Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Collecting Private Flight Data On the World Economic Forum Attendees With RTL-SDR (qz.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the keeping-an-eye-on-the-shady-folk dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Every year politicians and business men meet at the World Economic Forum in the small mountain town of Davos, Switzerland to discuss various topics and create business deals. This year Quartz, an online newspaper/magazine sent a journalist to the forum tasked with writing a unconventional story about the forum: he was asked to monitor the private helicopter traffic coming in and out of Davos from transponder broadcast of ADS-B data. Using an $20 RTL-SDR dongle, Raspberry Pi and ADS-B collinear antenna they monitored the flights over Davos. From the data they were able to determine the flight paths that many helicopters took, the types of helicopters used and the most popular flight times.

88 comments

  1. Explain the fucking acronyms in the summary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Holy fuck! The summary should explain what highly domain-specific acronyms like "ADS-B", "RTL" and "SDR" stand for or mean. We shouldn't have to look up these goddamn obscure acronyms ourselves! I don't expect the submitters or editors here to do a good job with the summaries, but they've both done a remarkably shitty job in this case. Soulskill, fix the fucking summary. Include explanations for these acronyms!

    1. Re:Explain the fucking acronyms in the summary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If you don't understand the acronyms, you're not qualified to read the article.

    2. Re:Explain the fucking acronyms in the summary! by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Normally I'm the first to complain about this but everything was explained in the links.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    3. Re:Explain the fucking acronyms in the summary! by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      I feel the same way about all the fucking cellphone acronyms. And when you add the pseudo-technobable of marketing drones on top of it, it's nearly impossible to know what's what.

    4. Re:Explain the fucking acronyms in the summary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Why don't you go cry about it retard? I knew every single one of those acronyms. This is "News for Nerds", not "News for tech. illiterates".

    5. Re:Explain the fucking acronyms in the summary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't even have to click the links to be enlightened:
      ADS-B links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance_-_broadcast
      RTL-SDR to http://bit.do/RTL-SDR-and-GNU-Radio-with-Realtek-RTL2832U

      For once, I applaud the summary writer for clarity, conciseness & informativeness.

      NB, different AC than GP.

    6. Re:Explain the fucking acronyms in the summary! by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      This is slashdot, nobody clicks the links.

    7. Re:Explain the fucking acronyms in the summary! by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      I was able to gleen from the text, without understanding the acronyms, Flights tracked via seemingly surreptitious data gathering methods.

      But - I'll give you this -- without clicking the link --- why should I care? So what that they grabbed license plate numbers?

      Actually - after reading the article it seems more of a cool DYI traffic monitoring system. Still don't understand why it is important. Collected Data, analyzed data, created US-Today info graphs from data. The story?! You can do cool things with a Rasp Pi.

    8. Re:Explain the fucking acronyms in the summary! by billstewart · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's nice that if you click the links, you might get some clue what the article's about - what's important is that the summary tell whether you'd be interested in reading it or not. In this case, the summary did a fine job, at least if you know what a Raspberry Pi is - it said this was about tracking helicopter movements at the Davos shindig using a $20 $FOO, a Raspberry Pi, and a $BAR-flavored antenna, so you know it's generally hardware things that might have to do with radio. It didn't say how much of the article would be about the technical nits of how they did it, and how much would be about what they found out about all the rich folks showing up at the shindig, and how much it would be about the social aspects of using cheap hardware to track things about people that used to be harder to track, but if any of them motivates you it ended up being at least slightly relevant.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  2. I'm not surprised at all by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is what Flightradar24 uses. A little more expensive box, but no big deal.

    And any executive person should be aware of this and not attend major events like the World Economic Forum in their private aircraft but instead travel incognito. Use Business Class and make sure that the clothing is not standing out. If you have a security team - make them look like a mix of tourists, business men and airport service personnel. (Who actually cares about the person pushing the airport wheelchair around?)

    As soon as you have a helicopter you are standing out as a VIP like a polar bear in a kindergarten.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:I'm not surprised at all by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the point of being filthy rich if you still have to mix with the commoners?

    2. Re:I'm not surprised at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can block identification -- I see blocked flights pretty regularly on FlightRadar and I presume its either a presidential candidate, some government executive-type, some prisoner transfer/rendition, or some nefarious corporate executive up to no good.

    3. Re:I'm not surprised at all by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      And in that case you stand out even more.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:I'm not surprised at all by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Use Business Class and make sure that the clothing is not standing out. If you have a security team - make them look like a mix of tourists, business men and airport service personnel. (Who actually cares about the person pushing the airport wheelchair around?)

      I was going to say that you read too many spy novels, but maybe you write them?

      And never, ever, trust anyone dressed as a priest. At best he's probably an assassin in disguise.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:I'm not surprised at all by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Both FlightAware and FlightRadar24 give all aircraft owners the ability to "cloak" themselves, from Air Force One right down to your dentist's 172. You don't have to be a bigwig and there's no reason to suspect that a blocked flight is doing anything nefarious. Often times I'll see an aircraft that's opted out on one but not the other, so it can serve you well to check both. Also, there are several hobbyist type amateur radio tracking projects that log ADS-B hits and nobody opts out of...

