News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Sen. McCaskill to FAA Chief: Fix Electronic Device Rules or Face Legislation. Parent comment

Re:Sen. McCaskill to FAA Chief: Fix Electronic Device Rules ... by daeken on Thursday December 13, 2012 @02:32AM (#4914758)
Do you believe that our current rules would do anything at all to prevent someone from attacking flight control systems on the plane? You could easily have a device that looks just like a phone or tablet in your bag, or even in the pocket of your seat, which is actively performing the attack.

Not to mention that policing of the "no electronics" rule is spotty at best. I fly constantly and damn near every time, I end up with my media playing device in the pocket, with my headphones on listening to music for the entire flight, from takeoff to touch down. In the many dozens of flights I've taken, I've only once actually had to take out my headphones.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sen. McCaskill to FAA Chief: Fix Electronic Device Rules ... by toomuchtodo on Thursday December 13, 2012 @03:44AM (#4914910)
You can jam GPS within 20-100 feet with less than $50 in electronics (how far is the rear-most seat from the GPS antenna on a 747?). The only time this would cause a great deal of concern is on final approach where the ILS system has been replaced with a GPS approach in IFR (non-visual) flight conditions.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sen. McCaskill to FAA Chief: Fix Electronic Device Rules ... by batgaijin on Thursday December 13, 2012 @02:41AM (#4914778)
No, I do not believe the rules we have today make any sense for preventing that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sen. McCaskill to FAA Chief: Fix Electronic Device Rules ... by Dylan16807 on Thursday December 13, 2012 @04:13AM (#4914988)
So when you said you were 'that guy', you didn't mean someone bringing in a counterargument to a popular position, you meant you were someone bringing in unrelated data and going "Huh? What about this? Huh?".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sen. McCaskill to FAA Chief: Fix Electronic Device Rules ... by batgaijin on Thursday December 13, 2012 @06:13AM (#4915265)
I'm saying that the rules are either going to become more liberal or severely conservative. I'm simply pointing out the conservative, somewhat nonsensical one.

I think the rules do not make sense considering my point, as they were never intended for that.

And by 'that guy' I mean devil's advocate for a possible future idiotic fear-mongering policy.

[ Parent | on HN ]