Defcon Researchers Build Tool To Track the Planes of the Rich and Famous 125
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "At the Defcon security conference later this week, two security researchers will release a tool that aims to expose a little-seen list of hidden private aircraft flight plans–the so-called Block Aircraft Registration Request or BARR list, a collection of aircraft whose owners have tried to keep their whereabouts secret. Any private jet owner can request to be taken out of the FAA's public database of flight plans. But Dustin Hoffman and Semon Rezchikov found that private flyers' whereabouts are still broadcast in air-traffic control communications. So they developed a speech-to-text system that pulls out planes' tail numbers from those communications almost in real time, often fast enough to post a plane's destination before it lands. In its proof-of-concept version, the site is focusing on Las Vegas airports, but plans to expand to other cities soon."
Sensational? (Score:2)
What does "rich and famous" have to do with anything?
Re:Because no one gives a shit... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I really wish, but it's just someone else who's interested in the whereabouts.
Re:Sensational? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a question. Why can't commercial airlines sell anonymous plane tickets. Is possibly but unlikely terrorism their only excuse?
It's to make sure you can't resell your ticket to anyone else.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real question is why they are allowing anonymous private planes. The 'terruist' just need to buy a private plane to do a 9/11 2.0. It would be nice if someone got that conspiracy theory spinning on news networks.
When the 1% lose their hassle-free flight privilege and have to go though TSA-style abuse, maybe then, things will get better. Nothing change unless the privileged and powerful see for themselves why it need to be changed...
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA still has official knowledge of these planes and their destination. Indeed, that's the only reason this trick works. This doesn't aid terrorists in any way. If they load up a small plane with explosives, how will keeping a destination private, except for the FAA, who is the one watching, help them?
Your drooling class warfare is showing and clouding your thinking. Also, how does whether a rich person gets through security any easier have anything to do with keeping their destination secret from e
Re:Sensational? (Score:5, Informative)
The FAA still has official knowledge of these planes and their destination.
The FAA not too long ago realized that they had a lot of bogus data for aircraft registrations. They have now started reregistering [faa.gov] all civil aircraft in an attempt at cleaning up their database.
As for knowing the destinations? No, sorry. Anyone operating VFR under Part 91 (and probably other parts) doesn't need to file a flight plan listing a destination, so the FAA would have no idea where that plane is going. When departing a towered airport, you'll tell the controller which direction you are going so he can plan for routing of traffic in his airspace, but once you leave the airport traffic area you can turn any direction you want. In Class B or C airspace, you don't need to tell the controller your destination, just the route you want to fly to get out of that airspace. (You'd have to tell him your destination if it is in the controlled airspace.) If the controller asks and the destination is outside his control (and you're not getting an IFR clearance) you can tell him any destination you want -- you don't have to go there in reality.
Even with a flight plan on file (and an IFR clearance for IFR), all the pilot has to do is request a different destination while airborne (even as late as on final approach) and he's going somewhere else. Under a VFR flight plan, the pilot doesn't even have to ask, all he has to do is go there, making sure to either amend the plan or cancel it prior to his ETA. (On final at a tower-controlled airport, he'll have to tell the controller his direction of flight, but not destination.)
If they load up a small plane with explosives, how will keeping a destination private, except for the FAA, who is the one watching, help them?
The only reason the FAA would be watching a small aircraft is if they are in positive control airspace (Class A, B, or C, e.g., or Class D around a towered airport), or the small aircraft has asked for it (IFR flight plan or flight following.) You can easily approach many suitable targets without the FAA noticing.
Now, if you are headed towards a location with a TFR (temporary flight restriction), like around Air Force 1 or over large stadiums during sporting events, or headed towards prohibited airspace (over the White House, e.g.) the FAA will take notice and send your information to the Air Force who will come to visit you PDQ. They won' t know who you are, but they don't care who you are, just that you aren't supposed to be there.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously I don't fly around in private jets, but I'd think that they'd largely be flying IFR. A jet moves pretty fast, and I can't imagine they just go buzzing through airspace without any separation at 250kts (or higher), and they're going to burn a LOT of fuel if they stay below 18k feet. They'd probably prefer to not be buzzing around in a pattern either when they land, and having to dodge clouds the whole time, again while flying at 250 kts.
Sure, they can change their destination enroute, but that is
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously I don't fly around in private jets, but I'd think that they'd largely be flying IFR. A jet moves pretty fast, and I can't imagine they just go buzzing through airspace without any separation at 250kts (or higher), and they're going to burn a LOT of fuel if they stay below 18k feet.