      The aircraft that are truly up to no good probably aren't going to appear on any of these sites at all.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    6. Re:I'm not surprised at all by ChuckieG · · Score: 1

      That's why the reporter was there in person. He's on the hobbyist path to see through the VIP cloaks. Doing this is trivally easy. I set one up with a rPi in about 20 minutes using PiAware. Many options out there-

    7. Re:I'm not surprised at all by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Yep, this Reddit thread and a previous one linked therein breaks down the parts needed. Building a robust and capable receiver for around $120 is within reach even without a soldering iron. We've come a long way, baby!

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    8. Re:I'm not surprised at all by jandersen · · Score: 2

      Not that I'm against these things on principle, but it seems a bit ironic that people here on /. are up in arms against government monitoring, while gleefully doing their own spying when it comes to it ;-)

      As soon as you have a helicopter you are standing out as a VIP like a polar bear in a kindergarten.

      A polar bear in kindergarten would not so much stand out as tuck in, you know.

    9. Re:I'm not surprised at all by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Shit! You're on to me.

      No, really... Sort of... I'm a secular Buddhist and sure as hell not a monk. But, I can certainly look like one. I do actually own a few sets of monk's robes (kasaya - I think that's spelled properly). I also travel. I like to travel a lot and sometimes I go places that I probably should not go. Wearing the kasaya has lots and lots of benefits - people are genuinely happy to see you pass by, if I don't want to talk to someone I can just point at my lips and smile and shake my head, and nobody every (normally) harms a monk - they might be a bad ass at kung-fu! I am not a bad ass at kung-fu, I suspect if I tried to look like so then I'd feel both stupid and look stupid(er). I did take all available levels of MCT, so I guess some folks might think I'm a bad ass but, really, I'm mostly a dawdling old man these days. I'm quite harmless, I assure you.

      Heh... So, yeah - I think I've mentioned it before here but probably not too often. I don't want other people to figure it out. I did buy the robes when I went on refuge and I really am a Buddhist - I'm just not a very good Buddhist, I'm a secular Buddhist, and I'm sure as hell not a monk. It was then that I noticed, when traveling around afterwards, that everybody changed how they respond to you if you're wearing your robes (I'm pretty sure they're spelled something like kasaya). I do not have them with me on my current travels.

      Shh! Don't tell anyone. They'll all start doing it, it will look like there are millions of monks traveling, and eventually someone will figure it out. If everyone did it, it would ruin it. Also, sometimes you're mistaken for a Krishna. That's generally okay too. Krishna practitioners have been pretty cool people, the ones that I've met, and I've enjoyed talking with them and have learned a little about their beliefs. I even learned one of their prayers. Err... It's not exactly hard. "Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare." I think that's the right order...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:I'm not surprised at all by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      An interesting answer.

      However the one I was looking for was "Shit yes, he might be an actual priest!"

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Monitoring these transmission illegal in 3..2..1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Monitoring these transmissions will soon be illegal just like they did for the 900Mhz cell frequencies.The wealthy and power people who attend Davos people value their privacy very highly and will go to great lengths to protect it.

  4. Why should we care about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    helicopters flying over the Onion Knight?

    1. Re: Why should we care about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Those republicans love their Lame of Thrones. It drives their hatred of normal people.

    2. Re: Why should we care about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha. Those people are so stupid.

    3. Re:Why should we care about... by bulled · · Score: 1

      Because it breaks the 4th wall you insensitive clod

    4. Re: Why should we care about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thy flood HBO with cash to encourage them to make and then shove that garbage down our throats.

    5. Re: Why should we care about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Like allow the cars Peter the piece of shit Jackson added to Lord of the Rings in order to ruin it? That was so hateful of him, and it was during the time he was turning to xianism.

    6. Re: Why should we care about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Republicans are too stupid to understand the problem with that.

    7. Re: Why should we care about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Xians are stupid. If course if they weren't stupid, they wouldn't be xians.

    8. Re: Why should we care about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You sound like one of those Republicans.

    9. Re: Why should we care about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Children's shows often brake the forth wall, and they are aimed at children and republicans. Also some are aimed at Christians since they lack critical thinking skills.

  5. This man is a terrorist!!! by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 2

    I'm guessing that once the story is widely known there'll be calls to arrest him, even though he's using publicly available data and equipment and not doing anything wrong.

    1. Re: This man is a terrorist!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although you are abaolutely correct, it would/will only enforce the arguments against these types of events. These are highly undemocratic and we should make that clear also to our politicians.

      I hope someday the masses would start caring enough about transparency...

    2. Re:This man is a terrorist!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he is not. He uses a a R-Pi. Ergo, he is with the hip crowd, which by Cantor calculus proves he is not a Terrorist.
      q.e.d.

  6. Why should I give a flying fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why should I give a flying fuck about helicopters over the World Economic Forum? The quality of stories on this site fucking sucks nowadays. Bring back Taco!

    1. Re:Why should I give a flying fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be more interesting if they crosschecked the list of people flying all over Davos with a list of those execs and celebrities who like to lecture us about our carbon footprints.

      Still wouldn't be a tech story, but at least it would be more in line with the non-tech news we get here all the time already.

  7. Davros? by dfn5 · · Score: 2

    Who else read the title as "We brought an antenna to Davros"?

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    1. Re:Davros? by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      EXTERMINATE all who attend!

      EXTERMINATE

      EXTERMINATE

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  8. sigh... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    What's good for the goose is verboten to the gander...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  9. I predict outrage by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    I predict these VIPs will be outraged at the invasion of their privacy and the follow up article will be to expose their hypocrisy over supporting the invasion of privacy of us plebs, but nothing will change in the long term.

