Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 128 posts

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#81

Post by nitrogen »

ghshephard wrote: post #29
Confusion wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?

That's the problem with concentrating blame. It leads to net counterproductive behavior. One in such a position is thinking about their position, not just the people they are protecting.

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#82

Post by nitrogen »

ghshephard wrote: post #49
Lorento wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one thing to unobtrusively investigate a suspicious person, but actually interrupting their life just because your heuristics aren't good enough sound like a ding to free speech. If everyone joked about hacking planes, that would no longer be a risk factor.

I learned at the age of five or six to never make jokes about airplane safety - and that was 20 years prior to 9/11. Most adults in North America have enough common sense, particularly after 9/11, not to start mouthing off about endangering airplane security. It's like being humorous regarding the safety of the president - it's just one of those things that if you do it, you know are going to get a visit by the autho…

What did he expect was going to happen?

I hate how often this line is used to defend bullies and blame victims. It's an attitude that ensures the overly aggressive can browbeat their way to getting whatever they want.

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#83

Post by liffingford »

notduncansmith wrote: post #52

As someone who's flying United today, this is a bit disconcerting. Note to self: don't crack jokes.

Are you one of those guys who does super stupid stuff then tries to defend yourself by saying 'bro! it was just a joke!'

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#84

Post by ghshephard »

nitrogen wrote: post #82
ghshephard wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned at the age of five or six to never make jokes about airplane safety - and that was 20 years prior to 9/11. Most adults in North America have enough common sense, particularly after 9/11, not to start mouthing off about endangering airplane security. It's like being humorous regarding the safety of the president - it's just one of those things that if you do it, you know are going to get a visit by the autho…

What did he expect was going to happen? I hate how often this line is used to defend bullies and blame victims. It's an attitude that ensures the overly aggressive can browbeat their way to getting whatever they want.

Bullies proactively seek to hurt others for their own amusement. For better or worse the Secret Service (in the case of the president) and the FBI (in the case of airplane safety), are reactively responding to potential threats.

So if you don't want them to react, don't threaten the president, don't make threats about messing around with aircraft EICAS systems.

Remember, the FBI isn't responsible for designing safe aviation comms systems, their job here is to investigate potential threats. I think most of us on HN would suspect that Roberts is not a threat, but from the perspective of the FBI, he's certainly a potential threat that needs to be investigated.

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#85

Post by Confusion »

rhino369 wrote: post #78
Confusion wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People in general are very afraid of flying despite the fact it is reasonably safe. Making a joke about fucking with an airplane is in poor taste considering many people are on edge. It'd be like making a rape joke when you pass a woman on a dark street.

Fortunately we don't arrest people for doing things that are in poor taste. Your comment is entirely besides the point.

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#86

Post by ghshephard »

pyre wrote: post #68
ghshephard wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned at the age of five or six to never make jokes about airplane safety - and that was 20 years prior to 9/11. Most adults in North America have enough common sense, particularly after 9/11, not to start mouthing off about endangering airplane security. It's like being humorous regarding the safety of the president - it's just one of those things that if you do it, you know are going to get a visit by the autho…

> I don't find it surprising whatsoever that United Airlines does not want him flying on their planes. This is more a function of the airlines just being stupid though. There was a case where an Arabic family was taken off of an airplane because on of the teenagers asked how safe it was to sit in a seat next to the wing. The FBI cleared them, but the airline refused to allow them back on a plane.

Robert's exact statement was, "Find myself on a 737/800, lets see Box-IFE-ICE-SATCOM, ? Shall we start playing with EICAS messages? "PASS OXYGEN ON" Anyone ? :)"

I.E. He was talking about directly interfering with the planes EICAS system. What if he'd joked about running a GPS, or VOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range) jammer during final approach? At what point do the authorities decide they need to have a conversation with such an individual?

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#87

Post by getsat »

billpollock wrote: post #69

United Airlines is THE worst. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/business/passenger-vs-airl... In my case they almost apologized for having had Federal Air Marshals detain me.

Why do you think your selfish and egotistical (and apparently unlawful) actions should have no consequences?

>Mr. Pollock conceded that he told the flight attendant he planned to ignore the sign, which other travelers had questioned in online travel forums.

Do you also drive around on public roads without a licence stating the "Right to Travel" like people also talk about online?

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#88

Post by modfodder »

nitrogen wrote: post #82
ghshephard wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned at the age of five or six to never make jokes about airplane safety - and that was 20 years prior to 9/11. Most adults in North America have enough common sense, particularly after 9/11, not to start mouthing off about endangering airplane security. It's like being humorous regarding the safety of the president - it's just one of those things that if you do it, you know are going to get a visit by the autho…

What did he expect was going to happen? I hate how often this line is used to defend bullies and blame victims. It's an attitude that ensures the overly aggressive can browbeat their way to getting whatever they want.

If anything Chris Roberts would be the bully in this case, effectively saying "You are weaker than me (or at least your software is), should I give you a swirly?"

Someone tattled (Twitter) and he was taken to the principle's office to explain his comments. He was not suspended or kicked out of school (possibly because they decided he had not actually threatened the weaker student, etc).

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#89

Post by sneak »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #60
sneak wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Researching with criminal intent is also legitimate research provided no laws are broken.

In France there is a crime labelled "association de malfaiteurs" (criminal's gathering). Fantasizing about a crime is allowed. But actually laying out plans, watching the neighbourhood, or performing concrete steps towards the crime with the intent of actually performing it… well, that is forbidden. Makes sense to me. Mere thoughts should never be forbidden, but acting on a criminal intent, even if the acts, taken in…

What you are describing is thoughtcrime.

Criminal intent is not illegal. Only actions.

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#90

Post by droopybuns »

tokenizerrr wrote: post #19
droopybuns wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This person was an absolute clown. I think the infosec community needs to grow up. We all hate when legislators use the word 'cyber.' Title 18 is a mess. The new computer crime proposals are worse. Every couple of years we get the occasional story about licensing security professionals. It is because of exactly this type of clownish behavior. There are consequences for the attention seeking type of behavior. This idi…

> Stunt hacking scares the shit out of normal people. Eventually people will demand regulatory intervention. Good. Maybe they'll actually start caring about security instead of obscurity through law.

This is exactly what I am trying to call attention to. I have tremendous sympathy for the sentiment you are expressing. Unfortunately, the splash damage of flasy exploitation publicity as an incentive for vulns remediation is government regulation of security professionals.

The flashy stories have been happening for close to 20 years now. Are vulnerabilities becoming more rare?

Post reply on HN