I think... no, I hope that there's a better way to do things then we are right now.
Software security is full of this type of stuff too, but it comes as recommendations and best practices. Security experts take the data and find common problems, and common solutions. Things you should do. Things you should avoid. At the end of the day though, the power lies with the system designers and developers. I know the data. I know the business area. Most importantly, I know the users. A secure system that the users can't use is worthless.
In the bureaucracy, the tendancy is to have these things come down as policies instead of recommendations. People who don't know the data, the business area, or the users come down from high atop the mountain and decree a bunch of things. The result is junk software, because none of them are normal users, and none of them are developers. You get lots of security, but no functionality (because their area is security, not functionality).
In that case, we need the same thing we get outside the bureaucracy. The people doing the work need the power to decide what works and what doesn't. Taking that away and doing it by committee or doing it by policy just results in junk.
You can probably tell that I'm an IT guy. :) But it applies to a lot of areas. David Chen was found not guilty of various charges for performing a citizens arrest on a shoplifter (http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/10/29/peter-kuitenbrouwer-judge-finds-david-chen-not-guilty-or-the-grocer-wore-grey/). Technically, according to how the law is written he did break it. The judge is empowered to make decisions, and made the correct one IMO.
Had the crown prosecutors office exercised their own judgment, the case never would have come to trial. We would have saved a lot of money on court costs, saved a good man from having to endure that, and not brought the entire system into disrepute (which is exactly what that case did, public reaction was overwhelming and enraged).
The risk is that a bureaucrat will get it wrong, and the public will be mad. But following the rules to the letter also results in wrong decisions. You're quite possibly right that the public won't accept some risk of mistakes in order to get more judgment into the system. I hope you're wrong.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: Recomending this post for 'recomended'
Date: 16/11/10 22:49 (UTC)Software security is full of this type of stuff too, but it comes as recommendations and best practices. Security experts take the data and find common problems, and common solutions. Things you should do. Things you should avoid. At the end of the day though, the power lies with the system designers and developers. I know the data. I know the business area. Most importantly, I know the users. A secure system that the users can't use is worthless.
In the bureaucracy, the tendancy is to have these things come down as policies instead of recommendations. People who don't know the data, the business area, or the users come down from high atop the mountain and decree a bunch of things. The result is junk software, because none of them are normal users, and none of them are developers. You get lots of security, but no functionality (because their area is security, not functionality).
In that case, we need the same thing we get outside the bureaucracy. The people doing the work need the power to decide what works and what doesn't. Taking that away and doing it by committee or doing it by policy just results in junk.
You can probably tell that I'm an IT guy. :) But it applies to a lot of areas. David Chen was found not guilty of various charges for performing a citizens arrest on a shoplifter (http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/10/29/peter-kuitenbrouwer-judge-finds-david-chen-not-guilty-or-the-grocer-wore-grey/). Technically, according to how the law is written he did break it. The judge is empowered to make decisions, and made the correct one IMO.
Had the crown prosecutors office exercised their own judgment, the case never would have come to trial. We would have saved a lot of money on court costs, saved a good man from having to endure that, and not brought the entire system into disrepute (which is exactly what that case did, public reaction was overwhelming and enraged).
The risk is that a bureaucrat will get it wrong, and the public will be mad. But following the rules to the letter also results in wrong decisions. You're quite possibly right that the public won't accept some risk of mistakes in order to get more judgment into the system. I hope you're wrong.