Re: automagic notifications and coordination...

--------
SUMMARY:  

Regarding the "Emergency Telecommunications cluster",
it seems to me that this has to be thought through a
lot more carefully than it ever has before, since the
ontology is meant to enable a very different type of
emergency response than has been practiced previously.

Newt Gingrich suggests that a modern disaster response
system must resemble "a cross between E-Bay, Craig’s
List, and an online dating service. Those who need
help will be signaling to those who have help to give
and they will be mutually interacting with minimum
bureaucratic interference."  He is probably right:

The requests and offers can be sent by shortwave or
carrier pigeon or motorcycle courier.  The supplies
can go by local bus or donkey train.  The transactions
can involve private donors, including donors of
logistics and transport and storage services, and
volunteers.  Regardless of how they are reached or how
they commit, their coordination is going to require
the Internet anyway.  Accordingly, the faster the call
for help reaches the Internet and the later the offer
or authorization to deliver certain supplies leaves
the Internet, the better.  Net-centric coordination
may be the only way to deal with disasters that make
workplaces inaccessible but leave communications in
general intact (such as a pandemic or most conflicts).

Relying on non-emergency-specific services and means
of communication wherever possible (for logistics, for
finding volunteers) may be the most practical way
forward if only because it focuses the ER experts on
the actual emergency, not on supply chains, not on
calls for help, not on telecom or logistics.

While some disaster-specific protocols may be required
until communications is re-established and reliable,
and may help ease the load on cell phone and satellite
networks, the long term trend is towards IPv6 used on
all devices from power-saving home automation systems
(IEEE 802.15.4) to terabit switches.  RFID and QR code
and the GPS capabilities of cell phones should all be
thought of as extending the reach of the IPv6 network.

Because all these devices all need DC power, either
from (5 volt) USB or (12 volt) vehicle-style batteries
or (much less desirable) other types of batteries, the
ontology must probably deal with DC power supply/load
as a capability of a facility or vehicle or device or
item.  This could be done by importing some IEEE
terms.

Resilience is radically improved by relying on these
methods, which use much less power and require much
less travel than any method based on people moving
around, such as William's need to travel to the Gulf
Coast because information wasn't available from home. 


AC power grids probably should be considered a luxury
and in any case are often the first things to fail -
in many countries they're so unreliable they might as
well not exist.  When they work, they probably should
only be used to charge batteries or stationary fuel
cells, freeze things, boil water and call for more DC
power sources like solar panels to be shipped in fast.

------

Quentin says:
> An expressive ontology of resilience is harder 
> because it involves many different institutions,  
> from local communities to national planning
agencies. 
>... 
>I think the US effort is developing a relatively 
>thorough ontology of  
>response phase communications and subsequently

Yes, but, as I understand it (see Newt Gingrich quotes
below), it's ITC may rely on things like WiMax relays
and perhaps mesh network relays dropped on parachutes
which are recovered later.  It is actually easier to
solve some problems by throwing hardware at them, and
Internet resilience may be one of those.  This
approach may not be appropriate yet for many other
places in the world, however.  VHF, shortwave,
satellite radio, may only be able to move short
messages and it's important they be efficient.

I'd like to see the ontology be aware of the various
paths by which messages are sent during outages, for
instance resource requests that compile down to as few
radio call letters as possible so they can be repeated
over shortwave.  That is, someone gives the P-code
(or, better GPS coordinates) and some incomprehensible
string like "FH5R2X60B1QRQ" which decompresses to
"drop us fifty units of plasma and three 12 volt solar
power rechargers plus a water purifier before Monday
or six people will likely die" when it's fed into
software at the receiving end.  An advantage of this
technique is that it's opaque to the parties relaying
the message, so if it's controversial or sensitive or
involves moving resources away from a relaying party's
own group or region, it's not obvious.

And no one can really tell if it's encrypted or not...

>resource management,  
>but resilience will be a much bigger [t]ask.

