Taavi Kotka: Reimagining Estonia's IT System

http://www.ozy.com/rising-stars-and-provocateurs/taavi-kotka-reimagining-estonias-it-system/32101.article

by dirtyaura • 12 years ago

43 19 12 years ago

boobsbr• 12 years ago

I don't think this is a good idea. Forcefully rewriting working systems is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, stagnated systems are also a huge problem, but I don't think setting a hard limit on a system's age is the solution.

tomswartz07• 12 years ago

I went back and forth as I read the article.

I work in the public sector (K12 Education) and I find that many of the problems I deal with are the same impetus for the policy they've used.

You're right, however- I think it should be on a case-by-case basis. It's obvious that heavily used end-user desktops/laptops/etc need to be upgraded at least once every 13 years, but some server hardware might last a bit longer than 15 or so.

I guess it all boils down to cost/reward.

jjoonathan• 12 years ago

The whole problem is that if cost/benefit is evaluated with an artificially reduced benefit horizon (e.g. the period an administrator will spend in a position able to take credit for the improvement) then benefit will be systematically underestimated and outdated system will be irrationally favored. The 13-year policy recognizes this and serves as a stop-loss against the worst of these irrational judgements.

opendais3• 12 years ago

Eh?

http://b2b.cbsimg.net/blogs/data-center-infographic__ashx.jp...

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/data-center/infographic-the...

The replacement cycle is closer to 3 years than 15 in the private sector for hardware.

Major software releases [including those with full rewrites] happen more often than once every 15 years as well.

I'm not sure I buy the full rewrite bit simply because I know things can go horribly, horribly wrong with those. I'd be happier with a 5 year refresh cycle.

imacomputer2• 12 years ago

I imagine that the policy must make exceptions and involve a cost benefit analysis.

Any one with Kotka's level of experience must know that many companies don't rewrite their legacy systems because it is extremely expensive. Otherwise they would do it all the time. You might save in maintenance costs, but the cost of rewriting is much larger.

You usually rewrite software when it no longer does what you want it to do, or the cost of improving it exceeds the cost of rewriting. It can certainly take more than 13 years for the scales to tip in favor of a massive rewrite, especially for backend systems upon which many other systems rely.

breitling• 12 years ago

Estonia is very impressive of how they have kept pace with technology. I think it helps that they have a 34 year old prime minister. Even his predecessors made it a priority to bring tech into government services and the citizens' everyday lives. We can see the benefits of those policies now.

CmonDev• 12 years ago

Yes, they are doing quite well for a nazi country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_alien's_passport

nawitus• 12 years ago

By the way, the e-voting system has multiple security problems:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/12/estonian-e...

jnsaff2• 12 years ago

The same analysts claim having broken it every time, yet the publication of their results is coincidentally always a few weeks before elections.

It is common knowledge in Estonia that this is the work of one political party whose electorate is less computer savvy and therefore they are afraid that more people who would not vote for them would have the chance to vote.

Not to mention that in case of offline voting the actual risks of fraud are much worse.

You can read the official statement about these accusations here: http://www.vvk.ee/valimiste-korraldamine/vvk-uudised/vabarii...

throwaway99954• 12 years ago

How do you verify that the vote placed on the computer is actually counted for the correct party?

If you can verify that, how do you protect the secrecy of the ballot?

throwaway99954• 12 years ago

That said, not everybody is enthusiastic about uploading their country’s secrets onto the cloud. The opposition party, the leftist Central Party, is against it, just as it opposes electronic voting — insisting both initiatives pose too many potential security risks.
But Kotka says all the data will be encrypted and impossible to access or erase without authorization. “You would have to bring the whole Internet down,” he explains, describing it as “untouchable.”

Whenever valid privacy and security concerns are raised with government IT systems (e-voting, centralised health care records, etc), this seems to be the kneejerk reaction: "No, it's all encrypted, you don't need to worry about it."

As a result, it's seems to be completely impossible to have a real discussion of the problems. In this case, this statement does nothing to answer the concerns, and yet it seems it placated the reporter.

lesingerouge• 12 years ago

Mandatory: I want to franchise this country! (http://everything2.com/title/Franchulate)

Taavi Kotka: Reimagining Estonia's IT System

Related Stories