Slashdot Mirror


US Says Plane Finder App Threatens Security

ProgramErgoSum writes "The Plane Finder AR application, developed by a British firm for the Apple iPhone and Google's Android, allows users to point their phone at the sky and see the position, height and speed of nearby aircraft. It also shows the airline, flight number, departure point, destination and even the likely course-the features which could be used to target an aircraft with a surface-to-air missile, or to direct another plane on to a collision course, the 'Daily Mail' reported. The program, sold for just 1.79 pounds in the online Apple store, has now been labelled an 'aid to terrorists' by security experts and the US Department of Homeland Security is also examining how to protect airliners. The new application works by intercepting the so-called Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcasts (ADS-B) transmitted by most passenger aircraft to a new satellite tracking system that supplements or, in some countries, replaces radar."

100 of 524 comments (clear)

  1. fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Be afraid! Everything is a threat!
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    and we can't take away all your freedoms unless you are afraid...

    1. Re:fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Haha, wish you sit on a plane which has been pointed at by an iPhone.

    2. Re:fear by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Knowledge is Power. Power can be used by the Terrorists. Ban Wikipedia.

    3. Re:fear by Zebai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if this app is banned the mere fact that this is possible means terrorists can write their own programs. If they want to protect air lines they should devise some means securing this automatic signal.

    4. Re:fear by leromarinvit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Forget Wikipedia. Ban the Internet.

      Or turn it into TV.

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    5. Re:fear by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not just ban airplanes? If there are no planes in the sky, they can't be shot down!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:fear by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which would defeat the purpose of ADS-B, as it's a replacement for radar. You want other aircraft in the area to know where you are, and hence you really don't want to restrict what is receiving that signal (even if you limit it to just aircraft, someone could always take an ADS-B decoder from their aircraft and spit the signal out over IP).

    7. Re:fear by Larryish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      New DHS directive:

      Everyone who is not an obese whining imbecile is to be considered a threat.

    8. Re:fear by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm fucking dangerous. I'm eating a carrot and reading the dictionary. I'm bugs bunny on a plane.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  2. Already done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this any different from a website like flightstats.com, and I'm sure there are plenty of other sites like that too. It isn't difficult to figure out where the planes are. The app probably only makes it marginally easier to view this data on a phone. Sounds like much ado about nothing

    1. Re:Already done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Its different because the data fed to flightstats is delayed for exactly this sort of reason. The app developers are intercepting identifying signals transmitted directly by the airplanes closing the gap between real-time and that delayed by a government-mandated time period. I'm an airplane geek so I would love an app like this. In the meantime, I'm stuck decoding ACARS transmissions with my laptop. I love watching planes take off over my house and have pictures of the plane get automatically downloaded from airliners.net. Way cool.

    2. Re:Already done? by Cylix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I fail to understand how anyone can complain when they failed to institute basic encryption policies to protect such data.

      It would make no sense to block the application because it's obvious the work can be easily reproduced.

      If this was ever a concern they should have at least implemented some basic protections.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Already done? by Korrente · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can rent an ADS-B equipped plane from my local FBO for $130. I've been able to do this since about 2006. This way, I can track the 737's flying into BNA, and also have the option of flying into any other object within 300 miles. No iPhone needed (it's probably cheaper than an iPhone, too). Yes it's much ado about nothing, but how would we survive without something to ado about?

    4. Re:Already done? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The worst thing which can happen is for the ATC system to not be able to see the aircraft because a key is wrong. Concerns about terrorism are secondary.

    5. Re:Already done? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The app developers are intercepting identifying signals transmitted directly by the airplanes closing the gap between real-time and that delayed by a government-mandated time period

      Really? Which radio in the iPhone is being used to intercept those signals? The GSM/WCDMA radio? The Wi-Fi radio? The Bluetooth radio? The GPS radio?

      I infer from Pinkfroot's "Share Data" page that their apps just get the ADS-B data over the Intertubes from people who have ADS-B receivers and make the data available.

    6. Re:Already done? by BitterOak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I infer from Pinkfroot's "Share Data" page that their apps just get the ADS-B data over the Intertubes from people who have ADS-B receivers and make the data available.

      And if I'd Read The Entire Fine Article, I wouldn't have had to infer; The Fine Article says exactly that:

      The firm behind the app, Pinkfroot, uses a network of aircraft enthusiasts in Britain and abroad, who are equipped with ADS-B receivers costing around 200 pounds to intercept the information from aircraft and send it to a central database.

      Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to ban the receivers rather than the apps? It sounds like all the app is doing is aggregating data that's already available. A resourceful terrorist could write his own software to do that.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    7. Re:Already done? by IICV · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's the point of encrypting these signals? I'm pretty certain you could derive enough of the information in them with a database of airline schedules, background knowledge of the routes airplanes take, and some on the spot information about the plane (which was was it heading? What time is it right now? What flights were delayed recently?) which is freely available stuff if you just crawl the airline websites. The airplanes only broadcast it to make things a bit easier for air traffic controllers; it's nothing a theoretical terrorist group couldn't figure out on their own.

      Also, you can count on the fingers of one head the number of times a commercial airplane has been shot down with a missile in the USA, so basically this is a non-problem.

