Buggy, Brittle and Bugged – Anthony Townsend
– In the case of a blackout or crisis (like the 2007 Washington Metro rail fire, pp. 255) caused by buggy software, how can we ensure that a failsafe is in place without further burdening the system? Is a manual switch too inefficient? How long should previous models be kept in dormant, but functioning order incase the current system fails? How is the economic toll of a shutdown calculated?
– “Today, netizens everywhere believe that the Internet began as a military effort to design a communications network that could survive a nuclear attack.” (pp. 259) Especially in the US, where the budget for military and defense is so immense, it seems as though many huge technical leaps were derived from military research and efforts. It would be interesting to know what percentage this is, or a list of modern tech that was developed as a martial consequent.
– “…power outages and power quality disturbances cost the US economy between $80 billion and $188 billion a year.” (pp. 264) Again, how is this calculated? By simple ‘time is money’ reasoning, or does it also account for the cost of repairs, etc.?
– ” It’s one thing for your e-mail to go down for a few hours, but it’s another thing when everyone in your neighborhood gets locked out of their homes.” (pp. 265) If a buggy or brittle software means people might get locked out of their homes, it also stands to reason that people could be accidentally locked in or that the software could be hacked. Would this inspire a new system of robberies, where the thieves can simply unlock your door remotely and stroll into your residence? Even more threatening than a home robbery, what happens when government or large infrastructural networks are hacked maliciously?
– “In November 2010, without public objection, the city of Chongqing launched an effort…to install some five hundred thousand video cameras…” (pp. 273) Was the public really asked in the first place, and if so, was there really even a realistic option for objection?
– As Townsend asks in the last paragraph, could we have predicted the consequences of sprawl and new technologies? Just as importantly, would it have mattered if we did? Would the public have believed these possibilities, and would they have cared? Would the technology of the time have allowed us to avoid these consequences by going about motorization in a different way?
An Emerging US (and World) Threat – Cesar Cerrudo
– In contrast to Townsend, who states several times that a buggy, brittle smart city is “unimaginable,” Cerrudo seems to have thought about and imagined just that in great detail. What exactly, is his target audience? I’d imagine everyone, but is his goal for the public, the private sector, or municipalities to read this paper and take the listed risks seriously? Is he worried that once they know the risks, they still won’t be taken seriously? Especially with the state of the world now, I do not think these threats are at all hard to imagine.
– Cerrudo offers a brief list of recommendations for the reduction of hacking problems. If it is not already happening, what can be done to make sure that a city introducing ‘smart’ initiatives is robust and protected as a priority from the outset? Are there already examples of this?
– In terms of smart waste management and smell sensors which may not be seen as a priority, is there a risk of the public becoming more and more aggravated knowing that a sensor is picking up the disturbance but nothing is happening? (As seen in the FixMyStreet issues brought up in the Gabrys reading.)