Somebody used spoofed ADSB signals to raster the meme of JD Vance

Post by fc417fc802 » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 5:47 AM UTC

tjohns wrote: post #92

TimorousBestie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting question. Assuming the FAA has the authority to enforce ADSB requirements (an open question post-Chevron), I can’t find any regulation saying non-aircrafts cannot transmit ADSB. Only ones saying aircrafts in certain categories must. There’s probably some non-interference requirement somewhere (FCC spectrum licensing perhaps), but I’m not seeing it immediately. All this is in the hypothetical that RF wa…

It would be under the FCC regs, not the FAA regs. Whatever transmitter you're using would not be type-accepted for operation on the 1080 MHz or 978 MHz band. (47 USC § 301) Additionally, RF operation with the intent of willful interference is inherently illegal. (47 USC § 333)

Post by teiferer » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 6:29 AM UTC

krferriter wrote: post #117

jjwiseman wrote: post #72

As other commenters noted, this is almost certainly not RF spoofing, just sending bad data to an aggregator (ADS-B Exchange) over the internet. This instance of spoofing is notable for being the first that I know of that wasn't primitive vector art or text, but a raster image! In that area of Florida multiple receivers would have picked up actual ADS-B broadcasts. ADS-B aggregators do have various anti-spoofing measu…

I agree with this. Hopefully they're able to track down who did this. To upload to ADS-B Exchange you need an account. But it's not that difficult to get one. I'm not sure what kind of information they may be able to get on it. As you say the person who uploaded this may not be anywhere near there. The aggregators probably should have heuristics like if only one feeder in an area with a decent density of feeder cover…

Post by jjwiseman » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 7:02 AM UTC

fc417fc802 wrote: post #121

tjohns wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be under the FCC regs, not the FAA regs. Whatever transmitter you're using would not be type-accepted for operation on the 1080 MHz or 978 MHz band. (47 USC § 301) Additionally, RF operation with the intent of willful interference is inherently illegal. (47 USC § 333)

What if you removed a genuine ADS-B unit from a plane and installed it in your vehicle? Also does impersonation necessarily qualify as interference? Naively, I'd expect interference to refer to jamming.

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 7:43 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #90

jjwiseman wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are non-radar towers that don't have scopes. They may have a traffic display, or maybe not. They might choose to use a public ADS-B aggregator site because it gives them situational awareness, but they don't use it to provide radar services to aircraft. That's my understanding from listening to a lot podcast episodes with air traffic controllers, anyway. I think it's an unofficial, non-FAA approved kind of thin…

> They might choose to use a public ADS-B aggregator site because it gives them situational awareness I do not understand what the upside is, aside from saving a tiny amount of effort and cost -- they could get the same data with more reliability by just running their own ADS-B receiver, without having a dependency on a third-party.

Post by habinero » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 8:05 AM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #23

15155 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Assuming this were actually RF) This is easily-prosecutable willful interference or possibly aircraft sabotage: ADS-B operates in licensed bands and uses an already highly-contended modulation scheme and transmission protocol.

They'll probably try and make a case of wire fraud and CFAA as the usual go tos if it wasn't in RF.