4 ms·
I believe this is a big misunderstanding that has snowballed recently. I think what he actually claimed was that he did all of these outrageous stunts in a netw
by redwards510 11y ago
I believe this is a big misunderstanding that has snowballed recently. I think what he actually claimed was that he did all of these outrageous stunts in a network simulation that he had, not a live aircraft. That is why he has not been arrested. He wants publicity for the issue of security of aircraft computers and that's why he isn't rushing to squash these "I made the airplane do a barrel roll" stories.
What's better for raising consciousness about a potentially fatal flaw that by making people think that lives were at risk when they weren't?
- dennisnedry 11y agoAlso the idea that the plane went "sideways" could have been a weird coincidence. Maybe they went through turbulence when he allegedly sent the command?
- matmann2001 11y agoPlanes don't even move sideways.
- bootload 11y agoBe specific. The Boeing AV-8B Harrier II (Hawker Harrier) does. VIFF: "Vectoring in Forward Flight" ~ https://youtu.be/8UE9i82Kc_Y https://youtu.be/8UE9i82Kc_Y more examples: ~ https://youtu.be/YiPOyee_V0E https://youtu.be/YiPOyee_V0E inflight movement and shipbourne TO/L ~ https://youtu.be/4Sf6LQ50V2c https://youtu.be/4Sf6LQ50V2c
- verystealthy 11y agoOh, they sure do. https://youtu.be/mMvLuUJFHYk https://youtu.be/mMvLuUJFHYk
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- fleeno 11y agoPitch, roll, and yaw. Yaw is sideways.
- matmann2001 11y agoYaw is rotation about the z (up/down) axis.
- Gracana 11y ago> I think what he actually claimed was that he did all of these outrageous stunts in a network simulation that he had, not a live aircraft. Page 14 (pdf page 15) of the investigation report describes evidence of seat electronics box tampering at the location where Chris Roberts sat when he tweeted about hacking the plane. It may be a coincidence (a lot of wear-and-tear on old aircraft could be described as "evidence of tampering" if you wanted to look at it that way), but the FBI doesn't seem to think so.
- lawnchair_larry 11y agoSimple explanation. He did plug in to the system. He did not issue commands against a live system, but did look around. The actual manipulation occurred offline in a test environment at a different time and place. The extravagant claims were maliciously taken out of context by the agent in order to secure whatever he wanted from a judge, trump up charges, and making it sound as if there was some dire urgency to expedite due process and rational thought. I don't actually know anything about this case, but have seen this happen with virtually every warrant document or indictment related to computer "crime". They're an adversarial exercise in sales to further the author's agenda, not an impartial document aimed at ensuring justice. Now his lawyer is telling him to STFU, but he's being mischaracterized in the court of public opinion.