5 ms·

I doubt "real" engineering is better. It's just that attacking its artifacts doesn't scale, so it looks more secure. In fact, the average bridge or skyscraper i

I doubt "real" engineering is better. It's just that attacking its artifacts doesn't scale, so it looks more secure. In fact, the average bridge or skyscraper is probably absolutely riddled with serious design and manufacturing flaws

imwillofficial 5y ago
The design process is pretty rigorous. Anything to back up your idea?
- jchook 5y ago
  Not necessarily agreeing but reminded of the Harvard Bridge in Boston. I heard that though it was often called the MIT bridge (because it connects MIT campus to Boston), they felt fine with the name “Harvard” after learning it was structurally unsound. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Bridge
  - wly_cdgr 5y ago
    Smoots would have been ashamed, smh....
- wly_cdgr 5y ago
  Challenger, Columbia (safety culture at NASA really improved after Challenger huh), Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, recent FL condo collapse, my average five story Brooklyn apartment building's basement and roof after a thunderstorm, Boeing's long and growing list of recent fuckups... is some stuff that comes to mind off the top of my head. Makes you wonder how many close calls, less major incidents, cracks that are noticed and repaired in time, buildings that happen to be demolished twenty years before collapsing to make way for redevelopment, etc we don't even hear about, no? What about you - anything to back up your claim?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    Every building that has never collapsed on you
staticassertion 5y ago
I'm not a civic engineer, but I know some, and that doesn't ring true. I know, for example, that with regards to the NYC subway post-9/11 there was rigorous work to plan and implement safety measures against various terrorist threats. That included modeling the impact of various types of bombs in different parts of NYC's subway tunnels, etc. This work was mandated for projects that were, in aggregate, likely billions of dollars.
- rictic 5y ago
  Attacking a cell phone is different in some ways from attacking a subway system though. The cell phone's defenses are effectively 100% automated, and the attacker can buy a perfect copy of their intended target's phone to and safely try out an indefinite number of attacks on this copy until that attack is perfected. Once the attack is ready it can be deployed with very little exposure to the attackers. If the attack doesn't work, the attackers are unlikely to be discovered and you can make another attempt. Attacking a subway system in comparison, the planning will be done based on diagrams and theory, the attackers only get one attempt, many of the defenses will be unknown, the target environment is highly unpredictable, includes human defenders, and even if successful the attackers will likely either die or spend the rest of their lives imprisoned.
ajb 5y ago
If your building or structure is a public hazard, under existing legislation the government (at least in the UK) has the right to remove the hazard, up to and including demolishing your building, if you don't make it safe sufficiently fast. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see any language in the law that would exclude unsafe automated systems which are part of a building or structure.
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  This is a key point. There’s no equivalent enforcement mechanism when it comes to software. It would be a very different world if one of thousands of local jurisdictions could at least theoretically issue a binding demolition order, within their boundaries of course.

imwillofficial 5y ago

The design process is pretty rigorous. Anything to back up your idea?

jchook 5y ago
Not necessarily agreeing but reminded of the Harvard Bridge in Boston. I heard that though it was often called the MIT bridge (because it connects MIT campus to Boston), they felt fine with the name “Harvard” after learning it was structurally unsound. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Bridge
- wly_cdgr 5y ago
  Smoots would have been ashamed, smh....
wly_cdgr 5y ago
Challenger, Columbia (safety culture at NASA really improved after Challenger huh), Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, recent FL condo collapse, my average five story Brooklyn apartment building's basement and roof after a thunderstorm, Boeing's long and growing list of recent fuckups... is some stuff that comes to mind off the top of my head. Makes you wonder how many close calls, less major incidents, cracks that are noticed and repaired in time, buildings that happen to be demolished twenty years before collapsing to make way for redevelopment, etc we don't even hear about, no? What about you - anything to back up your claim?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  Every building that has never collapsed on you

staticassertion 5y ago

I'm not a civic engineer, but I know some, and that doesn't ring true. I know, for example, that with regards to the NYC subway post-9/11 there was rigorous work to plan and implement safety measures against various terrorist threats. That included modeling the impact of various types of bombs in different parts of NYC's subway tunnels, etc. This work was mandated for projects that were, in aggregate, likely billions of dollars.

rictic 5y ago
Attacking a cell phone is different in some ways from attacking a subway system though. The cell phone's defenses are effectively 100% automated, and the attacker can buy a perfect copy of their intended target's phone to and safely try out an indefinite number of attacks on this copy until that attack is perfected. Once the attack is ready it can be deployed with very little exposure to the attackers. If the attack doesn't work, the attackers are unlikely to be discovered and you can make another attempt. Attacking a subway system in comparison, the planning will be done based on diagrams and theory, the attackers only get one attempt, many of the defenses will be unknown, the target environment is highly unpredictable, includes human defenders, and even if successful the attackers will likely either die or spend the rest of their lives imprisoned.

ajb 5y ago

If your building or structure is a public hazard, under existing legislation the government (at least in the UK) has the right to remove the hazard, up to and including demolishing your building, if you don't make it safe sufficiently fast. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see any language in the law that would exclude unsafe automated systems which are part of a building or structure.

MichaelZuo 5y ago
This is a key point. There’s no equivalent enforcement mechanism when it comes to software. It would be a very different world if one of thousands of local jurisdictions could at least theoretically issue a binding demolition order, within their boundaries of course.