What to do about perceived future threats?
What to do about perceived future threats?
(OP)
What would you fine engineers do if, while pondering the implications of some emerging technology, you realized a cheap and simple method to use the technology for terrorism?
Say, for example, that a piece of technology that is expected to be widely available in near future could be used very easily for things that nobody seems to have thought of yet, even in discussions of the "bad side" of the tech?
When "dangerous" ideas come to mind, I'm not sure that just keeping them to myself is the best approach, since I don't figure myself to be the most imaginative character in the world (somebody else certainly has had, or will have, the same idea somewhere). Then again, I wouldn't want to attract too much attention to the ideas (or myself, for that matter) by discussing them openly.
Suggestions?
Say, for example, that a piece of technology that is expected to be widely available in near future could be used very easily for things that nobody seems to have thought of yet, even in discussions of the "bad side" of the tech?
When "dangerous" ideas come to mind, I'm not sure that just keeping them to myself is the best approach, since I don't figure myself to be the most imaginative character in the world (somebody else certainly has had, or will have, the same idea somewhere). Then again, I wouldn't want to attract too much attention to the ideas (or myself, for that matter) by discussing them openly.
Suggestions?





RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
You know, with something as small as a pencil amazing damage can be done...
or...
Do YOU want to cause mayhem?
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
Now, it may be that you are ahead of the curve, but generally I would say that discussing a particular threat is not going to result in a new discovery, but it may popularise it.
I tried to get a definitive answer from someone I know who works in that sort of field, but he has not responded to my email.
With your particualr device I could see a couple of big flaws (power and visibility), so in this instance it is not a big deal, but I think you should generally bung in a note to the FBI. I wouldn't bother in Australia, our lot are usually working for the opposition anyway. :<
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
an innocent musing to create a terrorist weapon. Seems to me Tom Clancy wrote about crashing an airliner into a building a few years before it was done. Did his novel spark the events of 9/11, maybe. In the end though, does that mean we should take Mr. Clancy's word processor away from him, no.
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
What seams to be the Achilles heel of the terrorists is that they undertake elaborate planning exercises that can lead the authorities to them, hopefully before the attacks but if not after and this will identify the command and control systems making them venerable to counter attack. If they followed the Nike commercial and just did it they would be a lot more successful.
If there was some emerging technology that I was involved in that had a simple terrorist application I would advise some authority of the potential and implication. In the US take it to the new directorate of Homeland Security, in Canada the RCMP, in other countries the appropriate police organization.
Now getting them to understand the technology, the implications and the threat might be a different matter. If it’s a military type of application try your military authorities. They can at least understand the application if not the technology.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
http://www.dailycal.org/article.asp?id=8170
http://buffy.eecs.berkeley.edu/IRO/Summary/02abstracts/mxu.1.html
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
- Because all technologies can be turned to nefarious purpose, should technological development be restrained because it can be corrupted in future?
- Do professional engineers have an obligation to contemplate and or conceive of significant threats posed by the technologies they develop and use?
- Do they have an obligation to notify the authorities when they foresee a specific application of technology for malevolent purpose?
- Are they obligated to design 'anti-terrorist safeguards into their technologies?
I don't think any of this is feasible and therefore the rhetorical answer is no.Regards,
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
To quote from the preface of a book entitled Engineers and Their Profession (John D. Kemper):
"Technical advancement may be the guiding devotion of the engineering profession, but the members of this group should be fully aware that human welfare is the ultimate justification for technology's existence. Regardless of whatever views the reader may hold concerning the workings of society, history shows that no society will long tolerate any group within itself whose aims are regarded as antagonistic to those of the majority."
My own interpretation in the above is that engineers must consider, to the extent possible, the social implications of that which they help to create. Whether this means emissions controls on automobiles, careful disposition of harmful materials, or restrictions on the distribution of certain technology, we are obligated as professionals to act in the interest of public safety and welfare.
It's an odd situation that we are in; people in many cases seem to have a strong desire for things that may prove to be their own undoing. It's hard to not be regarded as "antagonistic to the majority" while suggesting that they should give up smoking, booze, junk food, and SUV's.
Then again, I'm not licensed anyway, so what the heck am I talking about? Another beer please, it's a long drive home.
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
http://www.nspe.org/ethics/eh1-code.asp#
"Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public."
Their very first fundamental canon (not cannon
As I interpret it, we must consider ALL possible uses of the products we create; and during the design of said product, limit the possibility of misuse. It has been said that there is no one as resourceful as a fool, so engineers can't possibly think of every misuse of our creations, but we can think of some and must defend against those. (Of course, playing that balancing act between company profit, delivery schedules, and ethics that we do so well in the meantime.)
