> I think those that dismiss this concern entirely are the folks who cannot think critically.
So if you don't agree, you can't think critically. Got it.
Or maybe, we did think about it critically and simply don't agree.
There are various way this can be solved. We have modern encryption that could make this far, far safer then it is today. We have methods from data leaking. We have process to only allow data to be decrypted if required.
This would actually force us to really think critically about who has what access when. In planing this the airlines, unions, FAA should sit together with some technical experts and think of this critically.
This seems less complex to me then a modern high bypass turbo engine.
> There are various way this can be solved. We have modern encryption that could make this far, far safer then it is today. We have methods from data leaking. We have process to only allow data to be decrypted if required.
There are not. You cannot solve a social problem with a technical solution. If the data exists, it can and likely will be used.
> This highlights a complete failure on multiple levels and an inability to critically think about the problem space. How much time was spent implementing a system that under most circumstances where it would be needed would render itself entirely useless?
I was responding in particular to this. It does not highlight an inability to think critically unless you value privacy at zero and only look at these recordings as a technical problem. Under most circumstances when it's needed this system has functioned exactly as designed. You read about the failures because they are the exception. Believing that CVRs as-designed fail under "most circumstances" would be a lack of critical thought to me. I was limiting my scope to this statement.
I would actually agree with you in general if for not that comment. It simply means we disagree. But it surely does not mean no one has thought critically about this subject when it was introduced or since.
> There are not. You cannot solve a social problem with a technical solution. If the data exists, it can and likely will be used.
Except in reality we use often use technical solution to solve social problems. Or rather technical capabiltiy gives us the means to approach a social problem in a different way.
> unless you value privacy at zero
The assumption that privacy is 100% impossible if something is recorded and stored is simply categorically false.
> only look at these recordings as a technical problem
I didn't do that. I suggested that the FAA, the Unions, the Airlines and the manufactures sit together and come up with a solution of what the exact data access policies are.
> Under most circumstances when it's needed this system has functioned exactly as designed.
And yet when going threw the history of air incidents, there are lots of cases where this isn't the case. Most isn't good enough.
> You read about the failures because they are the exception.
Sure and a server crashing is the exception, and yet somehow most of use still run 2 server if we want things to work continuously.
The argument 'mostly its fine, its just occasionally that a couple 100 people die and we don't know why' just doesn't work for me. Yes in most cases its not that dramatic, but it would still be very useful.
> . Believing that CVRs as-designed fail under "most circumstances" would be a lack of critical thought to me. I was limiting my scope to this statement.
So if you don't agree, you can't think critically. Got it.
Or maybe, we did think about it critically and simply don't agree.
There are various way this can be solved. We have modern encryption that could make this far, far safer then it is today. We have methods from data leaking. We have process to only allow data to be decrypted if required.
This would actually force us to really think critically about who has what access when. In planing this the airlines, unions, FAA should sit together with some technical experts and think of this critically.
This seems less complex to me then a modern high bypass turbo engine.
reply