    8. Re:Already done? by ckaminski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nevermind the fact that the single best time to shoot down a plane for a terrorist is when it's nearing it's terminus (either takeoff or landing), when it is both slow-moving and at low altitude.

      Most terrorists won't have access to heavy-duty surface to air missiles - at best they'll have Stingers, which aren't very good at chasing high-altitude aircraft (effective range of 3 miles).

      -Chris

    9. Re:Already done? by AngryNick · · Score: 4, Funny

      the single best time to shoot down a plane for a terrorist is when it's nearing it's terminus (either takeoff or landing)

      -knock-knock-knock-
      "Sir, you're under arrest for providing information terrorists might find useful. You have the right to..."

    10. Re:Already done? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And even if you don't want to do it at the airport, easy enough to have someone at the airport call you to know when your selected flight takes off, and maybe a couple of other spotters along the way.

      And all of this presumes that if you're a terrorist who wants to shoot an airliner out of the sky, you have a particular desire to choose a specific plane. There may be reasons to do that, but you can terrify people just as well if not better by simply choosing a known flight path and choosing randomly.

      Why was the plane targeted? NOBODY KNOWS! YOU COULD BE NEXT!

      BOO!

      --
      This space available.
    11. Re:Already done? by the_womble · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Concerns about terrorism are never secondary.. The 3,000+ people killed by terrorists the the US in the last decade are a far greater concern than the best part of 200,000 other murders over the same period. fewer than 40 people killed by terrorists in the UK in the last decade are a greater concern than than close to 3,000 killed by other murderers over the same period, or something on the order of 30,000 from each of road accidents and suicide.

      It follows that a risk of a terrorist attack is of greater concern then the risk of accidents, even if the latter is a greater threat in terms of the number of people killed.

      Do you expect a rational policy?

    12. Re:Already done? by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, not Tuesdays. If we're gonna ban any day, then it must be Mondays. I don't like Mondays.

      --
      And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
    13. Re:Already done? by SoTerrified · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It sounds like all the app is doing is aggregating data that's already available. A resourceful terrorist could write his own software to do that.

      A resourceful terrorist already owns an ADS-B receiver... Five seconds of googling, I found a web site with simple instructions for building your own. The idea that a terrorist will be able to obtain munitions and technology required to take down an airplane but will decide not to use it because they can't get an app for that is just too funny for words.

  3. It's bad by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If something could potentially be used in a bad way, even if most people aren't going to abuse it, it must immediately be banned! So, basically, anything that can be used as a weapon, too. Which is... pretty much everything.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    1. Re:It's bad by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd have thought that the _problem_ is that the aircraft is broadcasting its position, not that somebody wrote an app to listen to the signal.

      If some Android developer can figure out how to do it, so can anybody else.

      But...go ahead, ban the app if it makes you feel better.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:It's bad by robot256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aren't the aircraft broadcasting their positions so other planes can avoid them? I don't think we want every single plane operating in stealth mode, just look how well that works with submarines. If there is "increased risk" of being targeted by missiles, then so be it, you're way more likely to run into another plane than get targeted by a missile. And if you're in enemy airspace you should already have that shit turned off.

    3. Re:It's bad by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The source of this story was the Daily Mail, that also brought us such superb journalism as this.

    4. Re:It's bad by kimvette · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is not about legitimate security concerns. as a SAM would hit the aircraft regardless of whether or not an app captured transponder data and superimposed it on a map or not. In fact this app would probably not help a terrorist very much at all, except possibly with identifying a specific aircraft - but don't you think that the terrorist would have receivers already, be listening to VHF transmissions between the cockpit and air traffic control, and so on?

      This kind of app is most useful for aviation nuts who like to track weather, aircraft flights, and other trivia no one will care about a day later. It is good for GA to know what's in the air around you (ignoring FCC and FAA regs about cellphones in the air), and it's particularly good for seeing for yourself how busy air space is along your intended route as you plan.

      What is this whole stink all about?

      Homeland Security Theater. It's about time for the season premier episode and this seems to be it. It is all about a Wizard of Oz like production where we are supposed to watch the media rantings, and not seeing the puny man behind the curtain for the farce he is. It is all about continued existence of Homeland Security and the huge tax burden it creates to support that woefully inadequate charade while not doing what it takes to actually prevent terrorist attacks (e.g., profiling international flight passengers, deporting illegal aliens, stopping illegal immigration, I mean, invasion, at the borders). It is about forcing Americans to embrace the idea of big government, a nanny state, and a global government with no checks and balances.

      It is not about real security at all. It's about a temporary apparent security for which we are exchanging our essential liberties.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    5. Re:It's bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can do the same thing and have been able to do it for years !!

      All aircraft transmitt OPEN data without ANY encryption apart from military who have differening ability for just these sorts of reason.

      The call to "BAN" is ludicrous at best and ill informed at worst.

      As pointed out by other posters there are a multitude of sites that give this data out freely and have done so for a considerable time.
      There is also a MASS of software for controlling scanners and good quality radios to take it much further than simple heading and altitude to give you almost (not quite) an air traffic control view over quite a range !

      It is nothing more than a SCARE tactic to grab attention and quite possibly publicity for the app.

      I used to use a scanner hooked to a computer or laptop to do just the same thing some years ago.
      Terrorist No I aint !! interested in comms ? YUP !