The point is that it is legal and they can, if they want to remain out of the FAA flight databases.
They'd probably prefer to not be buzzing around in a pattern either when they land,
I'm not sure what you think this has to do with being VFR vs IFR. If you're at a tower-controlled airport (and enter the "system" when you call them to tell them you're inbound), you fly what they tell you. That can be a pattern, or more likely a straight-in if you're a jet. If you're at an uncontrolled airport, you fly what you can fly safely. That can be a straight-in. In fact, it is probably safer for a j
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sensational? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they afford to pay for their privacy whereas we must forfeit our security and privacy when we get on the plane just because we can't buy the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
“Getting on an airplane shouldn’t amount to forfeiting your security and privacy to anyone, anywhere in the world with an Internet connection,” adds Hubbard Because they afford to pay for their privacy whereas we must forfeit our security and privacy when we get on the plane just because we can't buy the plane.
That, and this information is being broadcasted unencrypted over the airwaves for anyone to listen to for miles. This same service could be accomplished with a team of 1-4 people per city listening in on the frequencies with off-the-shelf equipment and looking up the numbers (which is probably already happening in LA, NY, and Las Vegas and other places for the paparazzi). No bullying of ISPs or wireless carriers nor decryption required.
Triangulate the signal and use it to guide SAMs. (Score:1, Funny)
Death to the 1%!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
people should be smart enough to understand that "being in the 1%" is not only a money calculation and has an attitudinal component. There are plenty of people who fit the financial definition that don't fit the attitudinal definition, like Stephen King for example.
Re:Triangulate the signal and use it to guide SAMs (Score:5, Insightful)
They should also be smart enough to realize that if you are posting from an internet connection anywhere in the western world, you are very likely the top 5-10% compared with the rest of the world. It seems a bit hypocritical for people to complain about the 1%'s wealth, and then complain when they outsource-- effectively, the 10% are complaining that the 90% are getting their jobs, and being lifted out of abject poverty.
If Im wrong here, please let me know, but it seems to me that follks in India, China, Africa could just as easily complain about the greedy 10% (us) who refuse to let any jobs come overseas without raising a huge fuss.
Re: (Score:1)
Here: http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/index.htm
You only need to make $34,000 to be in the 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
Raj in India might remark that the average American DOES hoard an obscene amount of money, and spends absurd amounts on the most trivial things.
but comparing ourselves to the worst is not the best way to self improvement.
Way to utterly miss the point. Poor folks in India, china, etc are TRYING to improve by getting jobs in the US, but people here complain to no end that "our" jobs are being "stolen" by undeserving foreigners. Seems hypocritical to turn around and then complain about OUR lack and needs and wants.
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to talking about income. The whole OWS campaign was against the top 1% of the country by wealth, which is a group that's an awful lot harder to get into than the top 1% by income. Many of the wealthiest individuals don't officially have that much income thanks to clever tax dodges, though since they don't really have to work for that income...
Re:Triangulate the signal and use it to guide SAMs (Score:5, Insightful)
Well no, actually, I think what bothers people is that the 1% (or really the 0.1%, or maybe the 0.01%) are outsourcing the jobs to poorer people and keeping all the profit generated by such a move for themselves. Personally, I would love to see wages rise in the poorest countries (and worker benefits, employee safety, etc rise with wages), and I would even condone a certain drop in my lifestyle and that of the average Westerner to make that happen, but the people who actually make the outsourcing decisions (and the very rich people who pay them) are not at all interested in making the average Chinese or Indian wealthier. They're only interested in enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else.
It's open to all of us to complain about this (and yes, that includes those people in the very highest income categories, like Stephen King or Warren Buffett), because to varying degrees we all suffer negative consequences because of it. Just because the poorest people have more to complain about, doesn't mean that the rest of us should stop complaining when a tiny minority takes our earned wealth away from us. In fact, if as the top 5% we have more power and can leverage more effective methods than the lower 95% of people, then don't we have an obligation to stand up and complain, and if that doesn't work, march, if we can? For ourselves, but also for those making far less than us?
Re: (Score:2)
They're only interested in enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else.
I mean, they are businesses, and any business in any capitalistic society is going to be about one main thing: making more money. And when it comes to selling goods, the way you do that is by either having a better product, or a better pricepoint, or both.
How do you get better pricepoints? You increase efficiency and cut costs-- one of which is wage.
