Toyota has been much in the news lately because of questions about the performance of a variety of their cars.  In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I’ve owned four cars in my lifetime–two Fords and two Toyotas (my current car is a Scion which is a division of Toyota).  When I was 14, I learned to drive a standard using my father’s company trucks, teeny tiny Toyota pickup trucks.  So I have been a fan of the company. 

But I think the company’s response to reports about problems with unexpected, uncontrolled acceleration have been quite problematic.  And this response made me realize how scary a situation we are all in when it comes to our cars, no matter the make or model.

I’ve understood for a long time that our cars are increasingly controlled by a computer.   I think this realization came upon me gradually, as my check engine light came on over the years and increasingly computers could read whatever the problem was based on diagnostic codes.  I was a software developer for a long time and I believe we are placing too much trust in software. The Toyota issue is another piece of evidence that we are placing too much trust in software.

When I first started hearing about the Toyota recalls, the discussion was all about the unexpected acceleration being caused by gas pedals that get stuck or by floor mats that get wedged under the brake pedals.  These mechanical explanations for the problem are comforting because they can be fixed fairly easily.  Just replace the shaft of the gas pedal or the floor mats and the problem goes away.  Toyota would certainly like us to believe that the problem is mechanical and not a problem with the software.  They have implied that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s report indicates that misplaced floor mats have caused all of the accelertation problems.  Unfortunately for Toyota, the NHTSA’s report simply said that they had found no other problems–yet.

So here’s the thing.  Software is complex.  The way software interacts with hardware is even more complex.  Finding bugs in software is sometimes incredibly difficult because it is impossible, in a complex system, to anticipate and test every single combination of conditions.  As a result, bugs in software can raise their ugly heads intermittently for years before they are discovered.  Software developers should understand this.

Whenever possible, if lives depend on the integrity of a software system, an override should be built into the system.  In the case of Toyota vehicles (and cars of any other make), this means that there should be some sort of mechanical override of the software system.  An easy override would be that when the key is turned off (which should be a mechanical process unmediated by software–this is clearly not the case), the computer should shut down and the brakes should go into mechanical mode, which means it will be more difficult to brake but braking should still be possible.  Apparently, this does not happen in Toyota vehicles since a driver in California recently had a high profile case of unexpected acceleration.  Scrutiny has turned to the past of the driver in that case (he has had significant financial problems in the past) but even if this case turns out to be a hoax, Toyota should seriously reconsider any decisions they have made to rely exclusively on their software.  Even the best software has bugs.

Google has received lots of criticism from human rights activists since it started to do business in China in 2006.  The criticism is focused on Google’s willingness to comply with Chinese official demands for censorship of information.  For example, when the Olympics were held in Beijing in 2008, Google censored criticism of the Chinese government from groups such as Human Rights Watch. When presenting search results, they put a disclosure statement on the search page that said something like “in compliance with local laws or regulations, some search results are missing.”  This has been a case of the lure of a huge Chinese marketplace triumphing over principles.  The lure of money can do that to even the best of companies.

Today, however, Google has decided to change its policies in China.  Apparently, the decision to change came when Google discovered their systems had been the target of hacker attacks attempting to break into the GMail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.  Although the official statement never explicitly accuses the Chinese government of being behind these attacks, the implication is there.  Imagine the disillusion in the Google front office when they realized that even though they were cooperating with the Chinese government, that cooperation was not appreciated, was not enough.  And so now, Google has said that they will stop censoring search results and may even end up pulling out of the Chinese market altogether.  If they do pull out, it could mean the loss of billions of dollars.  This is a significant decision and I hope Google benefits in other parts of the world for having made this decision.  In other words, I hope we hear as much praise for Google having made this decision as we heard criticism of their censorship concessions.

US companies continue to cooperate with the Chinese government in maintaining control of information getting into China.  The next company that should receive pressure to stop collaborating is Cisco Systems, which builds the hardware for the Great Firewall of China, run by the Chinese government to block information deemed offensive or dangerous from getting to the average Chinese Internet user.