Yes, it's harder, but can it be avoided?  William
seems to suggest that the problem may not be solved by
the same thinking that has failed to solve it before,
and when he mentions a National Guard unit "looting"
FEMA warehouses, I think of this "ontology of chaos"
but I also think of how one manages the transition
back to order.  Perhaps one thinks of everyone as a
"looter" in the first 72 hours after a disaster, and
asks them merely to indicate - in exchange for amnesty
- what they took from where in order that authorities
may repay the owner on some reasonable basis
afterward.

William also raises the question of unreliable
infrastructure and uncertain information, which
probably dominates a disaster scenario more than any
other kind.  It's definitely one of the considerations
that differentiates these situations from others.  

That said, as Paola and Gavin indicate, there are at
least a few classes of disaster where infrastructure
isn't likely to be affected directly, but can still
fail due to personnel outages, sabotage and conflict. 
Pandemic or conflict scenarios are of this nature.  

Any AC power grid infrastructure is probably most
likely to cease to function, even more than telecom or
VHF or AM or FM which are usually required to have
backup power precisely because they are needed in
emergencies.  When they fail it's almost certainly due
to relying on AC power anyway.  Eventually Internet
will be robust also thanks to mesh networks, WiFi and
especially WiMax.  IPv6 can run on very little power
as 802.15.4 proves.

When the grid is out, that in itself is a big problem
but maybe the way to solve it is to simply assume it
doesn't work, and when it happens to work, using it to
recharge the batteries, ice and boiled or filtered or
pumped water supplies.

The batteries may be the worst problem.  The sheer
quantity of power consumed by field devices can be
surprising.  A figure I've heard about the US forces
in Iraq is that they receive three shipping containers
full of batteries for every one of food.  

Power quality also can matter drastically for medical
and communications use.  Hospitals in North America
use colour coding to designate which plugs are of
which quality AC power and which will be kept
operating in an emergency scenario.  AC power, though,
is a luxury in disaster zones, AC inverters eat up at
least a third of the power, and for low-voltage
devices AC is extremely inefficient.  USB provides
very high quality 5 volt power and is probably the
standard for the future, or 802.3af powered Ethernet. 
Either way the data and power moves through one plug
which is a very major advantage in any crisis
situatino.

I'd tenatively suggest that three variables are
critical in any description of any infrastructure
outages or devices/methods to be used during such
outages:

- DC voltage - many devices run on DC power and use AC
  only with a transformer that converts and wastes it;

  If there's a reliable 5 volt (Universal Serial Bus)
  or 12 volt (car battery) source in a location then
  you want to know that, if the device will run on it
  directly then you want to know that.  

  Most electronic batteries today are still nine volt,
  and hand tools often run on 18 volt, but expect both
  to recharge from the laptop or the truck in future -
  many cell phones already charge from 5 volts USB and
  you may see it in your house soon.

- Internet connectivity - can you get an IP number or 
  not?  If so, how sporadically?  Finding the working
  WiFi/mesh/WiMax hot spots may allow reconnection of
  the Internet much faster if relays can be moved to 
  the intersection points between those hot spots and
  routing software adjusted to restore the packet
flow.

  IPv6 has excellent provisions for doing this sort of
  thing, and there are standards for very low power IP
  (IEEE 802.15.4) intended for home automation but
that
  may have applications also for, say, refugee camps.

  In combination with RFID tags, for instance, it may
  be possible to assign an IPv6 IP number to literally
  every pair of shoes or food packet and find hoarders
  and thieves relatively quickly with some spot audits
  by people walking through the camp.

  Or, a destination could be assigned a QR code and a
  corresponding URI and anyone who scanned it could be
  told exactly what to do to ensure it gets where it's
  supposed to go.

- non-Internet connectivity - the shortwave or VHF or
  short range FM transceivers which may allow at least
  the makeshift coded packets I suggest to be sent, in
  one of several forms.  You could for instance encode
  them from a handbook even if you had no working cell
  phone.  Many multi-band transceivers now are quite
  programmable and run Java as readily as cell phones
  so it's not inconceivable to execute the encoding or
  even relay IP packets or use digital radio
standards.

