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