Student arrested after sending private joke over snapchat before boarding a plane, message was viewed by security as he was connected to public Wi-Fi

[mr moose]

22 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

Just because it is reasonable doesn't actually make it any less flawed. Widescale misunderstanding still results in misunderstanding, reasonability around it doesn't change that.

Actually it does.  Because in the sense I have been using the term and to what situational end,  flawed or wrong is irrelevant, if enough people believe said notion (for any reason) then someone is way less likely to be found guilty of intentionally causing trouble due to said beliefs.  That's just how it works.

 

 

18 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

re: the whole jurisdictional "reasonable" thing... that only works if its also plausible, at least here in Germany, and apparently also in spain!

 

everything you write down is per definition not actually "private" (has never been throughout all of history) 

 

especially in social media it would be "reasonable" to expect that someone *will* leak it lol.

 

there's no such thing as a "private joke"

 

Ahh, but that's where it hasn't actually been tested on the digital front.  There is no reason why the same application of law does not apply to digital services as it does postal or otherwise.

 

 

18 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

so i dont doubt that you can get away with this kind of argumentation in certain jurisdictions,  but not in others, and since this is in europe, this kind of argumentation is almost irrelevant,  worst case, it will make the punishment worse actually cause the judge will think you're trolling them with the pie in the sky excuses... 

 

"torheit schützt nicht vor strafe"

 

"folly doesn't protect from punishment"

 

 

(im pretty sure, worded differently of course,  this is an actual law around here lol)

 

Some jurisdictions you don't even get a fair trial.  However I feel my original point still stands.

[Mark Kaine]

53 minutes ago, mr moose said:

However I feel my original point still stands.

yes of course,  I'm just saying this being europe its unlikely to help to say basically "i didn't know" ...

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

yes of course,  I'm just saying this being europe its unlikely to help to say basically "i didn't know" ...

which is good and sad at the same time, good because people need to be more vigilant, but sad because it fosters a judicial system that doesn't take into account how easy it is to break the law when some laws are confusingly obscure and not well publicised (not referring to this particular one but in a more in general sense).

[Elegorn]

On 1/24/2024 at 6:28 PM, Sauron said:

If they scrambled jet interceptors every time anyone says anything that might be considered threatening, despite no prior history of doing anything wrong and no other signs of it being a serious threat, then you'd have them in the air 24/7.

You really overestimate the amount of people making bomb threat jokes at airports. Most people understand that it would be completely irresponsible and unfunny to do so

[sub68]

On 1/24/2024 at 1:32 PM, LAwLz said:

I call bullshit on the message being intercepted and read because he was on a public WiFi.

Even if it was an open and public network, you still can't read Snapchat messages because they are encrypted. Something else happened.

 

 

Anyway, the moral of the story is that it is a bad idea to joke about how you're a terrorist and planning on blowing planes up.

Airports can block a device and snoop in general.

BTW this is a American regional airport.

A little while ago I was waiting for someone to come in (took like 5 hours) I didnt have cell signal so I connected my phone to the wifi.

I didnt put in a email to view wifi.

So I was scanning my email a newsletter from a manufacture of pew pew's I open the newsletter to browser and my phone was kicked off of the wifi...

[sub68]

On 1/24/2024 at 8:45 AM, BuckGup said:

Encryption doesn't matter when you hand the keys to the authorities. 

On 1/24/2024 at 8:55 AM, Sauron said:

End to end encryption is designed precisely to make this impossible.

ish, PATRIOT act basically made it so in the US cell phones are tapped without warrant and intelligence gathering on electronic communications ie social media...

in UK there is GCHQ which has know for hacking into stuff and doing SIGINT (electroncs intellgence).

This agency is in 5 eyes a joint task force of intellgence which includes us intellgence.

Since 2001 (GWOT) there intelligence for the task force grew, since GWOT a lot is electronics gathering.... they probably have a backdoor into social medias.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, sub68 said:

Airports can block a device and snoop in general.

BTW this is a American regional airport.

A little while ago I was waiting for someone to come in (took like 5 hours) I didnt have cell signal so I connected my phone to the wifi.

I didnt put in a email to view wifi.

So I was scanning my email a newsletter from a manufacture of pew pew's I open the newsletter to browser and my phone was kicked off of the wifi...