      PLEASE GUYS read up on a topic before posting knee jerk reactions that make you look bad !

    6. Re:It's bad by sjames · · Score: 3

      Absolutely, because we can all pick up a Stinger missile at the Walmart, but intercepting the location ourselves is just beyond the realm of possability.

    7. Re:It's bad by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was worried when I realised that the local bus company had posted information telling us the routes and times of the bus services in the city. If it weren't for the drivers doing their best to randomise their arrival times, terrorists would use this information for nefarious purposes!

      I saw a kind of foreign looking guy the other day. Close call that.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    8. Re:It's bad by raodin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure I can think of anything less stealthy than a commercial airliner, really. They're huge, noisy, and covered in running lights. The only use I can think of for this app for a hypothetical terrorist is to identify a particular aircraft, but we are talking about terrorists here. They typically aren't known for their choosiness in civilian targets. The point is to scare a population by killing a large chunk of largely random people, after all. Binoculars would suffice to target a particular aircraft type or airline, if they're already in range for a shoulder launched SAM, anyway.

  4. Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by kbensema · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... instead of, say, the surface-to-air missiles

    1. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by fredmosby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But iPhone apps are new. An article that says "Surface to air missiles can shoot down airplanes". Just won't get as many readers.

    2. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... instead of, say, the surface-to-air missiles

      Hey, I have a right to bear arms. You iPhone users can git your own amendment or else you can git out!

    3. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by f3rret · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... instead of, say, the surface-to-air missiles

      Hey, I have a right to bear arms. You iPhone users can git your own amendment or else you can git out!

      I really don't think the 2nd amendment makes allowances for the possession of strategic or tactical air defenses.

      Speaking of which, instead of spending time on worrying about iPhone apps, maybe these terrorism "experts" should be concentrating on preventing terrorists from gaining access to surface-to-air missiles.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    4. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by Entropius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The intent behind it does, really.

      The whole "well-regulated militia" bit likely intends to give citizens the right to be sufficiently well-armed to constitute a significant military force -- that's what a militia is. At the time, that consisted of rifles and pistols, but any modern significant military force would necessarily include RPG's, MANPADS, and the like.

      If you really want the Second Amendment to mean what it originally was intended to mean, then yes -- private ownership of these weapons is Constitutionally guaranteed. I don't think this is a good idea, but this position requires changing the meaning of the 2nd.

    5. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by ryanleary · · Score: 2, Informative

      What a feat, a simple cheesy iPhone app that has pilots quaking in their boots.

      Do not click parent link. Goatse. I need to wash my eyes out.

    6. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by kenj0418 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Besides - I'm pretty sure you have to agree not to use your device for anything involving terrorism or nuclear or biological weapons when you sign up for your iTunes account. So terrorists couldn't use it anyway.

    7. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The typical interpretation that I've seen from the more conservative pro-gun groups is that it includes any weapon up to and including what would normally be used by a single infantryman in wartime. So you can have rifles, smaller anti-tank weapons, and MANPADS, but anything crew-served is out.

      And where does the 2nd amendment say that?

      The Constitution implicitly assumes the private ownership of warships (see 'letters of marque and reprisal'), so the idea that the founders would have been shocked by private ownership of crew-served weapons seems rather silly.

      That said, I'm not sure I'd be too happy with rednecks towing 105mm howitzers behind pickups with a rack of Stingers in the back.

    8. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also note that the iPhone app works because THE AIRPLANE IS BROADCASTING THIS INFORMATION CONSTANTLY. If this information is a security threat, why did they create an air traffic control system where this information is public? If you can't be arsed to encrypt your own broadcasts, is it really shocking when someone actually reads them?

    9. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >At the time, that consisted of rifles and pistols

      And cannons.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can buy them and fly them, but the feds will make you prove that they're not carrying any ordnance.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    11. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by T+Murphy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wrong. I hear there's a hack out that bypasses the agreement dialogue. I hope Apple patches this before any terrorists commit any heinous crimes (like use flash).

    12. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately you're correct. Strictly speaking the interpretation that people use is kind of odd. It allows people to have a right to firearms that have no involvement in any sort of militia regulated or otherwise. But by the same token it restricts the kind of weaponry that it would actually require to fulfill the intent of that amendment.

      And realistically, the 2nd amendment really ought to be updated to provide people with the right to secure communications.

    13. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whether the information is encrypted or not only matters if you are intending to target a specific aircraft in the sky - if the goal is just to hit an aircraft, any aircraft, then just home in on whatevers broadcasting, encrypted or not.

    14. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by I_M_Noman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The intent behind it does, really.

      The whole "well-regulated militia" bit likely intends to give citizens the right to be sufficiently well-armed to constitute a significant military force -- that's what a militia is.

      As I read it, the 2nd Amendment directly refers back to Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 16, which states that Congress gets to arm the militia. Given that, couldn't you extrapolate that since you'd get your weapons from Congress, what weapons you're allowed to get would be decided upon by them?

    15. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The relevant question is not "what would shock the founders" -- hell, a country where you can't keep slaves anymore would be a shock to many of them.

      Well, the Constitution did have to be amended to ban slavery. Don't get me wrong - I hate slavery with a passion, but it was the law of the land, and the founders clearly intended for it to be the law of the land.

      When you think about it, individuals owning guns has always been fairly well-correlated with freedom.

      Feudalism was very oppressive, and its power derived from the expense of equipping soldiers. An effective military force required a horse (a specialized breed not useful for farming/etc), and all kinds of armor and gear. It also required a squad of support personnel for every knight (to maintain all that gear, and carry it around - it isn't like the knight hiked across Europe in plate and they didn't ride war horses around either).

      When guns came out, it changed everything. Now a poor man could be issued a relatively inexpensive musket and they were as powerful as anything the enemy could field short of a siege weapon. The siege weapons themselves weren't all that expensive either - you didn't need many of them and they didn't require feeding like war horses/etc, and they didn't have to be built to fit a particular man like armor. Nobody needed armor, since armor was useless anyway. Guns democratized warfare, and the nobility vanished.

      In theory modern weapons carry this even further, except that nobody is allowed to own inexpensive but effective weapons like RPGs/etc. So, power is becoming more concentrated among those who are allowed to own weapons. On the other hand, when needed anybody who controls the police could quickly equip at least a 3rd-world grade army inexpensively.

      Now, the flip side to all of this is that more powerful weapons also greatly increase the amount of damage a single nutcase can do to the rest of society. In the middle ages a guy with a sword couldn't really do more than slash up a few people at church or something before being overcome. Even a guy with a barrel of black powder could only do so much since there wasn't anything big to blow up that wasn't also made to withstand siege. Today, just about anybody can get their hands on enough armament to wreak quite a bit of havoc - to the point where now nuclear proliferation is becoming a big concern.

      I'm not sure what the solution is - to some extent the genie is out of the bottle. However, I'm not convinced that giving every redneck a howitzer and a MANPAD is going to make things better. Certainly that would make me think twice about flying...

    16. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bit less than that my friend!

      The UK developed an air-to-ship missile during WWII that was (and I shit you not) pigeon guided.

      Pigeons were shown silhouettes of German battleships and rewarded with food whenever they pecked on them. Then pigeons were mounted in the transparent nose of a glide missile. There was a glass panel in front of them connected to actuators, so if the ship was off to the left the pigeon would peck on the glass and the missile would turn left.

      Absolute genius. I don't know if it was ever used in anger, but the theory is sound.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    17. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by phantomcircuit · · Score: 4, Informative

      That would be the US, not the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon

    18. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by couchslug · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you comply with Federal requirements, you can own (and shoot!) artillery.

      It's a bit expensive, so you usually find only mortars and cannon for sale.

      http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Browse.aspx?SearchType=0&Timeframe=0&Keywords=*&Cat=3100&Items=50

      The owners are typically well-behaved, and it isn't a poor man's hobby.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    19. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by tweak13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It states that congress may arm a militia if they feel that it would be necessary to do so. It would be ridiculous to imply that it means that militias would only get their arms from the federal government.

    20. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by Bob9113 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And where does the 2nd amendment say that?

      The Constitution implicitly assumes the private ownership of warships (see 'letters of marque and reprisal'), so the idea that the founders would have been shocked by private ownership of crew-served weapons seems rather silly.

      Personally, I'm more for the spirit interpretation of the 2nd. The goal of the 2nd, in the eyes of the guys who had just overthrown the official government, was that The People should have enough firepower to take down the government if necessary. To me, handguns, rifles, shotguns, and IEDs are sufficient for that -- as long as we take the 1st seriously and are vigilant against abuses to the 4th through 6th.

      Now, about the 1st and vigilance, well, we may have a problem there...

    21. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not overly relevant to your argument, but the British/Welsh Longbow predates guns and was a fairly democratic weapon - the peasants were legally required to practice with it and it was not a particularly expensive weapon and quite effective against the French knights in its time.

    22. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by modecx · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Congress shall have Power To... (Paragraphs 1-15)
      Paragraph 16:

      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

      Using one very long sentence to describe a subject with so very much more history is... Well, it's beyond a little bit myopic. For greater context, I'd point to the various times founding fathers mused on this subject, but I'm sure if you can find Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 16, you can also find such items of historical interest.

      Anyway...The power vested in Paragraph 16 was realized by the Militia Acts of 1792, enacted by the second congress and signed into law by George Washington himself:

      That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia........every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, **provide himself** with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service......and **providing himself** with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.*

      *For the sake of brevity, I truncated verbose text I felt didn't add to the overall meaning of the act.

      The reason Congress wanted the power to arm and discipline the militia was so that they could later direct militiamen to prepare themselves for duty by appropriating the proper, standard duty weapon of the time. This is for the sake of sound military logistics. A soldier mustering with nonstandard equipment unless otherwise ordered is a liability to his unit. In modern terms, they'd probably find themselves the current standard duty weapon of the armed services: an M-16 rifle--and whatever ammo, magazines, mag pouches, etc.

      That was the state of affairs until the Militia Act of 1903, which created a federal funded militia (i.e. National Guard), as well as preserved what it termed the unorganized militia (i.e. everyone able bodied male--this time expunging the limitation to white males). When I hear someone meekly say "but guns should only be in the hands of the police and military", I chuckle to myself under the realization that legally, that person has a significant chance of being a militiaman (him)self. After all, it's this very law which opens the door to selective service, established in 1917.

