Incidence Response System, Essay Example
- Why is it necessary for a business to have an incident Response System in place? Does your place of employment have one? Explain in detail.
Incident response system plays a major role in an organization for it helps to address and manage the aftermath of an incident either an accident, attack or a security breach. Incident response system will help to handle the situation in a way to limit damage and to recovery costs and time.
Incident response system at my place of work is a policy that clearly defines an incident. It also provides a process that is to be followed on the occurrence of an incident. By following this step by step process any loss of information and system disruption can be minimized and for this effective monitoring and system detection measures will be made use of. Incident response team includes a team of carefully selected personals in addition to security staff and general staff of information technology. Other than those representatives from human resource, public relations and legal department are also included.
In case of an emergency a six step method will be adopted to handle the incident. They are preparing the members of team to update security measures and to respond to network and computer security incidents in a quick and correct manner. Team will have to decide whether that event is a security incident and will contact CERT coordination center. CERT has most recent information on worms and viruses and they track activities of Internet security. Next step is to determine the extent of problem and disconnecting of devises to prevent further damages. Further origin of incident is tracked and traces to malicious code will be removed. Restoration of data from backup files that are clean is the next process and they also ensure that there are no further vulnerabilities. Any sign of recurrence or weakness will be checked in systems. Further recommendations are made to prevent recurrence of similar incident in future.
- Discuss the aftermath of a recent disaster. Describe at least three regulations or procedures and explain how they were applied/or not applied to prevent workers’ exposure to hazardous materials and other harmful conditions.
One of the most recent disasters is BP oil spill in Gulf of Mexico on 20th April 2010. 11 people died and 16 injured in the disaster and it is one of the biggest environmental disasters in US history. Deep-water Horizon burned as a result of explosion and after two days sinks leading to offshore oil spill (John, 2011).
Incident was completely preventable if authorities have adopted adequate measures of disaster management. It was also the result of failure of several regulations. One of them is the absence of OCSLA (Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act) mandate for forcing development of better technologies for safety (Harry & Michael, 2011).
Minerals Management Service (MMS) ignored the requirement in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to foresee significant adverse catastrophic effects even if the situation is that such effects are improbable.
Threat of failure to enforcement of measures given in OCSLA was deterrent. Cost of noncompliance as given in OCSLA was minimal and it was only feeble fines from violators. Maximum fine for civil penalties per day was $35,000 and criminal penalties $100,000 (John, 2011).
It can be seen that BP was performing its operations without complying with regulatory standards and even if they had met with regulatory standards this disaster could have occurred. Regulations need to be stricter when it comes to operations that are risky to human life, marine life and environment. It can also be seen that in this case several regulations and authorities were not concerned about any incident that is likely to occur or it’s after effects making BP oil spill the biggest disaster in history (Harry & Michael, 2011).
- Construct a deductive argument that is valid but not sound. Then, construct a valid deductive argument that is sound. Be sure to put the argument in premise-conclusion form.
On the basis of investigation it was reported by BP that the incident was the result of failure of decision by work teams and multiple companies that was working at the place of incident. According to a report from BP with regard to reason behind the incident, a series of mechanical failure that was complex and interlinked along with human judgments, team interfaces, operational implementation and engineering design led to oil spill (BP, 2010).
BP always tried to drill more oil than to protect or prevent any catastrophe that is likely to happen. The company failed to comply with regulatory measures assuring accident prevention and incident response. It can be seen that the company’s system was designed to work and not on the policy of ‘never fail’. BP was working on the policy of ‘mostly working’ and never thought of ‘never fail’ and it is the aftermath of this decision that came out as history’s largest oil spill (Rick, 2011).
Safety and risk management of BP was not adequate or efficient to prevent possible incidents. Cost of operation of company was routines regularly against environmental protection and safety of its workers. Bp along with Transocean and Halliburton tried to work cheap by saving money and time. This is evident from the report of company that states that the incident was the result of a series of failure both technical and human. It is to be assumed that there was no clear disaster management system at the place of incident and BP failed to foresee such a catastrophe (Harry & Michael, 2011).
- Construct an inductive argument for a specific conclusion. Then, explain what you might do to make this inductive argument stronger, either by revising the premises or by revising the conclusion.
BP failed to foresee an oil spill that is likely to cause environmental hazards and human loss at such big amount. They also failed to comply with several regulatory measures that required conducting operations safely. As BP was dealing with oil and gas any leakage or incident is likely to affect environment and human population. Failure to comply with all these measures lead to largest oil spill in history leading to death of 11 persons (Rick, 2011).
It can be seen that this argument can be supported by several facts. One of them is that BP was following the principle of mostly working and never thought of never failing. BP was already running behind the schedule and that too by weeks. They were operating over budget and the amount was tens of millions of dollars. They had to spent huge amount to construct Macondo well that led to disaster in Gulf of Mexico. As they had already spent large amount BP took several short cuts and it was this turned out to be a disaster. This is evident from the fact that actual cause of explosion was the failure of cement at the well that was situated at the depth of 18,000 feet and was supposed to contain gas and oil with in well bore. This indicates that BP was working on cost cuts and not safety. There was severe violation of several regulations and the company failed to conduct test of well pressure. They were supposed to notify changes in drilling plants to federal regulators which they failed to do (John, 2011).
