Open Fabs

Wed Jul 29 18:47:21 PDT 2015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/29/2015 08:59 PM, grarpamp wrote:
[ ... ]

>> That's why I am much more interested in the prospects of a
>> manufacturing process built for radical transparency, using
>> "commercial best practice" technology
> 
> All part of it.
> 
>> at conventional production facilities.
> 
> Except this, unless you're demonstrating a way to convince
> these untrustable closed entities to open up their entire
> process and production line for your inspection pursuant to
> each and every audited run you want to put through it. If
> you're not, then you can't be certain that what you put in is
> what you get out.

That's exactly what I'm talking about:  Essentially taking over
the production process and working alongside facility staff, with
particular attention to choke points where validation is both
possible and productive.  ISO quality programs include provision
for onsite participation by clients; it's more a question of
money, and picking a facility that can readily accommodate the
requirements, than of getting anyone to open up any closed
process.  This might deprive one of the advantages of "commercial
trade secret" techniques belonging to the facility's owners, but
that's kind of the whole point of the exercise.  Smaller
facilities with older equipment would be better prospects than the
mega-shops.

One should never be certain that one is receiving exactly what was
specified, regardless of validaiton.  Somewhere, the rising curve
of security costs will cross a falling curve of security risks,
and that's as good a place as any to draw a line.  Mark the other
side of the line "here be dragons - maybe."  End users can pick up
any perceived slack if and as they want to spend the money to do so.

>> IMO the same kind of radical transparency should apply to
>> all industrial processes that pose large potential hazards to
>> public health & safety, i.e. nuclear power stations,
>> transgenic agriculture, etc.
> 
> You should be able to read the as-built blueprints of all of
> these things online, access all areas of plants for independant
> inspection, raise enforceable design and safety flags, etc.

Damn straight.  I'm especially picky about the inspection records
of nuclear power facilities; IMO they should include video of the
inspectors at work, especially in hazardous / PITA locations they
might be inclined to skip.  I recall at least one case where
reactor inspection logs were casually falsified for years, very
nearly causing a catastrophic core breach due to undetected
containment vessel deterioration located "around a corner and out
of sight" from casual view.