So hooray for Google.  Let’s hope their experience is a lesson for other telecommunications companies.

By now, you’ve probably heard about the thwarted terror attack on a flight bound for Detroit.  If you haven’t heard details, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to light his underwear on fire to set off explosives (the same explosives that Richard Reid–the shoe bomber–used).  He failed to ignite the explosive materials and passengers and crew jumped him and put out the fire.

We’re still living with the legacy of Richard Reid’s attack.  Every time we fly, we have to take our shoes off for special screening.  So I would have expected the TSA response to Abdulmutallab’s thwarted attack to be … well, that every time we fly, we all have to take our underwear off for special screening.  Makes sense, doesn’t it?  But imagine the outcry from the public if we had to get naked in order to fly.  And so, naturally, that is NOT the TSA response.  Instead, the TSA has come out with a set of rules that make it incredibly obvious that none of this is about actually making us safer but is instead about responding in some way, in any way, so that people FEEL safer.

What are the rules?  Most of them have to do with limiting passenger behavior during the last hour of a flight.  Why the last hour?  Because that is when Abdulmutallab chose to initiate his attack.  There is absolutely nothing special about the last hour of a flight.  Why not the first hour of a flight?  Because this is about security theater rather than actual security.  So, during the last hour of a flight, you may not be able to use the bathroom or access your carry-on baggage or (and this is my favorite rule) have a pillow or blanket over your lap.  Because that’s where your underwear is, of course.

Feel safe?

I’ve written about the theater of airport security before.  Now here is an excellent piece written by an ex-cop about why airport screening fails to keep us safe and is really all about the illusion of security.  Her interesting observation at the end of the piece is that she believes more and more people are beginning to realize it’s all an illusion and that will mean that fewer people will be willing to comply.

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled in a case from Alaska that the state does not have to provide physical evidence (which the state still has) to a man who has been in prison for 16 years for the purposes of new DNA testing (which the man has agreed to pay for himself).  Ed Brayton provides an excellent analysis of the case and explains the negative impact of the decision on our justice system.

If you’re anything like me, you probably have a couple of old, unused computers lying around your house gathering dust.  In my house, we had six computers until recently, two very old desktops, two relatively old laptops and two new laptops.  We had accumulated these six computers in just 11 years since we had a fire in 1998 which destroyed most of our belongings, including our computers.  It’s amazing how quickly we accumulate new computers.  A lot of this quick accumulation is the result of planned obsolescence, the idea that computer manufacturers design computers to either fail or not be able to keep up with newer technology in a certain period of time.  And then, of course, there’s the question of what to do with the old computer when we get a new computer.  In fact, the EPA estimates that 30-40 million computers will become surplus each year for the next several years.  The EPA also classifies these surplus computers as “hazardous household waste” so simply dumping the computer into a landfill is dangerous.

When I purchased my newest laptop, I got a form to send in along with my old computer so that it could be recycled.  The problem with this form for me was that I really wanted to recycle the old desktop computers but they are HUGE and I really didn’t want to pay for the shipping even though the recycling itself would be free.  So I decided to check out the options at my local transfer station.  It’s a “transfer station”–not a “landfill”–so I was hopeful that they’d have a solution for me.

It turned out that for $8 each, I could dispose of both of the computers at my local transfer station.  I believe $5 of the $8 was for the monitor.  Apparently, the glass in the CRT of the monitor contains a high amount of lead.   The tower portion of the computer contains mercury, cadmium and fire retardant.  The mouse, keyboard, speakers and so on apparently don’t contain hazardous waste although since they are made of plastic, they still should not end up in a landfill. 

My local transfer station hires a company to take away the hazardous portions of the computer and that’s why we have to pay a fee.  When I placed the monitors and the towers in the appropriate sections of the transfer station, I noticed that there were upwards of 50 other systems there, many of which were far older than mine and which looked like they had been there for a long time.  I live in a really small town and so I do imagine that it would take a while to accumulate the number of systems that would make a trip to the town by the recycling company worthwhile.  Since we’re a small town, our transfer station is completely out in the open, with no building covering any of the materials dropped off there (which raises a whole other issue of what happens when paper gets wet and the fact that we pay by weight to have it taken away).   So I did wonder what the environmental impact of having those computers systems sit out in the weather for all these years might be.  But at least they won’t end up in a landfill.

