Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Flying the Wiretapped Skies 381

Posted by CmdrTaco from the do-you-hear-what-i-hear dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The FBI is lobbying the FCC for the power to to quickly wiretap in-flight broadband services under CALEA. The feds are afraid terrorists will use the services to coordinate hijackings or remotely activate bombs, and they want to be able to interrupt or redirect a airplane's Internet access during a crisis, or to start sniffing packets within 10 minutes of identifying a suspicious passenger and getting court approval. Here is the FCC filing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flying the Wiretapped Skies More

Flying the Wiretapped Skies

Comments Filter:
  • Here's something I never understood about the liberals on this site. They're all for making technological advancements that improve productivity and make things faster and easier for everyone, but then they complain when the feds wants to use this technology to make THEIR jobs faster and easier.

    Why is it such a bad thing that they should be able to go to a court and get wiretapping authorization, then be able to do the tap in less than 10 minutes? I'm sure there will be lots of "big brother is after me" comments in this story, but why? Is the FBI supposed to just sit back and chisel everything in stone?

    Call me crazy, but if the FBI needs 10 minute wiretapping on a WIFI setup to keep my plane from being blown up by a bunch of Islamic radicals, then so be it. It's better to be a live chump who's email was intercepted by the feds than a dead one who's viagra spam remained a secret.

    • Re:If the terrorists want to kill you at 30k feet. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LucidBeast ( 601749 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:00PM (#13035410)
      Well, you know all that liberty and freedom stuff they keep talking about on TV. Originally it ment freedom and liberty from your own government. Most of us just don't remember that since we live in relatively free times.

      • Re:If the terrorists want to kill you at 30k feet. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pogle ( 71293 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:05PM (#13035483) Homepage
        Yes, because the ability to carry out a wiretap obtained legally via due process in the courts within a useful timeframe is definitely an awful, horrible infringement upon my liberty and freedom by the government /end sarcasm

        If they had the ability to carry out a 10-minute tap on anyone whenever they pleased, we'd have issues; as it is now they need to walk it past a judge still, and should not be able to indiscriminately tap people for no reason.

        Whether or not the judges are competent in their positions or pushovers who'll sign every wiretap order they're handed regardless of merits is an entirely different problem, of course, tangentially related to the conversation at hand.

        • Re:If the terrorists want to kill you at 30k feet. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Taevin ( 850923 ) * on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:09PM (#13035520)
          Judges are a very serious concern related to the problem though. All the FBI has to do is say that the person they want a tap on is a strongly suspected terrorist. What judge wants to be the first one to deny such a request if it later turns out to be true and a wiretap could have prevented an attack?
          • The judge that wants to uphold the constitution and bill of rights?

            The judge should require substantial evidence that the person is a possible terrorist before signing anything that would violate their rights. Of course, that is the slippery slope of preventative policing. To catch someone before they do something, you need to violate their freedom before they do it.

            I am all of this technology though. As long as it is used responsibly, it makes a lot of sense. Also, the only people that can afford

            • Re:If the terrorists want to kill you at 30k feet. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Taevin ( 850923 ) * on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:33PM (#13035783)
              The judge that wants to uphold the constitution and bill of rights?

              That's the idea of course but I have serious doubts about that though when the Supreme Court says it's okay for the government to take away your property and give it to whoever pleases them - for the public good, of course.

              To catch someone before they do something, you need to violate their freedom before they do it.

              Where do we draw the line though? At what point do these violations of rights become wrong? Currently, they can only violate your privacy completely. What's next, detainment? "Well we're pretty sure this guy is a terrorist so let's hold him indefinetly while we investigate his entire life and interrogate him." "Oops turns out we were wrong but we're going to keep a wiretap on all your communications forever and regularly checkup on you, just to be sure."
          • "What judge wants to be the first one to deny such a request if it later turns out to be true and a wiretap could have prevented an attack?"

            The judge thats doing his job and asks for collaborating evidence that meets the structures for wiretapping (which I don't know offhand, but have been in place for some time)? The judge thats not a patsy to the FBI and respects our Constitutional rights?

            As I said, its tangential to the issue at hand, but is a larger issue in and of itself, that I mainly mention due t

        • Re:If the terrorists want to kill you at 30k feet. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by GoodNicsTken ( 688415 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @03:31PM (#13036382)
          That's really the problem. It's how it's used. The Patriot Act "sneak an peak" provision have been used +1,600 times and not one of them has been turned down by a judge. (Come on, the government is not that perfect)

          I have a friend who is an American Citizen, born here, white as can be. He's a private pilot in his late 20's. He bought a 1 way ticket in advance to get home after flying for work. He had an Air Marshal sitting next to him because he was one of the highest risk passangers for that day. (And it happens a lot) Folks, that's what we are spending money on.

          What is tapping WiFi really going to give someone? Are they plannign to detonate a bomb in the cargo hold via Wifi? Why couldn't they just use a timer or Altemiter to detonate? What else, coordinate with other terrorists? Why can't they use raido and code words worked out beforehand. Or simply fly the plane low over a city and use random passanger's cell phones. (Yes they work)

          I wish GOP backers would actually consider how these laws are actually put into practice, and how they are combined with other provisions to make them even worse.

