That is not a comforting thought when you think about air-traffic control software, the fail-safe control system of a nuclear power plant or the test equipment at the blood bank. Frankly, it isn't ever a satisfying thought. Just yesterday I saw the chaos when the cash register at a fast food restaurant was simply overcharging a customer. Thankfully the customer added the amounts in his head and challenged the charge. The worker entered the order three times and had three different answers. On the third attempt they got it right.

A great deal of law is about reliability. Law and Order is all about people and institutions doing what is reasonably expected. If they don't live up to the expectations then there should be legal consequences. The most important part of a lawyer's job in negotiating contract terms for the acquisition of new technology is to make sure that the contract defines what the widget is expected to do, how fast it is supposed to work, and then to incorporate a test program that verifies the final performance. Contracts and testing must provide the protection until things change in the technology world.

Some forward thinkers are not merely accepting the status quo. Eventually things may change. There are new initiatives that are seeking failure free computing where warranties and licenses rarely provide strong protection for the consumers.

Carnegie Mellon University, NASA, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Compaq, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Silicon Graphics and others have formed the High Dependability Computing Consortium with the goal, 

Granted some of the members are selling the products we love to hate, and it will take some strong results to cure the mistrust. Dean James H. Morris at Carnegie Mellon is a key supporter of the new efforts, and he is looking at it as a long-term project. He wrote, 

He points out that one ambitious goal of the Consortium is to 

His very interesting essay is found on the Center for National Software Studies website.

Can you count on the security of your e-mail?
Well, a new law in England might cause you some misgivings. Last summer Parliament passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.  Certain provisions appear to limit MI 5 and other British government powers when it actually gives the officials wide latitude and has several provisions that may surprise you. 

The purpose of the act is stated in its first sections. With some huge exceptions it is a criminal offense for any person in the United Kingdom to intercept any communication in the course of its transmission by means of the public postal service or through a public or private communications system. What is surprising is the requirement that anyone can be required to assist the government in intercepting Internet traffic for a long list of reasons. The British Secretary of State and other officials could issue warrants on private Internet Service Providers and even workers in a company's computer department to divert or copy internet traffic. I'm not an expert on the English legal system but this act does not appear to require a judge to sign the warrant.

Now that may not seem too shocking after the disclosure of the use of Carnivore by the FBI in the United States to eavesdrop on the bad guys. But there are some unusual provisions in the English law. Besides the expected national security and law enforcement concerns, the warrant can be issued, 

But, it gets better. (Or is that worse?) Section 19 of the Act allows the official issuing the warrant to order the person upon whom it is served to keep the activities secret under penalty of up to five years in jail. The person might even be ordered not to tell his supervisors about the warrant--even if they are not the suspects. 

Clearly, the use of technology is integral to modern life. The trust we place in the technology's operation and security is always subject to change. I believe the High Dependability Computing Consortium is an encouraging step but the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is not.