Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpccc!hp-sde!hpcuhb!hpda!hptsug2!taylor From: dtynan@sultra.uucp (Dermot Tynan) Newsgroups: comp.society Subject: Re: The System That Brought Down Flight 655 Message-ID: <512@hptsug2.HP.COM> Date: 16 Sep 88 21:26:45 GMT Sender: taylor@hptsug2.HP.COM Organization: Ultrasystems DSI, Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 43 Approved: taylor@hplabs I don't really want to drag up this whole question again, but it seems to me we're missing one important point. Accountability. It may very well be, that the AEGIS system is a pile of junk. To me, that's not the issue. The fact that someone would shoot down an aircraft based on a computer analysis is scary. It reminds me of "1984", and future-shock-type SF. As an example, I can remember my ex-bank (and I mean EX), telling me I was overdrawn when I knew I wasn't. I spent fifteen minutes trying to persuade the teller that there was most definitely money in my account; "But Mr. Tynan, the computer says you're overdrawn"; "Well, the computer is wrong!" (for this comment I got a disbelieving stare :-). Eventually, what won the issue for me, was telling her "MY computer says otherwise. Why don't I have it call you?". (As it happened, my computer at the time was a small CP/M system that knew less about my bank account than my calculator). When she went back and checked the paper receipts she found a couple of deposits uncredited (!!). What amazed me was her comment; "Well, the computer is about two weeks behind, because of overwork". Anyway, I think there is a definite trend on our side of the industry (by OUR, I'm not referring to defense companies, but computer people in general) to add "features". I can imagine two software people late at night, working on AEGIS, thinking... "Lets add a feature to try and analyze the data, so that we can tell the operator what kind of plane it is". Such a system is interpretive at best. And NO WAY can it be foolproof. On the other hand, the actual effect on the part of the operator, is to assume that the *computer* knows best. Hah! I once got a letter from a well-known credit-card company because of a past-due balance. The letter was signed by Mr. Reeves (I can't remember the actual name). I can't prove this, but when I asked to speak to him, I was told he "didn't exist", and that this was a message put out by the computer. Boy, is that scary! As a group, we should have a philosophy of education for people not directly associated with the technology. The two major concerns I have, are; a) bringing back accountability, and b) teaching people to trust computers as much as they'd trust the people who enter the data. I think that these failings will account for a slow-down in the way people use computers, and in the long-run will affect our positions and credibility. We've all heard the jokes about the computer sending out the bill for $0.00 and so on. These jokes reflect an underlying fear of the technology. This has got to change. I apologize for the length of this comment, but not it's content. Regards... - Der