One thought I had about preventing that wage from getting slashed too hard involves removing some of the barriers for folks here on a visa. Currently when y
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the 3rd world people getting the jobs aren't being lifted out of poverty. As soon as they show a sign of that, their jobs move to a poorer country where wage demands aren't rising. They won't actually be lifted out of poverty until they are employed by home grown businesses that don't offshore.
It is perfectly reasonable for people to use conditions in the country of their Citizenship as a baseline, they have no natural right to order a foreign country around, only their own.
I am supposed
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Almost there, but not quite. The real distinction that should bother everyone is not 99% vs 1%, and it's not even really "non-attitudinal vs "attitudinal" (though you're hinting in the right direction) - rather, it's moral vs immoral. The reason it doesn't bother people as much that Stephen King is rich, vs say some crooked banking exec, is that Stephen King probably made most or all of his money honestly and through hard work (and not through financial fraud and/or kleptocratic "bailouts"). But morality is
Streisand is mad (Score:4, Funny)
and she sues...
Why (Score:3, Insightful)
What would the application for this be outside of stalking someone?
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
Tracking executives, venture capitalists and other key individuals to try to glean some information from their comings and goings. Its one way of trying to figure out who might be selling to or buying from whom, where a company might be attempting to expand, etc. Perhaps Microsoft tracks venture capitalists focused on FSF projects and makes attempts to disrupt their activities. There are many little pieces of information out there that people will gather to gain some sort of advantage. In Dustin Hoffman's case, the paparazzi might want to show up on the location of his next movie project.
That's one reason that businesses prefer moving operations overseas where privacy is protected. Do business in China and make sure one of your partners is a high ranking member of the army. Now, if anyone tries to spy on your operations, they'll just be executed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The application is getting the law changed, so that being rich isn't a prerequisite to traveling with reasonable anonymity anymore.
Re:Why (Score:4, Insightful)
If you do anything "below" that, then your information is still hidden from the public. If you fly on an airline you might show up in some ticketing and monitoring databases but those aren't available to the public like tail numbers (and air traffic transmissions) are. Someone might see you in the airport and know what plane you are getting on, but this will apply only to movie stars, not VCs on their way to make a deal. If you charter a plane, then there's no way to tell who is on the plane from its tail numbers and you can probably board it from somewhere outside of the public eye. If you are a fractional owner (like netjets) there is still no real way to tell who is on the plane.
I don't see any real good argument for why we should try to encrypt or eliminate the air traffic control transmissions...that just seems like a bad idea. The issue here isn't really that any individual's whereabouts are being broadcast...the tail numbers are something that is reported and tracked on every flight that goes anywhere...it just so happens that if it is someone's personal jet, you can pretty accurately correlate the jets movements to the person's movements. If you have enough money to buy a private jet, you also have enough money to charter a jet from a pool or just fly first class on those days where you need your movements kept a complete secret.
Re: (Score:2)
What would the application for this be outside of stalking someone?
Nothing. Not even stalking. The fact that an aircraft belonging to someone that is "rich and famous" is going somewhere, does not necessarily mean that this someone is onboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. However, it demonstrates how little privacy there actually is once we leave the house. And even that's debatable, these days.
In other words, it's a perfect starting point for the discussion: what kind of privacy do we need to function properly, what kind of laws do we need to preserve that privacy, and what are the trade-offs? And now that the rich-and-famous can't hide either, they'll be part of the discussion. And since no one has the politician's hear like the rich and famous.... we'll get laws
Re: (Score:2)
Dustin Hoffman? (Score:2)
There aren't too many Academy Award winning hackers out there!
Re: (Score:2)
Must be a residual effect from playing "Rainman".
Re: (Score:1)
Re:If $EVIL_CORP did this, you'd be up in arms (Score:4, Interesting)
Wrong. The airplanes that carry the rest of us around are tracked in the public domain. These guys are tracking airplanes, not people.
Re: (Score:3)
Theyre tracking a private vehicle. How happy would you be about this if it were somehow tailored to track you as you drove your car (or bike)?
Re: (Score:1)
And the airplanes the rest of us ride are not "private vehicles"?
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are people, my friend. Delta's airplanes are private vehicles, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Not from your and my perspective, they arent-- that is, we dont set our own rules on them.
Re: (Score:2)
You might try dropping that first sentence into Google and see what turns up :-).
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. The airplanes that carry the rest of us around are tracked in the public domain. These guys are tracking airplanes, not people.
It's very easy to find out that a particular Learjet with tail letters XYZ belongs to Jay Z. Almost* the entire article is about tracking an airplane which has a one-to-one relationship with a specific famous person.
