On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:36:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:06:07 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" question though:

Does the technology produce the vulnerability or does the ever expanding
services made available by the technology make themselves vulnerable?

In my view it's the technology itself that produces the vulnerability.
Complexity follows the rules of unintended consequences - for every
intended expansion or result, you get four unintended consequences.

The problem is that you can't define what those unintended results
will be and that's where the exploitation or fault exists.

I don't think that's true on the unintended results. Not to say
snowballs don't happen, but most complex systems are well thought out.
Malicious exploitation is another matter entirely.

I don't think you can reign in technology or it's application. We may be
required to rethink what and how much of what we want to make dependent on
it.

That's a good point and something that I think is missing from the
equation of technological advance.

Access to information is instant. There isn't time to absorb and
process the information - to think and/or ask questions. Last week,
for example, there was a pipeline fire in Michigan which was reported
as "major" - the implication was that all four of the lines from
Canada were involved - the price of oil jumped $3 bucks and change in
seconds. Couple of hours later it was only two involved and finally,
one and it turned out not to be "major" at all - the line was down for
a day. Prices returned down, but the settlement for the day was about
.80¢ higher - restablishing an up trend instead of the prior down
trend based on lack of news.

Back when, it would have taken time to react. Questions would have
been asked, calls made, etc. The event wouldn't have impacted because
time would have been taken to find out what happened. That has
completely changed and is one unintended consequence of instant access
which speculators can exploit to their advantage.

That kind of crap happened on trading board floors since people
started yakking and learned the power of rumor. It's simple
irresponsibility and greed, not technology.
Tying the 80 cent gain to that BS is a stretch too. If you listen to
the myriad "reasons" that "analysts" give to any market gains or
losses, it never makes much sense unless it is tied to real
fundamentals. The pipeline didn't even qualify to move the market.
Yak yak yak. Greed, greed, greed.
On the flip side, real info gets to real people, not just insiders,
quickly.

Those of us that are getting long in the tooth will be satisfied with
less, but imagine explaining to a 16 year old that they really don't need a
cell phone.

Agreed.

Which, I guess, is exactly what your point is.

I doesn't matter though. The genie is out of the lamp and there's no
turning back.

I agree with that, but you still have to at least try to anticipate
the results if the Endless Knot we have created dissolves or breaks in
multiple places.

When you consider current complexities and that things aren't breaking
down left and right, it's clear that contingency planning and backup
strategies are well established for most infrastructures.
I know "what ifs" were always a significant part of my job.
It's always going to get down to having thoughtful people in the right
spots. But sometimes the **** will hit the fan anyway.

--Vic