[FRC Blog] Einstein Report Released

[Libby K]

Okay, it's that time again where Libby chimes in with a seemingly unpopular opinion.
I want to stress that I am not trying to be accusatory, and I'm also not speaking for any of my teams, for FIRST, or for my family.
This is all me, and only me.

Originally Posted by Billfred

As much as I can, I use the concept of gracious professionalism as an internal yardstick. However, I have a really hard time believing anyone would think that the correct way of carrying yourself when in possession of an issue like this is to disrupt the climax of FIRST's largest, most-anticipated, most-covered event.

If you'd like to make a point, to an FTA, email someone at FIRST. Don't ruin the biggest event of the year and make a fool (or, you know, a criminal) out of yourself in the process.

I personally hope for the team to come forward. If this individual were acting alone, and the team can honestly say they didn't know about it, then the team should be able to say "Yes, Jimmy (or Susie) McHacker was a part of our team, we didn't know at the time what was going on, but our team didn't condone the behavior and they are no longer on the team because of their action. We're really sorry." (Obviously, being banned from the team is no longer necessary since they're barred from FIRST, but that's not the point.) Yes, there will still be people in this community that will reflect the actions of the individual onto the team... but those people would be wrong, and we'd know that.

Originally Posted by Gigakaiser

...the team (or whoever on the team is aware of the individual) should release the information and acknowledge that it was an individual, not a team effort. Imagine the reputation of the team if the information came out sometime in the future by another source - it would not look good. If the team came out it would be seen as a gracious step forward...

Originally Posted by Gigakaiser

Should the team then remain anonymous to avoid potential scrutiny? Again, what if the information was released by another source? Coming forward now would be the best way to avoid scrutiny at a greater scale.

^Exactly. It looks far better for the team to come forward now than have it disclosed at a later date by another team/individual... and knowing our community, that's going to happen at some point.

Originally Posted by LeelandS

I'm sure (or at least, I hope) this person is truly remorseful for their actions. If they have seen a fraction of these responses, I'm sure they'd know that their actions deeply upset a large number of people. The last thing this person would need is to be forever known as "The person who ruined Einstein." If their identity were to become public, let's face it: No FIRSTer in the world could look at them the same way. They would be faced with eyes of raw disdain and disappointment. All respect from the FIRST community would be lost, or at least severely damaged. I, personally, don't think anyone deserves that.

You're taking an incredible moral high road, and saying that this person feels sorry. Good for you for believing in people, but what if they don't?! Unfortunately I've seen plenty of attitudes that say "I'm GLAD Einstein screwed up, because FIRST sucks and they had it coming". Paraphrased from many emails/FB comments/tweets/what have you, but that's the sentiment.

Originally Posted by Gregor

For this one person who deliberately tried to sabotage the event, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who would condone in. Lets remember that one rogue person shouldn't be regarded as a significant change in FIRST culture.

I think you meant 'condemn' and not 'condone' but your point shines through. I sincerely hope this individual was acting alone and that this does not reflect a change in FIRST culture.

--

Regardless of the individual I want to thank the wonderful people at FIRST HQ, the volunteers that helped with the testing process, and, of course, the Einstein teams. This is the biggest disaster FIRST has ever seen and you all handled it with class and professionalism. Thank you for being shining examples of what FIRST teams and participants should be, even during the bad times.

I'll leave you with a Woodie quote...

"Understanding that gracious professionalism works is not rocket science. It is, however, missing in too many activities. At FIRST it is alive and well. Please help us take care of it."

Thank you, all, for helping us take care of it.

[Nate Laverdure]

Wow, I just found this:

14 Jul 2012 10:00 EST
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SAMSUNG TO WITHDRAW FROM AMERICAN MARKET FOLLOWING ATTACK BY ROGUE DEVICE

The actions of the individual Samsung Galaxy Nexus device that deliberately disrupted the 28 Apr 2012 Einstein matches were reprehensible and unjustifiable. Samsung vehemently denies any knowledge of, or participation in, these activities. These actions were undertaken without the knowledge and consent of Samsung and in no way should be considered to represent what is considered acceptable for a Samsung device.

Samsung will make all possible efforts to identify and bring to justice the specific device responsible for the actions of 28 Apr. In addition, Samsung is committed to prevent all future occurrences of this kind of attack by rogue devices. For this reason, Samsung and its corporate partners are taking immediate action to shut down all US and Canadian manufacturing and sales activity, followed by a phased withdrawal from the North American market. Additional details will be forthcoming.

For information contact:
Samsung Electronics America
85 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ

I personally applaud this bold move from Samsung. They've understood that we won't be able to move forward as a community until the individual Galaxy Nexus phone, and Samsung as a whole, is held to account.

[shawnz]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Wow, I just found this:

[...]

I personally applaud this bold move from Samsung. They've understood that we won't be able to move forward as a community until the individual Galaxy Nexus phone, and Samsung as a whole, is held to account.

Too subtle?

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by shawnz

Too subtle?

Yeah, I guess. My fault.

All: Disregard the above, maybe I'll try again later.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Wow, I just found this:

I personally applaud this bold move from Samsung. They've understood that we won't be able to move forward as a community until the individual Galaxy Nexus phone, and Samsung as a whole, is held to account.

I assume you are making a joke, but I can't figure out what point you are trying to make.

[Greg McKaskle]

My own personal wish is that this situation will serve as a somber discussion point within each team. What would the correct response be if YOU found this or a similar issue? What if ... 's are a very valuable teaching tool for life, and the FIRST community is a safe harbor for learning so many of those life tools.

The fact that this statistically unlikely combination of wifi components left the door to the FIRST field partially unlocked doesn't make it that unique. A lost wallet, an unlocked or easily bypassed physical door, an online account with a weak password, all of these take place day-to-day and are worth considering and discussing along with the Einstein vulnerability. All systems have weaknesses, and for me it is cultural expectations more than the strengths of the locks that provide a sense of security in my day to day life. I am not intending to make excuses for the field issues. Locks and alarms are certainly a necessary part of the solution, but what really counts is how people behave when the lock is missing and there are no witnesses.

Relatively speaking, I'm still new to FIRST, and I'm still amazingly proud of the impact it has on people. The level of trust and generosity displayed within the community is practically unparalleled. And yet, it will not maintain itself. It can be improved. I hope that the ultimate outcome of this unfortunate situation is that thousands of individuals consider their own actions in this and similar what if ... scenarios and use it as motivation for self-improvement.

Greg McKaskle

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Wow, I just found this:

I personally applaud this bold move from Samsung. They've understood that we won't be able to move forward as a community until the individual Galaxy Nexus phone, and Samsung as a whole, is held to account.

Considering that Samsung just release the Samsung S3 I am holding in my hand forgive me if I doubt the validity of this statement in the sense it could be taken.

Such a move would financially utterly destroy their company and in point of fact cause massive financial damage to the manufacturers that support them.

Besides they are already banned from selling the Nexus:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...amsung-s-nexus

[O'Sancheski]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Wow, I just found this:

I personally applaud this bold move from Samsung. They've understood that we won't be able to move forward as a community until the individual Galaxy Nexus phone, and Samsung as a whole, is held to account.

Do you have the source for this? Because to my understanding, Apple sued Samsung and told them to stop producing the Nexus.

[IndySam]

I am constantly amazed at how sarcasm challenged many people are Nate.

[shawnz]

It's a joke, guys. I think he was trying to make an analogy between incriminating individuals and incriminating a whole team. It's not a great analogy for a lot of reasons, though.

EDIT: Late

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by O'Sancheski

Do you have the source for this? Because to my understanding, Apple sued Samsung and told them to stop producing the Nexus.

To be clear they can't stop the production of the Nexus or the Galaxy Tab 10.1. I can produce anything I like and so can they (assuming it's not something subject to military restriction). They just can't sell them in the American market.

I can in point of fact still buy the Nexus, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (GameStop has them) and of course the Galaxy Tab2 10.1 (which I just returned the other day for specific technical reasons).

The court did not order them to even empty the distribution of the product. Merely to stop offering to sell new stock until the matter is resolved.

Adding:

Sorry but that's sort of not a funny joke. You do realize that I have relatives that supply parts to Samsung and I know other FIRST members that if they read that would be wondering where their paycheck will come from. It's a tough economy out there, and this is a popular topic for people to read. Please think before you spoof your joke might not be funny if someone else panics. Misunderstandings like that can themselves shift the value of a stock.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Wow, I just found this:

I personally applaud this bold move from Samsung. They've understood that we won't be able to move forward as a community until the individual Galaxy Nexus phone, and Samsung as a whole, is held to account.

My mom's 3 day old Galaxy S3 randomly died this morning. This makes sense.

Anyway, I don't think the team nor the individual needs to come forward. The team could easily come out and say that they didn't know about it/weren't involved with it, but whose to say that's the truth? I could easily say right now, "I did it.", and if I phrased it as an eloquent apology, people would believe me.*

Also, just a random idea here, whose to say the team knows about it? Maybe the interferer didn't tell his/her team why they were leaaving, and just treated it as a retirement or something.

Just throwing out some possible scenarios here.


*For the record, no, that was not a confession, wasn't a smartphone owner when I was at CMP, and I was the only one on my team there.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Libby K

Unfortunately I've seen plenty of attitudes that say "I'm GLAD Einstein screwed up, because FIRST sucks and they had it coming". Paraphrased from many emails/FB comments/tweets/what have you, but that's the sentiment.

I just wanna say that I personally voiced concerns about several issues that did apparently impact Einstein. I was aware of deauth and what it could do. It's part of my daily responsibility to educate myself in security issues and I knew about that for more than a year...though I never imagined that someone would intentionally do that (assuming they did it intentionally which I think we may never know).

My daily activities involve risk analysis. The shear amount of risk means that more often than mitigate all those risks personally (which in a way I have done with by prototyping some things I've offered to FIRST) I spend time writing up that risk and making it clear to other people that they accept what I deem as those risks by not taking some mitigating action (whether it's the one I recommend or not is up to them).

I've been a vocal advocate that the risks for an outcome like Einstein in robot power quality have been present for too long (for years). That those risks having been under communicated or under addressed could be a real problem and this report somewhat vindicates that point. FIRST is taking the position that they'll educate but the core problem remains. We build robots that crash into things, are moved frequently while not under power and the same is true for the field. Things are going to break. It doesn't matter how much you write reports people need the tools to diagnose those issues within the time frame the competition offers.

I tried to offer FIRST assistance at Einstein via communications in this forum and later via communications up to and including requests in the official forum. As a majority the risks were accepted that's not my job to do a little dance of pride about that when what I worried about happened.

It is however part of the healing process to make it clear in the aftermath that we can't ignore the underlying process that accepted this risk and insure that in the future we all more fully acknowledge the risks going in.

There are tragic moments in my life where I have pointed out risks to people and a great number of people died including dozens of friends of mine because they took a risk I deemed as reckless and complacent. You can stand there in shock and worry about laying blame or use the failed responsibilities as a tool to honor that which was lost with practical goals in mind.

I just want to make it extremely clear. I personally get no joy from being right when something bad happens I may have warned about. It reminds me every day that people often set their priorities in ways that take risks and don't know what to do once the risk is proven with consequences.

FIRST has expended a great effort with this report. However, this is hardly the end of it. This demands that FIRST consider ways to make sure that power quality issues can be analyzed with in the time frames they desire to operate. It further demands they more actively consider the security risks to their communications systems moving forward in the grander sense beyond this one deauth issue. To do anything less is to ignore the lesson cause and effect is offering.

What isn't apparent from this report because it hyper focuses on Einstein is how much of this happened years before and how much of it happened into the seeding up to Einstein. The fact is it is entirely possible that the whole of the competition was shaped by deauth and power quality issues in no small way.

[LeelandS]

Originally Posted by Libby K

You're taking an incredible moral high road, and saying that this person feels sorry. Good for you for believing in people, but what if they don't?! Unfortunately I've seen plenty of attitudes that say "I'm GLAD Einstein screwed up, because FIRST sucks and they had it coming". Paraphrased from many emails/FB comments/tweets/what have you, but that's the sentiment.

Maybe my moral road borders on "So high, the oxygen is too thin up there." So I understand what you mean. But for right now, it's "What if..." vs. "What if...". We don't know the person's motives. We don't know how they feel about their actions. Maybe they really do feel bad, maybe there is no remorse what-so-ever. We just don't know.

In my personal views, any way we slice it, all involved parties remaining anonymous just seems like the best route. Realistically, what does the person coming public do for the FIRST community and, possibly more importantly, the 12 Einstein teams. Obviously 1114 wants the team/individual to come forward, but what obligation does the team/individual have? Yes, it would be the "Bigger man" thing to come forward. But they don't need to come out publicly to apologize. I would recommend that the person in question write a personal letter to each of the 12 Einstein teams, FIRST, and MAYBE an anonymous letter addressing the FIRST community. I don't think we have any business knowing, personally, who the person or team is.

That's just my view. Maybe I'm being to forgiving or careless. Oh well.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by LeelandS

Maybe my moral road borders on "So high, the oxygen is too thin up there." So I understand what you mean. But for right now, it's "What if..." vs. "What if...". We don't know the person's motives. We don't know how they feel about their actions. Maybe they really do feel bad, maybe there is no remorse what-so-ever. We just don't know.

In my personal views, any way we slice it, all involved parties remaining anonymous just seems like the best route. Realistically, what does the person coming public do for the FIRST community and, possibly more importantly, the 12 Einstein teams. Obviously 1114 wants the team/individual to come forward, but what obligation does the team/individual have? Yes, it would be the "Bigger man" thing to come forward. But they don't need to come out publicly to apologize. I would recommend that the person in question write a personal letter to each of the 12 Einstein teams, FIRST, and MAYBE an anonymous letter addressing the FIRST community. I don't think we have any business knowing, personally, who the person or team is.

That's just my view. Maybe I'm being to forgiving or careless. Oh well.

The real risk is statistical. If we know the team by admission then the number of suspects for the individual is reduced to below 300 people. Then all you need to do is cull the list of former team members from the last year and you're down below 50 people who could have done the deed. That's actually a small enough number that a dogged investigator will find the person in question shortly and with specifics.

I wouldn't be surprised if FIRST has bound them legally to silence it would be the smart move.