    1. Re:I predict outrage by swb · · Score: 2

      I thought I had read that many of them were already outraged and many had taken the step of registering their planes with shell LLCs so that existing flight trackers and tail watchers couldn't decode who was on the plane.

      If they look it up, all they get it something bogus like "AirplaneHoldings23, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Proxy Manager, John Smith, Esq."

      It's the same gambit the super rich do for high dollar real estate so that the transactions and ownership are completely opaque.

    2. Re:I predict outrage by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      I thought I had read that many of them were already outraged and many had taken the step of registering their planes with shell LLCs so that existing flight trackers and tail watchers couldn't decode who was on the plane.

      If they look it up, all they get it something bogus like "AirplaneHoldings23, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Proxy Manager, John Smith, Esq."

      It's the same gambit the super rich do for high dollar real estate so that the transactions and ownership are completely opaque.

      Well, part of the gambit is because the flight information is public - when you file a flight plan, that information is public. As well, your plane's registration is also public information, so you can take any plane's registration and lookup information about it.

      All the super rich have done was hide their names behind proxies so as to not make their information public on these databases.

      Of course, I suppose it's possible to manually tag who's on what plane despite hiding the registration.

    3. Re:I predict outrage by Hognoxious · · Score: 3

      Or you could just shoot one down. The answer will be on CNN within half an hour or so.

      BRB, door.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. DEFCON Presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A few years ago, RenderMan did a great presentation about how scary ADS-B is and how easy it could be manipulated to do things like cause air traffic confusion or obfuscation of flights that certain people want to be secret. http://youtu.be/mY2uiLfXmaI

    1. Re:DEFCON Presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most countries there is primary radar coverage and also the secondary radar replies are multi-laterated to verify if they are correct. There are wrong ADS-B transmissions all the time, most of them by accident due to broken or badly installed equipment.

  11. jkljkljg by teac2019 · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  12. Fuck this story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Fuck this story! Fuck the World Economic Forum! Fuck helicopters! Fuck Davos! Fuck Switzerland! Fuck ADS-B! Fuck transponders! Fuck Raspberry Pis! Fuck RTL-SDR! Fuck Quartz! Fuck flying! Fuck politicians! Fuck the economy! Fuck the greedy world leaders! Fuck Soulskill! Fuck Slashdot! Fuck editors! Fuck moderators! Fuck logged-in users! Fuck Linux! Fuck open source! Fuck the GPL! Fuck free software! Fuck Linux users! Fuck this fucking site! Fuck all of you! Fuck everything! Fuck me! Fuck you! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!

    1. Re: Fuck this story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only one who's never ever getting fucked is you.

  13. Privacy? What privacy? by mi · · Score: 1

    Using an $20 RTL-SDR dongle, Raspberry Pi and ADS-B collinear antenna they monitored the flights over Davos.

    Maybe, now these guys will update the rules for these communications to be encrypted...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Maybe, now these guys will update the rules for these communications to be encrypted...

      ADS-B is the 'new' standard which is in the process of being rolled out... so that's not too likely.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    2. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It's an air traffic control signal. The point of it is to tell air traffic control 'Aircraft flying over here! Here's my identification, altitude, heading and exact location. Please don't hit me.' Without the ability to decode that information all air traffic control gets is the rough position off of radar. So no, it's not going to be encrypted. It's possible a future version will introduce authentication, but only as a measure to prevent saboteurs jamming up air traffic control by spoofing planes that don't exist or making them appear somewhere other than their real location.

    3. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Further, why would we want to hide this data when you can also estimate these things with visual cameras? Think about it, you can correlate height, speed and distance using laser targeting and waypoints. You can OCR aircraft identification information from a high megapixel image. Add drones and you can follow them from landing spot back to destination.

      All you would be doing is enforcing encryption on something like a HAM radio network. The information is meant to be public, why waste cycles on encryption?

    4. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by Asgard · · Score: 2

      Laser targeting aircraft in a non-wartime scenario is not going to go over well.

    5. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      You do realize they still use unencrypted AM radios to communicate right? And why bother encrypting when you would have to give everyone the key? They broadcast ADS-B for safety as even today over 100 years from the first flight planes are still pretty dangerous. If you don't give a shit about safety go ahead turn your transponders off. Why not shut off the TCAS too for good measure? Planes flew for years without any of that new fangled not crash tech and while they won't immediately fall out of the sky if you switched it off they would definitely crash into each other more often.

      Its like those people that encrypt their wifi with WPA2-PSK AES and put the password in the wifi name: "WIFI KEY DEADBEEF"

      If you have to give the same key to everyone why even bother? It provides no security. Because if you know the wifi key you can decrypt the traffic of everyone else using the AP. So then you have a false sense of security which is much worse than knowing the connection is not secure.

      Kind of like how the TSA is supposed to make you feel safe without actually making you safe but worse.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    6. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by DaHat · · Score: 0

      Except that only the ATC system really 'needs' this information, you and I do not (granted it is still fun to use/see)... which makes the lack of protection of the data even more surprising.

      Given the decade+ rollout that the US based system is to take, it's pretty unlikely that midway through they will turn around and say "on second thought, you need to upgrade to this even newer standard in order to be compliant"

      There are of course other ways to get much of this data. A quick visit to http://www.liveatc.net/ allows you to listen to live ATC communications and with some basic speech to text you can get flight numbers that may not show up in the normal data feeds.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    7. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be quite difficult to encrypt. The bandwidth is too low for assymetric encryption, and symmetric encryption is a key management nightmare.

    8. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by mi · · Score: -1

      You do realize they still use unencrypted AM radios to communicate right?

      And that's pretty bad too — can't wait for some journalist to exploit that hole, so it gets plugged as well. With today's communications gear a properly encrypted point-to-point channel is perfectly possible in most places, where aircraft are regularly flying — and AM radio can still be used as a backup on the rest of the planet.

      Heck, using the pilot's cellular phone would be a better choice, even without hardening of the device.

      They broadcast ADS-B

      Not all of the broadcasted information needs to be broadcasted at all, and some of what does need to be, can be modified to make tracking impossible or, at least, much harder. This is, largely, a solved problem for web-users, for example.

      If you have to give the same key to everyone why even bother?

      I don't, so let's not bother with that strawman...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AM has a very specific reason. Of course, upgrading all the equipment would be massively expensive, but could probably be done if really needed. The main reason for using plain AM is that when two transmissions happen at the same time, you can hear both. Even if one is much weaker than the other.

    10. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by mi · · Score: 0

      Of course, upgrading all the equipment would be massively expensive

      Why? Companies upgrade their phone-systems regularly. Using the existing telephone network (including cellular phones) would be very cheap. Of course, plane-makers will charge 10-times more for "aviation-grade" communication equipment capable of contacting the cell-towers on the ground, but that'd still be cheap.

      And the data-link can be used to sends readouts from the pilots' panels — like altitude, direction, fuel-capacity. This can be SSL-encrypted (with all of the dispatchers' public-keys preloaded into every plane) and provide them with all the information without also making it known to everyone with a radio.

      Using the existing cellular network would leverage the existing cell-towers — in most places this will provide a substantial improvement in communication quality.

      The main reason for using plain AM is that when two transmissions happen at the same time, you can hear both.

      Ever heard of a conference-call?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Sorry I thought they were suggesting to encrypt the plane's transponder broadcast in such case they would need to give the key to everyone at atc and everyone with a plane to keep the system functional. Otherwise your back to the equivalent of switching those systems off because if the people who actually need that information can't read it because its encrypted it might as well just be shut off.

      There should definitely be some type of authentication/verification and I am sure they will get around to adding it eventually like the iphone and copy paste functionality. Should have been there from the start.

      Yes a cell phone has both better security and quality than the am radios in use today however you're really not supposed to use one in flight...And it really doesn't help much on the tracking aspect.

      Well iirc flightaware still shows approximate locations for flights without ADS-B. ADS-B just allows for more accurate tracking I seem to recall a pretty good story about some planespotters noticing some seekrit cia flights back in 2000 before the advent of ADS-B

      Also planes are rather large and can typically be seen from the ground unlike computers which only have to mask digital signatures. Planes are are registered and have great big letters painted on the side of them that uniquely identify the plane. Computers don't...Yet.

      But the biggest problem is that the system was designed from the ground up for safety not privacy the reason being so the fire trucks can beat you to the scene of the crash.

      Yes some of the data is probably unnecessary for safety like the plane's call sign you could probably get by with a randomised plane id without compromising on safety but location and speed are pretty important for not crashing.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    12. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by mi · · Score: 0

      you're really not supposed to use one in flight...

      That myth has been thoroughly busted already. And not just once

      And it really doesn't help much on the tracking aspect.

      The coordinates, speeds, and even instrument read-outs can all be sent to the nearest tower(s) via the data-link. SSL-encrypted — with a handful of certificate authorities known to each plane.

      Planes are are registered and have great big letters painted on the side of them

      Right. And my face may be computer-recognizable already — or really soon. But that does not mean, I should be carrying an ID-chip in my pocket to make tracking me even easier.

      But the biggest problem is that the system was designed from the ground up for safety not privacy the reason being so the fire trucks can beat you to the scene of the crash.

      General-purpose fire trucks would be sent out by the air-dispatchers anyway, they don't listen to air-control AM "just in case". The specialized services at the airports, if they wish to have their own awareness independent of the control-tower, can be allowed to get the same SSL-encrypted data-links...

      The origin of the issue is the bad old reliance on "obfuscation" — if I can not hear the plane broadcasting its unique ID and location, then no one else can hear it either and so there is not a problem. TFA will, hopefully, raise the awareness so the healing can begin.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    13. Re: Privacy? What privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Other airplanes need to see the data. TCAS leverages this data for collision avoidance in the cockpit.

    14. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by FranklyFrank · · Score: 1

      That myth has been thoroughly busted

      No, it hasn't. The "myth" that the frequencies for many of the cellular bands are in a LAND mobile allocation has never been "busted". It's a fact.

      The coordinates, speeds, and even instrument read-outs can all be sent to the nearest tower(s) via the data-link. SSL-encrypted — with a handful of certificate authorities known to each plane.

      ADS-B out is not "sent to a tower", it is sent to ground recievers all over the place, AND TO OTHER AIRCRAFT. Every aircraft ADS-B-in will have to have the encrytion keys so it can decrypt the data.

      You really don't understand what the NextGen concept, with ADSB, is, do you?

