New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

US Needs To Create Non-Computer Back-Ups for Utilities

But we aren't doing that.

The current system was never designed to be secure, and it probably can't be made to secure. This was known from the very beginning, but it was overshadowed by the novelty and opportunity presented at the time the internet was made public.

The root of the problem that your solution can not fix is that by adding computers to the mix in the critical areas as we have, we have likely already made them too complicated to be controlled manually. You manual level will likely only give a signal to another computer controlled subsystem further down the line. Or that keeping a handle on what is going on in these very large system can be done manually either. The only reason they could grow to be this large is because we could depend upon computers to run them.
Yes you are. If you're willing to place all of America's national security into a scenario that is only computer generated (when all that could be halted by computer attacks), then you must certainly are gambling with America's survival.

The critical areas you cite (in a 2021 composition of them) may be too complicated to be controlled manually, but the critical areas (electric, water, food, etc) as they were in 1960, are NOT too complicated to be controlled manually, because that is how that always were controlled. Get it ?

If you make everything run by computers, you will always totally be at the mercy (or lack thereof) of computers, and their vulnerabilites (which in future weeks/months/years) can never be fully or clearly ascertained.

Thus, a noncomputer element is needed in the equation to secure it.
 

Spamature

President
Yes you are. If you're willing to place all of America's national security into a scenario that is only computer generated (when all that could be halted by computer attacks), then you must certainly are gambling with America's survival.

The critical areas you cite (in a 2021 composition of them) may be too complicated to be controlled manually, but the critical areas (electric, water, food, etc) as they were in 1960, are NOT too complicated to be controlled manually, because that is how that always were controlled. Get it ?

If you make everything run by computers, you will always totally be at the mercy (or lack thereof) of computers, and their vulnerabilites (which in future weeks/months/years) can never be fully or clearly ascertained.

Thus, a noncomputer element is needed in the equation to secure it.
IT would be more practical to build 5 redundant backup computer systems than it would be to reconfigure the system controlling our infrastructure to run manually.

Also, then about what you are saying. Companies, because a lot of our infrastructure is run by businesses in the marketplace. You are asking them to run parallel systems of computer and pencil and paper simultaneously, day in and day out on just the chance that the computer system is taken down. That would be wildly expensive.
 
IT would be more practical to build 5 redundant backup computer systems than it would be to reconfigure the system controlling our infrastructure to run manually.

Also, then about what you are saying. Companies, because a lot of our infrastructure is run by businesses in the marketplace. You are asking them to run parallel systems of computer and pencil and paper simultaneously, day in and day out on just the chance that the computer system is taken down. That would be wildly expensive.
SHOW how it would be "wildly" expensive.

Ex. Like how much it would cost for a few smoke detectors, to back up a computer operated fire alarm panel. Or how a few notebooks would be "wildly expensive", to back up a computer bookkeeping operation.
 

Spamature

President
SHOW how it would be "wildly" expensive.

Ex. Like how much it would cost for a few smoke detectors, to back up a computer operated fire alarm panel. Or how a few notebooks would be "wildly expensive", to back up a computer bookkeeping operation.
Because you would have to have people running the computers system while you had what would have to be an even larger group of people maintaining a paper system both at the same time. Because you would never know when you had to switch from one to the other since that would only happen in a surprise event. That goes for every aspect. Since it takes more people to run manual systems than computer automated systems. You would also have to have those manual operators who otherwise have nothing else to do on your payroll as well. This entire secondary system would also have to be maintained to the point where it would be ready to take over the load when the automated system fails.

Like I said, it would be easier to have multiple instances of the computer systems than it would to have a second manual system.

The best solution is to scrap what we have and build a secure and redundant network from the ground up.

Think about it this way. What if we did what you wanted and the attack or failure came in a system that the infrastructure relies upon, but is itself outside of the critical infrastructure.

If it is all connected, then it all has to be protected.
 
Last edited:
Because you would have to have people running the computers system while you had what would have to be an even larger group of people maintaining a paper system both at the same time. Because you would never know when you had to switch from one to the other since that would only happen in a surprise event. That goes for every aspect. Since it takes more people to run manual systems than computer automated systems. You would also have to have those manual operators who otherwise have nothing else to do on your payroll as well. This entire secondary system would also have to be maintained to the point where it would be ready to take over the load when the automated system fails.

Like I said, it would be easier to have multiple instances of the computer systems than it would to have a second manual system.

The best solution is to scrap what we have and build a secure and redundant network from the ground up.

Think about it this way. What if we did what you wanted and the attack or failure came in a system that the infrastructure relies upon, but is itself outside of the critical infrastructure.

If it is all connected, then it all has to be protected.
NO, you would not have to have a second group. The people who would run a non-computer system, could be the same people who are running the computer operated system.

I see no reason why it would take more people to run non-computer systems than running the same systems with a computer. 1624315252496.png

To say "having multiple instances of the computer systems"
, shows a lack of understanding of the crux of the topic of this thread. The whole reason for the back-up of non-computer utilities, is because, being non-computer, they are invulnerable to attack from computer hackers/ransomwarers. Any "instances of the computer systems" whatever they are, cannot make this same claim.

No matter what they are, they are a question mark, when it come to hackers. Only non-computer utilities are outside the scope of computer hackers.

Build a "secure" network ? NOTHING is secure that is run by computer.
 

Spamature

President
NO, you would not have to have a second group. The people who would run a non-computer system, could be the same people who are running the computer operated system.

I see no reason why it would take more people to run non-computer systems than running the same systems with a computer. View attachment 63651

To say "having multiple instances of the computer systems", shows a lack of understanding of the crux of the topic of this thread. The whole reason for the back-up of non-computer utilities, is because, being non-computer, they are invulnerable to attack from computer hackers/ransomwarers. Any "instances of the computer systems" whatever they are, cannot make this same claim.

No matter what they are, they are a question mark, when it come to hackers. Only non-computer utilities are outside the scope of computer hackers.

Build a "secure" network ? NOTHING is secure that is run by computer.
It will take far more people to run a pencil and paper system than it would to run a computerized system. The whole point of computerizing a system is to reduce the number of humans needed to run the system.

You can infect a system that is not connected to a network. So if you have a redundant system that is offline at the time of infection, it's safe from that attack.

Nothing is totally secure, be it computers, pencil & paper, or stone tablets and chisels.
Everything is vulnerable.
 
It will take far more people to run a pencil and paper system than it would to run a computerized system. The whole point of computerizing a system is to reduce the number of humans needed to run the system.

You can infect a system that is not connected to a network. So if you have a redundant system that is offline at the time of infection, it's safe from that attack.

Nothing is totally secure, be it computers, pencil & paper, or stone tablets and chisels.
Everything is vulnerable.
I lived for many years before computers came around. I entered the workforce in 1962, and moved around to a number of different jobs in different places and states. I saw no difference in the number of people working between computer and non-computer employment.

Any computer system is vulnerable to attack by hackers/ransomwarers,,,,but they cant hack non-computer utilities. 1624331275041.png1624331245291.png
1624331308364.png
 

Spamature

President
I lived for many years before computers came around. I entered the workforce in 1962, and moved around to a number of different jobs in different places and states. I saw no difference in the number of people working between computer and non-computer employment.

Any computer system is vulnerable to attack by hackers/ransomwarers,,,,but they cant hack non-computer utilities. View attachment 63655View attachment 63654
View attachment 63656
You just have more faith in people than machines.


Look, hacking often depends as much on human failure as it ever will on flaws in the programming. There are flaws everywhere that can be exploited. Putting more decisions human hands and more humans in the mix will not make you safer. It will only cause them to look for different methods.
 
You just have more faith in people than machines.


Look, hacking often depends as much on human failure as it ever will on flaws in the programming. There are flaws everywhere that can be exploited. Putting more decisions human hands and more humans in the mix will not make you safer. It will only cause them to look for different methods.
It is not a case of "more humans in the mix". We didn't have any more people running our utilities in 1955 than we do now. Only difference is the younger generation, with their fixation on computers and excess technology, have now put us at immense risk, and only now are we beginning to see that it is not a good transition.

In many cases, with or without hacking, computers are a pain in the ass, that makes doing things more complex, unecessarily complicated, and more work than without them. I could go back to how things were in the 1950s technologically, and not even blink an eye.
 
Top