Feature: Trusting Technology

Computer hardware and software technology impacts just about every aspect of our lives. It's hard to go through a morning without using some computerized gadget. Certainly by the time you drive anywhere you've used embedded computers in your car and in traffic control systems. A modern aircraft contains a plethora of inter-dependent computers to control all aspects of the flight. Communications, transportation, modern medicine, entertainment, even home appliances... computing technology pervades our lives.

So what happens when the software in these devices is faulty? When your home computer has a software error, it's frustrating. However, a glitch in the stoplights of an intersection can lead to fatalities. Luckily, most of the critical systems of the world are rather simple and therefore it is easy to verify the correctness of the software running these systems.

In some cases, however, the systems are very complex. The computers used by air traffic controllers across the world are under heavy loads, and one mistake could lead to hundreds of deaths. Speculation over the potential for mass injury or death is rampant. While it isn't appropriate to run scared of all the things that might go wrong, it is definitely worth recognizing that there are risks with all modern systems before placing full, implicit trust in the devices that impact our everyday lives. Just because it's modern and up-to-date doesn't mean it won't have any errors.

This lesson was first learned during the mid to late 1980s, when a device called the Therac-25 was responsible for several radiation overdoses because of software errors. It took several years for the company and its customers to fully recognize the cause of the errors, and in that time several people died from radiation overdose. In the end one of the culprits was a type of programming error that is warned against in an entry-level computer class.

Just last week, another piece of technology was recalled because of software errors: certain defibrillators with rechargeable batteries were not correctly indicating when the batteries needed to be recharged, so it is possible that when needed they would have been unable to deliver enough power to do their job. While this would not have killed anyone directly, it could have led to being unable to save a life when called upon.

Of course, we have come to depend on technology in so may aspects of our lives that refusing to use anything technical is not practical. Additionally, the impact of most software errors is benign. Even Y2K, expected to cause mayhem around the world, in the end was almost a non-event. Most of these systems are adequate for the jobs we ask of them. And most of the time, lives are not at stake.

Over the years, quality control on life-critical and safety-oriented systems has improved, and the reliability on these systems is extremely high. As a user, it is reasonable to assume they will operate as they should. Just acknowledge that they, like the people that design them, are imperfect and will occasionally fail. The fact that most days we are not hearing about these kinds of problems should be enough to convince you they are rare. How often? Not often. But sometimes. And be glad that the truly important systems don't crash as often as your computer.

Resources:

• Radiation Deaths linked to AECL Computer Errors [www.ccnr.org]
• Glitch Forces Defibrillator Recall [www.cbsnews.com]

Other news

• I would have thought it would be Los Angeles: Forget cheese. Madison, Wis., No. 1 for walking [www.msnbc.msn.com]
• The world's most expensive hair-grooming tool: New device combs hair into your comb-over [www.msnbc.msn.com]
• But maybe it combats bad breath: Garlic doesn't help high cholesterol [www.msnbc.msn.com]

From the editor

I haven't yet received any questions or comments about environmental issues, and next week I'm going to start the series. I've got some ideas to work from, but I would rather target the articles to your interests. If there are things about global warming and the current environmental debate, please let me know using the feedback link below so I can customize the articles.

I want to personally thank all of you who send me notes regarding the things I write. I try to respond to each one directly, and in case I missed you I want you to know I appreciate your kind words. I'm glad you enjoy the effort I put into this.

Healthy thoughts,
Jeff

Your feedback is always welcome!

Not yet a subscriber? Click here to subscribe.

Copyright 2007, Jeffrey Eliasen.
Do not reprint without express permission from the author.
Forwarding is permitted if (and only if) the newsletter is
forwarded in its entirety (including this notice).