Last week, Microsoft dropped a bombshell on the PC security industry by announcing that it would eliminate its $50-a-year Windows Live OneCare service and instead offer a free anti-malware program called Morro.

The software, which will be available for download in the second half of 2009, will provide protection against viruses, spyware, rootkits, trojans “and other emerging threats.”

I have no doubt this will cause consternation for companies like Symantec, Trend Micro and Check Point that sell anti-malware software, but I’m hopeful it won’t destroy the market for third-party security applications. It’s in the interest of consumers for there to be a vibrant, competitive PC security marketplace.

My sources at security companies told me that they’re not particularly worried.  Laura Yecies, Vice President of Check Point software’s ZoneAlarm division said that she “doesn’t see Microsoft’s recent announcement about free security as being significant for ZoneAlarm.”  Referring to Microsoft’s One Care, she added ” the fact that a product that has not shown even mainstream efficacy levels has gone free should not matter.  This is not the first free product – those customers who have been willing to only get a free AV have already had choices for that.”

At first glance the Microsoft announcement is great news because people who are now paying $50 or more a year for protection can get what they need for free. While Microsoft OneCare has never been the highest-rated security suite, it has been a credible defense against malware. And I have no doubt Microsoft’s new product will be adequate for many PC users. I also think it makes sense for the company that makes the world’s most popular operating system to offer free security software, just as it makes sense for automakers to bundle air bags and seat belts.

But the comparisons between car safety and PC security can take us just so far. Unlike dangers behind the wheel, PC threats are constantly evolving as the bad guys find new and innovative ways to steal our information and invade our privacy. Indeed, even the types of threats have changed from viruses written by hackers out for a bit of ill-gotten fame to malicious programs designed by criminals looking for ill-gotten wealth. Keeping up with these criminals is a full-time job for thousands of security experts working for a number of companies around the world.

This competitive marketplace benefits consumers and businesses and, ironically, even helps out the security companies. People I know in the PC security industry tell me there is a great deal of cooperation and information-sharing about threats and best practices, even while they try to one-up each other on features, performance and other issues.

There is a risk associated with Microsoft’s decision to give away security software if it were to wind up destroying the market for other security companies.

For one thing, the competition keeps everyone — including Microsoft — on their toes, and fewer players could cause the remaining companies to be a bit more complacent. And if Microsoft were to drive other companies out of business, or simply dominate PC security, I would worry about its software’s effectiveness. Having multiple players in this field helps keep the bad guys at bay because they may be clever enough to defeat one product but are less likely to get past the defenses of all of them.

Microsoft’s software will not be bundled with Windows but must be downloaded separately.  I was told on background by a Microsoft employee that the company takes antitrust issues very seriously as it develops new products.

While this could have some impact on the revenue of PC security companies, it doesn’t completely eliminate their market. For one thing, the Microsoft solution is not likely to appeal to large businesses that have come to expect a level of service that Microsoft is unlikely to offer at no charge.

Also, there are added features in many of the fee-based services like phishing protection, anti-spam and warnings before you click on a potentially dangerous Web link. And there are other product categories besides Windows PC security. All of the major security companies have or are working on solutions for mobile phones, including smart-phones like the BlackBerry and iPhone. There are also security products for Linux and Macintosh.

It’s not as if Microsoft were the first company to give away security software. AVG offers a pretty good suite of security programs for free while other vendors, including Check Point and Trend Micro, give away pieces of their products, such as Trend’s HouseCall virus and spyware scanner.

Still, I worry. Free is good but competition is also good. Let’s hope that they can coexist in the world of PC security.

When it comes to the use of technology, President Obama will have a hard act to follow – candidate Obama.

As has been widely pointed out, the Obama campaign was masterful in the way it used the Web, social networking sites, text messaging and other technology to assure its victory on Nov. 4. In addition to raising consciousness and money online, the campaign even used text messaging to remind people to go to the polls.

