Defcon Researchers Build Tool To Track the Planes of the Rich and Famous

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "At the Defcon security conference later this week, two security researchers will release a tool that aims to expose a little-seen list of hidden private aircraft flight plans–the so-called Block Aircraft Registration Request or BARR list, a collection of aircraft whose owners have tried to keep their whereabouts secret. Any private jet owner can request to be taken out of the FAA's public database of flight plans. But Dustin Hoffman and Semon Rezchikov found that private flyers' whereabouts are still broadcast in air-traffic control communications. So they developed a speech-to-text system that pulls out planes' tail numbers from those communications almost in real time, often fast enough to post a plane's destination before it lands. In its proof-of-concept version, the site is focusing on Las Vegas airports, but plans to expand to other cities soon."

Comments

Sensational?

[gregulator]

What does "rich and famous" have to do with anything?

Re:Sensational?

[suprcvic]

Wealth envy. "They are rich and have private planes and can travel with some relative privacy. That's not fair, we should be able to track them so we can eventually harass them."

Re:Sensational?

[hvm2hvm]

“Getting on an airplane shouldn’t amount to forfeiting your security and privacy to anyone, anywhere in the world with an Internet connection,” adds Hubbard

Because they afford to pay for their privacy whereas we must forfeit our security and privacy when we get on the plane just because we can't buy the plane.

Re:Sensational?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a question. Why can't commercial airlines sell anonymous plane tickets. Is possibly but unlikely terrorism their only excuse?

It's to make sure you can't resell your ticket to anyone else.

Re:Sensational?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is why they are allowing anonymous private planes. The 'terruist' just need to buy a private plane to do a 9/11 2.0. It would be nice if someone got that conspiracy theory spinning on news networks.

When the 1% lose their hassle-free flight privilege and have to go though TSA-style abuse, maybe then, things will get better. Nothing change unless the privileged and powerful see for themselves why it need to be changed...

Re:Sensational?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The FAA still has official knowledge of these planes and their destination. Indeed, that's the only reason this trick works. This doesn't aid terrorists in any way. If they load up a small plane with explosives, how will keeping a destination private, except for the FAA, who is the one watching, help them?

Your drooling class warfare is showing and clouding your thinking. Also, how does whether a rich person gets through security any easier have anything to do with keeping their destination secret from everyone but the FAA? It may, if true, be a possible security breach vector, but has nothing to do wih the OP topic.

Re:Sensational?

[Obfuscant]

The FAA still has official knowledge of these planes and their destination.

The FAA not too long ago realized that they had a lot of bogus data for aircraft registrations. They have now started reregistering all civil aircraft in an attempt at cleaning up their database.

As for knowing the destinations? No, sorry. Anyone operating VFR under Part 91 (and probably other parts) doesn't need to file a flight plan listing a destination, so the FAA would have no idea where that plane is going. When departing a towered airport, you'll tell the controller which direction you are going so he can plan for routing of traffic in his airspace, but once you leave the airport traffic area you can turn any direction you want. In Class B or C airspace, you don't need to tell the controller your destination, just the route you want to fly to get out of that airspace. (You'd have to tell him your destination if it is in the controlled airspace.) If the controller asks and the destination is outside his control (and you're not getting an IFR clearance) you can tell him any destination you want -- you don't have to go there in reality.

Even with a flight plan on file (and an IFR clearance for IFR), all the pilot has to do is request a different destination while airborne (even as late as on final approach) and he's going somewhere else. Under a VFR flight plan, the pilot doesn't even have to ask, all he has to do is go there, making sure to either amend the plan or cancel it prior to his ETA. (On final at a tower-controlled airport, he'll have to tell the controller his direction of flight, but not destination.)

If they load up a small plane with explosives, how will keeping a destination private, except for the FAA, who is the one watching, help them?

