The big difference: Airbus and Boeing do everything to prevent attacks and hijacking and it is against their fundamental interest and the interest of their customers.

Whereas, for a crypto network, the more funds flows in, the better for the operators and eventually for the developers (who gets paid by node operators via increased coin value or donations). The less compliance or questions asked, or the more anonymity = the more shady flows.

> Airbus and Boeing does everything to prevent attacks and hijacking and it is against their fundamental interest and the interest of their customers.

They do today. Back in 2001, flying was a lot different. For starters, there was no such thing as an armoured door between the flight deck and the passenger compartment, mostly because such a door is heavy and costs extra fuel.

...and when experience showed that the existing system was not adequate they beefed it by adding those doors.

That's one big difference between those whose products can be used for both good and bad who do not get in legal trouble over the bad use and those that do. There's some threshold for a given type of produce of tolerable bad use. When they product is approaching or exceeding that they make changes to lower it, or if it can't be fixed abandon the product.

In what world would they want to encourage hijacking or even remotely benefit from hijacking ? It doesn't make any sense

"Not doing everything to prevent hijacking" is not the same as "encouraging hijacking". Semantics and formal logic matters.

From the guidelines:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith

The person's core argument was obviously that "airlines do what they can to keep people safe rather than financially benefiting from criminal activity" which distinguishes Tornado from airlines and web browser developers.

As an aside, it was less important to prevent hijacking before 2001 because the end result of most hijackings before then was that nobody got hurt if pilots complied, so there would be no reason to place a cockpit door. That strategy obviously changed after 9/11.

Ironically, I find your interpretation of the parent comment uncharitable, because I never would have framed the core argument the way you did.

I don't think the behavior and results of airplane hijackings pre 9/11 fall into common knowledge, even on hacker news. That's a pretty niche, specific collection of 20+ year old historical facts.

> mostly because such a door is heavy and costs extra fuel.

Those doors are not heavy. It's not a flying tank. Removal of printed in-flight seatback magazines would offset the weight. Until 9/11, flight deck door procedures were lax.

Just like banks help dictators to hide their money

(and banks do all they can to avoid fraud, yes yes yes)