That's not how it works.

 

 

They can block a website if they want. This is typically done by looking at the SNI in the HTTP(S) packets which is usually unencrypted. 

They can't decrypt traffic though.

 

If you were actually kicked off because you browsed a gun manufacturer's website (which I kind of doubt, sounds more like a coincidence) then it was because they looked at unencrypted traffic. In this story, the claim is that they decrypted traffic. Also, if they were actually worried about the things you browsed (guns) then they wouldn't just have kicked you off the network. They would have come and picked you up for interrogation. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, sub68 said:

ish, PATRIOT act basically made it so in the US cell phones are tapped without warrant and intelligence gathering on electronic communications ie social media...

in UK there is GCHQ which has know for hacking into stuff and doing SIGINT (electroncs intellgence).

This agency is in 5 eyes a joint task force of intellgence which includes us intellgence.

Since 2001 (GWOT) there intelligence for the task force grew, since GWOT a lot is electronics gathering.... they probably have a backdoor into social medias.

It's more complex than that. 

1) This happened during a flight between Madrid and Gatwick. The PATRIOT act doesn't apply outside of the US.

2) Just because the PATRIOT act allows for some very serious wiretapping doesn't mean they just gain the ability to do so.

3) Even if the PATRIOT act granted them a lot of special tools for wiretapping communications, it wouldn't be the airport doing it like this story claims.

[sub68]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It's more complex than that. 

1) This happened during a flight between Madrid and Gatwick. The PATRIOT act doesn't apply outside of the US.

2) Just because the PATRIOT act allows for some very serious wiretapping doesn't mean they just gain the ability to do so.

3) Even if the PATRIOT act granted them a lot of special tools for wiretapping communications, it wouldn't be the airport doing it like this story claims.

After 2001 alot of international assets follow suit of US patriot act by using existing task forces.

Under ECHELON we know of massive surveillance of electronic systems within UKUSA task forces.

Thats why I say patriot act ish because UK is not under one but under alot of joint task force operations that are massive surveillance of the internet and social medias.

I will say from what I have learned from my grandpa being from cold war era intelligence and my old it/cyber teacher that was navy doing some interesting stuff.

Is everything thats public social media orgs are most likely surveilled, but its most likely someone in his group chat probably reported.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If you were actually kicked off because you browsed a gun manufacturer's website (which I kind of doubt, sounds more like a coincidence) then it was because they looked at unencrypted traffic. In this story, the claim is that they decrypted traffic. Also, if they were actually worried about the things you browsed (guns) then they wouldn't just have kicked you off the network. They would have come and picked you up for interrogation.

The thing though is they are surveilling and stopping certain things.

Which fair its decrypted and face front but still has a sour taste of why.

its just werid because its not like a school.

But also none questioned me as I didnt take a plane...

[leadeater]

10 hours ago, sub68 said:

Airports can block a device and snoop in general.

The Airport put out an official statement saying they have no such capability, and that is true. Basically none of them do. Public free wifi can't do that unless they are doing something any device will literally warn about and give you many security messages stating that you have to do/allow something otherwise no HTPPS connections will work.

 

They can block yes, snoop on HTTPS (basically everything now days) no.

[sub68]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Basically none of them do.

That's why I say can because some will some won't.

But do we know how they did it no, so it's all interesting speculation.

Gees I wrote my og message on a tired brain so my structure and wording is awful.

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

They can block yes, snoop on HTTPS (basically everything now days) no.

That's what I suspect.

I meant block sites (gees I cannot write clearly). What I meant by snoop is seeing what people are accessing than blocking which yes is blocking but my brain thought snooping.

[QuantumSingularity]

We all handed over our privacy willingly when we let Google become the monster it currently is. Some people are even deeper in, by using Apple and Tesla products and given government basically "Advanced access" to their lives and privacy. I tried for as long as i could to hold on to different browsers and platforms, having different accounts not linked to each other, but eventually every single option was killed off. I still remember how properly pissed off i became when Google bought YouTube and YouTube forced me to make a google account or link my current one to Google. Still get properly mad when i think of it.

[wanderingfool2]

26 minutes ago, QuantumSingularity said:

Some people are even deeper in, by using Apple and Tesla products and given government basically "Advanced access" to their lives and privacy.

