ResourceShelf this week takes a look at hoax-debunking sites (see especially the Energy Department’s Computer Incident Advisory Capability CIAC Hoax Pages).
But you don’t need the Internet to spread misinformation, as we’ve all learned from Katrina. The Wall Street Journal has among its free articles this one: Misinformation Slowed Federal Response to Katrina. The author says that inaccurate information made a chaotic scene even worse:
Accounts from local officials of widespread looting and unspeakable violence -- which now appear to have been significantly overstated -- raised the specter at the time that soldiers might be forced to confront or even kill American citizens. The prospect of such a scenario added political and tactical complications to the job of filling the city with troops and set back relief efforts by days.
The misinformation raises the question of why the federal government had so much trouble gathering its own intelligence that could have provided a more accurate picture.
"The devastation was so complete, so comprehensive ... that we couldn't figure out how bad it was," said Adm. Timothy Keating, chief of the U.S. military's Northern Command.
One group trying to use the distributed nature of the Web to process, convey and archive information in the event of another distaster is Recovery 2.0. Its creator, Jeff Jarvis, wants to think about disaster recovery as an open source movement (here's an interview (transcript) of Jarvis). Recovery 2.0's goal is “to be ready for the next disaster so people can better use the internet — via any device — to better:
1. share information,
2. report and act on calls for help,
3. coordinate relief,
4. connect the missing,
5. provide connections for such necessities as housing and jobs,
6. match charitable assets to needs,
7. get people connected to these projects - and the world - sooner.
There are lots of good ideas and projects on this wiki, and much of the discussion relates to the technology involved: standards, authentication, security, etc. But the technology, no matter how advanced and seamless we might be able to make it, still relies on information related by people. Toward the bottom of the WSJ article mentioned above is this:
Federal officials have long said that they traditionally rely on locals to provide first response for disasters, which includes making security assessments and providing safe transport for emergency workers. …
While [former FEMA director Michael] Brown faulted "a hysteric media" for passing on such stories [of murders, rapes and looting], many of the wilder tales were presented by Mayor Nagin and Eddie Compass, the police chief who has since resigned. …
Both Mr. Nagin and Mr. Compass have said they merely related stories they thought to be true at the time. But they may also have been trying to spark a quick federal response by overstating the dire nature of the crisis.
So it’s an interesting argument about which is better for conveying information: Should we use a proprietary or an open-source solution? Do we want a more deliberate, heirachical, broadcast solution (like the Defense Department or the governemnt)? Or would the characteristics of open source (flexibile, social and democratic) work better?
View Comments
There are currently no comments to display.
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must be a registered user of FCW.com and be logged in. Use one of the forms below to login or register for FREE to FCW.com. To protect your privacy, you can use an alias as your username.