The only reason the FAA would be watching a small aircraft is if they are in positive control airspace (Class A, B, or C, e.g., or Class D around a towered airport), or the small aircraft has asked for it (IFR flight plan or flight following.) You can easily approach many suitable targets without the FAA noticing.

Now, if you are headed towards a location with a TFR (temporary flight restriction), like around Air Force 1 or over large stadiums during sporting events, or headed towards prohibited airspace (over the White House, e.g.) the FAA will take notice and send your information to the Air Force who will come to visit you PDQ. They won' t know who you are, but they don't care who you are, just that you aren't supposed to be there.

Streisand is mad

[MickyTheIdiot]

and she sues...

Why

[Anonymous Coward]

What would the application for this be outside of stalking someone?

Re:Why

[PPH]

Tracking executives, venture capitalists and other key individuals to try to glean some information from their comings and goings. Its one way of trying to figure out who might be selling to or buying from whom, where a company might be attempting to expand, etc. Perhaps Microsoft tracks venture capitalists focused on FSF projects and makes attempts to disrupt their activities. There are many little pieces of information out there that people will gather to gain some sort of advantage. In Dustin Hoffman's case, the paparazzi might want to show up on the location of his next movie project.

That's one reason that businesses prefer moving operations overseas where privacy is protected. Do business in China and make sure one of your partners is a high ranking member of the army. Now, if anyone tries to spy on your operations, they'll just be executed.

Re:Why

[ottothecow]

I guess I am missing the point here...If anything it is the rich that have less privacy. If you own your own plane (and can reasonably be assumed to be the person using it) then you can be tracked by this method.

If you do anything "below" that, then your information is still hidden from the public. If you fly on an airline you might show up in some ticketing and monitoring databases but those aren't available to the public like tail numbers (and air traffic transmissions) are. Someone might see you in the airport and know what plane you are getting on, but this will apply only to movie stars, not VCs on their way to make a deal. If you charter a plane, then there's no way to tell who is on the plane from its tail numbers and you can probably board it from somewhere outside of the public eye. If you are a fractional owner (like netjets) there is still no real way to tell who is on the plane.

I don't see any real good argument for why we should try to encrypt or eliminate the air traffic control transmissions...that just seems like a bad idea. The issue here isn't really that any individual's whereabouts are being broadcast...the tail numbers are something that is reported and tracked on every flight that goes anywhere...it just so happens that if it is someone's personal jet, you can pretty accurately correlate the jets movements to the person's movements. If you have enough money to buy a private jet, you also have enough money to charter a jet from a pool or just fly first class on those days where you need your movements kept a complete secret.

Re:Because no one gives a shit...

[MonsterTrimble]

Tell that to Homeland Security and Facebook.

Speech to text?

[0123456]

Why don't they just decode the location messages from the avionics? There are several web sites already doing that.

Gotta see Judge Wapner

[Mr Z]

So this Dustin Hoffman guy wants to track all the planes. Track all the planes! What is he, some kind of Rain Man?

VFR to non-controlled Airports

[Anonymous Coward]

If you fly VFR, which can be a pain going cross country, you don't *have* to file a flight plan. It is a good idea, but not a requirement by law. Also, uncontrolled airport -- those without towers -- don't require radio communication to use. If you have a radio it is best to make an announcement on the CTAF/Unicom frequency for safety, but it isn't required.

So, if you're that paranoid and secretive, register a plane in an LLC and not your own name then fly VFR from Class E to Class E.

Re:VFR to non-controlled Airports

[LateArthurDent]

Also, uncontrolled airport -- those without towers -- don't require radio communication to use. If you have a radio it is best to make an announcement on the CTAF/Unicom frequency for safety, but it isn't required.

You're right, and knowing this scares the hell out of me.

I skydive, and before people start jumping off the plane, the pilot announces over radio, "jumpers in the air." They generally tend to broadcast announcements of the entire operation status, and the general jump run location. The regulars of the airport obviously know this is going on, but I have seen people land there to refuel while traveling someplace else get all amazed watching the skydivers land.

