Do you really trust the government to have a nuanced definition of hacking?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/10/missouri-gov-cal...

Yes, this is a state government and not federal. I’m sure you can find equally outlandish examples of federal cases.

Right. My comment didn’t assume a specific interface method (user accessible port / medical jack vs. something else) but rather a method to play the audio without having to be on the plane (which would certainly be my preference were I the prankster.) If it was actually done using a user accessible port intended for access to the PA, I would agree with you, it wouldn’t fall under CFAA/hacking type laws. Still could be problematic legally though.

Microcontrollers are small enough now that there could be lots of interesting ways to interface.

EDIT: Also, based on the OP, the PA gets power cycled repeatedly on at least one flight where this is happening. That’s much more intrusive.

Or again… horny ghost

I think a case could be made that it's unauthorized access, since the prankster is definitely not supposed to be using the system for those purposes, regardless of how accessible it is. Same as if you walked into a bank or something and surreptitiously plugged a malicious USB drive into one of their machines.

Maybe it would make a difference if the prankster was an employee, and not just some random person, but I doubt it.

> Plugging in a Bluetooth transmitter into a user-accessible port and using the system as intended is "hacking" now?

Yes.

We're well passed that these days, for better or worse.

We can debate if I've used "hacked" loosely without giving too much thought to my comment, but my point is that whoever did this (on a few flights, allegedly) has "gained unauthorized access to a computer system" (which broadly fits most definitions I find). Besides, unless I missed something we have no idea if they just paired with Bluetooth or did something else.

Maybe I'm off-base and they're just risking an airline ban, but it seems (to my uninformed opinion) that doing that on an flying airplane is playing with fire that the airline won't sue and that, if they do, it'll be a clement judge which won't make an example out of them for messing with an airplane's computer, safety critical or not.

Depending on the technical means used, it might not be proper to consider it to be hacking in, say, the CFAA sense, but you're still not supposed to do things that have the result of preventing a flight crew from making announcements to passengers. Even if you did those things with an otherwise perfectly legitimate means like playing a sound with a cell phone, playing a sound with a tape recorder, or playing a sound with your voice.

I would be happy to agree that the CFAA is overbroad. But disruptive actions toward flights and aircraft are quite reasonably punishable under other theories, when they could plausibly create a risk for aviation, regardless of the means.

Legally speaking in the US “hack” generally means using any computer system you weren’t given access to.

So yes this is legally a hack in the way it’s used by the media, it’s also a hack of in the normal since of the word regardless.