Not long after I moved into my new apartment, I experienced three separate power outages of significant duration within the span of 24 hours. Since my iPhone was charged and AT&T's network remained operational, I was able to connect with the outside world and inquire about the situation. Given I now live in an area that is primed for earthquakes at any time, I've thought about how bad the situation could become if a significant event took place. Having lived through Hurricane Gloria on Long Island, N.Y. many years ago without power or other types of support for two weeks, I have a clear memory of the implications. In such situations, you are on your own. And as we have witnessed from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the situation can turn dire in short order.
As we face threats to our infrastructure networks, both natural and man-made, I am continually surprised by the government's unwillingness to rethink the role of the average citizen in the security equation. We continue to retain a centralized mindset with federal, state and local government entities responsible for restoring services and order following a major event. This approach works to a point. Given we've developed national infrastructure that is highly optimized yet far from fault-tolerant, impacts on critical nodes in the networks can have disastrous effects. And it is during these catastrophic failures of the infrastructure networks where the centralized model of disaster response fails.
Consider one of the central weaknesses that is continually exposed during crises: communication. I find it ironic that in the age of Web 2.0, we still revert to an age-old model of communication during disasters: the radio. It's one-way nature is a reflection again of the centralized model. We use a channel that supports mass information distribution but provides no mechanism for two-way or group communication.
What would it take to fundamentally change this infrastructure? In sunny California, I'm imagining an ad-hoc peer-to-peer network that is activated by residents following a disaster event. With solar infrastructure providing power, a community could stand up an emergency network to support information sharing and coordination of activities. With a viable communication channel that supports group communication, we can then move to thinking about preparing a community to be active participants in establishing stability and security while government entities attempt to surge resources into an afflicted area. (My network thinking is inspired by the OLPC movement.)
Clearly the technological dimension to this problem is by far the most straightforward. Changing our culture and mindset may be far more difficult. We need to get to know our neighbors before a crisis takes place. We need viable trust networks to fall back on when times are tough. We need a shared sense of responsibility to rise to the occasion and some notion of our role in the endeavor. The government can choose to support this change or communities can go it alone. We hear stories of small communities that do exactly that when times are tough. Everyone knows everyone and looks out for one another. That is an ethic we should seek to spread and enhance with technology when appropriate.