      However, being faithful to the ideals of the Constitution I'd go one step further and say that *all able-bodied citizens* are at the very least part of the unorganized militia, and are subject to all of the rights and duties associated with that end (such as being proficient, disciplined, etc.) The particular implementation of government as realized by the founding fathers may have been wanting in any number of ways--but it's my opinion and belief that the words they used, and the ideas those words represent ring ever true today.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    23. Re:Yes, let's all focus on the iPhone apps... by modecx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hate to reply to myself... But I had to add this:

      The fact is, in a direct way, current law does in fact require males of the 17-45 age bracket to own at least a basic weapon applicable to modern military service. In other words: Evil. Scary. Black rifles. Preferably Automatic.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  5. Aid to terrorists, eh? by noidentity · · Score: 5, Informative

    This news story is an aid to terrorists, since it lets them know that this app could be an aid to them. Bottled water is an aid to terrorists, since it keeps terrorists mentally alert by avoiding dehydration. Shoes are an aid to terrorists, since they allow terrorists to avoid stepping on tacks. The sun is an aid to terrorists, since it illuminates the area so terrorists can see what they're doing. Calculators are aids to terrorists, since they allow them to calculate various aspects of their attacks. Paper is an aid to terrorists, since it allows terrorists to write their plans down. This post is an aid to terrorists, since it tells terrorists what things aid them.

    1. Re:Aid to terrorists, eh? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh how I wish...

  6. a bit late by lapsed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't this a bit like closing the barn doors after the horses have bolted? It sounds like the protocol was designed to be easily intercepted.

    1. Re:a bit late by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It really does sound like a "working as designed" problem. Honestly, if you design something to broadcast data with no technical security policies at all, you really can't complain when your data gets intercepted and used for things you can't control. Removing the iPhone app doesn't even remotely fix the problem either, of course, since this kind of device could just be purpose-built.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  7. Make your own. by Pinckney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Anything that makes it easier for our enemies to find targets is madness. The Government must look at outlawing the marketing of such equipment."

    Perhaps they should consider banning the ADS-B transmitters, then?

    In any case, banning the app would do nothing to anyone with the funds for a SAM. See this document to make your own reciever.

  8. It should be banned by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because terrorists would never, ever be able to find out this information by themselves, or crash their plane into an airliner by, uh, looking for it in the sky while they're flying.

    Have we now moved on from security theater to security standup comedy? At best this seems to be a DHSvertisment telling terrorists where to get useful apps for their iPhone. which they might otherwise never have heard of.

  9. Me too by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I for one welcome our new half-wit overlords.

    If it can be done with a phone app, then obviously it can be done in other ways by terrorists.

    If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... dont vote for it

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  10. Huh? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What conceivable use is this to a terrorist? I've been considering this for a few minutes now. My kneejerk reaction was that the government is being fucking stupid. Then I pondered on exactly how knowing which plane is which is at all helpful. Any ideas anyone? Perhaps I'm focusing too much on the hijacking scenario, and someone could use it to select a target for a SAM. But that just doesn't seem likely, since I would think you would already know your target if you go through the trouble of bringing a SAM to an airport.

  11. Paraphrasing an old joke ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We have a roomful of senior DHS and other government officials. The head of the group stands up and says, "Gentlemen, the results are now in ... everything is an aid to terrorism."

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  12. So stupid by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone with a SAM can see if a plane is right there! They don't need an iPhone app to tell them what they are looking at is a plane. Have they had issues with terrorists accidentally targeting endangered condors with missiles by mistake?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. Did Anybody Read the Fucking Article?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I expected these typical responses from people didn't even bother reading the article. Of course slashdot got the headline wrong, but that's to be expected as well.

    The fact is that nobody in the US government has said this app is an aid to terrorists. Its just something that is supposed by a couple of random people. I don't know how slashdot comes to the conclusion that the "US" (government I presume) exclaimed this.

    In short, this entire article and summary is just flamebait and you suckers just got trolled hook, line and sinker. The editors should be ashamed of themselves.

    1. Re:Did Anybody Read the Fucking Article?? by FroBugg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe they speak English and read this from the article The programme, sold for just 1.79 pounds in the online Apple store, has now been labelled an 'aid to terrorists' by security experts and the US Department of Homeland Security

      You need to finish reading sentences. The actual line reads, "The programme, sold for just 1.79 pounds in the online Apple store, has now been labelled an 'aid to terrorists' by security experts and the US Department of Homeland Security is also examining how to protect airliners."

      That means security experts have called it an aid to terrorists, and that the DHS is looking into protecting airlines (which they're kind of always doing, since it's their job). It does not mean that DHS has called it an aid to terrorists.

    2. Re:Did Anybody Read the Fucking Article?? by omglolbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Selective quoting is wonderful.

      But come on, that sentence is badly written in the first place.. It is so easy for someone without the full knowledge of the English language to get the wrong idea...