Finally, to comment on Rick's (RDK) post, Edgar Allen Poe stated this concept best in one of his writings. (Sorry, I can't remember the specific work.) Revenge is only satisfying when the person you are revenging knows who is doing it. As we seal the person inside of a brick wall in our wine cellar, that person must realize what it is we are doing without having the ability to stop us. Terrorism is just a form of revenge. It is not satisfying to terrorist if they remain anonymous. That's why they plan those elaborate acts that can be traced to them. We've all seen the news after a terrorist act; every terrorist group makes an announcement that they were responsible for that "glorious" act. Without the tracibility, the actual responsible party would not get their satisfaction.
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
I admit my approach is sarcastic and may seem patronizing, but I'm serious. The earliest engineering code I know of (Hammurabi) was quite simple: build something that kills someone and your life is forfeit. So I'm inclined to believe that the welfare of humanity was recognized as paramount to civil engineering from the get-go.
Concerning military engineering, including building weapons of all kinds, what is paramount is the ability to kill the enemy - which includes building sturdy fortifications, developing efficient means of feeding, clothing, transporting, training, housing, etc. armies.
Weapons and violence are necessary, in fact I'll say that they are vital to human survival. We must kill to eat and a lot of killing had to happen to get where we are (re: US Civil War, etc.).
As far as the "implications" of one's design are concerned: one has many choices. You can keep it to yourself and hope it's not developed by someone else. You can continue your work and make sure your country has it, thus assuring that it'll only be used to your advantage (assuming that's what you want). You can sell it to the "bad guys" after you've sold it to your own country and hope that "mutally assured destruction" will maintain the peace. Or you can write SF novels about civilizations that use the weapon and hope a movie is made out of it.
As far as terrorists go, we are talking about people who have no problem with killing themselves. They will use whatever means is the most convenient and whatever means will to the most damage, strike the most terror, make the most noise with what they have available. It seems most prefer some sort of explosives. Should the Nobel Peace prize be renamed because of the Nobel's link to dynamite?
Hey, ivymike, are you drinking and driving? What's up with that?
The EAPoe story is "The Cask of Amontillado."
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
Hey, ivymike, are you drinking and driving? What's up with that?
Well yeah, that was the meaning behind my statement. No, I wasn't actually drinking and driving, I was sitting at my desk at home with a glass of milk. The "license" I was referring to was an engineering license, not a driver's license, but that distinction is immaterial for the purposes of the comment. I was simply attempting to illustrate, through irony, that even non-licensed engineers have obligations to society and to the public welfare.
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
Regards,
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
Maybe development would not "cease".
All it would need to largely eliminate further plane/building (or for that matter, plane/mountain) interactions would be a reasonably fail-safe system in all airliners that would over-ride the pilot and divert the plane if the system recognised an obstruction within a defined 'hazard area'.
If we can already land a plane without any input from the pilot, surely such a system would not be beyond today's technology?
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
On any new design we conduct a risk and failure analysis. Up till now it has been along the lines of, how stupid could the user possibly be? Now we need to also think, how malevolent could the user possibly be?
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
Take planes and buildings as an example. Austim's suggestion that planes have pilot over-ride systems is a good idea, and it's probably not beyond today's technology. But do you really want to pay $200 more for your plane ticket? Think of the implications to the airlines. Less people would fly, and, in the long run, more airlines would face UAL-like financial problems. The same goes for buildings. Should we make our large structures airplane proof? Oh, and by the way, when you make your building airplane proof, don't forget to consider planes that will be developed 50 years from now (or whatever you expect your building lifetime to be). It's border-line ridiculous!
These comments allude to a bigger question, indirectly posed by ivymike. Do we really want terrorists to change our way of life? Do we want technology development to be partially controlled by terrorists?
Think of all the inventions already out there that are convenient to terrorists. One of the most important things for a terrorist organization is communication. Telephones, cell phones, email, internet, cassete tapes, and video tapes make terrorist communication more effective. Does that mean we should try to make these technologies terrorist proof?
Crooks, criminals, and terrorists have been utilizing the latest technology throughout history, and they will continue to do so. It is unreasonable and impractial to try to put a complete stop to this.
Having said all this, let me concede that there are obvious exceptions. Technologies developed specifically for weapons applications are one example. But, because of the very nature of those technologies, they are developed with countermeasures and other advesary-related issues in mind. Other technologies include encryption technology and GPS technology. In most cases, the government already regulates (and many times is the chief developer of) these technologies.
