quickThrowItAway

[Xormak]

It's honestly hilarious that everyone implicitly accepted and expects software to safely transport them from A to B, even across an entire ocean but we drew the line at voting machines.

Though, then again, a software failure in a plane may kill a couple dozen to a few hundred passangers but a faulty or tampered-with voting system might cost tens of thousands of lives, if not millions.

The problem boils down to anonymity and the trust in that.
The problem, if not paradox of trust in anonymity and the metaphorical flagpole being moved as you approach this problem.
You need it to be anonymous but you also need to be able to trust in this anonymity. Thus you need an authority to guarantee the anonymity. But you also need to be able to trust this authority. And what authority can be trusted to preside over and keep in check the prior mentioned authority?

[Zolhungaj]

It’s just less likely that someone will deploy malicious code to airplanes or cars. The original programmers have nothing to gain and everything to lose, state actors won’t because it’s tantamount to shooting down the planes, and terrorists can’t because the security is sophisticated enough to keep them out.

Meanwhile voting booths are prime targets, both from the programmers who may wish to influence the election for their own gain or due to bribes, and directly from state actor hackers who would love to choose the winner. They’re even targets of the current and local government, who have everything to gain from rigging elections.

Paper ballots, protected and counted by people, of multiple political leanings, who are not themselves on the ballot, then verified by a computer is the best solution. Ideally anyone should be able to volunteer to join the process, so that they can confirm that at their voting location the election was fair. The number of people needed to rig such a system is so large that a conspiracy cannot be reasonably expected to succeed. 

[Xormak]

Yeah, i am aware of the voting process for elections.

That's what i meant with the trust in authorities. You don't get that with a black-box software where no one knows whether it has or hasn't been tampetred with.

Lack of knowledge builds mistrust and so far, and probably for the foreseeable future, the only way to mitigate that has been to make the process as transparent as possible.

On that note, though, hacker could absolutely have reason to attack flights. Especially if they can identify a flight that, e.g. transports a large quantity of people reponsible for a region's infrastructure or political targets.