Monday, December 25, 2017

Too Fast and Too Slow: The Washington State Derailment and Positive Train Control

After more than a decade of planning and construction, a new section of track was opened for Amtrak passenger service south of Tacoma, Washington on Dec. 18, 2017.  The old route that Amtrak trains used to take went northwest from Tacoma along the coast of Puget Sound, around a peninsula named Point Defiance, and then down the coastline several miles until it crossed Interstate 5 south of the small town of DuPont and headed south inland.  The new shorter route uses a bypass track that goes southwest of Tacoma and hugs I-5 for the rest of the distance, crossing the interstate south of DuPont.  There is a long stretch of fairly straight track just north of I-5 past a golf course before the track makes a sharp left turn to the south to cross the bridge over the freeway.

The problem with the old route was that a number of sharp turns and single-track tunnels slowed the Amtrak passenger trains down, making the Point Defiance section something of a bottleneck.  The project map on the Washington State Department of Transportation website for the Point Defiance bypass bragged that the top speed allowed on the new route would be 79 miles per hour.

Rail fans and others interested in passenger rail transportation made plans to be on Amtrak 501 as it left the station in Tacoma on the new route.  The engineer, whose name has not yet been released, was training another railroad employee who rode with him in the cab. 

In most parts of the U. S., trains are not operated in a completely automatic mode, although in many regions a system called Positive Train Control (PTC) is in operation.  PTC is a kind of robotic supervisory system that, among other things, constantly monitors a train's speed and intervenes if the train goes too fast for a particular section of track.  About 60% of all Amtrak trains use PTC, but in order for PTC to work, the track has to have sensors installed along it, and the Point Defiance bypass was not one of those routes.  So the engineer was solely in charge.

Around 7:25 AM, the train was running on the long stretch of straight track before the turn to the bridge over I-5.  A properly trained engineer knows what speeds are safe for which parts of a route, and knows when to apply brakes in anticipation of a lower-speed area ahead, as passenger trains can take several miles to decelerate at a rate that doesn't unduly disturb the passengers.  A video exists of what was going on in the cab in the last few seconds before the train reached the I-5 bridge.  The train was still going at the maximum route speed of 78 MPH.  Six seconds before the bridge, the engineer commented about the excesssive speed of the train, but by then it was too late.  The engine and a dozen other cars left the tracks, killing three, injuring dozens, causing numerous highway-traffic crashes (none fatal), and closing Interstate 5 for many hours.  The maximum safe speed for negotiating the turn was posted as 30 MPH.

Although the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will not issue its formal report on the investigation of this disaster for many months, the preliminary evidence is pretty clear that the accident was caused by human error.  Something—possibly distraction in conversing with the trainee, possibly plain forgetfulness—made the engineer neglect to slow the train before the I-5 curve.  As numerous reports emphasized after the wreck, if the train had been using PTC, it would have automatically slowed down for the curve if the engineer had done nothing, or even if he had tried to keep the speed high.  And we have no knowledge of how many wrecks of both freight and passenger trains have been prevented by PTC, because by definition such incidents that don't injure or kill anybody don't get reported.  But it is clear in this case that the absence of PTC was a contributory cause.

Congress mandated the installation of PTC after the worst train accident in the last thirty years, a 2008 wreck caused by operator error that killed 24 people.  The original deadline for all passenger trains to be using PTC was 2015.  But as the deadline approached and railroads were lagging behind in their rate of installations—in fairness to them, due to problems with government regulation of necessary radio frequencies as well as other causes—they told Congress that if the deadline wasn't extended, they would simply shut down.  How serious this threat was, we'll never know, because Congress caved and moved the deadline to the end of 2018.  And under the current business-friendly administration, we can expect if the railroads ask for another extension, they're likely to get it.

Statistically, rail passenger travel is very safe overall, with the number of fatalities most years hovering in the single digits.  Still, nobody wants to be one of the six or seven people who get killed in a train wreck or hit by lightning—dead is dead, no matter how you go. 

A utilitarian approach to the issue of PTC and passenger trains might conclude that, hey, given the low number of fatalities, let's just allow things to go the way they're going, and eventually we'll have PTC everywhere and we won't have to worry about it.  But the expense per life saved is so high with railroads that we'd be better off using political and monetary capital fighting automobile traffic accidents or promoting self-driving cars.

That's one approach.  But another approach says, "Look, here's this technological fix that will cost the railroads money and trouble, but will almost completely eliminate what is the last major remaining cause of railroad passenger fatalities:  human error.  Let's bite the bullet and make a special effort, even spend some extra money, to fix this thing once and for all."  Maybe that's the engineering approach, or even the perfectionist approach (many engineers have perfectionist tendencies).  Yes, the absolute numbers of fatalities are small.  But deaths in a train wreck share with deaths in plane crashes a peculiar horror, in that you are completely bereft of control of the situation.  And in the case of train fans who simply wanted to experience a new route for the first time and ended up paying for their hobby with their lives—well, some ironies are too much to contemplate.  I have a good friend who, if he was not otherwise engaged that day, might well have been on that train, because he simply likes to ride trains.

Better training (pardon the pun) of engineers and faster completion of the installation of PTC are needed.  And maybe if these things happen, this will be the last fatal accident involving train passengers for a long time.

Sources:  I referred to several news items on the accident, including CBS News at, a government-run transportation statistics site at, a Washington State Department of Transportation map of the bypass route at, and a report giving the time of the crash at 

Monday, December 18, 2017

Will We Miss Net Neutrality?

On Thursday, Dec. 14, the U. S. Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 in favor of repealing the Obama-era "net neutrality" rules that have been in effect since 2015.  Like so many things lately, net neutrality has become a partisan issue, and the vote went along party lines, the three Republican appointees on the Commission voting in favor of repeal and the two Democrats opposing it.  Polls show that the idea of net neutrality is popular, with as many as 80% of those asked being in favor of it.  But the pollsters generally didn't ask respondents to define net neutrality, or to say why they favored it.  Amid the protests and shrill voices raised on both sides of the issue, it's hard to get a grasp on what exactly is at stake, and what the pros and cons are.  A little history may help in this regard.

Among other things, most modern governments are expected to protect the weak against the strong.  This is an elementary aspect of justice.  In the late 1800s, during the rapid expansion of another kind of network—the railroad network—the public became aroused over perceived abuses that the railroads were practicing.  Farmers discovered that the railroads were manipulating shipping charges to curry favor with certain interest groups, and handing out free passenger passes to influential politicians.  The problems were so pervasive that the first free-standing administrative commission in the executive branch of the federal government was established to ride herd on the railroads:  the Interstate Commerce Commission, or ICC.

The ICC established rules for what became known as "common carriers"—enterprises that were so essential to the public that regulation by government was regarded as necessary.  The idea of a common carrier spread to other systems such as bus lines, airlines, and public utilities like electric and water systems.  In exchange for close regulation by the government, the business being regulated was allowed to make a reasonable profit.  Some industries eventually came around to welcoming common-carrier status, because they found that manipulating the government's rules in their favor wasn't that hard and it stabilized their business models. 

In 2003, a Columbia University professor named Tim Wu coined the phrase "net neutrality" to extend the common-carrier idea to the internet, which was not regulated in any meaningful way at the time.  In the case of the internet, the potential for the kind of abuse that the railroads got into trouble for is always there.  And there have been some incidents prior to the 2015 adoption of formal net-neutrality rules that give advocates of net neutrality some credibility.  According to the Wikipedia article on net neutrality, the internet service provider (ISP) Comcast took measures to throw digital roadblocks in the way of the troublesome service BitTorrent, which was using up a lot of bandwidth at the time, and the FCC has fined AT&T for similar misbehavior.

But the net neutrality rules that the FCC has now pledged to abandon may go too far in the other direction.  According to ISPs, the rules left them with limited flexibility for expansion and the offering of new services.  Treating everybody the same on the internet is a fine idea in principle, but working out the details can get complicated, and there are genuine judgment calls involved in an ISP's decisions of how to allocate limited fiber-optic and especially wireless bandwidth to best serve the incredible variety of customers, and websites that customers want to visit. 

We have seen how the content providers themselves (e. g. Facebook) have done things that go against some principles of net neutrality, such as the idea of no censorship.  Both for legal and moral reasons, Facebook polices itself and removes posts it deems to be unsuitable for various reasons.  But it's not an ISP that's doing this, it's Facebook. 

The ISPs, as ISPs, do not have the resources (or I suspect, the inclination) to do a lot of fine-grain discrimination, which is probably the kind of thing that many people who favor net neutrality are worried about.  Basically, the ISPs don't have time to pick through the floods of data that they must ship around every microsecond.  The most they can do in a typical situation is to note sites and services that produce unusually demanding traffic patterns.  And I think the most that they are hoping for in the repeal of net neutrality is to gain some freedom more efficiently to allocate their bandwidth in order to serve the most customers with the fewest additional resources of hardware and software. 

Maybe that is a Pollyanna-ish and naive view of ISPs, but it's hard for me to imagine that some of the more dire consequences foretold by the proponents of net neutrality will result from its abandonment:  widespread censorship, the inability of small-scale websites and enterprises to compete with larger ones based on something the ISP is doing, and so on.  One concern, transparency, is largely being taken care of by the internet itself.  Tricks like artificially degrading services are quickly detected and exposed by users, and it's easy for protesters to gather a digital lynch mob with torches and clubs and go after the bad guys.  Whether the bad guys mend their ways is another question, but my point is that if an ISP tries anything unpopular, they will be called out for it.  And this is an important self-regulating aspect of the internet that we may not appreciate as much as we should.

So my own answer is, no, I don't think we'll miss what we've had for only the last two years anyway, in terms of the Obama-era net neutrality regulations.  Even critics of the FCC decision admit that nothing is going to change right away, as the Commission has to come up with alternative rules and perhaps turn over some aspects of its work with the internet to the Federal Trade Commission. 

