6 ms·

I think maybe you have to think about the total economic impact for the article and frustration to make more sense. Fuel is a very fundamental part of our econo

I think maybe you have to think about the total economic impact for the article and frustration to make more sense. Fuel is a very fundamental part of our economy and almost always goes toward producing much more value than the value of the fuel itself. Add to that, shortages can and do contribute to irreversible losses like loss of life. If every gas distributor shut down because ransomware hit them all, you could completely grind the country to a halt. It's not too far fetched either to hope that their customers would be willing to self-report. Sure you might get some people who'd take advantage of the situation, but it's not a the total loss scenario of giving away your product for free that you're talking about. Add in the opportunity cost and shutting down delivery if you have alternatives that may not be 100% accurate billing is probably a net loss for the company, though it's impossible to say. > I'm still trying to find out what actually happened in Israel but god forbid a news source or commentator actually lay out the details of a complicated situation... (if you're not getting everybody pissed off about X, then you're not doing your job as a reporter?) It's a bit ironic to take a morals-over-profit stance on reporting right after having taken the profit-over-morals stance of gas pipelines.

londons_explore 5y ago
I wonder if there is a capitalistic approach so solving this problem (making incentives align between the needs of the fuel distributor and that of the economy in the case of technical failure)? The only approach I see is perhaps to have written into contracts with all buyers some kind of compensation for the pipeline being unavailable per hour. Then colonial will prefer to have the pipeline turned on handing out free fuel because it's cheaper than the compensation for turning off.
MattGaiser 5y ago
> It's not too far fetched either to hope that their customers would be willing to self-report. Sure you might get some people who'd take advantage of the situation Would you bet millions of dollars on the goodness of the typical person?
- thanatos519 5y ago
  > Would you bet millions of dollars on the goodness of the typical person? Somewhere in that question is an answer to the Fermi paradox!
- sam_lowry_ 5y ago
  That's how credit card processing operated worldwide for many decades. That's also how hawala works. And Wikipedia, if you want a non-monetary example. They are all literally trusting in the goodness of the typical person. And then doing some careful analysis and planning. And fraud detection for the rare misdeeds.
  - alibarber 5y ago
    But a credit card still keeps track of how much you spend - it doesn't rely on you honestly reporting how much you spent over the month...
    - neltnerb 5y ago
      Oh, I think they are talking about the earlier period where you just did a carbon copy of the card, got it signed, and if the card was a fake there was certainly no way to tell at the time. It would be the equivalent of a bad check, talking the days before swipe machines.
      - alibarber 5y ago
        I guess, but discounting active fraud, there is still a paper trail of how much you spent; The bank will still have said "We think you owe us $100, here is our reasoning based on things you signed" never "you spent some amount of money we're not sure of - please give it to us" or "all of our customers spent $1million, so let us have your share, whatever you think that may be" as would be the case here. Yes, the system would fall apart if you disputed every single transaction and made them supply irrefutable evidence you did in fact authorise the transaction - but it doesn't revolve entirely on the trust that people will keep their own account of what they think they spent.
austincheney 5y ago
If only the world economy ran on tears and sympathy instead of recorded transactions. I should pray that all my utility and food providers function without charging me money... until they go bankrupt and I am left with neither.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  You'd probably be pretty pissed if your electricity provider suffered a ransomware attack on its billing system and then decided to stop your heating completely on its own accord because it can't know if you're paying your fair share.
  - austincheney 5y ago
    They do that anyways here even without ransomware attacks. There were all kinds of articles about it on the front page of HN.
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      When?
      - ForHackernews 5y ago
        Texas recently shut down their power grid when it got cold out because it was cheaper than weatherproofing or suffering the regulations to interconnect with other neighbouring states.
        Hamuko 5y ago
        That's not in any way similar. The Colonial Pipeline was not shut down because they ran out of petroleum to distribute.
        ForHackernews 5y ago
        Grandparent commenter with "Austin" in his name was saying his power gets shut off even w/out ransomware. Parent commenter asked "when?" and I answered the question. I'm not taking a position on the similarity or dissimilarity between shutting down a service because you can't bill accurately and shutting down a service because you refuse to interoperate with other providers. All I'm saying is Texas customers did get their electricity cut off recently.
IQunder130 5y ago
>It's not too far fetched either to hope that their customers would be willing to self-report. Spoken like someone who has never done business.
- sam0x17 5y ago
  Spoken like someone who would let critical public infrastructure get privatized by a corporate monopoly.
  - IQunder130 5y ago
    Somewhat of a moot point when said infrastructure is already private. You can use the misaligned incentives to argue against private ownership of infrastructure, but criticizing a business for doing business is barking up the wrong tree.
    - sam0x17 5y ago
      It's not a moot point if we can create regulation or government takeover of said infrastructure. Conversations like this are the first step towards creating those kinds of regulations. It's only moot if you make it moot. When a private business completely controls a public utility and fails to act in the public's interest it is time to have this conversation because they have their hands all over something that should be in the hands of the public.
      - IQunder130 5y ago
        My point is that any business would have done the same. Expecting one to not look out for its own bottom line and rely on the kind heartedness of its customers is misguided. The problem is with the game, not the player.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

