4 ms·

This has gotta be some sort of federal crime

Scoundreller 9mo ago
Doubt it did anything in RF, only sent packets to adsbexchange’s web service that its volunteers feed it. Also Adsbexchange has had some… history: https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/10l2euc/adsb_exchange_the_largest_unfiltered_network_has/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/10l2euc/adsb_exchange... https://hackaday.com/2023/01/26/ads-b-exchange-sells-up-contributors-unhappy/ https://hackaday.com/2023/01/26/ads-b-exchange-sells-up-cont...
HNisCIS 9mo ago
ADSB sites aren't any sort of official thing. You can send whatever data you want to them. Just because it's there doesn't mean it ever went over the air as an ADSB broadcast.
TimorousBestie 9mo ago
An interesting question. Assuming the FAA has the authority to enforce ADSB requirements (an open question post-Chevron), I can’t find any regulation saying non-aircrafts cannot transmit ADSB. Only ones saying aircrafts in certain categories must. There’s probably some non-interference requirement somewhere (FCC spectrum licensing perhaps), but I’m not seeing it immediately. All this is in the hypothetical that RF was transmitted, which as others point out it probably wasn’t.
- 15155 9mo ago
  (Assuming this were actually RF) This is easily-prosecutable willful interference or possibly aircraft sabotage: ADS-B operates in licensed bands and uses an already highly-contended modulation scheme and transmission protocol.
  - esseph 9mo ago
    No reason to believe RF when you can just upload whatever data you want
  - fragmede 9mo ago
    They'll probably try and make a case of wire fraud and CFAA as the usual go tos if it wasn't in RF.
    - habinero 9mo ago
      "Wire fraud" means financial fraud, not "sending data over wires".
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- tjohns 9mo ago
  It would be under the FCC regs, not the FAA regs. Whatever transmitter you're using would not be type-accepted for operation on the 1080 MHz or 978 MHz band. (47 USC § 301) Additionally, RF operation with the intent of willful interference is inherently illegal. (47 USC § 333)
  - TimorousBestie 9mo ago
    Excellent, thanks.
  - fc417fc802 9mo ago
    What if you removed a genuine ADS-B unit from a plane and installed it in your vehicle? Also does impersonation necessarily qualify as interference? Naively, I'd expect interference to refer to jamming.
    - jjwiseman 9mo ago
      A transponder in a car is not an "aircraft station" (§ 87.5), therefore it is not covered by aircraft "license-by-rule" (§ 87.18(b)), so transmitting would be operating without a valid authorization (§ 1.903(a)). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-87 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D...
pear01 9mo ago
I believe this was "spoofed" only in the sense that a particular provider/online platform accepted data via an API that was abused to draw this on that platform only. Searching around it seems it was not found if you looked on other platforms, so it might not even have been a crime. I believe they didn't emit any real "signals" just took advantage of an API that should probably be better secured.
- observationist 9mo ago
  At worst it'd be a violation of the site ToS - it's a crowdsourced community data based system, and not any sort of an official, important system. The account doesn't seem to have been banned, so maybe the admins are just rolling with the joke.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- fc417fc802 9mo ago
  > an API that should probably be better secured. I think the API is secured? The entire premise is that a volunteer creates an account and uploads ADS-B telemetry. Detecting falsified data is a separate matter.
  - darthwalsh 9mo ago
    Sounds like authentication is working great, but their authorization design may be flawed.
    - filleduchaos 9mo ago
      How is it flawed? That is the nature of crowdsourcing.
advisedwang 9mo ago
It's almost certainly a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because it's an extremely broad law.
- sophacles 9mo ago
  TBF so is your reply and mine.
- eleventyseven 9mo ago
  Violating terms and conditions is not a CFAA violation, per the Supreme Court case Van Buren v US (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/03/supreme-court-cybercrime-law-491764 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/03/supreme-court-cyber...) which narrowed to actual fraud and data theft. "The Government’s interpretation of the statute would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity,” Barrett wrote. “If the ‘exceeds authorized access’ clause criminalizes every violation of a computer-use policy, then millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens are criminals." adsbexchange is a user-generated content platform where you can submit decoded radio signals to a common database. Sending fake data to adsbexchange is as much a CFAA violation as posting hoaxes to Wikipedia or a social media platform.
  - kevin_thibedeau 9mo ago
    Precedent won't get in the way of a tribal retaliation. They've proven that they can't be consistent with fundamental laws they've sworn to uphold.
lovecg 9mo ago
Agreed with other commenters that nothing was likely actually broadcast, but if it was it would definitely be highly illegal and you’d have feds knocking down your door pretty quickly. They don’t joke around with illegal transmissions like that.

