Devil's Advocate: Technologists don’t know best

Is it possible to work on a technology blindly, without considering its proper use? Martin Brampton takes a timely look at the risks that come with innovation...

Science and technology affect every aspect of modern life. Anyone who questions the rapid deployment of the very latest innovation from GM food to smart identity cards is branded a Luddite. Yet scientists and technologists seem curiously naïve about the risks that come with innovation.

The computer industry has long been fascinated with the idea of distributed computing - the use of multiple, linked computers. In most cases, the approach has failed to work, since the costs have nearly always exceeded the benefits by a considerable margin. It has usually been easier to buy a bigger computer than to get software working that seamlessly links multiple computers.

Idle PC processors tempt people into proposing grand schemes. As I sit here thinking and writing, my PC processor is mostly just waiting for the next key depression. (Oddly enough, it does seem to find other things to do, presumably at the whim of the operating system. I have never discovered why it engages in intensive disk activity, even when I am sitting on the other side of the room.)

There are some long running schemes where people collaborate to use their spare processing capacity to promote one or another compute-intensive project. That is the exception, though, and most desktop PCs are extremely lightly utilised. But one has to wonder whether that matters at all.

While we have an obsession with efficiency and the maximum utilisation of resources, there are many instances of facilities where we ignore those considerations. Private motor vehicles stand idle for most of their lives. In principle, we could have a scheme of pooled ownership, borrowing a vehicle when we needed one. The vehicles would be much more fully utilised that way. All the same, the problems involved are enough to deter most people.

And when it comes to distributed computing, it seems that much the most successful use of the principle is the software virus, quickly followed by various other malevolent programs. With the arrival of the internet, especially in conjunction with 'always-on' broadband, we have the ideal conditions for distributed computing. A huge number of computers are more or less permanently connected to a vast, resilient network.

Unfortunately, this shows up the inability of technologists to anticipate the unintended consequences of developments. Mostly, the existing software tools seem inadequate to cope with the threats, including, we are told, the arrival of organised crime on the software scene. Sometimes the attacks are technologically sophisticated. Sometimes, they are simple yet apparently effective, such as the electronic letters offering a share in tens of millions of fantasy dollars.

Once we start worrying about these things, it is hard to know where to turn. Is it true, as some have suggested, that the anti-virus software companies actually write most of the viruses in order to promote business? Probably not but who can be sure?

The obvious place to improve security is the operating system. Yet there are two major problems with this solution. Technically, the problem is simply that operating systems are themselves plagued with unintentional security loopholes.

More insidious is the commercial concern. If the operating system acts as policeman, is it then liable to start acting oppressively? Might the operating system demand unreasonably large registration fees to permit entry to applications? Might it pass information about your computer use to other people without your permission? What else might it do?

Perhaps it might demand that you provide your Home Office provided 'smart' identity card before you are allowed to start up your computer. And so here we are, finding ourselves in the world of Big Brother, when all we wanted was a simple way to use a personal computer in peace. Significant changes nearly always have unintended consequences.

** Martin Brampton is a director and founder of Black Sheep Research (www.black-sheep-research.co.uk ), an independent consultancy providing research, writing and speaking services on a wide range of business and technology subjects. Martin was previously a director at Bloor Research, and has worked with IT as a user and analyst for over 20 years. He can be contacted at silicon@black-sheep-research.co.uk.

For past Devil's Advocate columns see the links below, or type 'Devil' into our search engine.