    3. Re:Did Anybody Read the Fucking Article?? by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, it is pretty bad. Still, this is the Daily Mail. Expecting quality English from them is like asking a lynch mob of confused and angry Mail readers to take off their shoes before storming a hospital to bring an end to their foul plot to use the MMR vaccine to bring about an Islamic caliphate in what used to be a very nice town in which children respected elders and England won the world cup every week.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
  14. airports - where are they? by jandoedel · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hope those terrorists don't know about the locations of any airports. Rumour has it that lots of planes fly near them...

  15. Here comes the stupid... by chaboud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I get this argument from idiot alarmists all the time:

    "We can't allow for the last link of dissemination of information to the public at large to exist, but it's okay for the information to be available. We just need to make it *less* available."

    This sort of argument appears to stem from one or many of a few beliefs:

    1) Terrorists are too stupid to get this sort of information from less casual sources.
    2) Of all of the speedbumps to becoming a terrorist, figuring out where the flights are was the thing that was holding people back.
    3) They had no idea that we had this information available (this is a variant of 1),
    4) It's okay to leave information we consider dangerous out in the open, as long as you can't get it without knowing the right URL (or, in this case, the right frequencies). This isn't quite what crypto nerds mean when they say "security through obscurity isn't security at all," but it's pretty relatable.

    And to think, US Cyber command is under the impression that they don't need geeks. If this is what passes for an understanding of safety and security in our government, we're just doomed.

    1. Re:Here comes the stupid... by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're attributing to the government, what was actually written as a sourceless editorial. Nobody is calling this a threat except the stupid newspaper, The Daily Fail. My god is the writing terrible and intentionally misleading. "...has now been labelled an 'aid to terrorists' by security experts and the US Department of Homeland Security is also examining how to protect airliners." They used an intentional run-on sentence to make it look like "Security experts and the DHS" are united in calling this a terrorist program. But no, they're just changing subjects mid sentence and telling you that the US government doesn't want airplanes shot down. Also, whenever an article says "Some say" they mean "We say". So, it's just a scaremonger site, what a joke. They managed to troll you pretty well though.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  16. Stupid argument by spyfrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a stupid argument because it is so extremely simple to figure out when to shoot down an aircraft with a SAM anyway.
    You already know the approximate time when it will takeoff since that is public knowledge since the passengers needs to know.
    Most airports has only one or two runways. You can easily figure out in which direction the plane is going to start (it will start at the same direction as the ones before it, probably into the wind).
    Now you can simply put ourself outside the airport at the point where the plane will fly right over you at a low altitude off perhaps a couple off hundred yards. The guys that photos planes position them self correct every time with this knowledge.

    The reality is that aircrafts is extremely exposed and easy to shoot down with SAMs since it is easy to get them during landing and takeoff and you can't fence off an area big enough to protect them.

  17. encrypt tower to plane radio first by RichMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    tower: AC310 heavy drop to 30 thousand and proceed to outer marker on heading 31 you are clear for runway

    Hm, I wonder where AC310 heavy is ?

  18. Re: US Department of Homeland Security by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I live sixty miles from the Mexican border. We have a bunch of undocumented/illegal aliens here. They are not terrorist threats; only very few are criminals. Most of them are ordinary people who just want a chance to live like anybody else.

  19. Re:OMG by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DHS might be able to stop corporations, but they can't stop me from publishing the source code:

    PA LAW: "The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject." ----- MD LAW: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof..... the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved; that every citizen of the State ought to be allowed to speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege."

    And so on across all 50 Member States. Nobody at the US level has the right to block publishing or sharing source code of programs I or thers create

    Aside -

    I found this bit of the Bill of Rights interesting: "Monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered." And yet the BGE and Comcast monopolies exist. Perhaps the Maryland government should buy-out the wires and lease the lines to any company that wished to use them (BGE, PPL, comcast, cox, appletv, etc). i.e. Consumer choice is a right.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  20. That's what ADS-B is supposed to do. by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's what ADS-B is supposed to do - give anyone who wants it a picture of what's in nearby airspace. It may have been a mistake to implement that capability and mandate that the transmitters be installed on aircraft. But, with that done, bitching about people using the data is pointless.

    An attacker could buy a general aviation ADS-B receiver for $1495 and get the same data on an HP iPAQ. So this only protects against terrorists with very low budgets.

    1. Re:That's what ADS-B is supposed to do. by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OMG, I'll save you some money, not even terrorist should go broke on their quests.

    2. Re:That's what ADS-B is supposed to do. by FroBugg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not very low budgets. I mean, they've got to afford the surface-to-air missiles first. But after the missiles all they had left was enough to buy an iPhone, a two-year contract, and a $2 app.

      And hopefully some lunch, because they're just gonna walk outside and wait until a plane shows up overhead in range, and they're gonna get hungry sitting there.

  21. Homeland Security... by hex0D · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...approved 'Heisenberg' version will only give either the position or the speed of the plane, but never both.

  22. Re:Coming up next - mandatory blindfolds! by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You read the post! Put your blindfold back on, you terr'rist!

    Seriously, people already don't want to fly, and who can blame them? China has the right idea with their new record-breaking high-speed trains. And for trans-ocean voyages, a slow cruise is more pleasant anyway - or just teleconference. It's not like we don't have the technology.

    In a backwards way, the terrorists are actually helping to make the planet a bit greener, except that the US military is the world's single largest user of fossil fuels. And no, this is in no way a criticism of the military - they're under civilian leadership and have to suck it up even when the boss is an idjit, just like the rest of us.