The Obama Web site made it very easy for people to donate money, find local events and – as did John McCain’s site – give supporters online access to a phone bank of voters to help spread the word and get out the vote.

But now that we’re in a transitional period, the question is how the incoming administration will continue to use technology to further the president’s agenda. A sitting president isn’t in the same position as a presidential candidate. For example, it’s not at all clear to me whether he can legally use his campaign e-mail or text messaging lists to promote his presidential agenda.

But we do have a clue as to one way he might use technology. The “Office of the President-Elect” has a new Web site called simply change.gov, which appears to be almost an extension of Obama’s presidential campaign.

It shows news stories, including an embedded MSNBC video of transition team Co-chair Valerie Jarret’s appearance on “Meet the Press” last Sunday. There is also a link to Obama’s radio address from last Saturday and, of course, a video of Obama’s victory speech from election night.

There’s also a bit of meat on this site, including information about the president’s Cabinet and – perhaps of great interest to some – information about how to apply for a job at the White House and other federal agencies, including an “online expression of interest form” for job seekers to put their toe in the water.

But, if you’re inclined to express an interest, the site warns that “if and when you are considered for a specific position, you will be asked to fill out additional forms, including financial disclosures, and be subject to other reviews which may include FBI background checks.”

As the New York Times has reported, candidates for high ranking jobs and cabinet positions will also be asked to provide detailed information about their backgrounds, including their online personas; any emails or blog posts that might embarrass the President-elect, and any profiles on Facebook or other social networks and “aliases” or “handles” used to communicate over the Internet.

I wonder if they will scrutinize your list of MySpace or Facebook friends to see who you’ve been “palling around” with online.

Change.gov also includes a “blog,” but aside from the fact that it’s organized in reverse chronological order, it’s not all that bloggish. It’s mostly well polished short articles and a couple of videos but, unlike many blogs, there are no links for user comments.

There is a link where you can “share your story” about “what this campaign and this election means to you.” I’m not sure if they’re deliberately still calling it a campaign as if to say that there are still struggles ahead or if they just cloned this from the old campaign Web site and forgot to update the language.

Speaking of updating, CNET’s Delcan McCullagh wrote on CBSNews.com that the site initially had detailed agendas for Homeland Security and technology that were deleted over the weekend, to be replaced by “a vague statement saying that Obama and running mate Joe Biden have a ‘comprehensive and detailed agenda’” that will “‘bring about the kind of change America needs.’”

The deletion of that agenda could very well be the beginning of recognition that Obama is no longer in the mode of making campaign promises but on the verge of having to deliver actual policy.

That’s a natural transition that all presidents-elect have had to deal with, but in the past they weren’t quite as exposed to online scrutiny as is this incoming administration.

Although it’s not exactly what I’m looking for, I am pleased to see that change.gov also has a place where visitors can share their “vision for what America can be, where President-elect Obama should lead this country. Where should we start together?” It falls way short of what I’d like to see in terms of participatory democracy, but it is a start.

The incoming administration can start by using the Internet to fulfill its promise to make government more transparent, by using the Internet to share information on legislation and policy discussions. But to do so effectively, it must be in a way we can all understand and with a mechanism for people to have their voices heard.

To be understandable, information can’t just be in government-speak. The Library of Congress’s THOMAS Web site has long made it possible for citizens to see the text of proposed legislation but I take my hat off to any layperson who can actually understand the text of a congressional bill. What’s needed is for non-partisan interpreters to objectively explain these bills in language that we can all understand.

We also need a transparent feedback mechanism where citizens have the option of sharing their opinions, not only with the administration, but with fellow citizens through blogs and forums. I would like to see the President (or at least his surrogates) actively participate in an open online discussion. Admittedly, that could get so lengthy as to be become unwieldy but if these discussions do blossom, I’m sure news media and bloggers who follow these discussions will bring interesting nuggets to light.

Change.gov is clearly a work in progress which is certainly understandable considering how little time has passed since the election. My hope is that the administration will extend this effort into something that truly does involve citizens in government. We can all use a little more sunshine.

