Blocked flight tracking and ADS-B

[Autothrust Blue]

I can't go much deeper into the weeds on this without breaking into the information you don't get to know without clearances.


Suffice to say yes the US Military and DIA have been and are continuing to look at live feed real time apps out there like flight tracker etc as huge security risks due to the increased probability for intercept they give terrorists and other non state actors.

You guys laugh, but there are a couple real no no kidding incidents that have happened where people using these systems to track and build a kill chain have been recorded.


Of course some of you are probably like "nobody is gonna shoot at an airliner, that's just stupid."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't get me wrong, I do believe some maniac out there with a MANPAD would shoot at a civilian jet, or do any other manner of crazy things. My innocence on that front is pretty much lost, growing up in our post-9/11 world. However, I don't see this as the amazing world-ending vulnerability that the business aircraft community does. I'm very interested in protecting the security and safety of the system and not especially interested in allowing people to hide.

My objection to your argument is twofold:
(1) please stop patting us civilians on the head with vague references to classified information, as I'm rather tired of hearing "trust us, be scared," (this refrain is getting very, very old, and locking up information doesn't help the rest of us combat the threat - see the 9/11 Commission Report) and
(2) I consider that sort of threat against a business aircraft to be orders of magnitude less likely than either a leak of competitive sensitive information or something happening at an arrival airport to the principals aboard said aircraft. Low technology wins every time.

It's difficult - near impossible - to hide an aircraft operation. Technology like ADS-B makes it harder, but it doesn't change the fundamental nature of the problem: you are in an airplane that people can see.

I've got no problem with corporate airplanes driving around under anonymous call signs and such things, but the fundamental way ADS-B works is that it broadcasts a whole ton of information to the world. Encryption won't do jack about that, as everyone will have the keys to decrypt it, and it adds an arguably unnecessary level of complexity. I've little confidence that avionics vendors would do it "correctly" anyway, as encryption and security are hard, so...

This is a broadcast-based system. It's very difficult by its very nature to hide from the world when you are broadcasting your position (etc.) to the world.

So, I suppose we can either fundamentally redesign ADS-B, or we can have a cold, honest, rational and transparent discussion about the risks (not saying there aren't any) and adopt other mitigating strategy, and accept the remaining risk should it be judged acceptable.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Note: I think it's a fundamental error to turn off primary radar and rely upon aircraft participation for air route surveillance as well.

 

[Lawman]

Well for one, I don't care if you feel patronized by the "trust us" statements on classified info. People feeling the need to be informed, typically don't need to be. Not usually because of the first layer of info that would answer in detail but because of the source of the info it's self.


2. ADS-B in general is going to turn into a nightmare from a military/security stand point. We have lawmakers writing in requirements for the military to participate in this system, along with all other governmental agencies. That's why it's Rome and issue and that goes way beyond terrorist threats (which again, have been caught using these systems).

Now you've got everything from drug runners/human traffickers/etc able to see where your patrol aircraft from the coast guard or border patrol are. Or for the purpose of military action now we have an enemy that can effectively monitor our strategic movements by tracking the fact a whole lot of airplanes just took off from Pope AFB. Something like this would totally change the paradigm for mil planning because if you look at what we did then vs trying to do it now we have to somehow mask all those little dots picking up the 82nd airborne and flying them to Panama or the mass of airplanes assembling over Europe/Japan/etc to go into country X.

Again the idea of increased situational awareness for pilots is great and all, but we have opened up some serious elements from Pandora's box with the constant easily obtainable flow of information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Roger]

Well for one, I don't care if you feel patronized by the "trust us" statements on classified info. People feeling the need to be informed, typically don't need to be. Not usually because of the first layer of info that would answer in detail but because of the source of the info it's self.


2. ADS-B in general is going to turn into a nightmare from a military/security stand point. We have lawmakers writing in requirements for the military to participate in this system, along with all other governmental agencies. That's why it's Rome and issue and that goes way beyond terrorist threats (which again, have been caught using these systems).

Now you've got everything from drug runners/human traffickers/etc able to see where your patrol aircraft from the coast guard or border patrol are. Or for the purpose of military action now we have an enemy that can effectively monitor our strategic movements by tracking the fact a whole lot of airplanes just took off from Pope AFB. Something like this would totally change the paradigm for mil planning because if you look at what we did then vs trying to do it now we have to somehow mask all those little dots picking up the 82nd airborne and flying them to Panama or the mass of airplanes assembling over Europe/Japan/etc to go into country X.

Again the idea of increased situational awareness for pilots is great and all, but we have opened up some serious elements from Pandora's box with the constant easily obtainable flow of information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You really don't think there's going to be exceptions for military/law enforcement on live ops?

 

[Lawman]

You really don't think there's going to be exceptions for military/law enforcement on live ops?

You really don't think when you wire ADS-B directly into the APX-123 transponder we are now required to use there won't be aircraft in our fleet without some sort of "go dark" function?

Short of a very small community of swoopy people with swoopy aircraft, the rest of us are kinda stuck, especially when operating in US or allied airspace. I can only imagine the screaming that would go on from us trying to fly a dozen C17s through US/Canadian airspace on their way to another country now transmitting any kind of transponder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Well for one, I don't care if you feel patronized by the "trust us" statements on classified info. People feeling the need to be informed, typically don't need to be. Not usually because of the first layer of info that would answer in detail but because of the source of the info it's self.


2. ADS-B in general is going to turn into a nightmare from a military/security stand point. We have lawmakers writing in requirements for the military to participate in this system, along with all other governmental agencies. That's why it's Rome and issue and that goes way beyond terrorist threats (which again, have been caught using these systems).

Now you've got everything from drug runners/human traffickers/etc able to see where your patrol aircraft from the coast guard or border patrol are. Or for the purpose of military action now we have an enemy that can effectively monitor our strategic movements by tracking the fact a whole lot of airplanes just took off from Pope AFB. Something like this would totally change the paradigm for mil planning because if you look at what we did then vs trying to do it now we have to somehow mask all those little dots picking up the 82nd airborne and flying them to Panama or the mass of airplanes assembling over Europe/Japan/etc to go into country X.

Again the idea of increased situational awareness for pilots is great and all, but we have opened up some serious elements from Pandora's box with the constant easily obtainable flow of information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks again for the pat on the head, but we're probably just going to have to continue to disagree on point (1). I could launch into a long discussion about it, but this is a technical discussion, so I'll keep to that point.

Regarding point (2): since this is the way the air traffic control system is going to work, turning that stuff off in domestic airspace WILL lead to a loss of separation. Air traffic control is principally concerned with ensuring nobody hits anyone else, and I certainly see how a broadcast system is going to be deficient in terms of legitimate operational security: you have to be a participating aircraft to receive separation. (And there are legitimate reasons to need said security.)

I honestly don't care for ADS-B much anyway; I think it's a deficient technical solution because of its reliance upon participating aircraft. But the military and law enforcement folks are the only ones who have any real business being bent about security on it as well, because of that reason.

 

[Lawman]

Thanks again for the pat on the head, but we're probably just going to have to continue to disagree on point (1). I could launch into a long discussion about it, but this is a technical discussion, so I'll keep to that point.

Regarding point (2): since this is the way the air traffic control system is going to work, turning that stuff off in domestic airspace WILL lead to a loss of separation. Air traffic control is principally concerned with ensuring nobody hits anyone else, and I certainly see how a broadcast system is going to be deficient in terms of legitimate operational security: you have to be a participating aircraft to receive separation. (And there are legitimate reasons to need said security.)

I honestly don't care for ADS-B much anyway; I think it's a deficient technical solution because of its reliance upon participating aircraft. But the military and law enforcement folks are the only ones who have any real business being bent about security on it as well, because of that reason.

That's the problem with this system though.

We've screamed about airspace safety and upgrading the national airspace system for so long nobody is concerned about anything but getting it done.

ADS-B in its current incarnation and form was the easy reach target. And until people outside the circle (I.E. Not the FAA) started raising issue with the security/exploitation ability in the system there was no concern. Now they hear us but it's being paid lip service to it.

There is a way to do this and create a system with similar capability for the end user (air crews and controllers) without creating a massive exploitation hole. But that takes a lot more dollars to do it and unless both industry professionals and the ones with objections stand up and say "hey wait a minute maybe we are doing this wrong," together nothing is going to drive the FAA/legislators driving the train and the industry thats all to happy to deliver what they want and nothing more based off getting ground floor on a system that stands to make a lot of money. I'm sure that industry would be happy to accommodate that but doing it now vs later is typically a cheaper and more effective means than trying to build this in later.

For starters encryption and non user or better yet ground/speed based lock out ( unless you're and arc agency) and other such easy security means should be encouraged not looked at as some sort of burden. Yeah people may call it paranoia but those people will suddenly be very silent when something happens . Same went for the people that said we had no need for any kind of airspace response from inside our own country, the threat would come from outside the ADIZ.... kinda blew that one up with 9/11. Now suddenly we dedicate assets and tracking to that arena.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

I flew a candidate for California Governor around in a King Air, for the very reasons discussed above and the paparazzi still managed to find me and my King Air.

I don't think ADS-B will change things much for civilians. I had a buddy that would call stocks based on the trips to TEB with the company aircraft.

I can't really speak about the "be scared, sheeple" stuff because I'm not qualified too do so. The C-17s getting flight tracked by China is kinda concerning. Can't imagine there wouldn't be a work around. I just keep thinking "duh!"

 

[Lawman]

I flew a candidate for California Governor around in a King Air, for the very reasons discussed above and the paparazzi still managed to find me and my King Air.

I don't think ADS-B will change things much for civilians. I had a buddy that would call stocks based on the trips to TEB with the company aircraft.

I can't really speak about the "be scared, sheeple" stuff because I'm not qualified too do so. The C-17s getting flight tracked by China is kinda concerning. Can't imagine there wouldn't be a work around. I just keep thinking "duh!"

The political and financial exploitation possibilities have really only just started making visible impact. I don't doubt the savvy money makers are fully reading or getting smart on tracking people. If Boeing executives are suddenly making a lot of flights to a country with an open bidding for an airline or military buy and Lockheeds guys aren't... it doesn't take much to make some key decisions on investment based off that.

The big problem is the middle ground between full up dark curtain war fighting and everything is normal status quo. That week/month before everything kicks off If an enemy can gauge our resolve or when an attack is imminent based off the sudden build up of forward deployed aircraft they can take steps to defend (move/disperse high value targets, surge their defensive posture with max forces on alert, etc). Same with tracking our Intel gathering aircraft that operate from standoff. If we are tracking and conducting signature Intel with an aircraft in say, Swedens airspace, and it's looking across the border to another place it's easy for that country to track those flights so it knows when to not emit. That disrupts the targeting process and leaves us with an incomplete Intel picture. That leads to us either not acting because we can't or acting with incomplete Intel at a much higher risk.

Short of some kind of universal TFR that blanks the screens and isn't reported or creating a mil use only airspace like Class M or something we are creating a problem we haven't yet seen the full effects of. Same way social media turned into a massive headache for us (mil/gov) nobody expected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

I'm sorry Lawman but if social media is a problem for the military I think we need to hit the reset button and get some new rules for people in the military.

Why is this an issue at all?

If leadership keeps paying the victim card they are going to create a literal bloody mess...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lawman]

I'm sorry Lawman but if social media is a problem for the military I think we need to hit the reset button and get some new rules for people in the military.

Why is this an issue at all?

If leadership keeps paying the victim card they are going to create a literal bloody mess...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not so much the military members as it is all the people connected to them.

Most of the mil guys that get in trouble on social media do it by posting dumb political rants or bitch about their chain of command thinking that social media is somehow exempt from military discipline.

Social media has more been a disaster with things like proper notification of next of kin. Had this happen in my unit when before the notification and dispatch of officers/NCOs to go talk to the dead soldiers widow some idiot had already started posting "condolences" on the widows Facebook page. That's not the way some poor family needs to find out. It's one of the reasons we collect cell phones the second something happens or in some very interesting cases shut off the internet on the FOB. There is a process, and some idiots like F'ing it up so they can be "first" or whatever to tell somebody terrible news.

My unit also had a massive impact to mission when we had to send a bunch of people home to settle things because some women took it upon themselves to go collect every rumor, photo, etc of women they deemed unfaithful (some of whom genuinely were). And then the built a Facebook page... and liked the Battalion page dropping links all over the place. There's a big impact to a unit when you have to put 40 people on planes home with no backfill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

Wow it really is a brave new world. But really if we can't get around the ADS-B issue for a bunch of C-17s with super commandos or whatever on a first strike kind of deal?

I feel like I am watching a movie about the first guys to encounter the Zero in underpowered and underperforming F2A Buffalo

 

[Lawman]

Wow it really is a brave new world. But really if we can't get around the ADS-B issue for a bunch of C-17s with super commandos or whatever on a first strike kind of deal?

I feel like I am watching a movie about the first guys to encounter the Zero in underpowered and underperforming F2A Buffalo

See that's the thing with decision making. Hell we attacked Pearl Harbor in exercise and demonstrated that vulnerability to ourselves before the Japanese ever did it.

It's not enough to stick a bunch of smart people in rooms and have them think up "what if's" and then show you how they can exploit/attack you ... you actually have to come up with work arounds for those vulnerabilities and most importantly implement/fund them.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk