Re: Cyberattack FUD

[David Schwartz <davids () webmaster com>]

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:31:30 -0800 (PST), Vadim Antonov wrote:

> In the "regular" skyjacking the attackers want to get ransom, or divert an
> airplane to someplace.  They'll get cooperation from pilots, too - without
> any need to be present in the cockpit.  So if it is known that the policy
> is not to let anyone in, no matter what happens to passengers, the
> attackers wouldn't even try.  In fact, they don't, on airlines which have
> this policy.  Letting deranged people in cockpit, in fact, places _all_
> passengers at risk of an unintended crash (imagine an attacker getting
> agitated and killing pilots, or simply pulling knobs - there were
> incidents when _little kids_ allowed to cockpit crashed the commercial
> planes).
>
> The rules of engagement were patently absurd

        Let me see if I understand you correctly. You have a mentally disturbed man
with two guns and a belt full of bullets on a plane. He wants to speak to the
pilot face-to-face. He says if the pilots don't come out, he's going to shoot
the 236 passengers one-by-one. If you were the pilot, before 9/11, how many
passengers would you let him shoot before you came out? And what consequences
would you expect to face when/if you landed safely?

        I'm sorry, your reasoning might apply to some fantasy world but it would not
have seemed sensible to any rational person in the United States prior to
those terrorist attacks.        They succeeded because nobody was expecting them. As
soon as anyone expected them, they failed. This is why Todd Beamer's plane
didn't reach its target.

[snip]

        As for your arguments about the benefits of government intervention in the
computer market and other types of social engineering, I just hope people
like you stay out of power. At least Microsoft only uses their own resources
to push their vision of the future. You are welcome to use yours to push
yours.

        DS