The internet is a modern necessity, not much less essential than electric power, and it is appropriate for governments to make sure that whoever qualifies as "weak" with regard to it is protected against unfair and unjust depredations by ISPs, or anybody else for that matter.  But even in the bad old days before government regulations were in place, abuses were fairly rare.  And it looks like the commercial instinct of self-preservation will keep ISPs from doing anything really dastardly, now that net neutrality rules are going away. 

Sources:  I referred to reports on the FCC vote to repeal net neutrality carried by at and  I also referred to the Wikipedia articles on net neutrality and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Monday, December 11, 2017

Are Teens Killing Themselves With Smartphones?

Jean Twenge is a professor of psychology at San Diego State University, and she thinks she knows one surprising reason why the rates of teenage depression and suicide have been climbing steadily since 2012 in the U. S.  She summarizes both her own work and the results of several other social-science studies of the problem in a recent article on the academics-to-the-public website called "The Conversation."

From an analytical view, she and her colleagues seem to have done their homework.  The raw statistics are chilling:  between 2010 and 2015, the number of teenagers reporting symptoms of depression in several large surveys rose by a third, as well as the number of 13- to 18-year-olds who committed suicide.  Examining the usual suspects—economic causes, race, class, and so on—revealed that the increases were quite uniform and uncorrelated to shifts in those factors.  So the researchers started looking for anything else that changed a lot in those five years.  And what they hit on was the fact that what marketers call the "penetration rate"—the percent of a given market group which owns a new product—went above 50 percent in 2012 among teenagers for guess what?  Smartphones. 

Examining the correlation between smartphones and teenage depression and suicide more closely, Twenge noted that longitudinal and causal-link studies point to smartphones as a likely cause, and not just a correlated effect of depression.  That eliminates a problem you often have with studies like this, where you find that the factor you're interested in happens alongside some other factor, but there's no obvious causal connection between them.  Basically, they found that when people became more unhappy, they didn't use smartphones a lot more, but when otherwise normal people began to use smartphones, they had a tendency to become less happy.

Twenge speculates about exactly why smartphones tend to do this to teens, and some of the answers are pretty obvious, at least to those of us who don't use smartphones much.  Every minute a teen is in the presence of another live person, and instead stares at a smartphone, there is an opportunity lost for direct human interaction, which both psychology and common sense say is one of the most beneficial things you can do to avoid depression.  And although she doesn't mention it, I will add that the image-maintenance which keeping up one's Facebook page requires would give even a professional media manager of the 1960s nightmares.  But playing that game requires teens to be constantly checking out what their peers (I won't call them friends) are doing and trying to be equally impressive by means of one's own online persona. 

Here we have a fairly new technology which seems to have an objective negative effect on the health and lifespan of a certain class of people.  If this were a different kind of problem, I can tell you what would happen from here, drawing from examples like the "radium girls" episode of the 1920s, when women who painted radium-dial watches and instruments started dying off.  Survivors of those who fell ill and died called for legislation, which was first opposed by the manufacturers, but eventually government public-health agencies got involved, and the dangerous manufacturing practices were banned.  Today nobody even manufactures radium anymore—it's just too dangerous.

The trouble with the smartphone-teen-depression issue is, you can't point to a chemical or physical cause that smartphones are guilty of.  But it's pretty obvious that something about the way teens use them affects their minds and leads to depression and suicide.  We know that much, but what do we do to fix it?  Twenge ends her article with a halfhearted call to limit smartphone use to two hours a day, but that might not be enough to make a difference.  And how can parents do that without following their kids around all the time?  I suppose there's an app for that, but if there is, there's also an app for evading the time limits imposed by the first app.

I'd like to add a couple of examples of people I know whose lives are relevant to this issue.  One is an example of what happens to a person when most of his social action is lived online, and another example of more or less the opposite. 

The first example is a relative of mine.  After working in a professional career, in his forties he got tired of dealing with people in person on his job—not particular people, really, just people in general.  He had accumulated enough money to live on without working if he lived very frugally, so he just quit. 

This was about twenty years ago, when the Internet was just beginning to take off.  He discovered chatrooms, and developed online relationships as time went on.  For the last ten or fifteen years, his days have scarcely varied.  He sleeps until early afternoon, gets up, makes breakfast, I guess you'd call it, and logs on.  Then maybe he watches television some, but from what he tells me (I keep in regular phone contact with him), most of his time is spent in online contact with people around the world, in Alaska and Wales and other English-speaking regions.  He stays up till three or four in the morning doing this sort of thing, then goes to bed.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  As far as I know he still goes grocery shopping, but that is about his only live human interaction.  And that is just the way he likes it.  He recently bought his first smartphone, but I don't think it can do him any more damage than he's already sustained.  I think talking with me is about all he uses it for.

He's an example of what can happen to someone who indulges the fantasy of an all-online life. 

The other example is a person I know a lot less about.  She's a young woman who attends a local church we know of.  She is one of a family of eight or so children.  The father is a doctor and the mother has homeschooled the entire family.  The woman is now ninenteen and holds down a job and I think is attending community college.  In the last year or so, she got her first smartphone.  Not only did she survive most of her teenage years without it, she has turned out better than a lot of kids who had them.  So in the right circumstances, it is possible in 2017 to raise teenagers and not give them smartphones.  I've seen it done.  But whether smartphones are so bad for teens that we should enact a minimum phoning age of 21, I can't say.  All I will say is, there's something bad going on with smartphones and teenagers, and if we care, we should do something about it.

