Security Consultants Claim New Terrorist Bombs May Mean No More In-Flight WiFi
 

More knee jerk reaction from the folks who brought you the liquid ban.

security-consultants-claim-new-terrorist-bombs-may-mean-no-more-in-flight-wifi.shtml

Love this comment

What's the solution? Keeping bombs off aircraft is the solution. Not banning WiFi.

in the comments about it.

It is a very stupid article if they believe people need to use cell phones on a plane to blow up a box in the hold.

I knew there was a reason why UA stopped installing wi-fi after 13 aircraft.

Might be worth it if it gets rid of mobile phones in-flight :D

But let's take it further - what if you could detect particular cell tower(s) in-flight, perhaps on approach to a major city like London :(

wifi
 

If stopping the wifi service in a plane will cause safety to my travel, why not? But for a 14hour to 18hour travel, gosh it is really crazy to sit there and do nothing.

This is crazy. In the extreme case, even Wifi connectivity is not necessary for nefarious purposes. A laptop with Wifi capability is quite sufficient. Will they try to ban all uses of laptops (or anything similar) now?

Hmmm.... if I was a baddie, I would come up some convoluted and expensive system involving a mobile device, praying the package gets aboard a plane with wifi, a sensor to detect when a plane is above 10,000 feet to purchase wifi on board, write an application to fill out the purchase info, associate with the device with the wifi enabled device, connect a remote session to the device, trigger the device, hope none of the dozen or so failure points has a problem and along the way establish a method in which the purchase, connection, and mobile phone cannot be traced back to the device builder.

or

Use a barometric fuse.

LOL, good point!

YGHTBFKM. :mad: :rolleyes:

I wonder what genius though of this..

I do like this comment from the story.

Here's the full article that appeared in New Scientist, a magazine that has not endeared itself to the scientific community:


New Scientist is a British-based publication where many thousands of
lay people get their information on scientific matters, and (IMHO) it
does an excellent job about 70% of the time. But the combination of a
sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers (most
obviously in physics) is rendering it unreliable often enough to
constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science.

There are many areas in cosmology, fundamental physics and so on where
there are controversies over issues that are hotly contested by
various competent, highly educated and respected scientists, and I
have no quarrel with New Scientist publishing views on various sides
of these debates, even when those from the opposing camp would
consider the claims to be nonsense.

However, I really was gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy
in the article “Fly by Light” in the 9 September 2006 issue,
concerning the supposed “electromagnetic drive” of Roger Shawyer. If
Shawyer’s claims have been accurately reported, they violate
conservation of momentum. This is not a contested matter; in its
modern, relativistic form it is accepted by every educated physicist
on the planet. The writer of this article, Justin Mullins, seems
aware that conservation of momentum is violated, but then churns out a
lot of meaningless double-talk about “reference frames” which he seems
to think demonstrates that relativity somehow comes to the rescue.

Don't need a mobile phone -- use a remote desktop connection via 801.b/g and a USB actuator to trigger the device. On-board Wi-Fi is not required, a peer-to-peer connection would work just as well.

It's not exactly rocket science, rather just a matter of time before the bad guys put something like that together. The suicide bomber would just be sitting in his seat playing solitaire on his other laptop.

My scenario is based on the silly notion that terrorists will go through a complex system to sneak a device onboard and then find a way to remotely trigger from the ground using wifi. Fear and sensationalism sells magazine.

If a suicide bomber did get onboard, he can indeed use a peer to peer connection and trigger a device in the cargo hold. Hopefully he plays Minesweeper. :)

Heck, even easier. When I was 12 years old, I would build my own RC cars. Didn't take much to make things run from hundreds of feet away. $50 worth of parts from a hobby shop will buy you a cheap 2 channel controller and all the servos and actuators needed to trigger a device.

So the next generation of on-board security scares will involve surfing while brown. :eek:

One can ban wifi, one can tie people up in their seats, administer IV Diprivan for the duration of the flight and blindfold them for good measure; one can do a body scan, ultrasound, barium swallow and mri on every intending passenger, but it's important to understand that one can never be completely free from the type of threat seen last week.

Love it!

"Sir, would you like that cocktail before or after your propofol?"

Here is my twisted fictional analogy:

Sprigfield homeowners association bans the Slinky
-Associated Press

Remember growing up in the 80s and playing with the Slinky? I can remember the fun I had sending it down the stairs and doing all the other things shown in the commercial. Well it's a good thing that children these days have the internet and X-box to keep them busy because a homeowners association in Springfield has decided to ban the Slinky from the neighborhood.

Terry Wrist, head of the neighborhood HOA, says that the Slinky represents a new and emerging risk to the safety of all residents in the neighborhood. "Independent security consultants have determined that a Slinky, if brought into the neighborhood, could be equipped with a steel tensioner that can increase the effect of it's spring. This spring could then be hooked up to any catapult system, dragged into somebody's back yard, and be fitted with a sharp boulder. If a nefarious intruder with an ulterior motive were able to get a hold of a Slinky and enable said catapult, he would then be able to launch the boulder across the yard, through a back window, and into the face of a resident of the home if they happened to be walking by the window at that moment". When asked why a nefarious intruder would not just use a gun, Wrist had no comment and excused himself from the interview.