      • I think everyone is missing the big picture here. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sgant ( 178166 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:46PM (#13035902) Homepage Journal
        Why is the FBI even asking for this? The terrorists aren't going to use something like this. Let's look at what happened on 9/11. A group of Saudis hijacked some planes with fricken box-cutters. They didn't use any high-tech emailing or chat system or anything else to coordinate the attacks. It was as basic a plan that they could come up with...and the rehearsed it over and over and over until everything was right and nothing was left to chance. No technology...other than the guys learning how to pilot the airliner.

        <sarcasm>So what is the FBI asking for? A "just in case" type deal? Well, they should then ask for all forms of communications then, have free reign on the postal system too in case the terrorists resort to writing a letter or two. Have microphones set up everywhere in every home just in case terrorists may want to gather in a house and coordinate an attack! OH MY GOD!</sarcasm>

        It's because this country is in a state of fear still. I honestly don't think the FBI is out to get us all and wants to take away everyones freedom nor control people. Heck, I even have a friend that's in the FBI...he's a nice guy. But I think that they are as scared as everyone else is and they don't want to get caught with their pants down again. I believe they honestly want to try to prevent and protect the citizens of the US...it's just they're methods may be a bit zealous at times.

        • "It's because this country is in a state of fear still. I honestly don't think the FBI is out to get us all and wants to take away everyones freedom nor control people. Heck, I even have a friend that's in the FBI...he's a nice guy. But I think that they are as scared as everyone else is and they don't want to get caught with their pants down again. I believe they honestly want to try to prevent and protect the citizens of the US...it's just they're methods may be a bit zealous at times."

          I agree. Unfo

    • If it was only ever used in case of emergency, or in the investigation of a federal crime, then I doubt us "liberals" would have a problem with it. However, as the Indymedia server siezures (amongst many other things) show, this power is systematically and flagrantly abused to further politcal agenda.

      • Regarding the Indymedia incident (Score:4, Insightful)

        by October_30th ( 531777 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:05PM (#13035475) Homepage Journal
        as the Indymedia server siezures (amongst many other things) show, this power is systematically and flagrantly abused

        Wasn't that about someone bragging about committing a crime on Indymedia and the police confiscated the servers because Indymedia wouldn't yield the identity of that one particular poster as requested? I fail to see any problem with that.

        • Uhm, I think it was related to there being pictures of undercover police officers from some country on the server... (Can't be bothered to look it up right now, too hot and humid for me to care, need icewater..)

          /Mikael

        • Re:Regarding the Indymedia incident (Score:4, Interesting)

          by SpooForBrains ( 771537 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:11PM (#13035541)
          That is the party line, yes. However (and many of the details are unclear) the authorities contacted ONE indymedia volunteer, who declined to release the relevent logs. They made no attempt to co-operate with rackspace, or the administrators of the server in question, they just knocked together a warrant, marched in and confiscated the server. The response was completely disproportionate to the crime, and the peripheral involvement of the indymedia server in the investigation.

          It has also been speculated that the timing of the incident (not long before the G8 summit) was more than a coincidence. Not to mention that this is not the fist time that this sort of action has been taken against Indymedia's servers.

          I don't know whether there's any truth in these "conspiracy theories", but I don't just swallow the official record of events either.

        • Re:Regarding the Indymedia incident (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Politburo ( 640618 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:36PM (#13035810)
          People here on slashdot brag about committing crimes daily, be it breaking CSS, pirating the latest MS or Adobe product, illegal drugs, etc..

          Do you think that Slashdot should be forced to yield the identity (IP, subscription info if applicable, etc.) of posters who do this?
    • I'd agree with you, but I'd also say that the parent didn't exactly say this was bad or good. Granted, I've seen enough liberal tantrums to be sensitive to it but the parent might actually agree with you (us).
      I think its easy to see the plus side here. What are the negatives? We already give up a lot by flying, not that that's good or bad.
    • Why is it such a bad thing that they should be able to go to a court and get wiretapping authorization, then be able to do the tap in less than 10 minutes?

      It's not a bad thing. What's bad is when they use this plus provisions in the PATRIOT act to allow them to tap it without that ever-important authorization. I don't have anything against Law Enforcement doing their job. What I disagree with is when they have the legal ability to spy on people just in case.
    • You said it right in the first sentence of your second paragraph:

      "...they should be able to go to a court and get wiretapping authorization..."


      I want a court looking after the FBI. They should answer to someone other than themselves. That's the idea of checks and balances. If a judge approves it, I'll accept it.

      Would you support this if the FBI didn't require any authorization? If it was "we check everybody" or could be?
    • I'm impressed that they're asking for authorization.
    • I don't mind them speeding things up, but what I object to is the getting rid of due process that often goes along with that. Fast-track the warrants, fine - but you sure as hell better not give them until the FBI has shown reasonable suspicion.

    • Fearmongering muddies everyone's thinking (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:15PM (#13035581)
      If the terrorists want to kill you at 30k feet... ... then you die. Seriously, do you really believe terrorists won't be using strong encryption, knowing their data packets are probably being sniffed by the feds. This isn't going to stop a single terrorist--all it will do is allow greater snooping with less oversight on regular civilians going about their lives, who happen to take a commercial flight and use the net at the same time.

      Here's something I never understood about the liberals on this site. They're all for making technological advancements that improve productivity and make things faster and easier for everyone, but then they complain when the feds wants to use this technology to make THEIR jobs faster and easier.

