9 ms·
So instead of an environment where terrorists have to individually hijack individual aircraft and overpower the pilots, we're going to have an environment where
by rlpb 12y ago
So instead of an environment where terrorists have to individually hijack individual aircraft and overpower the pilots, we're going to have an environment where terrorists can crash multiple planes at once with a single hack?
I get the impression that we'll be swapping low frequency incidents that kill hundreds with even lower frequency incidents that kill magnitudes more instead. But the frequency will be so low that we'll pretend it doesn't exist and slowly cut down on safeguards and failsafe mechanisms until the first corresponding catastrophic incident occurs.
- Shivetya 12y agodepends on how paranoid we want to get, still I think it is easier to hack a pilot than a computer. with a computer system you could have 3 or more systems all getting a vote before action is taken and each of those 3 could be written by 3 separate companies using unique security and code. all sorts of fun could be had trying to make a system unassailable by bad guys but in the end, if someone wants to cause harm they will. if they wanted to kill more people the plane would never leave the ground, likely you don't need a plane at all, those luggage areas are very crowded at peak hours
- rlpb 12y ago> ...with a computer system you could have 3 or more systems all getting a vote before action is taken and each of those 3 could be written by 3 separate companies using unique security and code. You could have this. But what are the chances that this will happen in practice, instead of a general reduction in this kind of measure in the interests of cost-cutting? Humans are notoriously bad in assessing risk for unlikely events. If an accident hasn't happened, then this tends to become a justification to compromise and cut costs even when the sample size is too small.