Buggy, Brittle and Bugged – Townsend
It becomes clear that as technology attempts to automate tasks the design for which fails to encapsulate uncertainties and preferences, we will be surrounded with “buggy” infrastructures. This begs the question, Will the smart city have a manual flush option? Or will we be subjects of frequent bugs and glitches at ever growing scales of complexity and relative consequences?
In describing the “First actual case of a bug being found”, Townsend highlights that bugs can be software glitches resultant of coding or physical wear and tear of hardware due to lack of maintenance or unforeseen accidents. Although the public persists to call for an “exposed smart city infrastructure” where citizens can more easily perceive and understand their smart city grid, do they understand the implications doing so could have in increasing the probability of bugs and failures due to tampering?
Is it worth considering that interlacing of the entire city into a centralized smart city infrastructure (due to software interdependencies) vs more analogous, fragmented structures deployed today, that the risk and relative cost of attacks/failures effectively underscores corporations’ promise of increasing efficiency and profitability?
Will fear of tampering with the smart city infrastructure delay / effectively abolish the hope of DIY citizens’ access to smart city “walled gardens”? How can we increase the smart city infrastructure’s resilience against bugs and attacks without walling out citizens and their potential contributions to the infrastructure?
If hacking is considered an expression of agency manifesting in contingent use (exploitation) of certain technologies can we think of hacking in and of itself as a form of citizen participation that prompts constant evolution adding layers of sophistication and resilience to the smart city? Are attacks, bugs and glitches the vaccine to larger scale threats? Much like viral infections are to our immune systems? Consider a group of ethical hacking activists that aim to highlight and expose areas susceptible to infiltration much like citizens report “bugs” in the physical infrastructure (potholes etc) to local authorities today
An emerging US (and World) Threat – Cesar Cerrudo
“What would commuting look like with non functioning traffic control systems” Non technologically-mediated infrastructures have been implemented in a number of areas around Europe and the UK (shared space initiative) and have had “positive” effects – It is feasible to consider where technology should be implemented vs where is can be. In doing so can we preserve our state of functionality more so than if we surrendered everything to a floating buggy infrastructure? Or would we, by doing so, omit seemingly unnecessary technologies from contributing to a larger picture that is yet to be realized?
“How would citizens respond to an inadequate supply of electricity”..etc. Consider the plausibility of a smart city backup structure that is surrendered to the citizens. The equivalent of citizen generators and independently owned and run street lights that kick in in the event of a superstructure bug or attack. Will doing so allow DIY activists to understand the system and actively contribute/inspire future implementations with regards to security and functionality, adding resilience to the smart city infrastructure and concretizing the dialogue between top down implementation and bottom up innovation?
“The public needs to see to believe. Cities are not spurred into action by discussions about suspected vulnerable products and threats” – This reiterates that bugs and hacking are a critical component to strengthening the smart city’s immune system – making it more resilient to devastating attacks and or failures.
An investigation of the weakness of sub structural infrastructures’ security systems begs the question: could their weakness be due to a general under-estimation of the public’s understanding and will to hack, manipulate and repurpose infrastructures in addition to a general complacency with regards to maintenance and upkeep with current technological processes? Is there simply less room for such complacency now?