Nothing captures the public’s attention like a named killer.  Jack the Ripper.  The Boston Strangler.  Son of Sam.  Zodiac.  The Night Stalker.  The Green River Killer.   Last month, a new name was added to this list: The Craigslist Killer.  It turns out that Philip Markoff, the medical student who was arrested (and who has pled not guilty) for the murder of Julissa Brisman in Boston, is not the first killer dubbed “The Craigslist Killer.”  In fact, quite a few murderers who met their victims via the popular classified advertising site have been dubbed “The Craigslist Killer.”  What’s interesting about this latest murder, however, is the response from the administrators of Craigslist.

Police claim Markoff had attacked several other women in the days leading up to his alleged murder of Brisman.  He apparently found his victims on Craigslist in the “Erotic Services” section of the online advertising site (although it isn’t clear that all of them were found in that section–I’m making an assumption based on Craigslist’s response to the murder).  An earlier victim, for example, had advertised as an exotic dancer.  Brisman advertised her services as a masseuse.  When Brisman was shot, Markoff was allegedly attempting to restrain her, presumably in as a prelude to robbing her, as he had his earlier victims.  By all accounts, Markoff is an unlikely suspect, a Boston University medical school student with no criminal record and no history of legal problems.

In the wake of this murder and series of crimes against women, several attornies general have called on Craigslist to do something to prevent future use of the web site by predators.  Craigslist has responded.  They will remove the section called “Erotic Services” and replace it with an “Adult Services” section that will be “monitored” by Craigslist employees.  Any sexually suggestive advertisements will expire after seven days.  This response appears to have satisfied the attornies general for now but to me, this is an example of what Bruce Schneier has called “security theater,” an action which is about making us feel safer without any real consequence to actual safety.

To see what I mean by this, think about the Brisman case.  She was advertising her services as a masseuse.  I’m not sure whether her advertisement was under “Erotic Services” but let’s assume it was.  I’m also not sure whether her advertisement was sexually suggestive but again, let’s assume it was.  So if someone were to write the exact advertisement that she had used today, Craigslist employees would review it and presumably decide it was one of the ads that needs to expire in seven days.  In those seven days, many Markoff clones would review that ad and presumably call for those services.  Is the woman now any safer than Brisman was?  And after the ad expires, the woman will now write a new ad.  Does the fact that her ad expired in seven days make her any safer?  And what is more likely to happen is that the woman advertising masseuse services will NOT write a sexually suggestive ad (because she know that it will expire in seven days) and will therefore, NOT have her ad expire in seven days.  Is she any safer than Brisman was?

It is completely unclear to me how a Craigslist employee reviewing “Adult Services” advertisements could have saved Julissa Brisman.  So perhaps what we should be calling for is the complete elimination of both “Erotic Services” and “Adult Services” advertisements.  Brisman was advertising as a masseuse.  Do we want to go so far as to claim that ALL massages have an underlying erotic dimension and that they therefore should ALL  be banned from advertisement?  Why don’t we ban those advertisements from all newspapers, both in print and online, then?  In fact, there have been many murders in which the murderer and victim met through newspaper classified ads (just google “lonely hearts killers” to get a sense) and yet those advertisements have not been banned.  Maybe they should be.  But then we should also ban all advertisements for masseuse services from the Yellow Pages, right?  In fact, maybe we should ban massages altogether. 

The response by Craigslist to the fact that an alleged murderer met his victim via their web site is all about theater, about making us feel safer rather than really making us safer.  In actuality, nothing could have stopped Markoff from robbing someone and in those robberies, someone who resisted him was likely to get injured and perhaps even killed.  Why do we need to kid ourselves otherwise?