I believe this was "spoofed" only in the sense that a particular provider/online platform accepted data via an API that was abused to draw this on that platform only. Searching around it seems it was not found if you looked on other platforms, so it might not even have been a crime. I believe they didn't emit any real "signals" just took advantage of an API that should probably be better secured.
At worst it'd be a violation of the site ToS - it's a crowdsourced community data based system, and not any sort of an official, important system. The account doesn't seem to have been banned, so maybe the admins are just rolling with the joke.
Agreed with other commenters that nothing was likely actually broadcast, but if it was it would definitely be highly illegal and you’d have feds knocking down your door pretty quickly. They don’t joke around with illegal transmissions like that.
"The Government’s interpretation of the statute would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity,” Barrett wrote. “If the ‘exceeds authorized access’ clause criminalizes every violation of a computer-use policy, then millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens are criminals."
adsbexchange is a user-generated content platform where you can submit decoded radio signals to a common database. Sending fake data to adsbexchange is as much a CFAA violation as posting hoaxes to Wikipedia or a social media platform.
ADSB sites aren't any sort of official thing. You can send whatever data you want to them. Just because it's there doesn't mean it ever went over the air as an ADSB broadcast.
Assuming the FAA has the authority to enforce ADSB requirements (an open question post-Chevron), I can’t find any regulation saying non-aircrafts cannot transmit ADSB. Only ones saying aircrafts in certain categories must.
There’s probably some non-interference requirement somewhere (FCC spectrum licensing perhaps), but I’m not seeing it immediately.
All this is in the hypothetical that RF was transmitted, which as others point out it probably wasn’t.
This is easily-prosecutable willful interference or possibly aircraft sabotage: ADS-B operates in licensed bands and uses an already highly-contended modulation scheme and transmission protocol.
I've been banned from ChatGPT in the past, it gives you a reason but doesn't give the specific chat. And once you're banned you cant look at any of your chats or make a data request
Not sure you can call it censorship if it's the author of the book who doesn't want you to access it for free. I know there are a few levels of indirection here, but with a few notable exceptions authors are normally against their books being pirated.
I personally sure want Anna's Archive staying up, but comparing it to nazis burning books is a bit too much IMO
This isn't banning books, it's akin to banning a book store. If a book store chain isn't paying their taxes and gets shut down, the books have not been banned or censored.
Back in the day it was US media companies which started the big war against piracy and for the use of DRM. It was pushed by US media companies and the US government upon Europe. Same as with software patents. It's weird that now US companies complain about local media rights holders doing their censorship thing when the whole thing was started by the US.
Critique is not necessarily a bad thing, and the author doesn't advocate for any change. It's just an observation. There is such a thing as toxic positivity as well, and if I'm not mistaken there's even a setting for the tone in ChatGPT to get rid of it.
Why do you say that? Curl (arguably one of the most used open source software in the world) currently has 5 open issues https://github.com/curl/curl/issues
I don't understand how this is possible. I've heard the New York Subway system is riddled with antisocial behaviour, homeless, drunks, people pissing everywhere, etc.
reply