. I would like to see more done by the ISPs to protect users from extraneous materials…then again someone might call this censorship? However, everything is censored in some way even some local authority educational networks.
John Connell
May 2nd, 2007 @ 4:38 pm

Josh – I’ll be attending the TNC in Copenhagen, speaking at a Cisco event there. It would be good to have a chat around this area.
John Connell
May 2nd, 2007 @ 4:46 pm

I agree, Neil, about being boxed into a corner. I think that’s why we have to think radically and get ourselves out of that corner. I beieve our attempts to set up gatekeepers, however we do that, are the toils of Sisyphus: futile and never-ending. If we are, indeed, educators, then I think we should be looking to education itself for the answer, teaching young people how to protect themselves online rather than simply trying constantly to fend off attacks from the darker reaches of the Web.

There might always be some absolutes that we know we have to prevent access to, but like the inevitable debates on the nature of liberal democracy, we can end up in a constantly circular argument about the dividing line between censorship and openness.