Doubt it did anything in RF, only sent packets to adsbexchange’s web service that its volunteers feed it. Also Adsbexchange has had some… history: https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/10l2euc/adsb_exchange_the_largest_unfiltered_network_has/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/10l2euc/adsb_exchange... https://hackaday.com/2023/01/26/ads-b-exchange-sells-up-contributors-unhappy/ https://hackaday.com/2023/01/26/ads-b-exchange-sells-up-cont...

HNisCIS 9mo ago

ADSB sites aren't any sort of official thing. You can send whatever data you want to them. Just because it's there doesn't mean it ever went over the air as an ADSB broadcast.

TimorousBestie 9mo ago

An interesting question. Assuming the FAA has the authority to enforce ADSB requirements (an open question post-Chevron), I can’t find any regulation saying non-aircrafts cannot transmit ADSB. Only ones saying aircrafts in certain categories must. There’s probably some non-interference requirement somewhere (FCC spectrum licensing perhaps), but I’m not seeing it immediately. All this is in the hypothetical that RF was transmitted, which as others point out it probably wasn’t.

15155 9mo ago
(Assuming this were actually RF) This is easily-prosecutable willful interference or possibly aircraft sabotage: ADS-B operates in licensed bands and uses an already highly-contended modulation scheme and transmission protocol.
- esseph 9mo ago
  No reason to believe RF when you can just upload whatever data you want
- fragmede 9mo ago
  They'll probably try and make a case of wire fraud and CFAA as the usual go tos if it wasn't in RF.
  - habinero 9mo ago
    "Wire fraud" means financial fraud, not "sending data over wires".
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
tjohns 9mo ago
It would be under the FCC regs, not the FAA regs. Whatever transmitter you're using would not be type-accepted for operation on the 1080 MHz or 978 MHz band. (47 USC § 301) Additionally, RF operation with the intent of willful interference is inherently illegal. (47 USC § 333)
- TimorousBestie 9mo ago
  Excellent, thanks.
- fc417fc802 9mo ago
  What if you removed a genuine ADS-B unit from a plane and installed it in your vehicle? Also does impersonation necessarily qualify as interference? Naively, I'd expect interference to refer to jamming.
  - jjwiseman 9mo ago
    A transponder in a car is not an "aircraft station" (§ 87.5), therefore it is not covered by aircraft "license-by-rule" (§ 87.18(b)), so transmitting would be operating without a valid authorization (§ 1.903(a)). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-87 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D...

pear01 9mo ago

I believe this was "spoofed" only in the sense that a particular provider/online platform accepted data via an API that was abused to draw this on that platform only. Searching around it seems it was not found if you looked on other platforms, so it might not even have been a crime. I believe they didn't emit any real "signals" just took advantage of an API that should probably be better secured.

observationist 9mo ago
At worst it'd be a violation of the site ToS - it's a crowdsourced community data based system, and not any sort of an official, important system. The account doesn't seem to have been banned, so maybe the admins are just rolling with the joke.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
fc417fc802 9mo ago
> an API that should probably be better secured. I think the API is secured? The entire premise is that a volunteer creates an account and uploads ADS-B telemetry. Detecting falsified data is a separate matter.
- darthwalsh 9mo ago
  Sounds like authentication is working great, but their authorization design may be flawed.
  - filleduchaos 9mo ago
    How is it flawed? That is the nature of crowdsourcing.

advisedwang 9mo ago

It's almost certainly a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because it's an extremely broad law.

sophacles 9mo ago
TBF so is your reply and mine.
eleventyseven 9mo ago
Violating terms and conditions is not a CFAA violation, per the Supreme Court case Van Buren v US (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/03/supreme-court-cybercrime-law-491764 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/03/supreme-court-cyber...) which narrowed to actual fraud and data theft. "The Government’s interpretation of the statute would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity,” Barrett wrote. “If the ‘exceeds authorized access’ clause criminalizes every violation of a computer-use policy, then millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens are criminals." adsbexchange is a user-generated content platform where you can submit decoded radio signals to a common database. Sending fake data to adsbexchange is as much a CFAA violation as posting hoaxes to Wikipedia or a social media platform.
- kevin_thibedeau 9mo ago
  Precedent won't get in the way of a tribal retaliation. They've proven that they can't be consistent with fundamental laws they've sworn to uphold.

lovecg 9mo ago

Agreed with other commenters that nothing was likely actually broadcast, but if it was it would definitely be highly illegal and you’d have feds knocking down your door pretty quickly. They don’t joke around with illegal transmissions like that.