I would also like to make some comments on the ethical canon that so many of you are referring to, i.e., "Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public." This sounds good in theory, but is NEVER practiced in reality. I recently took a safety course, and the first thing the instuctor said was, "Everybody likes to say 'safety first,' but, in reality, safety is usually last." The bottom line is that good engineers and companies
strive to make a product as safe as possible with the available budget. Then, in the end, a decision must be made as to whether the design is "safe enough." But money always determines how safe you can make a product. Take cars and airplanes as an example. Everybody knows that both cars and airplanes could be safer than they are. Furthermore, people are well aware that some cars and planes are safer than others. Think about what that implies. Take an "unsafe" car (one that performs poorly in crash tests, braking, etc. vs. other cars). At some point, a designer said, "Look, we could make this car safer, but then our price tag would go up to $25k. We want to sell this car for $15k, so we're not gonna do it." Are they holding public safety paramount? Absolutely not. Are they being unethical as a result of that? Probably not (it could be argued, I suppose).
With safety, "acceptable risk" always comes into the equation. The same goes with the development of technologies that could be used in harmful ways. At some point someone has to decide if the benefit from the intended use of the technology outweighs the potential harm from unintended use. The risk will always be there.
My (long) two cents,
Haf
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
The way to stifle terrorism is to remove injustice, and the most efficient way to do that is to make people more prosperous, and to educate them. Improving technology is an engineer's way of doing that.
Call me a cynical old capitalist!
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
I agree with GregLocock's post on stifling terrorism and feel that in a developing country, it would prove to have great impact. Unfortunately, regardless of what any of us or any government does, there will always be some disgruntled minority willing to do extreme acts of violence. We should not condemn or paralyze ourselves for not being able to see all contingencies in the use of technology.
Regards
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
The concept of using an aircraft as a flying missile was attempted years ago right here in the US (back in the 70s?) based on a Discovery episode I watched a few weeks ago.
A guy killed a security guard/police officer in the process of getting through security, tried to hijack a aircraft and was held up by the pilots until another police officer got to the scene and killed the hijacker.
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
How would Alfred Nobel feel knowing that he developed a more effective detonator (still used today) along with the dyn-o-mite that made his fortune that is used today by young boys and girls to blow themselves and others in discos and pizza parlors up?
Is that enough to eschew the building of the panama canal or bolder/hoover dam or the mining of iron or copper?
I think I'll go live in a cave, but no where near Ted Kazinski (the uni-bomber)
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
"The way to stifle terrorism is to remove injustice"
During the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland, the British government threw everything, bar the kitchen sink, at terrorism. In fact the more they tried to stamp it out, the worst the problem got. It wasn't until someone decided to get everybody to sit down and talk, that peace (relative anyway) was realised.
Technology isn't the problem, the 9/11 hijackers used box-cutters afterall. From what I can see, terrorism feeds on ignorance and despair. Before we had a world polarised between the free market and communism. Now it seems to be heading dangerously towards an Islamic, non-Islamic divide.
Lets talk ...............
Speedy
"Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure."
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
No, not all of these guys are idiots. Some have PhDs (in what or from where I do not know) so we cannot assume that they are all dumb. Before getting my EE degree I was a truck driver. Before my father got his he was a logger and and electrician. Maybe we just need to convince Osama and the terrorist leaders to practice what they preach. Get him to wear a C4 jacket and go prance down Main Street, Tel Aviv. He isn't going to do that. Most of these terrorists are extremists taught from a young age to hate. Religion is just an excuse. Spend anytime with a practicing Muslim and you will not find that plotting your death is a big priority in their life. Sitting down and talking with the extremists will not pacify them since what they want is your death. Can education of the young prevent this? Sure. Can we do the educating? That is probably one of the reasons why they hide these guys in the middle of nowhere for years to train them.
So, what do we as engineers do about it? Do we look for obvious ways to use our technology for evil. Sure. Do we take steps to prevent this? Maybe just bringing this concern to a supervisor, regulatory person, or law enforcement type person is all that is required. The nuc industry pays people to think up ways to screw up reactors and to assign risk values to these events. Flying planes into them was covered a long time ago. I think others have covered this pretty well. We can't paralyze our country or they win. If there is an obvious threat (look at the Gen IV reactor concerns with proliferation) then yes we do something about it. That doesn't mean that we publish the way to do it in Newsweek, but yes, I think that if a technology can pose a significant danger to people through terrorism then it needs to be brought to the attention of someone with the authority to do something about it.
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. When life gives you grenades, well....
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
Regards,
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
This is a question I want to ask, because of the need for balance between good and evil: "What would you fine engineers do if, while pondering the implications of some emerging technology, you realized a cheap and simple method to use the technology that would benefit humankind? "
Many technologies, esp. ones driven by the defense and aerospace industries have been used by other industries, like for instance, renewable energy. We all like to assume the worst. That is what makes us engineers but that doesn't let us see the bigger picture.