londons_explore 5y ago

I wonder if there is a capitalistic approach so solving this problem (making incentives align between the needs of the fuel distributor and that of the economy in the case of technical failure)? The only approach I see is perhaps to have written into contracts with all buyers some kind of compensation for the pipeline being unavailable per hour. Then colonial will prefer to have the pipeline turned on handing out free fuel because it's cheaper than the compensation for turning off.

MattGaiser 5y ago

> It's not too far fetched either to hope that their customers would be willing to self-report. Sure you might get some people who'd take advantage of the situation Would you bet millions of dollars on the goodness of the typical person?

thanatos519 5y ago
> Would you bet millions of dollars on the goodness of the typical person? Somewhere in that question is an answer to the Fermi paradox!
sam_lowry_ 5y ago
That's how credit card processing operated worldwide for many decades. That's also how hawala works. And Wikipedia, if you want a non-monetary example. They are all literally trusting in the goodness of the typical person. And then doing some careful analysis and planning. And fraud detection for the rare misdeeds.
- alibarber 5y ago
  But a credit card still keeps track of how much you spend - it doesn't rely on you honestly reporting how much you spent over the month...
  - neltnerb 5y ago
    Oh, I think they are talking about the earlier period where you just did a carbon copy of the card, got it signed, and if the card was a fake there was certainly no way to tell at the time. It would be the equivalent of a bad check, talking the days before swipe machines.
    - alibarber 5y ago
      I guess, but discounting active fraud, there is still a paper trail of how much you spent; The bank will still have said "We think you owe us $100, here is our reasoning based on things you signed" never "you spent some amount of money we're not sure of - please give it to us" or "all of our customers spent $1million, so let us have your share, whatever you think that may be" as would be the case here. Yes, the system would fall apart if you disputed every single transaction and made them supply irrefutable evidence you did in fact authorise the transaction - but it doesn't revolve entirely on the trust that people will keep their own account of what they think they spent.

austincheney 5y ago

If only the world economy ran on tears and sympathy instead of recorded transactions. I should pray that all my utility and food providers function without charging me money... until they go bankrupt and I am left with neither.

Hamuko 5y ago
You'd probably be pretty pissed if your electricity provider suffered a ransomware attack on its billing system and then decided to stop your heating completely on its own accord because it can't know if you're paying your fair share.
- austincheney 5y ago
  They do that anyways here even without ransomware attacks. There were all kinds of articles about it on the front page of HN.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    When?
    - ForHackernews 5y ago
      Texas recently shut down their power grid when it got cold out because it was cheaper than weatherproofing or suffering the regulations to interconnect with other neighbouring states.
      - Hamuko 5y ago
        That's not in any way similar. The Colonial Pipeline was not shut down because they ran out of petroleum to distribute.
        ForHackernews 5y ago
        Grandparent commenter with "Austin" in his name was saying his power gets shut off even w/out ransomware. Parent commenter asked "when?" and I answered the question. I'm not taking a position on the similarity or dissimilarity between shutting down a service because you can't bill accurately and shutting down a service because you refuse to interoperate with other providers. All I'm saying is Texas customers did get their electricity cut off recently.

IQunder130 5y ago

>It's not too far fetched either to hope that their customers would be willing to self-report. Spoken like someone who has never done business.

sam0x17 5y ago
Spoken like someone who would let critical public infrastructure get privatized by a corporate monopoly.
- IQunder130 5y ago
  Somewhat of a moot point when said infrastructure is already private. You can use the misaligned incentives to argue against private ownership of infrastructure, but criticizing a business for doing business is barking up the wrong tree.
  - sam0x17 5y ago
    It's not a moot point if we can create regulation or government takeover of said infrastructure. Conversations like this are the first step towards creating those kinds of regulations. It's only moot if you make it moot. When a private business completely controls a public utility and fails to act in the public's interest it is time to have this conversation because they have their hands all over something that should be in the hands of the public.
    - IQunder130 5y ago
      My point is that any business would have done the same. Expecting one to not look out for its own bottom line and rely on the kind heartedness of its customers is misguided. The problem is with the game, not the player.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]