Is it time for an disruption analysis working group for the Internet?

Mon Nov 16 21:15:04 UTC 1998

At 11:27 AM 11/14/1998 -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 13, 1998 at 07:38:12PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
>> In aviation and probably the power industry, there is sense (and a reality)
>> that lives and property are at stake.  While the same may soon be true of
>> the internet, there is still a perception that no one dies if the 'internet
>> is down', and no property is destroyed though income is certainly lost.  So
>> there is no compelling need to force people to cooperate.
>
>So, if my company loses $5M because the net falls over, and I get
>fired, and end up on the street, having lost my house, family, dog,
>pickup truck, and beer, that's not important enough to prevent?

Yes, the thought of losing beer would panic me too.  I'll buy you a beer at
the CBC in Boston, if it'll make you feel any better ;-)

Its 5M of income stream, not 5M of property or assets.  CompUSA loses money
if the store is closed, because someone dug up a power line, fiber cable,
or crashes the company server which validates credit cards (6 stores closed
yesterday).  But they will probably sell more tomorrow. The loss is
transitory.

Its not enough to make the government step in and put people in Jail who
cause the net to fall over by mistake, or prevent them from ever working on
a network again.

So sure, everyone 'would like to' prevent these things.  But the issue is
the severity and need to exert control.

But, (real life example) if Karl Denningers system screws up the net, are
you really willing to see him go to jail? Lose his "license to operate
servers and routers"?  I think not.

>> Even the FAA's enforcement is for the most part pretty lassiz faire.  It is
>> well known in aviation circles that FAA regulations are "written in blood",
>> by analyzing accidents and developing a set of rules to avoid them. Failure
>> to follow the rules may result in your own death, and possibly others.
>> Death is a pretty severe penalty.  Many FAA enforcement actions are
>> 'post-crash'.  The rules aren't there to satisfy the ego of a bureaucrat,
>> and the penalties are enforced more harshly by nature than by the FAA.
>
>Tell it to Bob Hoover...

Good point. But he had a brain cloud, just like in "Joe vs. the Volcano"
with Tom Hanks. ;-) At least, thats what the FAA said.  Never mind the two
guys caught trying to falsify complaints against him.  Then again, Bob did
get reinstated. The FAA now only requires him to go to the Mayo Clinic for
a full diagnostic checkout once a year.  Such a deal they have. It's only
about $25,000.

Anyway, thats an abuse of bureaucratic power.  It doesn't change the
legitimate purposes of the bureaucracy.

		--Dean
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
           Plain Aviation, Inc                  dean at av8.com
           LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP          http://www.av8.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++