5 ms·
> 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 1
by 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.