FBI Nabs Chicago Transit Authority Radio Hacker 177
Wh15per writes "The Chicago FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested an individual for misusing Chicago Transit Authority radio systems. Marcel Carter, 20, is charged with violating a US code that forbids interference with transportation operators. A federal complaint alleges he began using a radio to transmit on CTA frequencies in June 2008, often interjecting comments during communications between the agency's control center and train operators. The CTA claims Carter's radio communications were never followed, and passengers were never in danger."
Re:Why is public transport still living in stone a (Score:5, Interesting)
A simple answer is that it isn't much of a problem (how many deadly incidents have there been in the last decade?) and there are thousands of radios.
Re:Why is public transport still living in stone a (Score:4, Interesting)
For about a month, we had a moron that was transmitting on ATC frequencies
My point here is that I do not see a reason why public transportation systems still rely on decades-old, non-encrypted technology.
How would adding encryption to your transmissions fix the RF problem of a doofus transmitting on top of the valid transmissions? The cure for a DOS attack is not making the protocol more complicated thus even easier to overload.
Also, inevitably, what happens when the JFK airport IT department loses or screws up the key, and all communication is lost? Seems that AM is much more failsafe.
Re:Refreshing Change (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, and can we reserve use of the term "hacker" for someone with at least a modicum of technical skills? This guy isn't even a cracker. All he did was talk on a stolen radio.
Mr Barn, I'd like to introduce you to Mr Horse. Oh, sorry - he seems to have run away already.
Gone are the days when "hacker" meant free-spirited computer programmer of the 1960's. [wikipedia.org] Also long gone are the days when it meant home computer hobbyist. [wikipedia.org] These days, assume "hacker" means simply breaks into stuff, [wikipedia.org] or more generally "does something wrong using technology."
Use an exploit to "own" a server? Hacker. Break into your school's computer system and change a grade? Hacker. Impersonate the transit authority hub station using a radio? Hacker.
Re:Could be easily worse (Score:3, Interesting)
If "Hackboy" tried to introduce an invalid instruction, even if he was on board the train or at the station so only one side could hear him, the transmission would be identified quickly. Even if Hackboy knew the lingo.
Example:
Hackboy: "Train 123 this is Control, the blockage ahead of you has been cleared, you are cleared to resume full speed."
Train: "Control this is Train 123, Iacknowledge blockage has been cleared, resuming full speed now" (starts to speed up)
Control: "Train 123 NEGATIVE. Train 123 this is Control. Blockage has NOT been cleared. Do not resume speed."
Train: (pulls back speed) "Control, this is Train 123, I have lowered speed, but you said just a second ago that the blockage has been cleared."
Control: "Train 123 this is control. No, I said no such thing. Continue slowly. Do not resume speed until you hear from me and have acknowledged."
Now the Controller and Train know they have a troublemaker in their midst, and the troublemaker has had no real opportunity to cause mischief. With AM, even if the troublemaker had tried to acknowledge and drown out the Controller's negative response, what the train operator would have received is a garbled mess probably containing the yelled word "NEGATIVE" or "DO NOT" somewhere, and he would have likely pulled back on the accelerator and requested clarification.
Re:Why is public transport still living in stone a (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, no.
Cell phones are encrypted radios, too, yet they are cheap and plentiful.
Cell phones have to be registered and assigned to an owner (it has to be, otherwise the cellphone company could not bill users), and in case of theft, it can be remotely disabled.
Re:Why is public transport still living in stone a (Score:3, Interesting)
My point here is that I do not see a reason why public transportation systems still rely on decades-old, non-encrypted technology. With ATC, it's a trivial matter of ordering a handheld on-line that is capable of transmitting on all ATC freqs. Agencies that continue to rely on antiquated systems deserve part of the blame.
There are three major reasons: interoperability, reliability, and expense.
Different areas have different needs, and that inevitably means that not every system will work with every other system. For a closed system like a subway this may not matter so much but in most other cases it's very important. And it's very hard to anticipate who's "allowed" to speak to who. The common denominator is unencrypted analog.
Digital systems do not degrade gracefully. A partial or garbled radio transmission may at least be of some use. A weak burst of data that no one hears is of no use at all.
Radio systems are very expensive and tricky things to get right. Not only is there the cost of replacing all that perfectly good equipment, there's the cost of transmitters, repeaters, towers, and planning. Fire and police often listen in at home or in their personal vehicles, too, so you have to factor in that cost as well.
There's also one other reason that's often forgotten or deliberately obscured by the authorities, and that's public access and accountability. Railfans and aviation enthusiasts listen in on this stuff all the time, and there have been cases where their own personal records have been useful in determining the causes of accidents. Same goes for non-transportation radio transmissions from police, fire, and more mundane stuff like construction crews and snowplows (Where are the worst icing conditions? Are they anywhere near my road yet?)
It's useful stuff for people to be able to hear and there's no good reason for all of it to be kept secret just on the off-chance someone steals a radio.