    -- Barbie

  23. step 4 ... by thrillseeker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Write sourceless article about interesting software labeled by unnamed 'security experts' as 'a serious security threat'
    2. Mention that the Department of Homeland Security also thinks about security threats
    3. Get article mentioned on Slashdot where people still don't RTFM in any detail, but do like to shit bricks that mention DHS in any context
    4. Get traffic to ad-driven site

  24. Re: US Department of Homeland Security by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But how is that fair to those that actually followed the law and came here legally? And you are also ignoring the hidden costs, for example we too have many illegals and if you get into an accident with one? NO insurance! I hope you enjoy those higher insurance premiums thanks to your friends that "are ordinary people who just want a chance to live". Then figure in the taxes they don't pay, the depression of wages, and the extra demands on services without the extra taxes to pay for them and I'm sorry, but if you want to get into this country you should have to get in line like everybody else. Oh and talk to someone who immigrated here legally and ask them how they like having spent years jumping through hoops just to have talk of amnesty for illegals brought up. Not a subject to bring up if you want happy talk.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  25. Re: US Department of Homeland Security by hedwards · · Score: 5, Informative

    They aren't stealing from you. Most of them pay taxes and few of them actually get any government services. The jobs that they take are ones that even now in this economy are going unfilled in terms of legal workers.

    The UFW has been trying to get people to come take those jobs, and it's been tough going, few people are desperate enough to take the jobs. I'm not sure what the current number is, but as of when Colbert was covering on his show, the number was under 20, and definitely way under a hundred.

  26. Um, where does it say the "US" said ANYTHING? by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

    The linked article and the summary says that "he programme, sold for just 1.79 pounds in the online Apple store, has now been labelled an 'aid to terrorists' by security experts and the US Department of Homeland Security is also examining how to protect airliners." The Daily Mail article says "The US Department of Homeland Security is also examining how to protect airliners."

    Nowhere does it say the "US" or any US official has said the application "threatens security". In fact, the only official to say anything in the article was a UK official, a British MP, who said, 'Anything that makes it easier for our enemies to find targets is madness. The Government must look at outlawing the marketing of such equipment.'

    So basically, the only thing that comes close to any "government" entity calling this application a threat is a British politician, and the "US" has actually made no statement about this application whatsoever, other than a reference in one sentence of the article that DHS is "examining how to protect airliners", and is not, as the headline implies, calling for the app to be pulled or censored, or indeed, even talking about the app at all.

    Great sensationalism, guys. The best part of this is that the comments are howling with the typical anti-US-government complaints, when the "US" hasn't said anything about the app at all. What I come to expect from slashdot.

  27. Re:Coming up next - mandatory blindfolds! by kimvette · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't want to fly commercial any more, and it's not due to fear of ter'rists. It's out of anger that my government is not approaching this scientifically. They are ignoring forensic science and not profiling, out of fear of offending foreign nationals. Because they refuse to profile, I have to check luggage rather than carry it on (I usually bring tools with me), I can't bring bottle water or soup on the aircraft with me, and am stuck eating airplane food - which invariably makes me sick due to allergies. (They prohibit peanuts due to political correctness now, but every damn airplane snack and meal has soy in it. Go figure.)

    Sooo, I drive whenever possible instead, and I will continue to drive long trips until I can earn a flight certificate and buy (or build) my own airplane. :)

    Of course Homeland Security wants GA dead as well so in a few years even that may not be an option.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  28. Re:OMG by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 3, Informative

    Loving the fact that you're showing up as a "Score: 0, Insightful"!

    You're absolutely right, and it's all rather sad. We're talking about data at the end of the day, and as we're all aware it can work all ways. American Airlines' website is custom designed to produce data of use to "terrorists". As is the UK government website, Slashdot, CNN and Google.

    All of them intentionally produce useful data from a huge set. This data can be used for terrorism. And booking flights, reading the news or finding things incidentally.

    For those who don't know the Daily Mail, they're technically a UK newspaper but are frequently closer to Stewart/Colbert satire, if unintentionally. They basically use conservative outrage to push the paper, and usually promote "the enemy" in the process. There was an unofficial competition between various alcoholic drink manufacturers a few years back to see who could get the most publicity from the Daily Mail by producing a 40% ABV drink and subtly suggesting it was worse than .

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  29. Re:OMG by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Informative

    >>>BGE does not have a monopoly

    Yeah Maryland has choice for the supplier, but who owns the electric wires and natural gas pipes? BGE.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  30. And thanks to the Strisand Effect... by quibbler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thanks to the Streisand Effect, Plane Finder AR will doubtless skyrocket to the top of the charts by the end of the day.

    If this were a legitimate security risk, they just did about a thousand times the damage that it would have been had they ignored it. Pathetic. This is why efforts like the Cyber Command is such an obvious failure to anyone with a lick of Internet-savvy before it was ever launched.

  31. Re:OMG by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it was Russell Howard who said - "The Daily Mail, racist in public so you don't have to be". That about sums it up really.

  32. More likely concern by Voline · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As many here have pointed out, it's absurd to think that this app would be useful for a terrorist who has the resources to obtain a surface to air missile. If you're going to shoot down a civilian plane, do you really need to know the flight number? Or do you just pick the one you see above you?