      General-purpose fire trucks would be sent out by the air-dispatchers anyway,

      No, they wouldn't. Whatever these "air-dispatchers" are, they don't dispatch fire equipment, except perhaps the special purpose equipment at the airport itself. Did you mean "ATC"? As in "air traffic controllers"? "Dispatchers" are the people who work for the airlines that handle getting the airline flights arranged.

      The origin of the issue is the bad old reliance on "obfuscation" — if I can not hear the plane broadcasting its unique ID and location, then no one else can hear it either and so there is not a problem.

      No, I think "the origin of the issue" here is a complete lack of understanding of the goals of ADSB and collision avoidance.That would be yours.

      Other pilots need to know the data, because a complete reliance on ground-based air traffic controllers to keep airplanes apart has proven to be a failure. The system works better when everyone know where everyone else is, even when the "other guy" is a VFR pilot who isn't talking to ATC at all.

      TFA will, hopefully, raise the awareness so the healing can begin.

      "Healing" implies there has been an injury -- which hasn't happened. Big deal if someone on the ground can track aircraft just like ATC and all the other aircraft in the air can. If you decide that ADSB data has to be encrypted, then you add a bit of cost to the receiver -- FOR ALL AIRCRAFT who will be required to have ADSB installed by 2020, which is a good chunk of change in total, and still a good chunk for individual aircraft -- but add nothing to security.

    15. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by FranklyFrank · · Score: 2

      And that's pretty bad too — can't wait for some journalist to exploit that hole, so it gets plugged as well. With today's communications gear a properly encrypted point-to-point channel is perfectly possible in most places, where aircraft are regularly flying — and AM radio can still be used as a backup on the rest of the planet.

      A point-to-point communication that needs to be heard by every pilot in the area? That's not point-to-point, that's broadcast, and every receiver would need the decryption key. Where's the security, again?

      Heck, using the pilot's cellular phone would be a better choice, even without hardening of the device.

      Better choice for what? Reducing situational awareness for everyone in the air and creating a headache as pilots have to dial a ten digit or more phone number to get to ATC instead of dialing in a five digit frequency (which in modern cockpits is part of the glass and can be entered just by pointing at the airport and pushing a button.)

      Not all of the broadcasted information needs to be broadcasted at all, and some of what does need to be, can be modified to make tracking impossible or, at least, much harder.

      At a MINIMUM, the position, heading, speed, altitude, and aircraft type need to be broadcast, which is because the goal of the ADSB system is to allow everyone to track other aircraft. To prevent falsing, the id is also required. (Two aircraft come close enough their targets merge, then two aircraft reappear. Which one is which? You cannot control what you don't know.) The GOAL of ADSB is to allow tracking, so thinking you can cut out information that allows tracking is, well, nonsense.

      I don't, so let's not bother with that strawman...

      Uhh, yeah, since everyone in the air needs to know the information, you do need to give the keys to everyone.

    16. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by FranklyFrank · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except that only the ATC system really 'needs' this information, you and I do not (granted it is still fun to use/see)

      As a pilot, I certainly do need to see that information. ADSB data is an extension of the "see and avoid" concept, where the pilot has a responsibility for situational awareness and is the ultimate controller of his aircraft.

      It's nice when ATC issues traffic advisories, but is required to do so only for IFR traffic. VFR traffic can ask for "flight following", but that service is "workload permitting" for the controller, and VFR traffic without flight following get NO traffic advisories except the ADSB data (or TAS in some airspaces.)

      Given the decade+ rollout that the US based system is to take, it's pretty unlikely that midway through they will turn around and say "on second thought, you need to upgrade to this even newer standard in order to be compliant"

      The general aviation fleet and suppliers are so far behind the curve on meeting the 2020 deadline that it would be impossible for FAA to suddenly change the technical specifications for ADSB. There are so many aircraft owners and operators who are waiting for the suppliers to come up with reasonable solutions (especially for ADSB-out) that it may wind up being impossible to meet the existing deadline with existing standards anyway. Just the number of aircraft that will require avionics work will mean that the backlog will extend past the deadline.

    17. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by mi · · Score: 0

      The "myth" that the frequencies for many of the cellular bands are in a LAND mobile allocation has never been "busted".

      Except this is completely irrelevant. The myth I was talking about was the "cell phone use interferes with the plane's equipment" one.

      You really don't understand what the NextGen concept, with ADSB, is, do you?

      Fortunately, I don't need to. Unless you are saying, the needs of the airplanes are so unique, the Computer Science/Cryptography/Security industry has no solution for the problem?

      Every aircraft ADS-B-in will have to have the encrytion keys so it can decrypt the data.

      Big deal — the ATC towers can act as Certificate Authorities issuing keys to all planes. Then, whoever is interested in my details, can establish an encrypted connection with me and ask me nicely.

      No, I think "the origin of the issue" here is a complete lack of understanding of the goals of ADSB and collision avoidance.

      You don't need to know, who they are to avoid crashing into them. This much I understand. Do you?

      Big deal if someone on the ground can track aircraft just like ATC

      Right. And why would I be bothered by it, unless I had something to hide?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    18. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by FranklyFrank · · Score: 2

      Except this is completely irrelevant.

      It is FEDERAL LAW. Of course it is not irrelevant. Why do you think you are now allowed to use personal electronic devices while inflight but still not allowed to use cell phones? Because it is the law, not a myth.

      Fortunately, I don't need to.

      You don't need to understand what ADS-B is designed to do before you yammer on and on about how it should be encrypted point-to-point? Yes, the needs of aviation are different than the needs of computer scientists. They don't fit into a one-to-one "Alice sends a message to Bob" scenarios.

      Big deal — the ATC towers can act as Certificate Authorities issuing keys to all planes.

      You clearly do not understand the needs of aviation or how it operates. Please stop making stupid statements like this. ATC makes use of ADS-B data, they don't generate it. For the vast majority of their flights, most aircraft are not dealing with towers, at least not when flying outside the east coast area, and certainly not even then when they are in the enroute airspace. Your 'tower' is irrelevant until it comes time to take off or land.

      Then, whoever is interested in my details, can establish an encrypted connection with me and ask me nicely.

      And if I'm out of range of 'your tower' and you can't hear my request? The authority of 'your tower' extends, for the vast majority of cases, about 5 miles from your airport. I'm six miles away and need to know if any of your depatures are going to be in my vicinity. But I can't because I'm not talking to 'your tower' and can't ask "pretty please" let me have public data.

      You don't need to know, who they are to avoid crashing into them. This much I understand.

      You understand nothing. ATC needs to know who is who because they have to control them if they are on an IFR flight plan. Here's just a simple scenario to demonstrate the problem. A is flying IFR along a specified airway. B is VFR on a different one. The targets merge over the VOR where those two routes intersect. (Targets merging is a big no-no to ATC, but ATC has called A, told him about B, and A reports "traffic in sight". It is now A's responsibility to keep from running into B.) B turns to follow the airway departing the VOR that A was supposed to turn onto, but A missed the turn and is heading off the wrong way. ATC sees an unidentified ADS-B target departing the VOR that looks like A, and it is doing what A is supposed to do. All is well. ATC doesn't care about B, B is VFR and hasn't asked for flight following. ATC has no responsibility for, or even any way of communicating with, B.

      Time passes. B turns off the airway. Oops, thinks ATC, A is making a mistake. ATC calls A. A has flown out of range of that ATC facility. ATC can't contact B to find out it is B, so is B actually A with a radio failure? All of this is solved by having the identification of the aircraft sent with the ADS-B data. (And, of course, pilots will know that the identification WILL be sent using the standard transponder -- A will have a discrete 4096 code and B will be sqwaking 1200. But identifying aircraft isn't necessary you say, so we will assume that they are unidentified.)

      The pilots need to know where they are, what speed they are going, what altitude they are at, just so they can know where they are and predict conflicts. The pilots need to know what model and identity they are so they can be sure that they've identified the correct target when they do make visual contact. They need to know if they are looking for a United 747 or a Delta 727 or just a Cessna 182. This information is important for situational awareness. Yes, today, they have to rely on ATC traffic advisories to tell them "traffic 12 o'clock, opposite direction, a United 747", but the VFR people not talking to ATC deserve that same information.

      And why would I be bothered by it, un

    19. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by mi · · Score: 0

      It is FEDERAL LAW.

      Though Statists might equate them, laws of men — unlike laws of nature — are changeable. This particular one appeared, because it was believed, the cell phones can interfere with the aircraft. That belief has been demonstrated wrong many times — or, to put it in other words, that myth was busted.

      You understand nothing.

      Darling, mind your tone.

      ATC needs to know who is who because they have to control them if they are on an IFR flight plan.

      ATC might need to know, yes. But whatever passes through the ATC, can be encrypted and sent to other planes — encrypted for each one — as well. This is a solvable problem, one just needs to acknowledge, it exists. And you do not...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    20. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by FranklyFrank · · Score: 1

      This particular one appeared, because it was believed, the cell phones can interfere with the aircraft.

      Bullshit. The land mobile allocation of the frequency bands used by many cell systems has nothing to do with aviation safety. It was that way before cell phones became something that you would carry in your pocket and potentially cause problems. (And just because YOU'vE never been in a cockpit and heard the buzz from a GSM cellphone in YOUR avionics doesn't mean it doesn't happen.) You are ignorant on this issue.

      that myth was busted

      The original author said that "you aren't supposed to use them in aircraft." The prohibition comes from FCC regulations, not FAA. FAA regulations have, for a very long time, granted aircraft operators the right to allow electronic devices while inflight, so the prohibition doesn't even come from the FAA, it comes because the operator didn't choose to allow it. And today, most of them do, except for cell phones -- because cell phones are prohibited by FCC, not FAA, regulations.

      YOU said that this myth was busted, but the law is not a myth and you are, really, not supposed to use cell phones in aircraft. You lie because of ignorance when you claim it is a myth. And you've been corrected now, so you should know better.

      ATC might need to know, yes.

      So does every other aircraft in the area.

      But whatever passes through the ATC,

      It doesn't always pass through ATC.

      can be encrypted and sent to other planes —

      And thus EVERYONE HAS TO HAVE THE KEY. Every aircraft needs that information.

      encrypted for each one — as well.

      Oh my God. Do you actually believe that every ADS-B position report will be individually encrypted and sent to each and every aircraft individually? So an ADS-B uplink that has 120 aircraft in its viscinity will actually retransmit every ADS-B packet from each aircraft 120 additional times? And that there will somewhere be a database of all aircraft and their key so that FAA can encrypt each packet correctly? And that FAA will magically know the identities of the 20 VFR aircraft in the area so it can correctly encrypt the ADS-B data for them, too?