Let someone use an otherwise innocuous invention to do harm. Someone else will use it for good. Oh, check this site out...
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
I would also like to make some comments on the ethical canon that so many of you are referring to, i.e., "Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public." This sounds good in theory, but is NEVER practiced in reality.
I disagree. I blew the whistle on a contractor erecting a tower crane in downtown Houston in the mid 1980's. He was putting the pad footing over an old basement structure that he had exposed, then tried to cover up. While my boss (Sr. VP and owner) refused to blow the whistle, I contacted a high school buddy at City Hall. The job was red-tagged within hours - well before the crane could be used. And the problem was fixed at a small cost and no real delay to the project. No one was the wiser, either - the city inspector happened to be a P.E. that walked the site before the old basement had been covered up.
I know of lots of examples of others who have put their careers in jeopardy to protect the public.
DaveViking said,
And not only that, but how many of the 9/11 and related terrorists were/are engineers?
Osama bin Laden, for one. He's got a degree in civil engineering - and worked in the family construction business. And he has supported engineering students in school - mostly in Europe.
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
Try to come up with a cheap and simple method to defend against the technology. Then apply for a patent on the defense method, with the intent of making it widely available for a very minor cost to each user.
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
he-he-he
You said "Minor Cost"
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
When 9-11 happened I saw that my plan could have prevented terrorists from accessing professional flight schools for questionable purposes. When I contacted politicians and DOT/FAA personnel "the idea was untenable in view of the party in power, etc, etc." Publishers were uninterested in the book; not commercial enough.
You cannot legislate, regulate, or control, the efforts of terrorists to bring mayhem to society. The only way is to systematically exterminate them. They must be brought to the realization that "We shouldn't have started that!" It may be the first justification since Hiroshima to use the bomb on terrorist strongholds all over the world.
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
"Osama bin Laden,. . . He's got a degree in civil engineering - and worked in the family construction business . . ."
bin Laden studied management and economics and took a degree in Public Administration from King Abdul Aziz University in Jedda, Saudi Arabia. He did not study or receive a degree in Engineering.
Regards,
PM
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
PM has taken issue with my statement that Osama bin Laden is a civil engineer. I am pained to admit it; you see, I'm a third generation civil engineer and very proud of my chosen profession. Yes, he did prefer Islamic studies. But I didn't pull that "civil engineer" part out of thin air. Check out the following links:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_010920_karez.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/b1/binL1aden.asp
http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,582274,00.html
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020111/main2.htm
http://i-cias.com/e.o/osama_b_laden.htm
http://www.bartleby.com/65/bi/binLaden.html
I used Google to find these - and many other - links indicating that Osama bin Laden completed his studies as a civil engineer at King Abdul Aziz University in Jidda. I used the following search terms in Google:
osama bin laden "civil engineer"
Now, all these sources may be wrong. But don't blame me!
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
Blacksmith
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
"Alfred Noble [sic] felt terrible about the killing that occured [sic] in his lifetime due to his invention."
This is a commonly held perception that is absolutely untrue. Alfred Nobel continued to work for the military until late in his life. It is true that when his brother died, a newspaper mistakenly ran an obituary of Alfred that claimed that Alfred was the inventor of dynamite and therefore responsible for killing thousands. Alfred was horrified and established the Nobel Prize to leave a more peaceful legacy.
Why do you write that dynamite is a "scourge?” Explosives like gunpowder and nitroglycerine were already around when Nobel invented dynamite. Alfred merely made nitroglycerine more stable and therefore more safe to work with. That alone saved thousands of innocent lives. It made blasting rock, drilling tunnels, building canals and many other forms of construction work more safe and cost effective. Anyway, it was just a matter of time before safe, high output explosives were discovered. There are already dozens of stable explosives with output that dwarfs that of dynamite.
One other thing: Alfred believed that the invention of dynamite would end war altogether, because the power of dynamite loaded weapons would be so great that there use would be unthinkable. Of course, this turned out to be false. But it foreshadowed the concept of a nuclear deterrent, which thus far has worked to prevent the MAJOR conflicts that scourged the earth every few decades before 1946.
Haf
RE: What to do about perceived future threats?
I think we are saying roughly the same thing about Alfred Noble - and the Noble Peace Prize is aptly named. I agree that dynamite was far safer than nitroglycerine, as long as it is periodically turned over and you don't play catch with sticks that have nitro sweat beads on them. The account I saw used the word scourge in the obit. You are also right that more powerful weapons, rather than deter warfare, tend to bring out more unstable people willing to use them. Kind of like when you make something idiot proof and then the idiots get a little smarter.
Blacksmith