Ian Taylor is MP for Esher and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Trade and Technology. He offers a careful mix of optimistic free-market boosterism and the need for government involvement. Like his Labour shadow, he warns that censorship might be forced on unwilling politicians if the service providers don't censor themselves. He does not offer a freedom of information act or a guarantee of the right to secrecy through encryption. He is the author of Net-Working, a pamphlet published in May 1996 by the Conservative Political Centre.
Wired: The "superhighway" has become a political buzzword. What do you think it means for Britain?
Taylor: There's no such thing as the superhighway. There are highways, some of which are super and some of which are country tracks. You can be on a highway through your ordinary telephone line. We have a wide-ranging network of networks in the UK. Business is increasingly getting the sort of capacity it needs. We've one of the best broadcasting industries in the world, and broadcasting is a crucial part of the convergence needed to build the information superhighways. We've got our creative software side. We are leaders in mobile telephony. I think we are as well placed as anyone except possibly the United States.
You say you're all for people adding content to the Net to increase its value. What's the government doing in that regard?
We're beginning to discuss the concept of self-service government in which the individual consumer - the member of the public - has more options about how to deal with government. There is nothing the government has in its database that can not be dealt with electronically. We want to build up public access kiosks. It will require smartcard technology, ultimately.
Smartcards? You mean ID cards - yes?
If you're asking me am I in favour of compulsory identification cards I - I don't think there's been a public debate about that yet. If you're asking me whether I believe in the ability of people to identify themselves voluntarily, then I most emphatically do believe in it. That is the right way forward.
But surely the public also needs some sort of guarantees about the uses of personal information.
This is a perfectly reasonable worry which needs to be settled - not by halting the development of technology, but by a public debate about the parameters of data protection. I would like there to be more discussion about this topic, rather than less.
What about the actual use of the networks for the conduct of politics? Are there any proposals on this issue?
I think this country's in for a shock. My judgement is that at the next election there will be a very considerable number of people in this country used to surfing the Net who will be astonished that MPs are not prepared to respond electronically.
Do you have any plans to censor or regulate Internet content?
I don't think regulation by any one government is likely to be effective. I prefer to talk in terms of self-restraint and providing people with the power to avoid sites which might be offensive. We're talking to the Internet Service Providers Association; indeed, we've given them half a DTI official, as it were. If the industry weren't responsible then it might invite attempts which none of us really want to do to respond to these concerns.
Do you have any plans to ban strong encryption?
Encryption is going to be essential for commerce on the superhighways. We've brought forward a policy of trusted third parties (TTPs), which is currently at a consultation period. We've not introduced anything obligatory.
Would these third parties have a legal obligation to disclose keys to government?
It will work in the same way as telephone surveillance. The normal legal procedures will apply. Given that most users of the electronic superhighways, like users of telephones, do not in any way want to break the law, we want to protect society from those who do.
What limits would you put on the use of electronic surveillance, by camera or by other means?
Well, the public mood at the moment is for greater use of CCTV systems in city centres. Given the threats there are to public safety, public surveillance is valuable. My mind has been on the need to respond to public demand for more systems, not on your concern. Clearly there comes a point at which it would depend on whether these were done secretly in terms of private surveillance of other people's activities, which would be invasion of privacy.
Why do you think the Conservative Party is more suited than the others to address these new technologies?
The Labour Party missed out on the whole decade of liberalisation. They opposed it. They are inherently monopolistic: look at the deal they tried to do with BT, which totally misunderstood the market. Their instinct is against this tremendous explosion of fairly anarchic activity based on creativity, on risk assessment, on allowing the market to find its own level, on quick movement against anti-competitive practice, on competition driving down prices and up standards.
And still within your own party there is a high degree of hostility to innovation.
The Conservative Party is fairly representative of the country as a whole. What people who are wired need to understand is that the country is not yet up to speed with them. Technology can be frightening to people. They feel it threatens their jobs. They think it becomes intrusive. They're not very comfortable with it. My job is to demystify technology - but it would be a great mistake to assume that the positive benefits are instantly appreciated by everyone in society; they're not. We've got to make an effort to get the message across.