      Here's something I never understood about the humanitarians on this site. They're all for making technological advancements that improve health, safety, and quality of life, but then they complain when the feds want to use this technology to improve THEIR ability to kill en masse.

      See the flaw in your reasoning?

      People object because technology, like everything else, is a double edged sword. It can improve people's lives, add to our quality of living, and empower us. It can also be used as a tool for unprecidented oppression. Most of us support and are working hard for the former, and vehemently decry steps toward the latter.

      That having been said, in this particular case, there is no expectation of privacy on board a public, commercial aircraft (private aircraft are another story, and should be treated like private automobiles or homes), so I don't really have a problem with the feds (or anyone else) tapping communications on board a commercial airliner. You don't conduct private business on a busy street corner with dozens of (probably evesdropping) bystanders, nor would any sensible person do so in a public aircraft. But one can make credible, even compelling, arguments that this sort of laxidasical attitude toward authority evesdropping on private conversations in any context, be it a public street, a commercial flight, or a private residence, amounts to the same level of inappropriate intrusion by government into private life, particularly when infrastructure makes such capabilities the default, and court oversight becomes more and more a rubber stamp for letting the feds do whatever they like, whenever they like, often with little or no real justification.

      Finally, your characterization of people encouraging what they see as a good use of technology and decrying what they see as a bad use of the same technology is disingenuous. Most people (myself included) don't embrace technology for technology's sake--we embrace it insofar as it enhances our lives and our freedoms, and reject its use when we see it being exploited to do the opposite.
      • Actually, I rather doubt any terrorists are using encryption. Fact is, they don't need to. Finding their communications in the mass flood that is everyone else talking is almost impossible. And, if the Feds have identified them to the point of wiretapping them specifically, the terrorist is already done for, so encryption won't help.

        The very loose arrangement of the organizations helps here. There isn't a rigid control structure, so it doesn't really matter much if someone from one cell's captured...th

      • No, the terrorists won't use strong encryption (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @03:03PM (#13036072)
        "Seriously, do you really believe terrorists won't be using strong encryption, knowing their data packets are probably being sniffed by the feds."

        Actually. No I don't believe the terrorists will bother using strong encryption. They'll have their instructions memorized, with information passed in person. You don't need a computer to blow up a train or a plane.

        All this high tech stuff is futile, the terrorists aren't using it. The fact that the FBI are chasing it says to me that they don't understand the nature of the threat or they're after something else.

        • Re:No, the terrorists won't use strong encryption (Score:4, Insightful)

          by periol ( 767926 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @05:14PM (#13037349) Homepage
          All this high tech stuff is futile, the terrorists aren't using it. The fact that the FBI are chasing it says to me that they don't understand the nature of the threat or they're after something else.

          I've seen this response a few times in this thread, and I think this is crazy. Low-tech terrorism can have a disastrous impact (see 9/11, 7/7). But it's not the only game in the book, and every year the likelihood of a high-tech terrorist attack will increase.

          I have issues with the FBI, but just because the FBI realizes how disastrous a smart, high-tech terrorist operation could be DOES NOT MEAN they don't understand the nature of the threat. I would tend to think it means that you don't understand the nature of the threat we're facing.

          Look, the truth is calling this "terrorism" is disingenuous. When I say "terrorist", you and everyone else in the world thinks "Islamic radical". That focus is going to inherently weaken our ability to deal with other threats - which do exist. Just because the Islamic radicals aren't *currently* high-tech doesn't mean there aren't high-tech threats right now.

    • Re:If the terrorists want to kill you at 30k feet. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by slavemowgli ( 585321 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:16PM (#13035597) Homepage
      The real problem with this is that once a secure connection with a trusted outside machine (for example, an SSH server) has been established, you cannot sniff it anymore. You *might* be able to conduct a man-in-the-middle attack if you start *before* the connection is established, but even then, you probably won't - the public key fingerprint you present to the hijacker (in the airplane) won't match the one in his key database, so unless he's stupid, he simply won't connect at all and the attack (or at least the coordination) won't happen.

      Of course, that would be a success in itself (at least if the actual attack is stopped as opposed to the mere coordination of different attacks), but it requires something much stronger than a court warrant that allows you to target a specific suspect individual - you'd have to actively monitor (and route through your application-level gateway) *each and every* single packet that's being sent or received. For everyone in the plane. On every flight. Always.

      Suddenly, things don't sound so good anymore, do they? You might still say that you'd rather be a live chump without a right to free speech [1] and so on than a dead one that still has the right, but not everyone'd prefer to live in a 1984-like world. Would you?

      Of course, total surveillance of everyone 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, without any privacy at all, in a world where cryptography and private communication is outlawed, would probably make you safer from hijackings and the like, but is that the kind of world you'd want to live in?

      Getting back to the original point, the problem with this is not so much that the FBI will or should be allowed to place a wiretap within ten minutes if they get a court warrant allowing them to. As far as I am concerned, they could start wiretapping one second after the OK - there's nothing wrong with that.

      What *is* a problem is the fact that this is probably going to be sold as a security improvement, when in reality it is not. A false sense of security does not help anyone - just like blind and unjustified fear does not help, either.

      So it's probably still a good idea to remain skeptical for now.

