topic19

Topic 19
Implications of network failure, for example, banks, transportation, hospitals, schools by Haider

In today’s world, the ability to transfer, share, and distribute information and data is just as important as the possession of data itself. With the development of information technology, substantial amounts of money and effort are being put into research and development of efficient and safe computer networks, allowing faster and more secure data transfers. Recent years, however, have seen several cases of network failure across the globe, often resulting in severe financial damage and/or damage to life.

Before the implications of network failure can be assessed in detail, it is first necessary that the role of networks in modern computing is understood. Even though the nature of the function of networks is simple and straightforward, networks are increasingly being embedded as integral components of many other systems, such as schools, air traffic control, traffic systems, movie booking schedules, and the Internet among countless more.

Although network failures are complicated, their social implications are simple: disaster. Networks are such integral components of important everyday systems that their failures can possibly result in the breakdown of the systems themselves. For example, a large network failure affecting the Internet is bound to bring many important systems, such as online flight booking and live conferences to a halt, impacting major corporations and/or individuals financially. Similarly, a failure in a flight communication network can possibly result in the loss of lives. One recent example of a small network failure resulting in a huge impact on other systems was the failure of a traffic control computer in the UK in 20041. Thousands of passengers were delayed and hundreds of flights in the air were subjected to safety hazards.

The dependency on networks and the inherent social implications of network failures also result in a number of ethical dilemmas. First and foremost, accountability becomes difficult because “who is responsible?” becomes a vague question that is difficult to answer. Taking the example of the British flight control failure, if the failure had resulted in a significant loss of life and irreparable financial damages, no one would have been able to pinpoint exactly who was to be blamed. Many people argue that computer network systems are maintained by people, and it is these people who are responsible for ensuring such networks function smoothly. Others argue that the designers of networks are to be held responsible. Yet, others argue that no one can truly be held responsible for network failures and the only thing that can be done is to employ safer networks.

The largest moral dilemma is still whether society should be so dependent on computers and computer networks, allowing itself to fall vulnerable to computer failures. Many critics of computer networks argue that computers and computer networks are created by people and are hence bound to fail once in a while. Reducing systems’ dependencies on computer networks hence reduces the intrinsic risk of network failures destroying entire systems, possibly saving lives and money.

But it all comes down to this: the basic reason why computer networks exist in the first place is because they are efficient. As it is with all technology, there is a risk in dehumanizing networks, but the efficiency computer networks provide have outweighed the risks in experience so far. Instead of having people write letters to communicate across the globe, computers can communicate the same data in a matter of split seconds. Hence, although there is an inherent risk in embedding computer networks into important systems of society, the networks are nevertheless the only reason why information technology has progressed to where it is today, and the only sensible approach to this problem would be to invest more time and money into research and development of safer computer networks systems and ensure that the innate risk of network failure is minimized.