An acquaintance of mine was reasonably upset at the failed assassination attempt on ex-President Trump. He commented, “We’re seeing an absolute failure of people who should know how to do their jobs. Absolutely anybody (except, apparently, Secret Service people) could tell you that it’s a good idea to keep people off the roof if it has a clear shot at the podium. Absolutely anybody (except the IT gods at CrowdStrike) could tell you that it’s a good idea to try out a major software update on a non-vital server (perhaps Amazon payments or the server that makes AI porn images) before pushing it out to 911 servers and hospital records and air traffic controllers.”1 My returning comment to him follows.
Or, we are seeing the result of a lack of accountability because there are few repercussions to one’s actions.
For CrowdStrike, the financial cost of thoroughly testing a significant software update on a diverse range of non-vital systems is a deterrent. It’s cheaper to skip this step, especially when there are minimal repercussions for a company whose software is crucial and installed on most of the Free World’s significant systems.
Boeing, a key player in the US economy, can afford to cut corners. Yes, there may be a plane crash or two, but the profits from skipping one or two inspection steps far outweigh the costs of settlements. After all, Boeing’s strategic importance to the US, as the manufacturer of the F-15 and many of the world’s commercial aircraft, provides a buffer against market pressures.
The purported system of checks and balances in free market capitalism, such as supply and demand, is significantly disrupted when a near-monopoly is established by a certain product or corporation. This imbalance in market forces becomes more pronounced once a product becomes vital, buffering the company from many market pressures. I.e., you can skip steps and fail without paying the piper.
The growth in unsupervised monopolies with the false drive to drop regulations has led to an environment where safety is simply a number on a spreadsheet. If the price for lack of accountability or customer/worker safety is below a certain level, it is cheaper to take a chance than to prepare beforehand.
The Secret Service case is a different matter that bears no relation to CrowdStrike or Boeing. “No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength.”2 “In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”3 “A perfect tactical plan is like a unicorn because anyone can tell you what one looks like, but no one has actually ever seen one.”4
Theoretically, that roof was covered. It had been noticed, brought up, and responsibility assigned. The plan left an unexpected hole in the security perimeter. The police claim they communicated that they were short-handed. The Secret Service claims they did not receive such communication. The investigation will help show what may have happened. Blaming it purely on the Secret Service is vastly inaccurate but helpful to a party trying to take the Federal government apart as much as possible. The probability of an untrained person barely above a teenager being able to find a crack in the battle plan is infinitesimal. But that is battle!
The immediate post-shooting demand by the House oversight committee is little more than overt political posturing. The post-event incident analyses will still need to be finished or evaluated. But, the “hearing” will provide a spectacle that will play well during our major election season.
Will the Secret Service be found responsible? Well, certainly they will! It is a pre-ordained result, even if it turns out that the police needed to appropriately communicate their inability to fully cover their assigned perimeter parts. The Secret Service may indeed have blown their responsibilities. But, at this time, we do not know. Saying that they are guilty at this point is premature. It amounts to little more than saying that the captain of a ship is responsible for everything that happens on his or her boat. That may be true as a doctrine, but it is unhelpful for evaluating an incident.
Leave a Reply