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."
Why (Score:3, Insightful)
What would the application for this be outside of stalking someone?
Re:Triangulate the signal and use it to guide SAMs (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:Sensational? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Sensational? (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: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.
tracking hypocrisy (Score:0, Insightful)
The data can be used to track hypocrisy from two powerful groups. First, the rich and powerful, the largest polluters, can be shamed into tightening their CO2 footprints by highlighting their air travel. Second, western governments who publicly espouse human rights can be held to their own standards by making black flights performing illegal prisoner transfers public, as plane spotters have already done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_aircraft
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Triangulate the signal and use it to guide SAMs (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 not really directly about class or wealth - there are moral and immoral people at all wealth levels - it's not "class warfare" we should be fighting (e.g. "the rich" or even "the powerful"), but rather "morality warfare" by society's moral class and against its immoral class.
In fact, if you really think about it, it's society's immoral, powerful members that stand to benefit from confusing people into thinking it's the "99%" vs the "1%" .. because as long as you're fighting the wrong thing, they can "divide and rule/steal".
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?