Sources:  Jean Twenge's article "With teen mental health deteriorating over five years, there’s a likely culprit" appeared on Nov. 14, 2017 at  I have changed a few details to preserve anonymity of the individuals discussed. 

Monday, December 04, 2017

North Korea and the Paradox of Nuclear Weapons

On Tuesday, Nov. 28, North Korea launched a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).  Analysis of the flight path and other data indicates that the new model, called the Hwasong-15, can probably reach any point in the continental U. S.   And last September, Kim Jong-un ordered a successful underground test of a thermonuclear weapon whose yield exceeded 100 kilotons of TNT, the standard measure of nuclear-weapon power.  While North Korea has yet to demonstrate the ability to deliver nuclear weapons with its ICBMs, that is clearly its intention, and the latest ICBM test shows it is farther along that road than many people thought.

The world has lived under the threat of nuclear weapons since the first atomic bombs were exploded over Japan in 1945.  Fortunately for all concerned, the threat has never been carried out since then, although the 1962 Cuban missile crisis brought the U. S. and the former Soviet Union closer to nuclear war than anybody ever wants to get again. 

Despite the best efforts of both the U. S. and the Soviet Union to keep nuclear-weapons technology secret, the physics behind the bombs is well known, and it was only a matter of time until more countries built their own weapons.  As of today, at least eight nations possess nuclear weapons, and probably nine (Israel has never publicly admitted to having any, but is widely believed to have components ready for rapid assembly and use in an emergency).  North Korea is both the newest member of the nuclear club and the one that is most worrisome.

Since the development of the modern nation-state, the question of what kind of defenses to use and what proportion of a country's wealth to devote to armaments have been perpetual issues.  During the Cold War era, many countries such as Japan maintained only nominal armies and sheltered under the guarantee of protection by the U. S.  But since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, a sense has arisen that it's every nation for itself now, and North Korea has bought into that mindset wholesale.

In individuals, the mental state known as paranoia can be debilitating and lead to bizarre and even violent behavior.  I am neither a psychologist nor an expert in international affairs, but paranoia at the highest levels of government seems to account for many of North Korea's actions better than most other explanations.  Its rogue actions and hyperbolic threats have isolated it to the extent that its people are severely impoverished, but the nation's governing class continues to devote absurdly large amounts of money and resources in pursuit of militarization, and in particular its nuclear arms race. 

A report on the latest ICBM launch on the Wired website says that North Korea probably imported the rocket engines used in the latest launch.  Despite international sanctions, critical military hardware such as rocket engines finds its way to North Korea, and it's probably vain to think that attempts to blockade such hardware could stop their progress toward fully functional nuclear-tipped ICBMs.  Whoever sold them those rockets should take a share of the responsibility for whatever disasters result.

The paradox of nuclear weapons mentioned in our headline is simply this:  with the exception of World War II, nuclear weapons have proved to be useful only to the extent that they weren't actually used.  Even Kim Jong-un probably understands that if he were to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on the U. S., the consequences for his country, and him personally, would be dire.  So despite the heated rhetoric coming out of Pyongyang, there is probably a practical endpoint to North Korea's nuclear ambitions:  to have a few missiles poised and ready to threaten whoever might offer to overthrow the regime.

In a way, it's silly to worry about a potential nuclear threat from North Korea that isn't even real yet, when the leftover nuclear weaponry of the former Soviet Union is still owned by Russia and numbers in the thousands.  The difference is that Russia does not seem inclined even to use its weapons as threats against the U. S., preferring to interfere with our affairs by other means, while North Korea's leaders seem to thrive on the attention their country receives every time they launch a new missile or explode a new bomb underground. 

The technology North Korea needs to become a full-fledged member of the nuclear-ICBM club is probably only a matter of a few years away.  Even Kim Jong-un would probably not risk the international scorn he would get if he tried to demonstrate an air burst from a nuclear-tipped rocket over an isolated part of the ocean, but logically, that's probably the only way he can convince the world that he has a fully-operational system.  We may just have to take his word for it.

What then?  Well, we in the U. S. have made it from 1949 (the year the USSR demonstrated a nuclear weapon) to 2017 while living under the threat of thousands of nuclear bombs, and a few more in North Korea probably won't make much practical difference.  If we demonstrate that our anti-ballistic-missile systems could take down a North Korean missile before it did any harm, and there is some evidence that this is true, it will vitiate but not eliminate North Korean threats in this area.  The problem is that we're fighting probabilities with probabilities, and appearance in such a game can be more influential than reality.

The consensus of historical opinion is that Ronald Reagan's Star Wars proposals played a significant role in the eventual demise of the USSR from within.  The case of North Korea is very different.  Being smaller and more insular, Kim Jong-un can probably squelch any signs of dissent before it turns into a major internal threat to his regime.  But once he has nuclear-capable ICBMs, he will learn that the power of nuclear weapons is best used by not using them.  And that won't be nearly as much fun as developing them.  But even dictators have to grow up sometime.

Sources:  Wired's website published "North Korea's Latest Missile Test Was Even Scarier Than It Seemed" on Dec. 1, 2017 at  I also referred to Wikipedia articles on nuclear weapons states and the number of nuclear weapons owned by each state.

Monday, November 27, 2017

Uber Under Pressure for Data Breach

In recent years, the rideshare-app company called Uber has not led anyone to believe they would win a corporate personality contest.  Their aggressive growth and shouldering aside of municipal regulations and the charges of sexual harrassment that ultimately led to the resignation of Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick last June have now been followed by a revelation that Uber had a massive data breach in October of 2016, over a year ago, and didn't make it public till last week.  Besides probably violating state laws, this latest flap raises serious questions about the responsibility of companies to protect consumers' data, and what companies should do when that data is compromised.

Here is apparently what happened.  A year ago last October, Uber discovered that hackers had obtained about 57 million names, addresses, and emails of customers who had used Uber's services.   The hackers also snagged driver license numbers for over half a million of these people.  Then they pulled a classic blackmail act:  for a mere $100,000, the hackers offered to destroy the data and keep the whole thing a secret.  Under the reign of Kalanick, Uber agreed to this deal.  The company claims that they have evidence that the data was destroyed, but one can be permitted to wonder about something that amounts to proving a negative. 

The main problem with all this skulduggery, other than the breach itself, was the way Uber handled it.  Many state laws require companies to disclose major data breaches like this within a stated time, usually within four to six weeks of discovery.  Uber clearly didn't do this.  And even if Uber's new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, had disclosed the incident upon taking up his new job in September, instead of waiting for two months, Uber would have still been violating these laws. 

As hacks go, in terms of numbers and the kind of data stolen, there have been worse incidents.  But still, knowing that your email and linked phone number, and maybe your driver license number, are floating around out there in the hands of blackmailers, is not a comforting thought.  Even worse is the fact that Uber caved so fast to the blackmailers' demands.  True, not many hackers offer to destroy the data they've stolen, but words are cheap. 

What should consumers do when faced with a choice to either (a) deal with a company that offers an attractive service at a good price, but has a reputation for shady actions with regard to its own employees, hackers, and the law, or (b) well, maybe there isn't another good choice, except to try calling an old-fashioned cab and hope for the best?  (Full disclosure:  I have never used Uber, airbnb, or any of those other newfangled apps that are breaking down the time-honored traditional service industries.  There's nothing intrinsically wrong with using them, and many millions of happy customers continue to do so.  But I have no personal experience with them myself.) 

Even if a person is well aware of Uber's less-than-stellar corporate reputation, in many cases one doesn't have a choice:  Uber has chased away most of the competing apps (Lyft being an exception in some locations).  To use anything else may require a great deal of conscious effort and ingenuity, and in some locations and situations it simply may not be possible at all.

There is a paradox in the fact that the digital online world on the one hand promises an infinity of options and choices.  But on the other hand, when it comes to certain close-to-essential services such as search engines, online transportation apps, and Internet service providers, the list of workable choices at a given time and place is usually radically limited to a few, or even one. 

From a business point of view, this narrowing of choices is a function of what is called the network advantage.  As Ma Bell found out around 1890 when the telephone network was experiencing rapid growth, every customer a network company adds not only increases the company's customer base, but also makes that same company more valuable to all of its other customers.  That doesn't apply in exactly the same way to Uber as it does to AT&T, but the principle is the same:  the biggest firm in a network-intensive business automatically has built-in advantages over everybody else, and so you usually end up with a winner-take-most situation.  For those lucky enough to invest in the biggest company before it takes over the whole market, it is a very attractive deal indeed.  But for consumers wishing to have a meaningful choice among a number of alternatives, the dominance of a single firm is less than salutary.

The concept of privacy, and the related idea of security, may simply have to keep changing as we seem to accept risks that a few years ago would have simply been unacceptable.  Even in the Middle Ages, there was no such thing as absolute security.  A man carrying a purse of gold coins was always liable to run into some ruffians who would knock him down and rifle through his possessions.  But one of the basic attractive features of civilization is that under most circumstances, people can go about their daily business using services that they need, without unduly running the risk of somebody coming along and taking valuables from them. 

Now that identity theft is so easy, it's something that is ethically equivalent to a purse of gold coins carried by a Middle Ages merchant.  But in the wild-West environment that is the global Internet, we have left the providing of security largely to service firms themselves, with results such as the Uber breach that are far from encouraging.  In breaking the law requiring timely notification, Uber became one with the hackers, at least to the extent of ignoring the law.  Unfortunately, none of its customers knew what they were up to.  And now that we know, many people will simply shrug the incident off as one of the risks of modern digital life.

Maybe it is, but to my mind, accepting and tolerating such things is a step backwards in the progress of civilization.

Sources:  I referred to reports on the Uber data breach at, posted on Nov. 24 at, and the Washington Post at  I also referred to the Wikipedia articles on Travis Kalanick and Uber.

Monday, November 20, 2017

Will Tesla's Electric Semis Take Over?

Elon Musk's latest product unveiling, held last week in Hawthorne, California, was done in the accepted fashion of introducing a new product these days, which is for the CEO to stand alone on a stage, backed by giant screens and, if possible, a piece of the subject hardware too.  Musk claimed that the new electric truck he plans to start building in a year or so will travel 500 miles on a single charge.  Critics cited in the New York Times article about the announcement say the more likely distance is 300 to 450 miles, which is a big constraint for commercial truckers, who can currently cover a lot more than that distance without refueling.  And Musk's figure assumes there are rapid-charging stations everywhere they are needed, which is currently not the case.

The new truck will also feature the same semi-autonomous driving technology that other Tesla vehicles have, which would be a big asset for truckers.  But you can have autonomous driving technology on a conventional diesel-powered truck, and in fact some other companies are already doing experiments along those lines.  It may turn out that the self-driving features make more sense to the trucking industry than the electric-power feature, an ironic twist that would not be unprecedented in the introduction of new technologies.

When personal computers were introduced, marketers desperate to include women in the potential customer base tried to sell the machines as a replacement for the kitchen card file of recipes.  Replacing a $5 card file with a $2000 computer never caught on, but a little afterthought feature called a modem turned out to be the genesis of the Internet, and the rest is history, so to speak.

Robotics expert Rodney Brooks, writing in IEEE Spectrum, thinks that convoys of autonomous-driving trucks may be one of the first widespread uses of self-driving technology.  It's a logical extension of the two-trailer articulated trucks you see fairly often on many highways, and forming a closely-spaced convoy of identical autonomous vehicles is one thing that the technology has demonstrably done well.  Brooks also thinks that once the freeway part of the trip is over, cities will insist on putting drivers in every truck before they are allowed off the freeway.  If that's the case, then right away, the main appeal of autonomous truck convoys to trucking companies—the ability to fire needless drivers—goes away.  So even that possibility is fraught with problems. 

Right now, buying an all-electric car or truck is a triumph of faith over reason.  The faith is a conviction that going electric is the wave of the future and, for many, a moral obligation in the face of rising carbon-dioxide levels and climate change.  The trouble for makers of all-electric vehicles is that, so far, only the faithful with a lot of money can afford to live out their convictions by buying an all-electric car. 

The conventional automakers are selling to people whose reason for buying a car is more or less the same as it's always been:  the need to get from A to B reliably and with a minimum of expense for the amount of comfort and convenience provided.  For many of these people, hybrid vehicles combine the best of both worlds.  They have better fuel economy than gasoline or diesel cars, and don't cost all that much more.  And the payback time, in terms of saving enough fuel money to pay for the premium in price, is often reasonable too, just a few years or less depending on how much you drive.

Most commercial truck owner-operators and the companies they work for are intensely practical.  They can't afford to make political statements with the kind of truck they drive, and what they're looking for is reliable, efficient, low-cost transportation systems.  If there is any economic benefit to be derived from converting a truck fleet to Tesla all-electric models, some corporation will figure it out–maybe one that runs well-defined routes between locations that have already got charging stations.  But beyond such special cases, Musk may have an uphill battle in trying to sell all-electric technology to a market segment where politics and faith is outweighed by bottom-line considerations.

After all, given the rise of autonomous vehicles, the long-term prospects for employment as a truck driver are not great, depending on how things play out.  If the convoy idea catches on, the job might actually get better for a while if you are lucky enough to be one of the drivers riding along in the convoy, ready to take over once the freeway ride is over and each truck has to be independently piloted through a city or town. 

But the current tendency of most automation is to eliminate jobs, not make them easier.  And without strong unions or other countervailing political forces, the profession of truck driver (and if you think it's not a profession, try it yourself some time) may be entering a long-term decline, closing off yet another avenue of employment for those without a college degree.

And as for the all-electric feature of the new Tesla truck, well, it's still true that even if we all started driving Teslas tomorrow, the big-picture carbon emissions caused by the resulting increased electric load on a power grid that still uses a lot of fossil fuels, plus the multiple inefficiences of generating electricity, transmitting it over lossy lines, charging a battery, and discharging it into an electric motor, mean that the nation's carbon footprint would probably get bigger, not smaller.  So it really boils down to faith, or even esthetics. 

I think most of the people who drive all-electric vehicles simply do it because they think it is cool.  And that is fine for those who can afford to be cool in that way.  But as for any larger good consequence of the move to all-electric vehicles, it remains to be seen whether the rest of the power infrastructure will catch up to the point that the fossil-fuel-free vision of the future will come to pass.

At any rate, it will be easier to pass than a row of five autonomously-driven trucks in a row on the freeway.

Sources:  The New York Times website carried the article "Tesla Unveils an Electric Rival To Semi Trucks" on Nov. 16, 2017 at  Rodney Brooks' article "The Self-Driving Car's People Problem" appeared in the August 2017 issue of IEEE Spectrum on pp. 34-37 and 50-51. 

Monday, November 13, 2017

From Cops On the Beat to Spycams and Algorithms

Police departments these days are using the latest technologies in data analytics and surveillance, often without letting either the public or their own higher-ups know about it.  A recent online article in Slate asks whether these public-safety measures are threatening privacy to the extent that instead of Big Brother, we now have to worry about a lot of Little Brothers snooping around.

Consider these cases. 

For the last several years, the Chicago police force has operated a system that does for arrests what a credit score does for loan applications.  Every person arrested gets a computer-generated "threat score" that rates their chances of either committing a crime in the future or being the victim of one.  People with higher threat scores get extra attention such as home visits.  In domestic-abuse cases, this could have the desirable effect of providing more security for an abused wife or girlfriend, and that is certainly a laudable goal.  But as anyone who has had their credit rating fouled up by a rating agency knows, mistakes in these systems can happen.

And in Baltimore, a firm was hired to fly a private plane above the city and take wide-angle high-resolution video with no particular crime scene in mind, just to furnish a God's-eye view of everything going on in the event that some of it turned out to be criminal activity.  When the citizens of Baltimore heard about it, they raised such an outcry that the program was terminated.  But similar technology is available and is being used elsewhere—maybe even in your town.

We already know about police-car dashcams and body cameras, which have been viewed as protecting the rights of citizens as much as aids to police trying to enforce the laws.  But wider-scope systems such as database-generated algorithms and synoptic surveillance not targeted at a specific crime or criminal are new things, and for understandable reasons, some law-enforcement authorities are not being as open as they could be about using them.

There is some justification for this.  One can argue that a novel surveillance method can be more effective if the people being spied on don't know about it.  But this argument is lost on the millions of stores that have prominent signs saying things like, "Smile! You're on TV" and otherwise make no secret that customers are being watched electronically, as a deterrent to shoplifting. 

Also counter to that argument is the notion that in a democracy, citizens have a right to know what methods law-enforcement authorities are using, and to make a considered judgment as to whether the alleged benefits of reduced crime and improved public safety outweigh the potential harm to what remains of our privacy. 

The Slate article treats the fact that there are around 17,000 separate law-enforcement organizations in the U. S. as a problem, because any given location may be under the authority of several of them, and sometimes it's a big headache even to figure out who to ask about these things.  But the Big Brother reference I began with comes from George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984, which featured "telescreens" everywhere that not only projected images of a Stalin-like figure named Big Brother, but reminded everyone that Big Brother was watching, through hidden cameras.  For most of the novel's lifetime, nobody worried about universal spycams becoming a reality, because the only way for every citizen to be watched was to hire enough people to sit there and watch the screens, which would have meant as late as the 1960s, it would have taken maybe 50 or 100 million people monitoring the 200 million or so U. S. citizens—clearly an impractical project. 

But now with digital storage, face-recognition algorithms, and artificial intelligence, spying on everybody in the U. S. all the time is still a remote possibility, but not nearly as remote as it used to be.  Things have reportedly progressed a lot farther along these lines in Great Britain, where it's not possible to walk outside in London for more than a few feet without becoming a feature in somebody's surveillance camera somewhere.

In such a highly spied-upon situation, it's a good thing that there are 17,000 different policing authorities instead of one big one, as George Orwell imagined in 1984.  Even if a few of them go overboard, the damage will be limited to that authority's geographic region.

But this isn't an argument for complacency.  Actions that affect the privacy of the average law-abiding citizen, especially when funded with that law-abiding citizen's taxes, need to be made known to said law-abiding citizen.  And so when police departments and other government-run security organizations start doing wholesale data gathering on innocent and guilty alike, this kind of thing needs to be advertised or made public in some way that brings the awareness of the activity to those who are directly affected by it.

Abuses of these technologies can happen.  It's probably because policing authority is so diffused in this country that we don't have more scandals relating to the abuse of surveillance technology.  The FBI, one of our few national-scope law-enforcement agencies, has been involved in a few such cases, but eventually Congress or someone else outside the executive branch manages to blow the whistle on them and correct the abuse. 

But many municipalities don't have such a mechanism to ensure that law-enforcement agencies inform the public they are watching that certain technologies are being used.  The Slate article cites a program sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union called "Community Control over Police Surveillance" that can serve as a model of accountability.  I haven't studied the ACLU's efforts in this regard and can't vouch for its effectiveness, but it would probably be a good place to start.

Privacy is a much-neglected right in some areas of U. S. life.  We have gradually been trained by private interests to say good-by to it whenever we log online and do a search or buy a product.  But in going about our daily lives, and especially in our homes, it is a valuable thing to know that one is not being watched by a stranger who could, if he chose, use information gathered about you to complicate your life in some way.  At the very least, if such things happen, the people who are paying the taxes that pay for the systems need to know what they're buying—and refuse to buy it if they don't like it. 

Sources:  The article "The Fragmented Surveillance State" by Andrew Guthrie Ferguson appeared on the Slate website at  More information about the ACLU's Community Control over Police Surveillance program can be found at  And George Orwell's novel 1984 was published in 1949, when television was just beginning to appear in large numbers of private homes in the U. S.

Monday, November 06, 2017

For Consumer Electronics, The Fix is Out—Or Is It?

Did you know that Apple can tell if you break your iPhone screen and take it to get fixed by somebody who isn't in Apple's authorized repair network and uses a non-Apple screen to fix it?  Not only can they tell, they can intentionally disable your phone when they find out. 

That's exactly what happened to Antonio Olmos, a news photographer covering the refugee crisis in the Balkans, when he broke his iPhone screen and couldn't find an Apple-authorized repair facility in Macedonia.  But he did find somebody who fixed it with an aftermarket screen, and the phone worked fine until a routine sofware update a few months later.  Then, wham—Apple turned his phone off.  When Olmos inquired, he was told that Apple did this as a "security measure" in case some of the unauthorized parts were defective.  But that wasn't the problem—the phone worked fine until Apple broke it in an act that looks suspiciously like punishment. 

Olmos had enough connections with the media to raise a public stink about the issue, and eventually Apple caved and quit turning off phones that have been repaired by non-Apple facilities with non-Apple parts.  But with his inquiry, Olmos turned over a rock to reveal just one of the many ways that manufacturers are increasingly trying to discourage repairs of their products by anyone other than their own limited number of authorized repair facilities—and sometimes not even then.

In an article on the website of the professional engineering magazine IEEE Spectrum, two leaders of the "right-to-repair" movement, Kyle Wiens and Gay Gordon-Byrne, describe how this is happening, not only with consumer electronics but with items as big as tractors.  For example, John Deere, the agricultural-equipment maker, took the position that in selling a tractor to a farmer, the company didn't really let go of the tractor—they only granted an "implied license" to operate it.  John Deere reserved the right to repair it or say who was going to repair it—certainly not the farmer.

This didn't sit well with farmers, who complained, and the U. S. Copyright Office ruled that John Deere was wrong—when a farmer buys a tractor, he can do anything he wants with it, from fixing it himself to driving it into a lake. 

These are only two of the most egregious examples of manufacturers who try to discourage consumers from fixing their own stuff, or using independent repair shops who use aftermarket parts.  As anyone who has been to a non-dealer-owned auto repair shop or an Autozone knows, independent repair facilities are often cheaper than dealerships and can do work of just as good a quality as the dealerships.  And many aftermarket parts are comparable in quality to OEM (original equipment manufacturer) parts.  So why do the makers seem to hate it if you fix something of theirs that breaks?

Well, the obvious reason is that as soon as a company sells you one of their products, they are competing with themselves.  If the product breaks, you have two choices, in principle:  fixing it or buying a new one.  The maker wants to sell you a new one, of course, and anything that can be done to make fixing difficult or impossible will tend to tilt your decision in the direction of a new purchase.

This helps a maker's bottom line, but it also contributes to the millions of tons of electronic scrap that goes into landfills worldwide every year.  As economist John C. Médaille put it, "Only by constantly buying what we don't need or already have can the system sustain itself; the size of the garbage dump becomes the true measure of our 'wealth'."  So what should be done?

The answer that Wiens and Gordon-Byrne favor is legislation at the state level to prohibit manufacturers from monopolizing product repair or preventing it altogether.  While this has some chance of working, it is only part of the problem. 

The things a culture values can tell you a lot about the culture.  Multinational corporations have encouraged the development of a worldwide consumer culture that values things that the corporations can sell at a profit.  And in the absence of strong counterforces from custom, religion, or politics, the consumer culture increasingly dominates the lives of not just millions, but closer to billions of people.  In 2016, almost two-thirds of the world's population owned a mobile phone.  That's about the same percentage of the globe's population who, as of 2013, do not have indoor plumbing (flush toilets, in other words).  Now don't get me wrong—having a smart phone, or any kind of a phone, is a huge leap forward toward all sorts of civilizational goods:  the ability to call for emergency services, to participate in a market economy, and so on.  Mobile phones can on occasion be lifesavers.  But so can flush toilets.  There are good reasons, however, that Apple is in the smart-phone business and not the flush-toilet business. 

State laws protecting our right to fix things can redress some of the grievous wrongs that companies are trying to put across with regard to product repairs.  But even if all service manuals were posted for free on the Internet and you could find a competent independent repair shop in every city and town, many of us would still be just waiting for our phone to break down to give us an excuse to buy a new one. 

This is a moral issue, really, and to explore its depths would take us far beyond the limits of this blog space.  But the heart of the matter is whether we believe what the manufacturers want us to believe, namely (as Médaille again puts it), "that our happiness lies not in persons, but in things, and not merely in things, but in constantly new things." 

That notion is, to put it indelicately, a lie.  But it's behind much of the advertising and marketing that we are subjected to all the time.  Until we recognize that lie for what it is, and change our ways of living and using our resources to reflect our realization that it's a lie, all the repair-protection laws in the world won't make much difference in the flood of electronics that goes from store to user to garbage dump faster every year. 

Sources:  The article "Why We Must Fight For the Right to Repair Our Electronics" by Kyle Wiens and Gay Gordon-Byrne was posted on the IEEE Spectrum website on Oct. 24, 2017 at  The statistic on worldwide mobile phone use is from, and the one on flush toilets is from  John C. Médaille's book Toward a Truly Free Market (ISI Books, 2010), pp. 194-195, is the source of the quotations attributed to him.