4 ms·
The article makes some reasonable points, except registration by the inflight device is necessary. Unless someone is in the hold clicking the EULA that cellpho
by geofffox 16y ago
The article makes some reasonable points, except registration by the inflight device is necessary. Unless someone is in the hold clicking the EULA that cellphone is useless.
Am I missing something?
- tlrobinson 16y agoNo, that's a reasonable counter-argument, as long as the registration can't be automated. The bigger hole in this argument is the fact that a remote trigger isn't even necessary, a simple timer, or altimeter, or GPS, could be used as a trigger. If a remote trigger is desired for remote hijacking purposes, cell or WiFi would be convenient, but sat phones would work too...
- ars 16y agoGPS is unlikely to work from inside the cargo hold of an airplane. But someone with a very long yagi antenna could probably transmit a signal to an overhead airplane. Due to the way airplanes travel only in corridors it wouldn't be too hard to set someone up on the ground.
- DannoHung 16y agoFEAR-MONGERING IS AWESOOOOOME!!! The objections make no sense whatsoever. If a Tango has a Wifi enabled bomb set up, then it's not going to matter if the Cabin SSID is broadcasting. They'll just use a peered connection.
- xorglorb 16y agoThe subset of providers for in-flight WiFi is small enough that they could just create an Application (even the "dumb" phones can run JavaME apps) that spams it with HTTP requests for each different provider and auto-registers using fake data.