It's somewhat unnerving to me to know that anyone can just show up without a radio, and without knowing the airport is a dropzone. I assume it can be somewhat hard to visually spot people falling at 120 mph. Obviously there's a lot of empty space up there, so it's not like a collision is likely to happen, but still, it bothers me. Any pilots want to weigh in? Does knowing there are skydivers in an airport bother you? Do you think radio communication should be required in this day and age, or are there good reasons not to have a radio on your plane? Depending of course, on the class of plane. I realize skydivers operate under VFR rules, so if a radio was required, we'd have to strap one on, I guess :)

Re:VFR to non-controlled Airports

[colinnwn]

I took flying lessons in high school, and though it has been a couple years I'm working on my A license at a private airport of the drop zone. I've watched an aircraft fly over the airport while I was in freefall. It is unnerving. But uncontrolled aircraft without radios have as much right to the airspace as divers, who you point out operate as VFR no radio as well. It is a historical artifact of regulation for back when radios were expensive, large, and power hungry, and there were still a significant number of aircraft that didn't even have electrical systems (like Piper Cubs). Personally, I hope this doesn't change. It is a relic of the golden age of aviation, of a simpler time with less regulation. One hopes that pilots who fly without radios are paying attention to their nav charts (which list drop zones). But there are plenty of stupid pilots, just like there are plenty of stupid skydivers.

Re:VFR to non-controlled Airports

[flink]

So you are unconcerned with the risks associated with intentionally jumping out of an aircraft thousands of feet above the ground and relying on a piece of fabric to arrest your fall, but you *are* worried about the additional minuscule chance you will get clobbered by a dentist spacing out at the controls of his Cessna? :)

Re:If $EVIL_CORP did this, you'd be up in arms

[MetalliQaZ]

Wrong. The airplanes that carry the rest of us around are tracked in the public domain. These guys are tracking airplanes, not people.

Flights from Las Vegas to Area 51 . . . ?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Now that would be interesting, if they started tracking those . . .

That ought to get the spooks annoyed.

Re:Triangulate the signal and use it to guide SAMs

[LordLimecat]

They should also be smart enough to realize that if you are posting from an internet connection anywhere in the western world, you are very likely the top 5-10% compared with the rest of the world. It seems a bit hypocritical for people to complain about the 1%'s wealth, and then complain when they outsource-- effectively, the 10% are complaining that the 90% are getting their jobs, and being lifted out of abject poverty.

If Im wrong here, please let me know, but it seems to me that follks in India, China, Africa could just as easily complain about the greedy 10% (us) who refuse to let any jobs come overseas without raising a huge fuss.

Re:If $EVIL_CORP did this, you'd be up in arms

[LordLimecat]

Theyre tracking a private vehicle. How happy would you be about this if it were somehow tailored to track you as you drove your car (or bike)?

Re:Triangulate the signal and use it to guide SAMs

[m.ducharme]

Well no, actually, I think what bothers people is that the 1% (or really the 0.1%, or maybe the 0.01%) are outsourcing the jobs to poorer people and keeping all the profit generated by such a move for themselves. Personally, I would love to see wages rise in the poorest countries (and worker benefits, employee safety, etc rise with wages), and I would even condone a certain drop in my lifestyle and that of the average Westerner to make that happen, but the people who actually make the outsourcing decisions (and the very rich people who pay them) are not at all interested in making the average Chinese or Indian wealthier. They're only interested in enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else.

It's open to all of us to complain about this (and yes, that includes those people in the very highest income categories, like Stephen King or Warren Buffett), because to varying degrees we all suffer negative consequences because of it. Just because the poorest people have more to complain about, doesn't mean that the rest of us should stop complaining when a tiny minority takes our earned wealth away from us. In fact, if as the top 5% we have more power and can leverage more effective methods than the lower 95% of people, then don't we have an obligation to stand up and complain, and if that doesn't work, march, if we can? For ourselves, but also for those making far less than us?