      1. Note that the right to free speech includes not only the legal right, but also being able to actually use that right without fear of repression and/or repercussions.
    • As someone I'm sure you would consider "liberal", let me say I agree with you. As long as they have the court order I don't care if they begin the tap in 5 seconds or 5 days. What I don't like is some of the current efforts to not require court orders (just needing "administrativer approval"). This to me just seems like common sense. If they have court approval, than I see no problem.

    • Re:If the terrorists want to kill you at 30k feet. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by InfiniteWisdom ( 530090 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:33PM (#13035780) Homepage
      The problem is that there has been such a massive overreaction to 9/11. Today we're expected to give up freedoms and face all kinds of scrutiny the moment they words "terrorist" or "war on terror" are uttered.

    • As one of those /. liberals.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daVinci1980 ( 73174 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:35PM (#13035805) Homepage
      Well, if by liberal you mean someone who favors small government that stays out of my personal affairs...

      Then I would be a /. liberal. And as far as I'm concerned, the feds are welcome to interrupt my internet access on a plane or sniff my packets that go across the internet (whilst coming from a plane). So long as they get a court order to do so (which the article indicates they will). Except for the fact that I think this is just something that makes people "feel better," not something that will actually save one single life.

      Now, a bit of insight into why other measures the government has taken in the past four years...

      The bottom line is that none of them work. For example, the rainbow of terror [whitehouse.gov]. When is the last time you remember the threat level dropping to Low? For that matter, when's the last time you remember the threat level dropping to Guarded? And what's with the colors, anyways?

      And what's with the government being able to sniff out what kind of books I read? Am I the only one who realizes that in order to have a free press, you have to have a populace with the freedom to read what the "free" press writes?

      What about the increased "security" at airports? Am I the only one who realizes that the increase in security at airports is unnecessary because passengers are unwilling to be used as a giant bomb against their fellow citizens of the planet Earth? The reason that 9/11 was successful (from a terrorist point of view) was because people expected that the plane had been hijacked, they would sit complacent and would be taken to Abu Dabi, at which point they would deplane. But as the plane that went down in PA shows, people aren't idiots. And they're not willing to sit there and be used as cannon fodder against their fellow humans.
      • For that matter, when's the last time you remember the threat level dropping to Guarded? And what's with the colors, anyways?

        Guarded? I've never heard of that one. There's a reason for the colors, and that's because the official terror alert levels are:

        Green - Oscar
        Blue - Cookie Monster
        Yellow - Bert
        Orange - Ernie
        Red - Elmo

        okay, yeah [geekandproud.net]
    • Actually, I've always considered objecting to a governmental agency intruding on my privacy and my personal life to be a very conservative position.
    • Call me crazy, but if the FBI needs 10 minute wiretapping on a WIFI setup to keep my plane from being blown up by a bunch of Islamic radicals, then so be it. It's better to be a live chump who's email was intercepted by the feds than a dead one who's viagra spam remained a secret.

      I have nothing against this. Know why? The magic words at the end: with court approval. If someone decides to fuck with the system, there's a paper trail. Imagine if we couldn't have caught the several FBI agents over recent
    • Call me crazy, but if the FBI needs 10 minute wiretapping on a WIFI setup to keep my plane from being blown up by a bunch of Islamic radicals, then so be it.

      Your faith in the FBI's ability to do anything with such information is what's allowing the FBI et al. to increase their ability to spy. If the FBI finds something suspicious they can not send superman to come save you. The best they can do is alert the pilot to lock his door and land immediately, which will most likely cause a lot of unneeded havoc d

    • 1st, I'm going to climb in the mud, then climb out and be objective.

      Ah, someone who reads Republican talking points and worships Bill O'Reilly.

      Perhaps you consider yourself a libertarian with a little L as opposed to the party with the big L. Anyway, get on with your life and stop trying to blame liberals for everything from your hangnail and no dates to Bob Barr being de-elected. Okay, I'll cop to the Bob Barr thing.

      I consider myself a liberal, I'm a business owner, I vote and I donate money. I'm als

  • So in other words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @01:57PM (#13035383)
    Some kind of crypto is in order. I'm sure the fasttracked wiretapping will be a massive help when faced with terrorists using a VPN or other means to obscure what they're doing.
    • I was just thinking "there goes my chance of ssh'n to my machine at 30,000 ft"

      now I'll be arrested...
      • Of course I'm assuming that that VPNs, SSH can be supported. It would not surprise me in the least if the aircraft only supported http through some kind of proxy.


        Even so, I'm sure its not beyond the realms of fiction to think of ways one might use SSL, innocuous code words, or even stego to hide what they're truly doing.

        • Of course I'm assuming that that VPNs, SSH can be supported. It would not surprise me in the least if the aircraft only supported http through some kind of proxy.

          And [http-tunnel.com] that [nocrew.org] would [gnu.org] stop [hopster.com] stop [sebsauvage.net] me [securiteam.com] how [sourceforge.net] exactly? [bypass.cc]

    • Re:So in other words (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bfizzle ( 836992 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:08PM (#13035502)
      Exactly... other than turning off the connection, packet sniffing isn't going to do shit to stop a terrorist that sets up a encrypted connection.

      This is what bothers me most about our government. They are fighting a battle they don't understand and therefore can't win.

  • How to deal with data? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Monday July 11, 2005 @01:58PM (#13035392) Homepage Journal
    OK, so aside from assigning away all of our freedoms and rights to privacy, I have to wonder just how the Dept of Homeland Security plans on assimilating all of the data that they are desperately trying to get legal access to. This is the basic problem behind much of the remote sensing communities ability to surveil targets of interest from airborne/space platforms. Automating much of this surveillance is one of the holy grails of the intelligence community. For instance, I knew a guy who at the peak of the cold war, specialized in runway lengths. All he did was look at remote sensing imagery and examined runway lengths to determine the capacity and capability of aircraft and logistics at differing airbases. It is fairly simple to automate that sort of thing now, but many other aspects of determination of what is important data from what is not important is very difficult to automate.

    • Re:How to deal with data? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Thanatopsis ( 29786 ) <despain.brian@g m a i l .com> on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:04PM (#13035463) Homepage
      Don't worry it. It will reside in a repository somewhere, in an obscure format. They will want to collect everything and will soon find out that the signal to noise ratio is horrible.

      "Automating much of this serveillance is one of the holy grails of the intelligence community."

      The intelligence commmunity was so in love with signal intel that they allowed our human asset base to decay so that it will take years to rebuild. Good job intelligence community.
    • have to wonder just how the Dept of Homeland Security plans on assimilating all of the data that they are desperately trying to get legal access to.

      This is why we read. As a liberal, yes card carrying I will say that I am in favor of this. The government is not asking to accumulate reams of data on every flight. The article indicated that they wanted to be able to tap a flight within ten minutes of identifying a suspect passenger.
      This is a good thing. This can be a fast response way to identify bad commu
      • This is why we read.

        Wiseguy eh?

        As a liberal, yes card carrying I will say that I am in favor of this.

        As an American (political party agnostic), I will say this sort of thing concerns me because it invokes a slippery slope problem. Which of course has been happening "liberally" and "conservatively". Be careful of that which you so freely give away. You have fallen into the fear trap and are willing to give away what our Constitution grants you as a US citizen because access to your rights are being
        • We're not giving away anything, which is why it was suggested that you read. In this case they are simply asking to be able to speed up the process. Still requires a judge, so what freedoms are being given away that I should be upset about?
    • As a followup to this, it could be reasoned that this is exactly why the federal government is continuing to grow and is larger under the Bush administration than ever before (that is a fact and not a troll). Hiring people to go through this data simply means that you have to find/train a specialist to go through the data looking for patterns or specifics and that because of the increasing types of data the government is trying to examine you have to parallelize this process meaning more than one analyst i
    • Who said they had to have a valid plan for using this information? I see this more as a cover-your-ass thing. Imagine if they didn't ask for this ability, and the public were to find out there was something, at some point, that they could have done "better" (by their own, uninformed logic) ... suddenly we get yet another intelligence-agency re-org for the sake of making things look like they're changing, and ... again, nothing really happens. But it's a lot like politicians and lawyers, using every trick ev
    • Looking in some very unobvious places...

      I realize this is off-topic, but since you brought up the DHS (Dept.Homeland Security) I thought I might point out that with all the techno-crap that's being wielded about, we've still got a HUGE hole in our borders! I heard on NPR today about something I didn't realize. Non-Mexicans caught crossing the border illegally are caught, given a 'get out of jail free' pass with the 'promise' that they will appear before a judge in 90 days... that otherwise they are free

  • Nothing new here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pete6677 ( 681676 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @01:58PM (#13035396)
    Terrorists have found ways to hijack planes for the last 30 years without in-flight broadband. This proposal will fix nothing. The most effective defense against hijacking, and the reason why another one has not been attempted since 9/11, is vigilant passengers that will no longer cooperate with a hijacker.
    • Terrorists have found ways to hijack planes for the last 30 years without in-flight broadband. This proposal will fix nothing.

      Just like any of the other security measures put into place after the 9/11 attacks this will not solve anything. Those interested in inflicting damage on nations they disagree with will do so by exploiting flaws in the *current* system.

      All that the US Government is doing is creating bandaids that do nothing but remove our freedoms. Yes, the terrorists hate "freedom" and because
      • All that the US Government is doing is creating bandaids that do nothing but remove our freedoms. Yes, the terrorists hate "freedom" and because of this erosion of personal freedoms in newsmedia, personal life, airplanes, telephony, and Internet they have weakened us a lot more than when they took down the Towers.

        Not only are they just creating band-aids, but they're putting them on completely uninjured parts of the body while they're at it. What was the chance that in-flight broadband was ever going to
    • The most effective defense against hijacking, and the reason why another one has not been attempted since 9/11, is vigilant passengers that will no longer cooperate with a hijacker.

      While that is arguable, the most effective defence against airline hijacking would be to separate the cockpit from the passenger compartment with a solid wall.

  • OS (Score:3, Funny)

    by gunpowda ( 825571 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @01:59PM (#13035397)
    [They are]fearful that terrorists will exploit emerging in-flight broadband services to remotely activate bombs or coordinate hijackings...

    Ahh, the SP2 roll-out's not done yet.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Is this supposed to make us feel safer on flights? If they need 10 minutes after getting a court order, don't you think the plane may already be blown up?

  • I dare.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:00PM (#13035415)
    everyone else onboard with broadband to browse several pages of al-jazzeera and to make anonymous posts on slashdot mentioning atleast: bombing, airplane, suicide, assassin, bush..

    oh, gotta go, flight marshall wants to have a word..