As a columnist and radio commentator, I avoided endorsing a candidate in the recent presidential election. But as an Internet safety advocate and co-director of ConnectSafely.org, I have to say how happy I am to see a setback for the politics of fear and rumor mongering.

I say this because over the past year or so, many of us in the Internet safety field have been retooling our messages to focus more on digital citizenship and civility as we realize that the fear of predators has been grossly exaggerated. In terms of numbers, the larger danger to both kids and adults is “cyberbullying,” harassment and defamation — often between people who know each other in the real world.

And that’s exactly what we saw during the campaign: fear mongering and defamation. It was especially sad to see this coming from Sarah Palin, the mother of five children, including three teenagers. Children learn from their parents and other adults including our leaders.

Palin’s “leadership” during this campaign served as a negative role model, implying that it’s OK to spread rumors and call people names. While she never said that Obama was a terrorist, she did say he pals around with them. She also called him a “socialist,” which gave ammunition to some on talk radio and in the blogosphere to imply that he’s a “Marxist” and “communist” and therefore a likely dictator.

It wasn’t just the presidential campaign that nauseated me. There was the comment by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews implying that some members of Congress are un-American. And who can forget defeated North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole’s implication that her opponent (a Sunday school teacher) was “Godless.”

What happened during the campaign parallels what happens online. Too often, online discourse is not civil. Going back to the late 1980s and early 1990s, we have seen too many “flame wars,” in e-mail, on forums and now on social networking sites. People seem to forget that the other people online have the right to be treated respectfully even if they strongly disagree with you.

Several surveys of teenage Web users have found that cyberbullying is a significant problem. Cyberbullying, says Nancy Willard, director of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, is “the use of electronic technologies to engage in repeated and/or extensively disseminated acts of cruelty towards others.”

Willard added that “it’s really hard to talk to young people about avoiding harmful and cruel behavior when they are bombarded with political ads with nasty rumors, innuendoes and attacks.”

The connection between politics and Internet behavior doesn’t stop at bullying. For the past seven years, the politics of fear has dominated the political landscape. A certain amount of fear is productive if it keeps us from taking unnecessary risks. But when fear becomes pervasive or is based on false information, it can lead us in the wrong direction.

A recent study commissioned by McAfee, an Internet security company, and conducted by Harris Interactive, found that “about two-thirds of mothers of teens in the United States are just as, or more, concerned about their teenagers’ online safety, such as from threatening e-mails or solicitation by online sexual predators, as they are about drunken driving (62 percent) and experimenting with drugs (65 percent).” Perhaps these moms aren’t aware that 6,552 people last year were killed in auto accidents involving young drivers, while there were only a few known cases of teens who were physically harmed by adults they met online.

What the Internet — and indeed, our entire society — needs is greater civility. I’m hopeful that the Obama administration will encourage a culture of respect in which people engage one another in dialogue rather than name calling. There has been a lot of talk about Obama — as first African-American president — showing young people around the world that artificial barriers can be shattered. But that’s only one measure of progress. Another measure is a society where everyone — regardless of your appearance, or your sexual, religious or political orientation — can be treated with dignity and respect.

If we can accomplish that, we can easily solve the problems of cyberbullying and Internet harassment.

It’s a new day.

A survey of 1,000 moms of teenagers commissioned by McAfee and conducted by Harris Interactive reached the surprising conclusion that “about two-thirds of mothers of teens in the United States are just as, or more, concerned about their teenagers’ online safety, such as from threatening emails or solicitation by online sexual predators, as they are about drunk driving (62 per cent) and experimenting with drugs (65 per cent).”

That might be how moms feel but it’s not reflective of the real world. While moms have good reason to be concerned about how their teens use the Internet, online dangers pale compared to the risks of drunk driving. In 2007, 6,552 people were killed in auto accidents involving young drivers (16-20), according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). In 2006, nearly a fifth (18%) of the 7,643 15- to 20-year-old drivers involved in fatal traffic crashes had a blood had a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher.