      And you would deliberately exclude every aircraft that has only "ADS-B in" capablility, because they just don't need to know any of this data? The lives of the pilots and passengers of those aircraft just aren't important enough to you? Do you even realize that there IS "ADS-B in" as part of the system? We'll create a marvelous NextGen aviation system that improves safety and convenience for all aircraft, except the ones that 'mi' doesn't think are worth helping?

      You understand nothing of the system other than "OMG, it should be encrypted". Really. Your ignorance, and your refusal to listen, are overwhelming.

      This is a solvable problem

      The only problem here is your deliberate and willful ignorance, and it appears to be an insoluble problem.

    21. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by mi · · Score: 0

      The original author said that "you aren't supposed to use them in aircraft."

      Exactly. And he was wrong. There is not a problem with their use. Now, he was cool enough to accept being corrected, but you chose to go on arguing this silly point and exposed yourself as an asshole.

      The prohibition comes from FCC regulations, not FAA.

      Oh, wow, great (this, BTW, makes it an FCC rule, not "federal law" as you incorrectly asserted earlier.) And FCC is totally cool with such cell-phone use now, which makes their own, yours, and others' earlier assertions, that they are "dangerous" into dirty rotten lies. Congratulations, liar.

      And you've been corrected now

      No, dear. You have been corrected. Contrary to your assertions, the use of cellular phones inside airplane is harmless — whether or not there is a "federal law" against it is irrelevant. A pilot could use his personal phone — or some more convenient (and 10 times pricier) system using the same cellular network — to talk ATC as well as fellow pilots. Even that may be an improvement, but we don't have to stop there. By switching to TCP/IP we can make things much better (not just secure) for all — if only fewer people in aviation shared your stupid arrogant belief, that aviation has "unique" issues of its very own, which the outsiders have neither solved nor even encountered before.

      so you should know better.

      I do know better than some upstart, who thinks, his flight hours make him an expert in other walks of life.

      So an ADS-B uplink that has 120 aircraft in its viscinity will actually retransmit every ADS-B packet from each aircraft 120 additional times?

      Sure, why not? The numbers like 120 aren't at all impressive in the age of millions TCP connections per hour. A home-market WiFi router can handle more than 120 active wireless devices today — big deal...

      And thus EVERYONE HAS TO HAVE THE KEY. Every aircraft needs that information.

      Every craft needs the information, but they don't need each other's key — everyone just has to know a handful of mutually-trusted Certificate Authorities. Cryptography solved this problem decades ago.

      Our military planes can each track dozens of both friendlies and non-cooperating hostiles — and share the information about the latter with the former — securely. A system to do the same with cooperating civilian aircraft and without concerns for enemy's jamming is not only possible, it is trivial.

      And you would deliberately exclude every aircraft that has only "ADS-B in" capablility, because they just don't need to know any of this data?

      People were flying without ADS-B for decades and mid-air collisions were extremely rare. But I would keep ADS-B installed for a while — as long as the plane's owner does not mind the privacy implications of it working. Perhaps, people would turn it on in busy airspace and off elsewhere.

      (Unfortunately, your tone and manner make continuing this discussion too unpleasant. I'm unlikely to continue...)

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    22. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by FranklyFrank · · Score: 1

      The original author said that "you aren't supposed to use them in aircraft."

      Exactly. And he was wrong. There is not a problem with their use.

      You are absolutely and ridiculously wrong. There is a prohibition in federal law against use of cellular phones while in flight. You aren't supposed to use them in aircraft" is incorrect only in that you can use them while on the ground, but the context is getting traffic information, and thus "in flight".

      Now, he was cool enough to accept being corrected, but you chose to go on arguing this silly point and exposed yourself as an asshole.

      And you say my tone is unacceptable?

      Oh, wow, great (this, BTW, makes it an FCC rule, not "federal law" as you incorrectly asserted earlier.)

      The FCC "rule" is contained in 47 CFR, which is part 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations -- "federal law". Further, I'm reasonably certain that this requirement comes from an International Telecommunications Union treaty, which the US is a signatory to, which makes it 'federal law' as well. (I'm not going to waste time researching the ITU treaty simply because federal law already covers the situation.) You really don't understand any of this stuff, do you?

      And FCC is totally cool [cnn.com] with such cell-phone use now,

      No, the FCC isn't "totally cool". The FCC may create rules that allow ON BOARD cell sites (in airmobile allocations) so that cell phones inside the aircraft can use airmobile frequencies to make cell calls. This is NOT the same as blanket permission to use landmobile frequencies to make cell calls. In your ignorance, you don't understand that fact. And your ignorance makes you think that every pilot will have the benefit of the airborne cell micro-site to make such calls legal.

      Had you bothered to read the CNN article (not an FCC notice of proposed rulemaking) you would have seen that it would take a hundred pounds of equipment on the aircraft to implement this change, which makes it unlikly to happen on the majority of aircraft, and impossible to implement on a very large number of them. This "totally cool" solution to the "myth" of federal law prohibiting cell phone use inflight isn't a solution after all.

      which makes their own, yours, and others' earlier assertions, that they are "dangerous"

      I didn't say it was dangerous, nor did the guy you replied to. He said "you're not supposed to use them", which is what federal law says.

      whether or not there is a "federal law" against it is irrelevant.

      Again. Malicious ignorance. Longstanding federal law is not irrelevant.

