|
We Asked; You Said
Feedback From Communitarian Update
Number 56
We asked:
A recent article in the New York Times on the blackout of 2003 discussed the vulnerability of the
“the grid” in great detail--in such specific detail that some readers claimed the article was like a
textbook for terrorists. The newspaper might well respond that the article is meant to spur public
debate about the future of the grid, and that vigorous public debate will help get the problems
fixed. However, could journalists achieve the purpose of fueling public debate without disclosing
all those details? Can one be more sensitive to the common good--and still have a free press? The article mentioned above is available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/17/weekinreview/17GLAN.html.
***********************************************************
Over the years we have had enough massive power failures and reports thereon so this is not
news to would-be terrorists. They can easily bring down a single line, or two adjacent lines, but
they would not have ready access to the grid as a whole unless they damaged a control center. On
the other hand, they can dream up scenarios involving other lifelines. What about waiting for dense fog and parking cars on a freeway? Think of disabling telephone service, the gasoline
supply, water, natural gas, and what about sewers?! We are a vulnerable society, and those in
densely populated areas are especially vulnerable -- not only to terrorists but also to good old
mother nature!
Roland Schinzinger
Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering
University of California, Irvine
I believe that public debate might just as well have been promoted by speaking of the
consequences of the current electricity system -- e.g., "within 3 minutes 21 major power stations
were down" (which was, in some reporting, briefly mentioned) -- and of the general properties of
the systems being used -- e.g., the "sharing" properties of "grids" -- as well as options and the
evolution of the current system (almost always the result of political and economic
decision-making as well as technological, and almost always dependent on historical factors of
technological development within a given geo-political region).
I do NOT believe that full details of public vulnerability should be completely divulged in the
public media. But the state of our public ignorance in times of crisis like the recent blackout
makes us want to be more “informed.” Interestingly, after I began writing this e-mail, a special to
the Outlook section of the Sunday, August 24 Washington Post by Tessen spoke exactly of how
it is that so many of us know so little about our utilities infrastructure, using the metaphor of the
"black box" mentality that most of us have regarding modern technology.
In my opinion, one of the most serious problems we have today is the lack of a necessary
reassessment of what should be widely broadcast/shared with "anonymous others" and what
should be shared only with persons who can be traced and held accountable for their responses.
My hunch is that what is needed is a re-conceptualization of the issues surrounding "right to
know," "need to know," "consequences and accountability for knowing," "modes of interpreting
meaning (that ultimately determine what is known by whom)," etc., in light of the information
sharing/broadcast systems that are now operative in our global world.
Marilyn Merritt
Adjunct Professor of Anthropology
The George Washington University
I believe that due to the recent situation with terrorism, intelligence and security agencies have
clear limits between the security conditions they can allow public to know, and the secrets they
have to keep. I also believe that any information that a reporter can obtain is probably
information that terrorists already have. The 'competences' necessary to get to such knowledge
rely on the person, not on the charge.
Because of that, I think that this kind of publication is a way of pressing an adequate study of the
decisions that should be taken.
Juan D. Enciso
Analyst on Corporate Social Responsibility
Bogotá, Colombia.
Your question is one of ethics as practiced in science and technology journalism (and
[professional] research) in general. Few would agree to a publishing of the detailed plans of a
simple atom bomb including what ingredients and manufacturing methods would prove useful,
yet our own government prints and distributes highly detailed maps with power grids, bridges,
dams, gas line paths, and many other data of obvious use to anyone with intentions of attacking
infrastructure. In essence, you ask, where is the line? We have laws that prohibit the publishing
of direct methods of destruction -- how to build a weapon of mass destruction. But for tangential
data like potential targets, obviously the line moves. In a widely acknowledged general war, data
is appropriately held secret to thwart attacks. Is terrorism a war? Elected officials and many
senior bureaucrats certainly have answered yes. Is that war permanent and therefore a
justification for restricting data until there are no attacks on infrastructure for some extended
period? Those are questions for democratic institutions. The important point is to make the
arguments and emphasize the use of professional discretion by those with information of
importance so that individual and community ethics can be nourished. In a liberal society, the
balance of professional discretion is always a central ethical point. That is why debate and a free
press are so essential in the first place. Our communal duty is to influence individual standards.
Ryan Lanham
Ph.D. student, Public Administration and Policy
Virginia Tech
I would hope the communitarian movement would be a place where we could calmly consider
the major issues of our society.
In my opinion, the New York Times article in question does not tell anybody anything they
couldn't have figured out by just sitting down and thinking about the problem for five minutes or so.
People planning to be bad guys could get much more useful information in any number of ways
with very little effort. In my opinion the article is helpful because it tries to close the ignorance
gap between the specialists and the general public, and that is a Good Thing.
In any reasonable objective terms, what the terrorists have done so far is the tenth part of a flea
bite, and that includes 9-11. They win only by how they make us react. The proper constructive
response to them is not to react, except where response materially lessons the threat (9-11 was
basically solved by public awareness and reinforced cockpit doors).
So the whole thing is psychological, on both sides. The terrorists want to see body parts flying
through the air and major landmarks crumbling. Bringing down the power grid won't do that, so
they are not interested.
Leonard Zettel
Ford Motor Company (retired)
The common good is best protected by a free press.
Rick Molz
John Molson School of Business
Concordia University
|