Perception of Internet danger has been heightened thanks to the TV show “To Catch a Predator” and inaccurate reports such as “one in five children have been sexually solicited by a predator.” That statistic is a misquote from a 2000 study by the Crimes Against Children Research Center. The data (which, based on a 2005 follow-up study was revised to one in seven) is based on a survey that asked teens if they had in the last year received an unwanted sexual solicitation.

But many (possibly most) of those solicitations were from other teens, not from adult predators. What’s more most recipients didn’t view them as serious or threatening, “almost all youth handled the solicitations easily and effectively” and “extremely few youth (two out of 1500 interviewed) were actually sexually victimized by someone they met online,” reported the authors of the study.

Other studies have shown that “the stereotype of the Internet child molester who uses trickery and violence to assault children is largely inaccurate” (Wolak, Finkelhor & Mitchell, 2004). In a survey of law enforcement investigators of Internet sex crimes, it was reported that only 5% of offenders pretended to be teens when trying to meet potential victims online

Research has also shown that kids who do get into trouble online are the same kids who get in trouble offline. Most kids are pretty careful when it comes to Internet safety but a small percentage of teens take unnecessary risks that could lead to sexual solicitations and other dangers.

Still, even among those kids, the odds of them dying, being injured or being sexually molested is quite low. Based on what we know about teenage risk taking, it is likely that the same kids who are abusing drugs or driving while under the influence are the same ones who are taking extraordinary risks online.

I’m not surprised by another finding in the McAfee/Harris survey that “20% of teens have engaged in cyberbullying behaviors, including posting mean or hurtful information or embarrassing pictures, spreading rumors, publicizing private communications, sending anonymous e-mails or cyberpranking someone.” That number tracks other surveys on the subject, though it’s important to point out that cyber bullying, while real, is also subject to exaggeration.

As reported by NetFamilyNews.org, a CCRC a study of online bullying ” found that “9% of youth were harassed online in the past year, 43% of them by known peers and 57% by people they met online and did not know in person…. Most online harassment incidents did not appear to meet the standard dentition of bullying used in school-based research and requiring aggression, repetition, and power imbalance.”

I’m not suggesting that parents have nothing to worry about when it comes to the Internet. Parents should talk with their kids about Internet safety and engage in frequent conversations about how they behave online. But let’s keep things in perspective and not turn parental concern into unjustified fears.

You’ll find lots of information about Internet safety on our site, ConnectSafely.org as well as in the Yahoo! Kids Online Safety area.

Unfortunately I’ve noticed that Google ads is popping up Yes on 8 ads on my site. That’s the anti-gay marriage initiative in California that I DO NOT support.

When my friends and family sit down at my house tonight to watch election results, we’ll be watching both our TV and PC.  Google’s election map mashup, for example, will let you drill down into any county in the country.  CNN is also offering local results for congressional races and many state propositions.

The Associated Press which provides election data to many news outlets, has its own election site that will feature exit polls, a video stream and other timely data.

All of the TV networks will offer extended online coverage including the CBS News Campaign 08 site that will include a web-only podcast featuring anchor Katie Couric as well as updates on all congressional seats and major ballot initiatives for each state.*  ABC News, MSNBC and CNN will also all have extensive online coverage including state-by-state breakdowns.  You can also download “widgets” from CBS News and MSNBC that will provide real-time election data to your PC.

Some of the more popular political blogs include Huffington Post (liberal), Drudge Report, RealClear Politics , Andrew Sullivan, Little Green Footballs (conservative), TalkingPointsMemo, Daily Kos (liberal), and Wonkette.

And here’s a map that you can print out and color in the results tonight.

* I serve as technology analyst for CBS News

We’re only two away from an election that, among a lot of other things, will help determine how America approaches its technological challenges – and we do have challenges.

