3 ms·
I agree, there's a significant distinction between "the switches were (physically) flipped" and "the circuit was opened/closed". In this case, it may be a moot
by crtified 1y ago
I agree, there's a significant distinction between "the switches were (physically) flipped" and "the circuit was opened/closed".
In this case, it may be a moot distinction, particularly if no physical evidence of fault or tampering has been discovered in investigation. But, in theory, very important - there's a lot of potential grey-area between the two statements.
The proximity of the incident to the ground may also increase the possible attack vectors for simple remote triggers.
- shash 1y agoMy understanding from what we've been reading is that these are physical switches that cannot be moved using remote triggers. Wildly speculating, there _may_ be a possibility that the _effect_ of the switch may be triggered remotely, if it's a signal being read by a control unit or computer of some sort that then actuates the specific electromechanical components. But it would seem impossible to move a physical switch to do it. As an analogy, if you have a smart lock, you can remotely trigger the _effect_ of turning the key using (let's say a bluetooth control), but if a key is inserted into the keyhole, unless there is two-way mechanical linkage, that key _will not turn_.
- crtified 1y agoAny switch becomes irrelevant if a saboteur has access to the behind-the-panel wires that the switch operates. But I presume that would leave physical evidence which would have been discovered by now. Presume, but cannot be certain.