Sim Kwang Yang's article entitled Anarchy on the Internet illuminated some of the issues facing responsible publishing on the Internet. He was right in pointing out that communication technologies allow everyone to now publish with ease and thus the rules of responsible publishing and journalism should now apply to all who do.

However, the same rules also apply to Sim himself especially when he claims: 'Hackers have caused havoc and untold financial losses as well as loss of lives'.

While I would readily admit that there are members of the global computer security community who have used their talents and skills for personal profit by violating any number of electronic crime statutes, I believe that Sim's assertion of 'loss of lives' and 'untold financial losses' to be nothing more than an over-exaggeration of the facts.

I would really like Sim to quote specific instances where computer security breaches have resulted directly in loss of lives. This has yet to happen, in spite of media posturing that 'evil-flag-burning-profit- mongering-terrorists' hackers will take over the world's air traffic control systems and cause a major loss of lives.

It is this very over-exaggeration and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) spread by the mainstream media (and now the online media, it seems) which has led governments throughout the world to enact badly thought-out pieces of legislation which clamp down on the flexibility which Internet communication gives us.

More often than not, when a virus epidemic spreads across the planet's electronic networks, it won't be long before journalists and some members of the computer security fraternity start to claim 'millions, if not billions, of dollars in costs'.

However, what needs to be addressed is not the 'after' but rather both the immunisation and prevention of the problem in the first place. A far lower sum of money spent on proper immunisation technologies as well as on an intelligent choice of operating systems and technology architectures can save organisations and individuals from being susceptible to virus and breach of security attacks.

When one intentionally chooses a piece of technology and platform known vulnerable, the notion that someone else is responsible bears very little relevance and is nothing more than an excuse to shield oneself from an incompetent choice.

We do live in an increasingly hostile world. The Internet and the habits of cyberspace denizens will mirror this real world very closely. When it comes to computer security, the very same practices and principles which we apply in meatspace (physical world) needs to be applied in cyberspace as well.

Just as we do not leave our house doors unlocked, we should have the same amount of protection for our electronic real estate as well. To assume otherwise is both naive and incompetent (on the part of technical personnel).

At the same time, it is incumbent upon all to ensure that responsible publishing is practiced - this which means that the facts should not be over-exaggerated to score points or to inculcate fear, uncertainty and doubt.