Despite the fact that we’re the home of Hewlett Packard, Intel, IBM, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Google, Apple and many other incredibly innovative companies, the U.S. is not always number one when it comes to the utilization of this technology.

For example, the U.S. is in 15th place when it comes to broadband penetration per capita. We’re way behind Denmark, the Netherlands and our neighbors in Canada, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. We’re in ninth place when it comes to broadband speed. In terms of speed, Japan averages 61 megabits per second compared to 4.8 here in the U.S., says the Technology & Information Foundation.

Both candidates have a technology platform on their Web sites and, not surprisingly, their technology policies are more or less reflective of their overall political philosophies. On the surface, the contrast is not as stark as you might expect. Both Senators Obama and McCain want to see more innovation, a stronger and more technologically savvy workforce and widespread connectivity at all income levels.

But that level of similarity can be said for other major policy areas. Both want prosperity and security and an America that the world respects. The question isn’t so much what they want, but how they plan to achieve it.

In 2004, President Bush pledged to bring “broadband technology to every corner of our country by the year 2007 with competition shortly thereafter.”

It hasn’t happened. McCain sees less regulation as the solution.

“I have been a leading advocate in the Senate for seeking market-based solutions to increasing broadband penetration,” he told CNET news. “We should place the federal government in the role of stimulator rather than regulator of broadband services, remove state and local barriers to broadband deployment, and facilitate deployment of broadband services to rural and underserved communities.”

Obama’s tech policy platform says “we can get true broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund (USF), better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives.”

Both candidates want to see more rigorous enforcements of trademark and copyright laws, though Obama’s Web site polity statements place more emphasis on international piracy, especially China.

“While the Internet has provided tremendous opportunity for the creators of copyrighted works,” says McCain’s site, “it has also given rise to a global epidemic of piracy. John McCain supports efforts to crack down on piracy, both on the Internet and off.”

In September, McCain policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin waved his BlackBerry around and said, “you’re looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create.”

Of course, the BlackBerry is from a Canadian company and McCain had nothing to do with its development. Another McCain aide later dismissed this as “a bonehead joke by a staffer.” Unlike Obama, McCain doesn’t even carry a BlackBerry, or any other smart phone, and has been quoted as saying that his wife Cindy has to help him access the Web.

Still, McCain was chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, where he was a staunch advocate for deregulation. While not claiming to have invented anything, his campaign site does say that “under John McCain’s guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology.”

In January, McCain told CNET, “I believe that we must promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher-quality services for consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new technologies.”

Obama plans to appoint a national CTO (Chief Technology Officer) to “ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century.”

The CTO “will ensure the safety of our networks and will lead an interagency effort, working with chief technology and chief information officers of each of the federal agencies, to ensure that they use best-in-class technologies and share best practices,” according to Obama’s site.

Obama advocates “doubling federal funding for basic research over ten years, changing the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology.”

McCain’s campaign told the New York Times that “he will encourage corporate research by reducing the capital gains and corporate taxes and promoting “conditions favorable to investment.” He has also been quoted as wanting to lift “burdensome regulations” that inhibit innovation.

One of the most controversial technology issues today is network neutrality. For most people in the United States, the only two practical means to get broadband are from either their cable company or phone company, leading to a duopoly when it comes to connectivity (satellite broadband is available but it’s slower and more expensive than what the cable and phone companies offer).

There has been a great deal of pressure on Congress to do something to assure that these companies treat all Internet traffic fairly and not favor their own services over those of competitors. There is worry, for example, that phone companies could interfere with competing voice over Internet service or cable companies might favor their own video programming over that of rivals. Critics of net neutrality have pointed out that there has been relatively little blockage of competitive services and that there is no need for government regulation.

Sen. Obama is in favor of the government assuring network neutrality while Sen. McCain wants to leave that up to market forces. McCain “does not believe in prescriptive regulation like ‘net-neutrality’.”

I was at a Wall Street Journal conference last year where McCain said, “when you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.” Obama’s campaign says that “a key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.”