    • Last time I did this sort of thing - I was peppering my email sigs with things like "pot-smoker", "porn", "hookers."

      That's because I feel that my government's reaction to said activities is wrong.

      I don't feel any compunction to hinder my government's prosecution of "suicide bombers","bush assassins" et al.

      Frankly, I wish my government would roll a few more heads - but that's just me. I'm a vindictive bastard.

  • We already have our traffic sniffed by Carnivore, Echelon, and who knows what else. Does it really matter that the folks at Comverse Infosys really get one more point to sniff our data?

    --Mike--

  • Never assume your bits are unwatched (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:01PM (#13035432) Homepage Journal
    You can't send any bits over the internet without the possibility of them being watched in transit. They're carried over networks you can't trust.

    If you value your privacy that highly, use SSL to an anonymizing proxy. Other than that, assume that the feds and anybody else is watching your packets, whether you're on an airplane or not.
    • and with the implementation of those scanners that can see through your clothes , even your nether packet is not safe from prying federal eyes

    • Re:Never assume your bits are unwatched (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:12PM (#13035551)
      You can't send any bits over the internet without the possibility of them being watched in transit. They're carried over networks you can't trust.

      The thing is, that wiretapping business is just another case of liberties given up in the name of (false) security. If I'm a terrorist, what can I do from an internet-enabled airplane?

      1 - Send emails to osama@terrorists.org saying "the carrots will get cooked in 10 minutes"? Nah. Terrorists are smarter than that. They won't use in-flight internet.

      2 - Plant a bomb in the airplane, remotely triggered by a judiciously sent IP packet? unlikely, because airport security would have (theorically) screened the bomb before it gets onboard, and if it does get onboard, it takes a fraction of a second between the packet and the explosion, so the wiretapping is useless.

      The only reason I can think of that the FCC, or anybody else, would want to wiretap internet connections is for the sake of wiretapping internet connections and watching normal citizens. They just needed a "reichtag excuse" to implement it, and terrorists unfortunately give them plenty of opportunities these days...
    • There is something you *can* do, though, and that is to use an SSH tunnel to a server with a trusted key - for example, a server where you verified the keys' integrity in person. Then, when you're on the road, connect to the server with your laptop; if the key fingerprint you get doesn't match, assume someone's attempting a man-in-the-middle attack, and don't do anything. In particular, do not log in to the server, of course, in order to prevent leaking your credentials.

      If the fingerprints *do* matched, lo

  • Eh whatever. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by oGMo ( 379 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:02PM (#13035450)
    Anything that hits the airwaves should be considered compromised already. If you're not using secure connections for everything that matters, you're already in trouble.

    That said, whether the FBI can or cannot quickly tap in-flight wifi is a different question. Given they're getting court approval, why is this a bad idea? If they can't do it quickly, the point is moot. If they can't do it arbitrarily at whim, our rights are not being trampled upon.

  • With the focus and $$$ being spent on anti-terror being the atmosphere in the executive branch of the US feds, these are the type of ideas that get you promoted, gets noticed and gives you a reputation as a go-getter and get'r'doner. Forget how practical or realistic it is or how easy to circumvent - just whatever you can come up with to fight the baddies makes you look good to the boss.

  • None of these measures will be effective (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:05PM (#13035484) Homepage Journal
    A wise and well-trained group will use the time-old technique of publicly accessed itinerary and flight plotting sites, combined with a local calculator on their permitted laptops to estimate location, and reading easily plotted alert info available to the general public.

    Hacking inter-group messages won't detect or deter such a group and they'll still accomplish their mission objectives, provided they don't need to survive the mission - which by definition, they won't.

    Sigh. Always assuming the enemy is stupid and ill-trained is half of why we have no effective defenses. They train, they adapt, and they are willing to go beyond the bounds of what acceptable risks are considered to be.

    To defeat such an enemy first you have to understand how they think - and black and white Us Good They Bad And Stupid thinking won't work.

    But, hey, what do I know from my counter-terrorism ops and training anyway, or my field combat engineer experiences ...
  • My network, my rules.
    Their network, their rules.

    Anyone who wouldn't think that every packet on such a network wouldn't be logged, needs to have their head examined - and is probably crazy enough that they should have their packet stream examined too.

    Don't like it? Buy your own plane. Glue a Pringles can into a nicely-formed chunk of fiberglass, and glue the fiberglass onto the bottom of its fuselage. Paint the word "Experimental" near the cockpit. Your plane, your can, your network provider ,

  • ssh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bloosqr ( 33593 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:08PM (#13035508) Homepage
    What good is sniffing packets? Have terrorists not heard of ssh? I can see the argument being made for keeping track of destination ip's but even that can be proxied. The whole sniffing packets/echelon weltanschung seems like a lot of money to spend on something that is trivial for the "real bad guys" to get around at no cost to themselves.

  • This is Getting Ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Evil W1zard ( 832703 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:10PM (#13035525) Journal
    Seriously. I am one who is all for more stringent measures to protect the national infrastructure, but this kind of initiative goes into the realm of absurdity (is that even a word!) They are afraid terrorists will use the in-flight service to coordinate or remotely detonate bombs. Well considering I could do the same thing with a pager or a cell phone what is the big deal here. Lets stop with the spread of FUD and focus in on measures that are meaningful. Putting Internet service on planes is not going to supremely facilitate the terrorists planning and coordination effort. Hell we better not allow Internet on other forms of transportation as well if we are that scared. I'm for protecting the country as much as the next person, but we need to start focusing on more realistic threats and stop trying to control these small inconsequential things.
  • Because this will also magically stop terrorists from using inflight phones, USB-cellphone internet connections (with the cellphone hidden in onboard luggage), or any other number of less than covert communication channels.