Out of all examples of other egregious ones, like Facebook and GM, you chose the two companies as an example that DON'T share private information with 3rd parties.

 

https://www.tesla.com/support/privacy

Quote

We do not sell your personal information to anyone for any purpose, period. For more information our data sharing practices, refer to Tesla’s Privacy Notice.

They literally have a table that they show what information they track about you [or what information they do share with third parties, but the one exception where they do share with third parties is when charging at 3rd party chargers...which makes sense given that the car has to identify itself to the charger].

 

They of course do track you if you use FSD, but that information doesn't go to the government and would require a search warrant to access.

 

On the other hand, GM has been opening found to be sharing information with insurance companies for a fee.

 

Similar reasoning with Apple as well, although one could argue that Apple itself has turned their network into a stalking environment [with airtags and not really putting in much measures].  Overall though Apple does protect the privacy.

[QuantumSingularity]

17 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Out of all examples of other egregious ones, like Facebook and GM, you chose the two companies as an example that DON'T share private information with 3rd parties.

 

https://www.tesla.com/support/privacy

They literally have a table that they show what information they track about you [or what information they do share with third parties, but the one exception where they do share with third parties is when charging at 3rd party chargers...which makes sense given that the car has to identify itself to the charger].

 

They of course do track you if you use FSD, but that information doesn't go to the government and would require a search warrant to access.

 

On the other hand, GM has been opening found to be sharing information with insurance companies for a fee.

 

Similar reasoning with Apple as well, although one could argue that Apple itself has turned their network into a stalking environment [with airtags and not really putting in much measures].  Overall though Apple does protect the privacy.

Yeah, sure they don't. The reason why Tesla and Apple are the companies that got the biggest government funding from going bankrupt is that they are paid to provide easy monitoring to all of their users. Or the newly discovered "Unpatchable vulnerability" of the M1 and M2 chips which is basically a secret communication and data extraction side-channel  is a sheer coincidence i am sure it hasn't been used at all by any agencies before. 

And talking about Tesla, i have the easiest experiment ever for you. Get in someone's Tesla if you don't have one, leave every device with microphone outside the car (smartphone, watches etc), don't even start it, just sit inside and talk for 15-20 minutes about things you and they plan to purchase and later that evening or the next day let the owner check the advertisements they get. I bet they will hit you with the Surprised_Pikachu_Face.jpg. It's not only Tesla but in Teslas it works with impressive speed. On the others it usually takes 3-4 days before the ads start appearing. Or again the scandal with the onboard videos that the employees have been sharing with each other is a coincidence again. IF you are in this forum, you know how communications work. If it has a microphone or a camera and Internet connectivity, it can always be monitored.

And i honestly don't now why people believe these companies. Of course they will see you privacy is safe. "We are letting government and other 3rd parties monitor your everyday life" isn't exactly a good advertisement slogan.

[wanderingfool2]

19 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

Yeah, sure they don't. The reason why Tesla and Apple are the companies that got the biggest government funding from going bankrupt is that they are paid to provide easy monitoring to all of their users. Or the newly discovered "Unpatchable vulnerability" of the M1 and M2 chips which is basically a secret communication and data extraction side-channel  is a sheer coincidence i am sure it hasn't been used at all by any agencies before. 

*Hands you a tinfoil hat*.  The "unpatchable vulnerability" is incredibly complex and requires a crazy amount of math and knowledge [like even regular security researchers didn't get everything that was being done].  You can also disable the vulnerable portion.  Just like how AMD and Intel both had similar issues, but this one still required a lot more work to do and still required it to run the program on the system [not a browser exploitable method].  You also have things like RowHammer which is a similar thing.

 

For Tesla, compared to Ford and GM they actually have taken the least amount of loans and paid it back.  If Tesla was truly co-operating with the government like you say then the government wouldn't have taken so much effort to acknowledge Tesla in their press runs about EV's.  Those Tesla superchargers for example didn't get funding because they didn't have the CCS 2 connectors.

 

19 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

And i honestly don't now why people believe these companies. Of course they will see you privacy is safe. "We are letting government and other 3rd parties monitor your everyday life" isn't exactly a good advertisement slogan.

Because their privacy policy says they aren't.  Breaking that policy would set them up for billion dollar lawsuits