      The numbers like 120 aren't at all impressive in the age of millions TCP connections per hour.

      Not using two frequencies with data packets that are 120 microseconds long. You know nothing of ADS-B and therefore make stupid statements like this.

      Every craft needs the information, but they don't need each other's key —

      Sigh. It doesn't matter who knows whose keys (except for the problem of knowing the keys so the data could be encrypted in the first place -- an impossible task when you don't know who is in the airspace to start with.) The FACT is that every aircraft needs the data, and if all it takes is buying an aircraft radio then your security is "poof". Tracking costs a bit more, but it wouldn't be long before the technology becomes cheap. You may think that buying an aviation radio is impossble except for aircraft owners, but that's just more ignorance.

      Our military planes can each track dozens of both friendlies and non-cooperating hostiles —

      Our military aircraft operate in an environment where there are existing key management systems, and they don't go flying without nobody knowing they are there. They aren't usi

    23. Re:Privacy? What privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fcc regulations, like regulations from any federal agency, have the weight of federal law.
      ergo, they are federal law.

  14. complete with bit.ly affiliate link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is there an affiliate link in the summary for a $20 dongle ?
    desperate for cash much ?
    get a job you lazy kike

  15. Re:Monitoring these transmission illegal in 3..2.. by Predius · · Score: 2

    To be more specific, it's not illegal to listen to the 800mhz cellular freqs. All the FCC could do was stop the commercial sale of new equipment that was able to hit those freqs. Got pre-ban equipment, listen away. Make your own, congrats!

  16. And... the story is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is non-ordinary about this?

  17. Watching what flies in & out of your capital. by shocking · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can seen the airport of my nation's capital from my balcony. I have a similar setup logging the position reports to a PostGIS DB, which allows some interesting queries ("Give me all the position reports found beneath a certain altitude within a certain polygon that describes a runway, sorted by airframe and timestamp") which allows you to determine what planes landed and took off.

    Looking up who owns the aircraft can be done online, and it's funny when something owned by a holding company in the Caymans flies in. Now if only there was an online API that allowed one to query the visitors list for the legislative bodies, one could tie the data together, along with the record of votes cast, and jump to some intriguing conclusions.

  18. Re:Monitoring these transmission illegal in 3..2.. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

    That ban needs repealing. Analog AMPS hasn't been used in forever, so that spectrum is no longer used for what they originally enacted the ban for. The digital replacement is/should be encrypted, so no ban is needed.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  19. Do I win £5? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    Top Tips:
    Become invisible to police officers by sticking your hands in your pockets and looking up at the sky while whistling.

    GZ0275 HMP Broadmoor.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. Traffic! 12 o'clock! Same altitude! by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

    All ADS-B ever seems to do is tell me the blindingly obvious, like the airplane holding short right in front of me waiting to take off.

    I find VFR flight following to be much more useful.

    ...laura

    1. Re:Traffic! 12 o'clock! Same altitude! by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      You must not have ADS-B out (or are flying in boring airspace). Swing over to NYC's Bravo and try it on a nice weekend - it's lit up like a Christmas tree. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's saved my bacon, but it's pretty handy to know exactly where to see and avoid. And there's no "workload permitting" caveat like with flight following.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    2. Re:Traffic! 12 o'clock! Same altitude! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use FLARM (if you're flying VFR). Of course, you'll also be tracked, e.g. here: http://ktrax.kisstech.ch/ktrax/?mode=sar

  21. RTL-SDR? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    tl, dr.

  22. Open broadcasts and off-the-shelf software by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

    I'm sorry, but who gives a shit? ADS-B is totally public info broadcast over an open standard and available to anyone with an antenna. The software is bog-standard and all this has been doable for at least 10 years. It's so bog-standard there's a large community doing this on a routine basis for more than 2 years (and that's only one example).

    Of course, before that you could tune to the local ATC frequency (it's just an AM radio) and listen to position reports.

    Next this guy will be listening to the local cab dispatch frequency and telling us he can find people who have called for a ride.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:Open broadcasts and off-the-shelf software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. People think they can identify who arrived and left when because they identified his/her helicopter. Unless it's Obama with his own helicopters, or another high-level person with his own ride, the helis they identified are just like taxis: registered to heli charter companies. The article even says this, I guess the authors expected more insight from the flight records.

  23. Business bias to tech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick--everyone at Davos realize this tech to so disruptive to invest billions, create 2 to 3 unicorn companies that deliver subpar products that are always in beta and buggy or a kickstarter that never delivers.

    The stock markets are crashing, tech bubble has burst--quick start this industry now.... All this new tech will solve poverty, sickness, foreign relations, balance the rich vs poor and any economic issue to date.

    ---
    RTL-SDR ADS-B has been around for what, 2 years?

  24. Re:Monitoring these transmission illegal in 3..2.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Incorrect. Monitoring cellular (and any other sort of mobile phone and/or commercial pager) is illegal in the USA, per the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 USC 2510-2520.

  25. Re:Monitoring these transmission illegal in 3..2.. by Predius · · Score: 1

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

    Specifically note: (g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
    (i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

    Analog cellular broadcasts fall under that rule. Now, there are limitations on what you can DO with information gathered from listening to those calls, in short you can't act on it. But that does not mean it's illegal to receive it.

  26. So dressing "monk" is like having a Canadian flag? by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Everybody's extra-polite to you? (Or at least doesn't hassle you for being an American)?

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks