Posted on 04/19/2015 8:59:46 PM PDT by QT3.14
So that process would attempt to guard against people who were actually attacking planes, but were stupid enough to tweet about it in flight and refer directly to the airline they were flying in their tweet.
I’ve never heard a case of a highjacker or attacker - a real one - being stupid enough to publicly communicate about their attack while they’re doing it.
If they actually wanted or needed to communicate to some co-conspirator on the ground, etc., all they need do us “use code names” - like they did in “Raising Arizona”.
Call the airline #doggypoo or something.
I #scooped the #doggypoo, over and out.
Something like that.
No, it clearly was a move by the Chris Roberts fellow to get attention, perhaps he wants a job working for them to fix the flaws he says he’s found, and he certainly got attention from them. I don’t know if they’ve hired him yet.
It does seem to this programmer / passenger like a crazy screwy thing to be able, as a passenger, to monitor the planes engine data in flight.
I don’t think I want to fly until this is resolved. I don’t want passengers having any access to anything in the planes systems.
If I worked for the airline, I would want to know that Chris Roberts or anyone else could not no way no how access any of the planes systems ever. That capability should reside only with the plane’s crew.
Throwing the dude off the plane obviously does nothing to correct the situation if there is a situation. If there is not a situation, the airline needs to prove Chris Roberts wrong publicly.
Perhaps the airline does not want to take the trouble to do that.
IMHO, if he can actually do what he says he can do, the airplanes have a problem that needs to be fixed.
I find that frequently that corporate responses to problems is to ignore them or want them to just go away without really fixing them.
As I said in another post, the airplane industry (manufacturer/airline/etc.) needs to publicly prove this fellow wrong or if he’s right, they need to make sure the problem is completely fixed.
I would not want to be on a plane where any goon with a cell phone could monkey with the plane’s systems.
The goon might not simply have a sense of humor and write “Hello, World” on the passengers’ movie screens, they might do something nuts.
Of course, removing the passenger who proved the capability from one flight obviously does not do anything to prove that the vulnerability exists or does not exist, nor does it remove the vulnerability if it exists.
Absolutely I post from a phone and don't bother with spellchecker on a five and a half inch screen. I would be more circumspect were I probing someone’s electronic security because unlike this guy (or you by your own admission) I understand that there is a time for caution.
I don’t disagree with a thing you say.
I would not want him frequenting my airlines.
But I cannot imagine how an in air wifi would ever be wired into the airplane’s systems. I have been sitting here trying to figure what kind of a mentally deficient engineer would EVER put a connectionn to flight controls within an airplane’s length of a wifi connection. If they did, they should be flogged in a public square.
It sounds like something an accountant or marketing person would do.
LOL.
I’m really wanting to know if the dude got in.
Maybe it is a cost issue, not wanting to run two separate cable plants on the planes and buy a second router.
hmmmmmm
Hope he sues the crap out of them and wins. And the FBI.
Unless it is an actual threat or slander under no circumstances should anyone be delayed or kicked off a flight because of what they post. Nor should the government ever be able to confiscate, or even look at the property of a private citizen without a warrant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.