How easy is it to find that MatalliQaZ is a passenger on UA flight 789 leaving out of PHL at 2:40?
Saying they're tracking airplanes and not people might be technically correct, but it's awfully disingenuous.
* Not quite the whole thing. It does also talk about industrial espionage capabilities (s
Dan Hubbard, NBAA Spokesman (Score:1)
“Getting on an airplane shouldn’t amount to forfeiting your security and privacy to anyone, anywhere in the world with an Internet connection,” adds Hubbard.
Right - that privilege is reserved for high-school dropouts with 2 weeks of "training."
Speech to text? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why don't they just decode the location messages from the avionics? There are several web sites already doing that.
Re: (Score:1)
Gotta see Judge Wapner (Score:3)
POTUS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plausible, but I imagine that the strategic intelligence concerns already allow for military craft to use a different air traffic control protocol. On the other hand, I have no actual knowledge of that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be shocked if it wasn't handled like a military aircraft already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The flight plan itself is not published, however flight restrictions are given to pilots through FAA briefings ahead of time for wherever that jet is going to land. Beyond that it's irrelevant to us because ATC will not route you through AF1's no-fly radius, so you just get told to go a certain way. Above 18,000 feet you are under full ATC direction no matter what (at least in the US, not sure of other countries). It's also likely that AF1 communicates on military channels and not civilian air frequencie
Re: (Score:2)
Potentially yes. The flight plan of Air Force One is reported to the FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC), but it's unlikely that the plane's tail number will be reported as Air Force One. Technically Air Force One is whatever plane the POTUS is currently riding on.
Note, that air traffic controllers can see ALL flights: public and private (including military). All aircraft flying in public (non-restricted) airspace which don't use visible flight rules (i.e. big planes) must respond with their beacon code when i
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, they'll get well paid jobs doing this for $BIG_CORP or $GOVT.
VFR to non-controlled Airports (Score:5, Interesting)
If you fly VFR, which can be a pain going cross country, you don't *have* to file a flight plan. It is a good idea, but not a requirement by law. Also, uncontrolled airport -- those without towers -- don't require radio communication to use. If you have a radio it is best to make an announcement on the CTAF/Unicom frequency for safety, but it isn't required.
So, if you're that paranoid and secretive, register a plane in an LLC and not your own name then fly VFR from Class E to Class E.
Re:VFR to non-controlled Airports (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, uncontrolled airport -- those without towers -- don't require radio communication to use. If you have a radio it is best to make an announcement on the CTAF/Unicom frequency for safety, but it isn't required.
You're right, and knowing this scares the hell out of me.
I skydive, and before people start jumping off the plane, the pilot announces over radio, "jumpers in the air." They generally tend to broadcast announcements of the entire operation status, and the general jump run location. The regulars of the airport obviously know this is going on, but I have seen people land there to refuel while traveling someplace else get all amazed watching the skydivers land.
It's somewhat unnerving to me to know that anyone can just show up without a radio, and without knowing the airport is a dropzone. I assume it can be somewhat hard to visually spot people falling at 120 mph. Obviously there's a lot of empty space up there, so it's not like a collision is likely to happen, but still, it bothers me. Any pilots want to weigh in? Does knowing there are skydivers in an airport bother you? Do you think radio communication should be required in this day and age, or are there good reasons not to have a radio on your plane? Depending of course, on the class of plane. I realize skydivers operate under VFR rules, so if a radio was required, we'd have to strap one on, I guess :)
Re: (Score:2)
I realize skydivers operate under VFR rules...
Ugh...now I need to hit myself in the head with the same bat I used to hit people who say they're going to use the ATM machine.
Re: (Score:1)
All regular sky diving locations are marked on the maps with a little symbol. So only a really poor pilot wouldn't know there might be sky diving in the area. I don't get pilots who don't have any radio. I mean a handheld transceiver cost around $240 or less. add a head seat and your looking around $320. We're talking about battery powered units so even aircraft without an electrical system could use them. But yes pilots tend to be very cheap so there are pilots flying around without any radios.
Re:VFR to non-controlled Airports (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I hope this doesn't change. It is a relic of the golden age of aviation, of a simpler time with less regulation. One hopes that pilots who fly without radios are paying attention to their nav charts (which list drop zones). But there are plenty of stupid pilots, just like there are plenty of stupid skydivers.
I'm 100% with you. That's why we're supposed to be watching out for these planes ourselves, we have a bigger chance of spotting them than they do of spotting us. It also does make me feel better knowing that radio-less planes are fairly rare, and as you point out, I imagine people flying them would be extra careful. I was curious and wanted to hear a pilot's side. Thanks for that.
Re: (Score:1)
Just about every GA craft has a radio (or, more likely, multiple radios). The ones that don't are generally really old or experimental or otherwise special. It's like asking if it should be a requirement that cars have a third brake light. Almost a ll do, only in special circumstances would one be absent.
That said, radio-less flight is allowed in certain low activity airports (you could never land at LAX without a radio). Navigational charts will show areas where skydiving takes place, so if the pilot
Re: (Score:3)
So you are unconcerned with the risks associated with intentionally jumping out of an aircraft thousands of feet above the ground and relying on a piece of fabric to arrest your fall, but you *are* worried about the additional minuscule chance you will get clobbered by a dentist spacing out at the controls of his Cessna? :)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are unconcerned with the risks associated with intentionally jumping out of an aircraft thousands of feet above the ground and relying on a piece of fabric to arrest your fall, but you *are* worried about the additional minuscule chance you will get clobbered by a dentist spacing out at the controls of his Cessna? :)
Hah. It's a good question. The answer is two-fold. First, as I said, I realize the chances are rather small, and I'm not that worried about it. Second, the risks associated with intentionally jumping out of an aircraft are much smaller than people assume. It's a rather safe sport.
Well, I suppose a more accurate answer is that it's "as dangerous as you make it." There aren't many skydiving deaths (roughly 20-25 a year or so, millions of jumps). Of those deaths, the vast majority of them are people who
Re: (Score:2)
Not a pilot, but one issue is the frequency. Aircraft might be listening to radios, but not on Unicom, if they're controlled by ATC. If you're jumping from high enough it isn't just airport traffic that is going to be an issue.
As far as maps go - skydiving would only show up on a sectional map. I suspect most pilots would look at a sectional around any airport they planned to land at, but if they're just cruising for 500 miles at 5000 feet, I can't imagine that they would necessarily carefully scan the r
Re: (Score:2)
People who jump out of perfectly good airplanes.
Get zero sympathy at all if anything bad ever happens.
Zero. Ever.
I don't get whuffos. You're ok with staying in the plane while it flies around, right? The parachute is just another flying machine. A pretty reliable one at that.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't fly VFR above 18000' in the US (class A airspace), and that limitation would substantially increase the operating costs of biz jets.
The DEA has also started searching aircraft that fly VFR between airports on "drug smuggling routes". I know someone who, along with his family, was detained for several hours while they searched his plane.
Charter planes would fix this, since the passenger wouldn't be identified with the N number, but I don't see an easy fix for privately owned aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Flying IFR in general is much safer and more hassle-free, especially at jet speeds. You don't have to worry about flying into some temporary security area and getting shot down or something either, and having to dodge clouds or other aircraft. If you fly IFR into a smallish airport for the most part you just punch your route into the autopilot and hit the engage button once you're aloft. About the most you'll have to do is pick which runway to land at, as the route is going to be pretty predictable and a
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Even in my bonanza I mostly fly IFR, especially in crowded airspace.
Flights from Las Vegas to Area 51 . . . ? (Score:3)
Now that would be interesting, if they started tracking those . . .
That ought to get the spooks annoyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but they could still track the flights if they check in with ATC. They'd obviously have to at McCarren at the very least. Maybe they go VFR once they're clear of airspace, but I hear they fly airliners out there and it would seem strange to be flying those VFR.
Gonna turn up some dirt (Score:2)
Janet flights, torture taxis and the secret corporate jets that are run in a similar manner (they keep them secret to keep up public appearances).
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm modded down. How curious.
But why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More, Please (Score:1)
The 1% need to know that the Total Information Awareness they wish to impose on the 99% can be turned around on them. They think they maintain a monopoly on violence and technological know-how, but they really don't anymore, and it's getting worse. When someone with a 3D printer can print out a gun, the monopoly on violence is over. When an average citizen can track the exact whereabouts of a 1%-er, then the 1%'s ability to exercise their heretofore unlimited power is curtailed. It won't be long before
Re: (Score:2)
This is 'radio savvy'??? (Score:2)
This is more like "Make" magazine savvy. Decoding the Mode-S transponder data sent on 1090 MHz [rfdesign.com] would be a hell of a lot cooler, and would get all aircraft within range, not just the ones talking on a particular freq.
Amateurs.
Actually A Good Idea (Score:1)