- Considering the fallacies discussed previously construct three different arguments that displayed distinct fallacy. Give an explanation of why each makes a mistake in drawing the conclusion it does.
One of the arguments of BP is that the disaster was the result of a series of mechanical failure (BP, 2010). It is clear from this argument that company has put forward that they are trying to escape from their responsibility. Mechanical failure was the result of failure on the part of company. It was for BP to make sure that the mechanical systems are working properly. Even if the company has hired systems from contractors, it is their duty to ensure that the system is competent and is in working condition. It is for BP to make sure that they enter in to contract with most efficient and competent people.
Another argument by the company is that human judgments and team interfaced along with operational implementation failed (BP, 2010). It is for BP to provide training to its employees about incident management and safety measures. The employees of company need to assess a situation and take proper decision to handle the incident and avoid further loss. Company cannot blame employees for their failure as it is for BP to make sure that their employees are competent enough to handle any worst and unexpected incident and prevent losses.
Bp also argues that failure of engineering design led to oil spill (BP, 2010). This clearly indicates that the company failed to make sure that the engineering designs are most appropriate to operate under such an environment and is capable enough to withstand pressure. While working in highly sensitive areas like oil and gas well it is necessary to make sure that there are several safety measures. Even if one system fails another has to operate and handle the situation. But there was no such measure at the place of incident. It is for BP to ensure that mechanism adopted and operated by the company is capable enough to meet safety requirements and incidents.
- One rich source of fallacies is the media: television, radio, magazines, and the internet (including, of course, commercials) Identify two distinct fallacies you see committed in the media. Do you think it is more likely that you will not be fooled by these fallacies having studied logic? What do you think those presenting these arguments assume about the logic skills of their viewers? Is this a good or bad assumption for them to make?
It is for sure that media in any form is a rich source of fallacies. Media always spreads a message through commercials and when it comes to incident response system media is a great source of fallacies leading to disasters. There are several advertisements in media about agencies and methods of incident response system. In reality these systems might not be effective for handling incidents. But through advertisements they create a feeling among viewers that with such systems there is no chance of an incident. Another fallacy associated with media is the reports they give of an incident. When an incident occurs media provides with a figure of death toll, injured persons, present position etc. But if an assessment or study is made of such fallacies we will get to know that they are merely fooling the viewers than providing them with actual facts.
Those making such assumptions through media are not concerned about logic skill of viewers. They are merely trying to emotionally tackle their viewers. They are not concerned about after math of such fallacies and merely want to attract viewers to that particular program. When there occurs an incident and 10 people are dead media will report that dead body of ten people are found till now, several are believed to be affected or died though not confirmed by authority. Viewers of such an incident might be relatives or friends of a person involves in that particular incident. Media never consider their feeling while giving such a report. In reality it is a very bad assumption for them to make.
- Provide a scientific hypothesis and explain how one might go about testing it, either by confirming the hypothesis or using Karl Popper’s strategy of disconfirmation. Discuss which of these two strategies is better and why.
Scientific hypothesis are those that one can conduct test. To prove a hypothesis there are two methods, one is to confirm the hypothesis and another is to disconfirm it or is called as Karl Popper’s strategy.
‘Implementing incidence response system in an IT organization will reduce losses occurred from an incidence’, is an example of scientific hypothesis. This hypothesis can be tested using the method of modus ponens. One will have to implement incidence response system in an IT organization and then test it by creating an incident. If the system prevents losses from occurring or reduces the losses the hypothesis is proved.
Another method is to use the method of modus tolens as in Karl Popper’s strategy. In this method we will have to prove that hypothesis is false. We will have to prove that losses will occur to the organization if an incidence response system is not implemented. Thus in this method what is to be proved is that the hypothesis is false. To prove this an incident can be created in an organization and show then the losses incurred due to it. But in this system it is not proven that the incidence response system will prevent organization from losses. So it is better to adopt the method of modus pones and not modus tolens for proving this scientific hypothesis.
(2010, September 8). BP Releases Report on Causes of Gulf of Mexico Tragedy. Retrieved 26 November, 2012, from www.bp.com: http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7064893
Harry, R. W., & Michael, K. (2011, March 23). BP Oil Spill Blowout Preventer Failure Caused By Piece Of Drill Pipe. Retrieved November 26, 2012, from www.huffingtonpost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/bp-oil-spill-blowout-prev_n_839649.html
John, M. B. (2011, September 14). BP Shortcuts Led to Gulf Oil Spill, Report Says. Retrieved November 26, 2012, from www.nytimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/science/earth/15spill.html
Kenneth, G. B. (2010, May 26). The real cause of BP’s oil spill. Retrieved Novemebr 26, 2012, from www.forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/25/oil-spill-engineering-technology-cio-network-bp.html
Rick, J. (2011, September 15). Federal report cites causes for Gulf oil spill. Retrieved November 26, 2012, from www.usatoday30.usatoday.com: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-14/bp-oil-spill/50408458/1
Time is precious
don’t waste it!