    A more likely concern is that the device can be used to reveal government misconduct. It was hobbyist plane-spotters who, through their observations of civilian air traffic, exposed the CIA's Torture Jet flights or "extraordinary renditions", wherein they kidnapped people abroad and transferred them to third countries like Egypt, Jordan and Uzbekistan for interrogation using tortures that even the CIA wouldn't use (I guess there still are some).

    If the choice is between ceasing their crimes against humanity, or trying to cover them up better: they prefer the latter strategy.

  33. Re: US Department of Homeland Security by beej · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here's another idea: how about preventing the crimes that are already happening in this country!

    Wait--was the original story about, again?

  34. Re:Sounds like bullshit to me by shrtcircuit · · Score: 2, Informative

    No. From TFA (anyone here even read this shit anymore?): "The firm behind the app, Pinkfroot, uses a network of aircraft enthusiasts in Britain and abroad, who are equipped with ADS-B receivers costing around 200 pounds to intercept the information from aircraft and send it to a central database."

    Places like FlightAware and others actually have a direct feed from the FAA which provides, among other things, radar data of aircraft all around the US. FAA feeds are required to be delayed, with the only exception being that if you have a flight dispatch operation (i.e. airline, big corporate aviation, etc) you can get it realtime - however are under strict guidelines not to release it to anyone else. Even the delayed providers generally can't just replay the data by itself.

    Also the thought of encrypting the data is stupid. You have probably dozens of manufacturers of receivers and transceivers, it is foolish to think the keys wouldn't be compromised. In addition it's one more layer of potential issues, and when you are relying on that system to maintain spacing in zero visibility, you just want it to work period.

    Not to mention, like others have said, there are easier ways to target an aircraft (like when they are lower and slower).

  35. app is kinda crappy by veg_all · · Score: 2, Informative

    I live in a flight path to LGA, planes go over every five or ten minutes and often *blink* the apartment with their shadows. Which is kinda neat. But I think there's a misapprehension about this app. I t doesn't receive ADS transmissions, it relies on (some group of users other than app users) to submit the data to a db. Planes fly over my apartment every five or ten minutes. I've had this app open for an hour and none of the overflying planes were reflected in the UI.

    Of course, if they were, I'da downed them with a SAM, which I never felt the need to do when they are flying over til now.

    --
    grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
  36. Re: US Department of Homeland Security by Homburg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Undocumented workers pay income tax and payroll taxes, too. They're the ones who should be having tea parties - they get taxed, but they don't get the vote.

  37. Re: US Department of Homeland Security by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The solution is to remove the cheap labor from the equation completely

    Here's a better solution: Make it easy for the cheap labor to come into the country legally. The farmer would then have to comply with all of the labor laws to employ them, including minimum wages. No more $2 per hour melon pickers.

    Most of the problems with illegal immigration (the actual problems, not the imaginary problems) boil down to having this class of people in the country who don't dare interact with the US legal system. Make them legal, and all of those problems disappear.

    Make it a crime to employ an undocumented worker.

    It is a crime. It needs to be a bigger crime, though, and we need a good way to catch such employers.

    I suggest turning the people who absolutely can't be fooled about the employee status against the employers. Who absolutely knows the legal status of the employees? The illegal employees themselves. Offer a green card to any illegal who rats out their boss, throw the boss in jail, and very quickly you'll find that no one is willing to employ anyone who can't prove they're legal.

    Make it a crime to pay someone less than minimum wage

    Again, it is a crime. And because it's a crime, it doesn't happen -- except when the employees are afraid to use the legal system.

    or better yet, a crime to pay someone less than fair market wages

    What's a fair market wage? And how can the market set a fair wage if no one is allowed to pay one penny under whatever that wage is? Markets require a range of prices offered to settle on a price that is fair. This suggestion makes no sense.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  38. Threat? You're joking, right? by the+pickle · · Score: 3, Informative

    No US passenger airline has equipped with ADS-B yet. In fact, most of them are fighting tooth and nail *not* to, because they don't want to spend the money.

    The only thing the bogeyman of "terrorists" would be able to track with this app is UPS aircraft (UPS is helping the FAA test NextGen and has fleetwide ADS-B now, IIRC) and private planes that have chosen to equip with ADS-B.

    This is a non-story. Next.

    p

  39. Re:Coming up next - mandatory blindfolds! by shermo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Plus I've heard a few horror stories. Friends in Australia pay extra when coming to Canada just so they can avoid landing in the US. Not because they're terrorists or on any watch list or "look ethnic", but because they simply don't want the hassles at the end of a long flight.

    Been there - I went through Vancouver instead of LA :)

    A few hundred dollars vs having to negotiate LAX and the end of a long trip overseas. No brainer really. Especially now they're charging for the visa waiver programme. The fee is nominal, I presume the real purpose is to get your credit card details.

    --
    Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
  40. I am getting this one... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is such a cool app, i want to know how far my GF is when she goes away ....by the distance and minute....
    >Bye dear........
    >Ok .....500 feet, 1000 feet, 1500 feet.......ok cost is clear she is really gone now...., call up the buddies for some poker!