What an overreaction from the EFF. Use a bit of judgement and realize it isn't a smart idea to talk about hacking an airplane full of passengers.
United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security
21–30 of 128 posts
Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security
#22What an overreaction from the EFF. Use a bit of judgement and realize it isn't a smart idea to talk about hacking an airplane full of passengers.
Particularly for a "security researcher". If he is, he should know better.
Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't imply you're going to harm an aircraft when you're on it. Also, airlines, don't imply you're going to allow someone to travel when you're not.
If he was going to harm the aircraft, he wouldn't have announced it in a tweet. If the FBI already had reasonable suspicion he would, they shouldn't have let him get on the plane in the first place. There is no rational reason for their action. This is simply a PR move by United and the FBI. Which leads to the same conclusion: just don't tweet things like this. Not because you're wrong, but because they are assholes.
> If he was going to harm the aircraft, he wouldn't have announced it in a tweet.
You can't know that.
> If the FBI already had reasonable suspicion he would, they shouldn't have let him get on the plane in the first place.
They may well have stopped him getting on the plane if he'd made similar tweets beforehand. "I'm going on a plane next month. What should I do with EICAS ;-)" would probably have had the same effect.
He shouldn't have had his stuff confiscated, but he has no excuse for not knowing how "they" reacted. Their over reaction is entirely predictable, not just from theory but from their past behaviour.
Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security
#24We live in shitty knee-jerk reactionary times, but did anyone else see his tweet at the time? At best, it seemed in poor taste. At worst, the outcome seems depressingly predictable. I don't know what I'm trying to contribute here, except that whilst I have no problem with EFF working on this, their article here seems overly shrill and over-reactionary at how shrill and over-reactionary the airline was in their respon…
This isn't exactly a new phenomenon - even before 9/11, a careless joke at baggage check-in ("Did you pack your own luggage today, Sir?" - "No, my wife probably put a bomb in there.") would often result in the joke not being recognised or treated as such. Said jokester gets taken to one side, scrutinised by the boys in blue, and eventually told that they "will not be flying today, sir." In the age of Twitter, such hi…
The baggage questions is so stupid, IF you wanted to do some evil with things packed, WHY would you say something that isn't the "right" answer to them?
Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security
#25What an overreaction from the EFF. Use a bit of judgement and realize it isn't a smart idea to talk about hacking an airplane full of passengers.
The way we keep airplanes full of passengers from falling out of the sky is that we talk openly about the risks up front, so that the people who created those risks get fired or demoted, and their bosses (or, failing that, regulatory authorities) make sure the risks get fixed. It isn’t a smart idea to short-circuit that process; that’s how we ended up with things like the Ukrainian famine, the Great Leap Forward, Lysenkoism, and presumably Windows Vista. Use a bit of judgement; we’re trying to have a civilization here, Nero.
Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't exactly a new phenomenon - even before 9/11, a careless joke at baggage check-in ("Did you pack your own luggage today, Sir?" - "No, my wife probably put a bomb in there.") would often result in the joke not being recognised or treated as such. Said jokester gets taken to one side, scrutinised by the boys in blue, and eventually told that they "will not be flying today, sir." In the age of Twitter, such hi…
The baggage questions is so stupid, IF you wanted to do some evil with things packed, WHY would you say something that isn't the "right" answer to them?
Because you might not be aware that you're being used. I can't find the reference right now, but that question started being asked after a man put an explosive in his wife's luggage (when she was flying without him, naturally)
Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security
#27The tweet in question: https://twitter.com/Sidragon1/status/588433855184375808
I clicked on the word "tweeting" in the article twice before realizing it wasn't a hyperlink. I totally assumed it would be. And now I see why EFF didn't link to this.
I'm sorry, but that tweet actually is threatening in my eyes. Note that I know __nothing__ about airplane-system-security, but that looks to me like he gained some kind of cmdline and/or admin-tool access and "PASS OXYGEN ON" looks like something that would cause the oxygen masks to drop down for all passengers. And he did this while on the plane with other passengers while it was flying? If so, he got what was coming to him. Sorry.
____
EDIT: Screencap in case someone(s) decide to delete tweets http://i.imgur.com/Uqfh0oL.png
Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't exactly a new phenomenon - even before 9/11, a careless joke at baggage check-in ("Did you pack your own luggage today, Sir?" - "No, my wife probably put a bomb in there.") would often result in the joke not being recognised or treated as such. Said jokester gets taken to one side, scrutinised by the boys in blue, and eventually told that they "will not be flying today, sir." In the age of Twitter, such hi…
The baggage questions is so stupid, IF you wanted to do some evil with things packed, WHY would you say something that isn't the "right" answer to them?
It's an excellent question if people pay attention - the question, (at least as asked in Singapore), is, "Did you pack your own luggage, are you aware of everything in it, has anyone given you anything to place in your luggage, and has your luggage been under your control/observation the entire time."
Every time they ask me that question - I do a quick mental checklist, always mention that my luggage did leave my control when placed in the boot of the cab - which they always understand is an acceptable loss of control.
There are a couple alternatives that one could take to further increase security - first, presume that 100% of people are threats, and do a full security scan, and hand check/rejection, of 100% of checked luggage. Likewise, enhance the carry-on security check, and further restrict what people can carry-on. In particular, shift the carry-on check to the gate (where it should be).
Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't imply you're going to harm an aircraft when you're on it. Also, airlines, don't imply you're going to allow someone to travel when you're not.
If he was going to harm the aircraft, he wouldn't have announced it in a tweet. If the FBI already had reasonable suspicion he would, they shouldn't have let him get on the plane in the first place. There is no rational reason for their action. This is simply a PR move by United and the FBI. Which leads to the same conclusion: just don't tweet things like this. Not because you're wrong, but because they are assholes.
"If he was going to harm the aircraft, he wouldn't have announced it in a tweet."
Many, Many bad actors have a pretty good trail/history of signals that made it clear that they were going to do something stupid. And a lot of them are stopped because authorities stepped in when those signals were reported.
Would you want to be the person who was notified that someone was communicating they were considering interfering with the proper operation of an aircraft, and ignored them, only to discovery they later on did do damage to the aircraft?
I think at the very least, people responsible for flight safety can engage with those making claims they are going to endanger airplanes, and subject them to a strenuous interview to determine what their actual intent is.
Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that case, it was potentially VERY applicable to the other people's lives who also were on the plane in question.
People make harmless jokes that are applicable to your life at a daily basis, you're just not party to them. Thinking a joke is dangerous just because you observe it is a base rate fallacy.
But, at the same time, thinking that "a joke" is safe when observed, is also not necessarily true.
Good judgement needs to be taken into account. I recall having to "reapply" for my temporary job in the computing center every semester (because, of course, it was "temporary") - and one of my fellow students, after having done this for a couple years, and having a bit of ego, basically just scrawled on his application form, "Hire me again or I will murder all of you." You see, if you knew him, it was actually really, really funny. We were all a close group, and everyone on the team thought it was hilarious. The HR organization that unbeknownst to this student, screened all applications, and had no idea who he was, took a decidedly different perspective on his application.
The proper response was to alert security, and thankfully his hiring managers - who then de-escalated the situation.
The problem with the airline situation - their is no easy "oracle" who can confirm that this person is most decidedly not a threat.