User Forum | Nero Beta Labs | Register | Activate | Help | Language: English |
International


Start & Register!

Sign up today for 100% community fun. Create your own page, meet friends, and share your data with the world!

Sign Up


Member Login

Already a member of the My Nero community? Just login:


Your opinion counts

How good are you with Nero Software?
I'm an expert
I know what I'm doing
I'm good with one or two apps
I'm a total noob (beginner)
I work for Nero

IanFarquhar

Australia, Sydney

Profile
Blog
Photos
Videos

IanFarquhar's World

View RSS Feed

Photos


The user did not publish any entries here yet

Videos


The user did not publish any entries here yet

Buddies


This user has no friends at My Nero at the moment.

Invite IanFarquhar to your buddy list

Risk, Bias, Security and the Chances of Kicking the Bucket

posted by IanFarquhar at 2 years ago

Bruce Schneier is arguably the most well known cryptographer alive today, and for the past few years he's been doing fascinating research in the psychological factors surrounding risk and security.   A lot of this is related to airline security in particular, and the so-called "War on Terror " in various Western nations.   This latest article, "The War on the Unexpected ", makes fascinating reading:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_war_on_the.html

Also worth perusing, as a background, is "The Psychology of Security ":

http://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html

All of this might sound incredibly dry and boring, but few people appreciate just how   their decision making is underpinned by risk and reward judgments.   Worse, even fewer appreciate just how badly they bias these judgments with illogical and emotive reasoning.  

For example, I occasionally find myself chatting to people on aircraft.   I remember sitting next to one very nervous guy, who admitted that he'd was terrified of flying.

So let's look at a couple of uncomfortable statistics.   Your lifetime chance of dying in a car accident in the US is 1 in 84.   For an air and space transport accident it's 1 in 5,051.   That's on a per lifetime basis.   On a per trip basis the figures vary, but your chance of dying in a car accident is estimated to be ten times higher per trip than an ride in a commercial airliner.

So the car rides to and from the airport are the riskiest part of the journey!   Yet most people aren't terrified of the car trip.

So I explained this to the guy, which didn't help him much, but I could barely avoid laughing out loud when he told me what he'd been doing on holidays.   He'd been scuba diving, one of the riskiest sports.   To be afraid of flying but go scuba diving is insanely illogical.

But most people would agree with this person.   Why?   Because he had the illusion of control, or a "control bias " as Schneier calls it, which led him to underestimate the risks of scuba diving but be terrified on a commercial airliner.

For the morbidly inclined, here are the actual chance of death stats from the US National Safety Council:

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Other Western countries would be comparable.   There's a very nice chart here too:

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds_dying.jpg

(Please don't be like one of my colleagues, who in a "blond " moment, asked why "Total odds of dying, any cause " was 1 in 1.)  

And for nervous fliers, some airline accident stats, of dubious value:

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/rates.htm

Tags:
security mvp risk fear flying
Category:
Uncategorized
Rate:
 
Share
Bookmark
Report
Comment
http://IanFarquhar.my.nero.com/blog/7100920 Risk, Bias, Security and the Chances of Kicking the Bucket
Share at: Delicious Digg it My Space
  Show more...
Send an E-mail
Recommend to Buddy

IanFarquhar wrote at 2 years ago

Well, that's an interesting story too...

Actually, he should have said "A QANTAS jet has never crashed".  QANTAS did have a couple of crashes in the pre-jet era.  But even then, there's a tiny clarification...

VH-OJH, Qantas Flight 1 from Sydney to Bangkok, skidded off the end of a rain-covered runway in Bangkok on Sept 23rd 1999.  The 747-400 jet came to a stop in the middle of a golf course.  None of the 407 passengers and crew were injured or killed, despite the front wheel ended up protruding into the nose passenger cabin.

Here's the interesting bit.  QANTAS sent VH-OJH up to China, and spent over $100 million repairing the badly damaged aircraft, which was then returned to service. Why did they do this?  It is widely aledged that had they written the aircraft off, it would have been counted as a crash occasioning the loss of the aircraft, and would have spoiled "QANTAS never crashed" image. Brand protection.  :)

BTW, it's likely I'll be boarding VH-OJH next Wednesday, for my flight to Hong Kong.  I've boarded this aircraft at least ten times in the last year, as it's one of the primary aircraft used on the Sydney to Hong Kong route.

I was a little discomforted about this at first, but my ex-commercial pilot turned security consultant boss opinioned that it was likely the most reliable 747-438 that QANTAS had, given the extensive refurbishment work that had been done.

NeroDude wrote at 2 years ago

Options
Well, I see you're located in Sydney, Ian, so I have some good news.  I remember from Rain Man that "Qantas has never crashed."  So at least you're safe if you fly domestically!  Or I suppose you can fly El Al to Israel -- they're apparently safe, too.