    Not to mention, it seems the last time, they did just fine working independently of each other.

  • Ummm -- sure. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:12PM (#13035548)
    Great idea. Ought to work wonderfully for those terrorists who send each other e-mails with "We will attact the Great Satan today with UA Flight 255 at 10:33 exactly!" in plaintext.

    How it will work with a one-time-pad set of coded messages is something else again.

    I can't decide whether I'm more disturbed by my government's attempts to get more power over honest citizens or over their apparent dependence on the Bad Guys all having IQs in the room temperature range. Celsius.

  • Misdirection (Score:5, Interesting)

    by arrow ( 9545 ) <mike@da[ ]com ['mm.' in gap]> on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:12PM (#13035554) Homepage Journal
    This has nothing (or little) to do with tapping in-flight broadband and phones.

    Read that middle part again: "to be able to interrupt or redirect a airplane's Internet access".

    What they REALLY want is the ability to shut passengers up during a hijacking. Killing off all communications with the ground ensures that later on first-hand reports via blog posts or phone calls won't conflict with the governments statement of what 'really' happened.

    • Re:Misdirection (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Lawrence_Bird ( 67278 )
      Dude, I think you are way too paranoid, and I'm more paranoid
      than most.

      However this is all pretty pointless unless they can get in
      the cockpit to control the plane. No pilot will open that
      door no matter how many people are being offed in the main
      cabin.

      I suppose a w-fi enabled pda could be used to remotely trigger
      a bomb, but it would need to be in the main cabin and not in
      the baggage. Given that Al Queda has had 15 years to blow up
      planes it most not be that easy to get one on the plane,
      Ramsey Yousef's one a

    • Re:Misdirection (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Baricom ( 763970 )
      Are you an American qualified to run for the Senate or House? If so, we desperately need you in office right now.

      Very clever. I was going to post that I didn't particularly care if the government could turn off the Internet in the plane, but this reasoning made me reconsider.

      Good job. This is by far the most insightful post in the topic.

  • NEWS FLASH: Teenager Arrested at Airport (Score:3, Funny)

    by bornyesterday ( 888994 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:13PM (#13035562) Homepage
    Arrested when he walked off the plane, the teenager was charged with conspiring to commit an act of terrorism. Authorities stated that communications he sent while on the plane tipped them off. When queried as to what he said, they provided this bit of text.

    Dude! This is the BOMB! I am having such a great time ON this PLANE. Me and Susan decided to 'HIDE THE EVIDENCE' IN THE RESTROOM! It was amazing. She BLEW me away. The low pressure got me UP a lot faster. We should be getting into Dallas around 12:45. Peace!

    The authorities then noted that the Arabic word "Salaam" means "Peace."

  • too late.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by beowulfy ( 897757 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:15PM (#13035585) Homepage
    What exactly would the FBI be able to do with their 'wiretap' to stop a terrorist that is already onboard the plane. If the FBI is concerned enough to ask the courts for an in flight wiretap of a specific passenger, it begs the question: Why didn't the FBI do something to prevent the passenger from boarding the plane in the first place? One of the senarios that was suggested was that the terrorist might use his laptop to remotely detonate a bomb on board the plane. If the FBI were able to distrupt this activity in time, wouldn't the terrorist probably resort to a more dirastic method of destorying the plane? It seems like abuse of authority is more likey than actaully terrorism prevention.
    • What exactly would the FBI be able to do with their 'wiretap' to stop a terrorist that is already onboard the plane

      Well, I suppose they could use the wiretap to gain enough evidence to decide to tell the Air Marshall on the plane to shoot the guy in the head.

  • what constitutes 'suspicious'? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by delire ( 809063 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:17PM (#13035619)

    ..or to start sniffing packets within 10 minutes of identifying a suspicious passenger and getting court approval..
    Twice now I've been approached by EU airport security that have looked over my shoulder, seen a collection of terminals open and asked me a plethora of silly questions.

    Like many, I was, and still do run a minimal window manager: on one occassion I had to actually start up a browser (what that proves i don't know). The second incident was relaxed only by showing them that the email I was writing (in mutt) was to my mother. Another absurd situation had me spending 1.5 hours with security staff in Australia who weren't convinced that the kernel boot process wasn't actually some kind of evil hackery - they were routinely checking laptops and asked me to boot. A gigantic bloke came from upstairs, looked at the screen, gave a disturbing smile and said "it's fine."

    Time to fly the friendly skies: install cheery ol' KDE with bootsplash.

  • File under "useless." (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jaywalk ( 94910 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:18PM (#13035626) Homepage
    Just how much of the planning do these guys think the terrorist will do from their plane seats? And, assuming they have enough foresight to coordinate an attack, do you think they'll still be dumb enough to use plain language rather than something obtuse about "package delivery" or "message receipt" times?

    Honestly, sometimes I think these guys have about as much intelligence gathering savvy as Sgt. Schultz [4t.com].

  • How does this fix anything? Unless they have a solution capable of decrypting a PGP message transferred over SSL in less than 10 minutes, they're pretty much screwed.