  I suspect it's now rational to think of everything
  as a subset of IPv6 connectivity, since it handles
  everything from light switches to terabit cables to
  storage areas networks now.

  In other words, think of the shortwave communication
  as effectively a way to construct an IPv6 packet for
  something to decode.  The more you can get into one
  packet, the better, it can just be resent and resent
  until it gets through.

  Packets can even go by carrier pigeon (don't laugh,
  some microchip companies used to send their designs 
  to fabrication this way in the 1980s as it was
  faster than any digital method they had available).

So, when someone gets a carrier pigeon packet or a
shortwave transmission, they enter it in a cell phone
or web form, and it all gets eventually to the same
transaction system.

Since cell phones now have GPS capabilities built in
one can at least tell where the message was received
from.

This would deal well with the situation William here
describes:

--- William Waites <ww@groovy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:56:28AM +0700,
> In the wake of the hurricanes, the
> *entire* communications
> infrastructure in the region was destroyed. The
> first things to come on
> line were VHF repeaters, and as well a
> (repeaterless) HF (shortwave)
> net was used for early coordination. Several weeks

My suggestion is that the power required for these
devices and the protocols required to relay succinct
requests for, and offers of, help in the absence of
more conventional means to exchange them, is
paramount.

Without that, none of the other eight "clusters" work.

> later some cell sites
> were re-constructed but they quickly became
> overwhealmed (except perhaps
> for some prioritized traffic).

Another good reason to use programs on cell phones to
pass on encoded requests for help (which may even be
invisible to the user) is that it takes far less
bandwidth than panicky voices.  If people realize that
an encoded digital request is going to get through
much more reliably than voice which a human has to
listen to, they will quickly learn to use that UI.  At
least, those people handling a lot of other peoples'
problems (nursing home attendants, doctors, religious
authorities, social workers, etc.) can be taught these
protocols in advance or trained in them on the fly.

It works on receipt, too.  Cell phones have cameras on
them now, which can read barcodes or QR codes (which
carry a lot of information), and should be able to
receive RFID information also.  If supplies go astray
it can be discovered quickly, and perhaps using the RF
capability they could be discovered. For instance, if
something ends up under the seat of a delivery truck
it can be detected as missing and found before the
truck leaves. 

So, I'm suggesting, these request and offer and
acceptance and receipt packets are the highest
priority traffic, no matter from where they originate.
 You can filter them for credibility later.  You can
account for any abuse of the system later.  You can
prioritize the ones that come from the most credible
phone numbers.  You can ignore how they got to you, if
they can be verified or checksummed or signed somehow.

Paoloa suggests also that the requests and offers need
not be dealt with only by some group of specialists:
> >    Assume an emergency takes place where I am (I
> seem to have earthquale
> >    follow me everywhere I go these days). My
> friends everywhere else in the
> >    world will still be able to help
> >    me better and faster  if they can pull up
> relevantly filtered information
> >    using normal search engines and browsers.

Correct.  They can even relay offers in case there is
some doubt as to whether they have what is required -
a negotiation could actually be conducted in perhaps
three to seven packets total.  Perhaps even between
instances of say Sahana.  Perhaps even between local
entities that have already received aid and are now
distributing it.  Once developed, the protocol can be
used by anyone. 

One can think of the whole disaster zone as a sort of
freecycle or eBay perhaps.  That's actually what Newt
Gingrich says in his May 2006 white paper on emergency
response:

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3081
"A citizen centered system will inherently be
permissive, coordinating and flexible. It will
consistently seek reasons to say “yes, if” rather than
“no because” when approached by volunteers. To a large
degree this will be a self organizing system using
information technology, expert systems, and citizen
initiative, creativity and goodwill to identify and
solve problems and develop opportunities at a rate
faster than any industrial-bureaucratic system could
possibly keep up. In some ways the design of this new
system (deliberately NOT an ‘administration”) will be
a cross between E-Bay, Craig’s List, and an online
dating service. Those who need help will be signaling
to those who have help to give and they will be
mutually interacting with minimum bureaucratic
interference."

> Yes, assuming some visibility to the scenario on the
> ground. After
> Katrina, the problem was compounded by a complete
> lack of information.
> The only algorithm that worked was to send people
> out into the field
> with radios, gps (the street signs were, for
> example, gone...) and some
> note taking facilities (i.e. paper and pencils) and
> to report back with
> what they could see.

Gingrich addresses this too:

"Since the 21st century system is dependent on
communications and information flow there should be a
system for the immediate establishment of wireless
cell phones and wireless high speed internet in any
disaster area. A combination of aerostats, unmanned
vehicles with repeater systems, mobile easily
installed ground based repeater systems and  other
relatively low cost but high leverage systems should
be stockpiled (or outsourced under contract for
immediate response in a CRAF—civilian reserve air
fleet-model). After 9/11 and Katrina there is no
excuse for the United States ever again to have a zone
of non communications or to have the wireless systems
collapse during the crisis."

> Of course what was lacking was (1) a coordinated way
> of sending out such
> teams (this was mostly done ad-hoc) and (2) a way to
> receive, categorize
> and sort this information.

I doubt that the UN terms Soenke provides are
fine-grained enough for a world of GPS, wireless
Internet and transaction and logistics systems very
much more sophisticated than anything most governments
now use.

Gingrich notes that logistics systems in use now in
modern corporations are quite capable of handling an
anticipated surge in demand for certain supplies.  It
makes little sense to invent such systems specific to
humanitarian aid when it's probably much easier and
more effective to 'borrow Wal-Mart's', so to speak,
and just plug in different types of supplies,
locations and transport (donkeys carrying medical
supplies up mountain paths to refugee camps rather
than trucks carrying Christmas toys to malls).  

This outsourcing may be more straightforward in the
more consuming countries, but the capacity to
outsource to competent locals in transport and
logistics and supply areas exists anywhere.  The
online request-matching approach, which Gingrich
describes as being like a "dating service", lends
itself particularly well to using small suppliers of
transport, storage and distribution.  If nothing else,
small shipments that are easy to track can be used to
test the reliability and timing variations of
different shippers and modes of transport.

Obviously, many such small suppliers are doing these
jobs anyway, just on an unauthorized or ad hoc basis. 


As this example shows:
> ...
> This resulted in, for example, the National Guard
> looting FEMA
> warehouses for medical supplies to give to community
> clinics (set up by
> volunteers in the effective absence of the ARC).
> 
> Of course communicating back to the people on the
> ground in this
> scenario is diffuclt as well...

Reporting "we have looted a warehouse to provide the
following medical supplies to the following clinics"
is just another transaction report.  Saves paperwork
if FEMA knows its warehouse is empty as soon as it is.

A lot of what's going to happen with this ontology is
just such status and event reporting after the fact. 
Gingrich is absolutely right to emphasize the speed
and responsiveness of something run by the citizens. 
Including the US National Guard, who are part-time
soldiers who serve reserves and regular troops in a
logistics capacity in wartime.  It's a logical group
of people to train in any advanced logistics methods
or codes, not least because there are usually a few of
them in any affected area.

I don't consider the warehouse incident even unusual,
frankly.  I think optimizing the ontology to enable
just such initiatives and reporting them may be wise.

An ontology that assumes top-down management structure
for more than the bulk shipping of donated aid items
into ports (including airports) nearest affected areas
may be missing the point.

It's enabling the peer transactions and opportunistic
matches between requests and offers of help that will
really make the difference.  As Paolo suggests when
she emphasizes the role of the open Internet and
search engines rather than any specialized protocols. 
To me those specialized protocols exist only to get
the message out to the Internet, and allow response
from it, not to set up a sort of parallel
emergency-specific system.

The ultimate achievement would be to relay requests
for help directly to forums like craigslist and eBay
and job services, and accept non-cash offers of all
kinds.  A reverse bidding system where donors offer to
fill needs as completely as possible might be
developed if the supply chain becomes well enough
understood.  There are some services already to match
charity volunteers, charity supplies, but I'm not sure
how well they work.  Anyone have an opinion of those?





       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 09:35:52 UTC