That doesn't make much sense to me. The engineer is the guy who builds the system. In both cases he is interested to not being a flawed system (crash caused, vo

That doesn't make much sense to me. The engineer is the guy who builds the system. In both cases he is interested to not being a flawed system (crash caused, voting system compromised). I think it's better described if we distinguish between functional safety and security. While the avionics software engineer is interested in functional safety and must mostly not be afraid of smart attacks, the voting software developer (or software developers in general) must mostly expect that his system gets attacked by smart attackers. Although you can do distinguish between both, it's kinda sounds like a lame excuse for me. I think the real reason is, that computer scientist still suck at building correct and secure systems. There is not that amount of funding in computer security research as it should be (like in functional safety).