EfficiencyVersusSecurity

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories

Decentralized systems work better, such as the Internet. It seems like urban areas are vestiges of a time when transportation was difficult. Apart from the danger and vulnerability element that was so horrifically displayed 9/11, there are other reasons that centralization of communities just don't make sense to me. -- SteveHowell

Except decentralized organizations are usually less efficient. Proximity breeds communication breeds productivity. Security is usually an exercise in trading off efficiency against expected liability in the event of attack. If security costs more in terms of efficiency than it is expected to save, then it's excessive. Similarly, too lax security may make for efficiencies, but you expose yourself to liabilities that exceed any gains.

Note that centralization doesn't necessarily make more efficient communities. I demonstrate CarCulture to you. -- SunirShah

A lot of courtervailing forces at work here. Efficiency and security generally involve a tradeoff of one for the other, but they can also reinforce each other. An organization that can move efficiently is more likely to secure resources during a sudden attack. An organization that percieves itself to be secure tends to complete tasks more efficiently.

When resources cluster, greater efficiency and security tends to result, except in the sense that you create a single point of vulnerability. Organizations can mitigate the vulnerability by having multiple geographically disparate highly concentrated clusters of resources. Also, organizations taking the centralization approach need to guard against internal conflict.

Another key factor in the efficiency vs. security tradeoff is how open organizations are to outside influences. In a sense, organizations that open themselves up to the outside world pave the way for greater efficiency at the cost of security for the organization. Paranoid organizations often make the tradeoff in favor of security.

On the other hand, imagine a software company that opens up its language specification for external review. With more cooks, the language tends to grow more slowly, which is often perceived as inefficiency. On the other hand, the language tends to gain more of a stronghold in the community.

Not sure where I'm going with all this; like I said, there are a lot of countervailing trends. Perhaps a few concrete examples would move the discussion along.

-- SteveHowell

I'm not sure that CarCulture is part of centralization. In fact, I'm sure it is not. Consider places built before the automobile (Manhattan and Boston to name two). They are miserable places to have a car. Places that are more spread out and had more of their development after the popularization of the automobile (Los Angeles being the prime example) have less of a central point. (as Dorothy Parker once said about LA, "There's no there there".)

I've heard it said that a good way to have security is to put all your eggs in one basket and armor-plate the basket. There's something to be said for that, as with a highly decentralized setup, you start to lose accountability. I think we can use the air transportation system as an example of this.

I don't know where we're going with this either. I started with a general concept of city design influenced by Manuel deLanda's War In The Age of Intelligent Machines ISBN 0942299752 (alternate, search) and expanded upon by recent events. We could start by thinking in terms of physical security compared to electronic security. I'm part of the IS security cohort here at work, and I was called to an imprompto meeting with the IS boss and the rest of the security cohort, and we were asked if there was anything we should do to protect ourselves. I said that I didn't really see a need for that, since infowar hasn't been part of their tactical grab-bag, and since we're a brick-and-mortar setup with only a few web pages on one external server, the worst that could happen is that our web browsing and email could get stopped, or we could get another email virus, either of which would be essentially trivial. We can discuss it in terms of adding insult to injury, but I didn't and wouldn't expect it. I think that, at the moment, the physical and electronic security concerns are distinct and should be considered as such. --DaveJacoby

I guess we should also distinguish between electronic and physical resources with respect to a centralization discussion. Centralizing physical resources has a lot more consequences than centralizing electronic resources, since it is so much harder to move physical resources. I am off to Portland, OR for a couple days, back late tomorrow. -- SteveHowell

There is a lot of talk in organic food circles about "eating locally" and "know your food, know your farmer." This would imply a decentralized system that would in fact, be more secure. Seems to me this is because of the subsequent shorter distances necessary to move the "stuff." CarCulture is also decentralized, but less secure, because of the further distances to move the "stuff?" During a power outage when the subways aren't running and no one can buy gasoline because that takes electricity too, my bike looks even better than it does on a normal day. Is a bicycle efficient and secure? --TedErnst

EfficiencyVersusSecurity

Discussion