Paul Simmond's piece ("Only we can save the world wide web", SC July, p21) was unnecessarily alarmist and full of claims left unsubstantiated.
I am surprised at this lapse by a man so highly respected in the industry. It was astonishing to read throwaway lines like "in the US, it is now said ..." and "some estimates place the number of infections as high as 50 per cent".
Who said what in the US and, er, which estimates would these be? He then goes on to make a dubious analogy between the security flaws in the internet and the medical profession. This kind of stuff has no place in a serious journal such as SC. Make claims, but make them quantifiable.
Natasha Sparks, Oldham.