    Hell, gaim's encryption plugin gets around this. Surely the "evil terrorists" know about encryption at this point, eh?

    Getting a little bit OT here but: ***WHY*** can't I use my cell phone on a plane again? If we can put a freaking 802.11 hotspot on there, surely verizon can put a mini cell on the plane.

    I suppose it doesn't matter anymore

  • The FBI doesn't need to do this... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AB3A ( 192265 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:21PM (#13035664) Homepage Journal
    ...because there are already laws they can use against those who use the internet access to coordinate acts of terrorism.

    It's 14CFR91.21 [akamaitech.net] --All the FBI has to do is call the air traffic control centers (or approaches) and tell them that they have reason to think the Internet is being used for a coordinated attack against the country. Then each airline pilot would merely push the OFF switch on the internet access gear onboard the aircraft.

    The bottom line is that 14CFR91.21 says that you're using whatever wireless gizmo on board the aircraft at the express permission of the Pilot-in-Command . The instant the Pilot thinks something might jeapordize the safety of others, they already have express permission to take whatever measures are neccesary to maintain safety of flight.

    This is not about your rights, folks. You're a passenger onboard an international vessel and subject to the orders of the captain or pilot in command of that vessle. You can whine about the indignity once you're safely at port or on the ground. Until then, live with it or don't go.
    • That shuts off the immediate attack but what if information about ground coordinators can be discovered? If you simply kill the connection you alert all involved that you're on to them. If you tap the connection you can arrest the involved parties who are on the airplane when they land AND you can also investigate and attempt arrests of those on the ground or on other planes.

  • In related news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dfn5 ( 524972 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:30PM (#13035749) Journal
    The feds are afraid terrorists will use the services to coordinate hijackings

    In related news, upon hearing that their phone calls are being monitored terrorists have resorted to synchronizing watches beforehand.

  • Darn... (Score:3, Informative)

    by BackInIraq ( 862952 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:31PM (#13035756)
    ...guess this means that terrorists will have to revert to using such items as cell-phones or pagers to remote-detonate bombs and something all complicated like _watches_ to coordinate attacks (with a little planning ahead of time, of course).

    I should shut up now, before the DHS bans all cell phones, pagers, and watches from US flights.
    • Well no see watches are going to be a few seconds different from each other and we all know that desert-hardened terrorists rely on synchronized detonations down to the millisecond. Kinda like during 9/11.

  • What a bunch of bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phillymjs ( 234426 ) <slashdot.stango@org> on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:51PM (#13035943) Homepage Journal
    First of all, there will NEVER be another passenger aircraft hijacking again. The age of "Be cool, do what they say, and everything will be fine" ended at about 8:50 or so on September 11, 2001. Now, as soon as some schmuck stands up in a plane and says, "Okay, everybody this is a hija--," everyone within reach of him will try to tear him apart. Hell, even guys who get drunk and rowdy on a flight are rather enthusiastically subdued by passengers these days.

    Furthermore, the fact that the Fibbies even think this is necessary is IMHO a very public no-confidence vote in the TSA and all the crap they make us go through to even get near a plane, much less on it.

    ~Philly

  • This will help how? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by VonSkippy ( 892467 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @02:55PM (#13035985) Homepage
    How soon people forget. Forget about encryption, just use simple code word communication.

    "Mr. Smith: Confirming our meeting at 30120 Altitude lane. I'll be there in 2:15 from now. Looks like the plane is serving "cold cuts" a few minutes from now. I'm reading the "red" folder the office gave me. Buh Bye. Best from Allah, Ackmed

    All the wire tapes and sniffers in the world won't be able to determine if that's code or just regular dribble.

    People are so stupid to think that only the good guys can be clever.

  • Most common conversation (Score:5, Funny)

    by m00nun1t ( 588082 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @03:04PM (#13036086) Homepage
    The most common packets intercepted by the FBI:

    [Bill has just logged in]
    Bob: Hey d00d!
    Bill: wassup?
    Bob: guess where I am?
    Bill: where, d00d?
    Bob: I'm 30,000 feet above Colorado!
    Bill: No WAYY!
    Bob: TOTALLY!

  • Doesn't this assume... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jimfrost ( 58153 ) * <jimf@frostbytes.com> on Monday July 11, 2005 @03:15PM (#13036221) Homepage
    ...that the terrorists who are smart enough to use the internet to coordinate in-air attacks are too stupid to use something like PuTTY?

    Seems ridiculous to me. Moreover, we're not going to see another 9/11. Passenger psychology changed that day; no longer does anyone believe that sitting quietly in your seat is the best way to survive.

  • Expectation of privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nsayer ( 86181 ) <{moc.ufk} {ta} {reyasn}> on Monday July 11, 2005 @04:21PM (#13036829) Homepage
    Ok, everyone for whom the IANAL bit is set to false... Is there really any expectation of privacy for your packets once they transition out of your LAN (in the case of public WIFI, out of your machine)?

    If you have no expectation of privacy, then they wouldn't even need a warrant, would they?

    Please note that "expectation of privacy" is a specific legal term, not just a statement of angsty desire.

    Departing briefly from the legal arena, I personally have no expectation that my packets cannot be inspected by any random BOFH after they leave my house, which is why I encrypt them as much as possible. I suspect I am not alone in this manner of thinking.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close