Re:Why is public transport still living in stone a (Score:3, Interesting)
You *DO* realize that's why aviation still uses AM, right? The FM capture effect, when it happens, happens spontaneously, and there's no way to know it's happening. If you "step on" someone on the FM band, it's possible to just continue on with a very wierd instruction. And given that a plane may be in-between you and the one you're talking to, someone may get a garbled transmission that gets dangerous. Unless you catch the fact that the voice changes, you'll never know.
On AM, you'll get the warble, which basically means the transmission gets stepped on and alerts everyone to the collision. (Sometimes, the ATC tower is just powerful enough that even stepped on, you can make out what's being said). But the FM capture effect is very dangerous since the "most powerful signal" can be the plane flying beside you.
If your idiot was standing near the runway, he could easily send a "cleared to takeoff" that's only heard by that pilot, while ATC is sending "cleared to land" to the plane in the air.
Re:Common Moron (Score:2, Interesting)
Back in the day, I'm sure the transit police may have invited the FCC in to play, and this kid would have seen more time in interrogation rooms than he ever wanted to see. Eventually they'd send him crying home to his mommy, and that'd be it.
Now, it rates a vacation in Southeastern Cuba.
US Patriot Act, Title VIII
"[those who] does something to impair the running of the transportation system, including removing or damaging a train control system, centralized dispatching system, or rail grade crossing warning signal,"
"[whose who] interferes with, disables, or incapacitates any dispatcher, train driver, captain, or person while they are dispatching, operating, or maintaining a mass transportation vehicle or ferry in order to cause harm or death to passengers," ...
"If such an offense is committed, then the offender is to be fined and/or imprisoned for not more than twenty years. However, if the activity was undertaken while the mass transportation vehicle or ferry was carrying a passenger at the time of the offense, or the offense resulted in the death of any person, then the punishment is a fine and/or life imprisonment."
Passengers on the train? He could get life.
Now, it's all in how you read it, and they'll probably read it to screw him. It does sound like the judge recognizes that he deserves probation and a small fine, which is why he got off with bail of $4,500.
You could just knock on the train drivers door, and that could be enough to qualify for the same thing. You interfered with the driver, while he was operating a train (even if it wasn't moving) with passengers on it.
You could probably technically get in trouble by walking across a road or railroad tracks. You may have distracted the driver of the vehicle into doing an emergency stop, which could have (oh my gosh) cascaded into something else. You damned terrorist! Or maybe you were just trying to cross the road.
These days, it's not a matter of what you've done illegally, it's a matter of if anyone wants to send you to jail. It's easy enough to find something on anyone. No one is clean, it's all a matter of you don't know what laws you've broken (yet).
Re:Common Moron (Score:3, Interesting)
Those are the good and logical arguments. Remember to use such arguments when trumped up charges are brought against you. :)
I ended up in court once as a kid. The state cited impossible physics, my car flying, and my obvious danger to the population at large. It was all a crock.
I'll give you the brief rundown of their case.
My car was traveling at 141 miles per hour on a narrow limestone road. In my attempts to kill the prosecutions witness, I came over a hill in front of his house, and flew my car 58 feet. After landing, I traveled an additional 500 feet, and made a 90 degree turn. The police, who happened to be sitting in his front yard, but did not have any measuring equipment, followed me for approx 1 mile and stopped me.
Now for the impossible parts.
The car was rather heavy, and had a small engine. It wasn't capable of 85mph, much less 141mph.
Based on the slope of the hill, 141mph would have been insufficient for a car to jump that distance. I would have needed to be doing closer to 300mph. To have done it at 141, there must have been other provisions, such as anti-gravity. (ha!)
It had crappy 2 ply tires. They were cheap, but did the job of making the car travel at normal speeds. They couldn't have survived the claimed nor required speeds nor the landing of this flying car.
The 90 degree turn, which was 500 feet from where they claimed the incident happened, had a tree in the middle of the road, and a ditch on the other side. Once making the turn, which at 141mph on a rock road would have been impossible, there's no way I would have navigated between the tree and the ditch.
Their witness said I did the same thing every day.
So I guess I did the impossible every day.
I was arrested. My PASSENGER was arrested, because he was in the car. At the first hearing, the prosecution demanded that I was to be held in custody, as I was a flight risk (I obviously can fly), and a danger to the general public, as I was trying to kill people. What could have been a simple speeding ticket for 10mph over the speed limit became over a year working through the court system until it was finally thrown out.
The only thing about the whole case that I liked was that I met the two officers. They were both arrested and convicted on a whole variety of charges including falsifying information and corruption. But, that was years later and had nothing to do with my case.
You can get arrested on the most BS charges. You will likely go through the system on the BS charges. Unless you can afford a good lawyer, your public defender will tell you to take a plea deal for some slightly lesser charges.
It's all in who you, or someone you know, pisses off. How was I to know that the old man who lived on top of the hill didn't like people driving by his house, on a public road? He apparently sat in his house and would curse at cars driving by on "his" road.
In the end, I guess he got his way. I never drove down "his" road again. I very intentionally took an alternate route, so I'd never have to deal with that again.