Presentation argues for the design of IT infrastructure to mitigate decay in digital systems, emphasizing accountability.
This presentation argues that Information Technology is infrastructure and should be designed accordingly. The talk draws an analogy between the computer/network system and the railroad — as the railroad transformed industrial society, the network-and-computer system transforms the information economy, with comparable requirements for durability, interoperability, and institutional accountability. The talk introduces the decay/disaster distinction: software does not wear out, but it decays — through brittle architecture exposed by component upgrades, mission creep, maintenance-induced bugs, and "bit rot" (the loss of information through loss of the means to read it). Decay is slow and insidious; disaster is fast and obvious. The dangerous failure mode is the slow one. Design principles proposed: use open formats and protocols; prefer boring, proven solutions over proprietary or bleeding-edge technology; require multiple sources; seek graceful degradation; maintain local human resources as the only reliable first response. A section addresses the specific vulnerabilities of Latin American and Caribbean contexts, where economic instability compounds technical decay. The final section discusses Peru's open-source bill (Congressman Edgar Villanueva, 2002), whose three principles — no single provider encodes data; no single provider controls usability and maintainability; transparency and accountability — are shown to lead independently to robust, decay-resistant, recovery-friendly IT. This is an early documented statement of the data-sovereignty argument as an architectural principle rather than a regulatory claim.Talk delivered at the Second Hemispheric Conference on Vulnerability Reduction of Trade Corridors to Socio-Natural Disasters (TCC II), Tampa, June 13, 2002.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cristobal Pedregal Martin (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: