4 ms·

I doubt courts would interpret "hacked into an airplane's communication system" as a silly prank, but I ANAL.

by BbzzbB 4y ago

Nextgrid 4y ago
Plugging in a Bluetooth transmitter into a user-accessible port and using the system as intended is "hacking" now? Sure, passengers weren't intended to use that port, but from a system perspective the system is being used as intended with no interference or exploitation. I'm not sure this system can even be "hacked" short of disassembling parts of the plane and tapping into the communications wiring.
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  Do you really trust the government to have a nuanced definition of hacking? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/10/missouri-gov-calls-journalist-who-found-security-flaw-a-hacker-threatens-to-sue/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/10/missouri-gov-cal... Yes, this is a state government and not federal. I’m sure you can find equally outlandish examples of federal cases.
- shon 4y ago
  Right. My comment didn’t assume a specific interface method (user accessible port / medical jack vs. something else) but rather a method to play the audio without having to be on the plane (which would certainly be my preference were I the prankster.) If it was actually done using a user accessible port intended for access to the PA, I would agree with you, it wouldn’t fall under CFAA/hacking type laws. Still could be problematic legally though. Microcontrollers are small enough now that there could be lots of interesting ways to interface. EDIT: Also, based on the OP, the PA gets power cycled repeatedly on at least one flight where this is happening. That’s much more intrusive. Or again… horny ghost
- _zzaw 4y ago
  I think a case could be made that it's unauthorized access, since the prankster is definitely not supposed to be using the system for those purposes, regardless of how accessible it is. Same as if you walked into a bank or something and surreptitiously plugged a malicious USB drive into one of their machines. Maybe it would make a difference if the prankster was an employee, and not just some random person, but I doubt it.
- girvo 4y ago
  > Plugging in a Bluetooth transmitter into a user-accessible port and using the system as intended is "hacking" now? Yes. We're well passed that these days, for better or worse.
- schoen 4y ago
  Depending on the technical means used, it might not be proper to consider it to be hacking in, say, the CFAA sense, but you're still not supposed to do things that have the result of preventing a flight crew from making announcements to passengers. Even if you did those things with an otherwise perfectly legitimate means like playing a sound with a cell phone, playing a sound with a tape recorder, or playing a sound with your voice. I would be happy to agree that the CFAA is overbroad. But disruptive actions toward flights and aircraft are quite reasonably punishable under other theories, when they could plausibly create a risk for aviation, regardless of the means.
- BbzzbB 4y ago
  We can debate if I've used "hacked" loosely without giving too much thought to my comment, but my point is that whoever did this (on a few flights, allegedly) has "gained unauthorized access to a computer system" (which broadly fits most definitions I find). Besides, unless I missed something we have no idea if they just paired with Bluetooth or did something else. Maybe I'm off-base and they're just risking an airline ban, but it seems (to my uninformed opinion) that doing that on an flying airplane is playing with fire that the airline won't sue and that, if they do, it'll be a clement judge which won't make an example out of them for messing with an airplane's computer, safety critical or not.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  Legally speaking in the US “hack” generally means using any computer system you weren’t given access to. So yes this is legally a hack in the way it’s used by the media, it’s also a hack of in the normal since of the word regardless.
  - ksaj 4y ago
    It's literally only the media, and not the law enforcement, that use the term "hack." The word "hack" probably doesn't even exist in any criminal code. Law enforcement use phrases like "unlawful access to a protected system" and whatnot.

I doubt courts would interpret "hacked into an airplane's communication system" as a silly prank, but I ANAL.

by BbzzbB 4y ago

I doubt courts would interpret "hacked into an airplane's communication system" as a silly prank, but I ANAL.

Plugging in a Bluetooth transmitter into a user-accessible port and using the system as intended is "hacking" now? Sure, passengers weren't intended to use that port, but from a system perspective the system is being used as intended with no interference or exploitation. I'm not sure this system can even be "hacked" short of disassembling parts of the plane and tapping into the communications wiring.

shepherdjerred 4y ago
Do you really trust the government to have a nuanced definition of hacking? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/10/missouri-gov-calls-journalist-who-found-security-flaw-a-hacker-threatens-to-sue/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/10/missouri-gov-cal... Yes, this is a state government and not federal. I’m sure you can find equally outlandish examples of federal cases.
shon 4y ago
Right. My comment didn’t assume a specific interface method (user accessible port / medical jack vs. something else) but rather a method to play the audio without having to be on the plane (which would certainly be my preference were I the prankster.) If it was actually done using a user accessible port intended for access to the PA, I would agree with you, it wouldn’t fall under CFAA/hacking type laws. Still could be problematic legally though. Microcontrollers are small enough now that there could be lots of interesting ways to interface. EDIT: Also, based on the OP, the PA gets power cycled repeatedly on at least one flight where this is happening. That’s much more intrusive. Or again… horny ghost
_zzaw 4y ago
I think a case could be made that it's unauthorized access, since the prankster is definitely not supposed to be using the system for those purposes, regardless of how accessible it is. Same as if you walked into a bank or something and surreptitiously plugged a malicious USB drive into one of their machines. Maybe it would make a difference if the prankster was an employee, and not just some random person, but I doubt it.
girvo 4y ago
> Plugging in a Bluetooth transmitter into a user-accessible port and using the system as intended is "hacking" now? Yes. We're well passed that these days, for better or worse.
schoen 4y ago
Depending on the technical means used, it might not be proper to consider it to be hacking in, say, the CFAA sense, but you're still not supposed to do things that have the result of preventing a flight crew from making announcements to passengers. Even if you did those things with an otherwise perfectly legitimate means like playing a sound with a cell phone, playing a sound with a tape recorder, or playing a sound with your voice. I would be happy to agree that the CFAA is overbroad. But disruptive actions toward flights and aircraft are quite reasonably punishable under other theories, when they could plausibly create a risk for aviation, regardless of the means.
BbzzbB 4y ago
We can debate if I've used "hacked" loosely without giving too much thought to my comment, but my point is that whoever did this (on a few flights, allegedly) has "gained unauthorized access to a computer system" (which broadly fits most definitions I find). Besides, unless I missed something we have no idea if they just paired with Bluetooth or did something else. Maybe I'm off-base and they're just risking an airline ban, but it seems (to my uninformed opinion) that doing that on an flying airplane is playing with fire that the airline won't sue and that, if they do, it'll be a clement judge which won't make an example out of them for messing with an airplane's computer, safety critical or not.
edgyquant 4y ago
Legally speaking in the US “hack” generally means using any computer system you weren’t given access to. So yes this is legally a hack in the way it’s used by the media, it’s also a hack of in the normal since of the word regardless.
- ksaj 4y ago
  It's literally only the media, and not the law enforcement, that use the term "hack." The word "hack" probably doesn't even exist in any criminal code. Law enforcement use phrases like "unlawful access to a protected system" and whatnot.