63 ms·

1) They are not blocking (completely) Youtube. But still plausible. 2) Then why would they be doing it only on video streaming websites? [1] Also, if they are

1) They are not blocking (completely) Youtube. But still plausible. 2) Then why would they be doing it only on video streaming websites? [1] Also, if they are so obvious about their methods from now on, one nice thing is that we won't need whistleblowers anymore. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8839733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8839733

ubernostrum 12y ago
As a frequent user of in-flight internet, I can tell you their login page has a big reminder saying that streaming video is not supported and giving examples like Netflix and HBO Go. The technical reason -- which is sound -- is that there's not enough bandwidth between plane/ground.
- HackinOut 12y ago
  I would expect that even if it wasn't mentioned, I mean it's a freaking internet access in a fast moving object 30,000 feet above ground! I don't like what Gogo just did, but kudos for undertaking this challenge. barnaby mentioned they have in-flight paid media services, of what sort/diversity/quality? I suppose it's a selection of movies stored on a server in the plane.
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    Yes, in-flight streaming services tend to have a bunch of stuff on a little server on-board, and the in-cabin routers can more than handle that. It's the plane<->ground link that's the chokepoint; on a lot of planes that bandwidth isn't much better (and sometimes worse) than a 4G cellular link, but shared among everyone on board.
  - barnaby 12y ago
    Exactly, those media servers are in the plane.
- wtallis 12y ago
  Strictly speaking, GoGo's service isn't capable of handling streaming, but it's not clear to what extent bandwidth is the limiting factor. Really bad bufferbloat does horrible things to goodput. With proper QoS, it's likely that they could sustain at least one or two low-resolution YouTube streams, just not a whole plane full. Terrestrial ISP's can't handle everyone watching video at the same time, either. Jim Gettys reported on the CeroWrt-devel list that he tried to benchmark the in-flight Internet connection on a United flight to Hawaii last November, and it apparently crashed the connection. The routers and accompanying software being used for these systems are probably of exceedingly low quality.
xnull1guest 12y ago
2.) Makes a lot of sense. I think it is the most likely explanation for the MitM. 1.) GoGo doesn't need MitM on video streaming to aid in law enforcement, but it's an opportune time to mention that video streaming has been a target of the intelligence apparatus as recruiting videos and indictments of US imperialist activity is condemned there (for example Al-Awlaki's videos were censored from youtube for being seditious; to give context here Al-Awlaki was a US citizen assassinated without a trial and is one of four American citizens killed by drone strikes - while never engaging in violent actions himself he was given the moniker 'The Osama Bin Laden of the Internet' for his recruiting efforts). Another relationship video streaming services have with intelligence efforts is that logins and cookies (associated with Google Accounts in the case of Google) are good identifiers. In this case a MAC address could be associated with online accounts (I'm not saying this is done).
- PhantomGremlin 12y ago
  I think its (probably) wrong to kill US citizens without trial. I won't use the word "assassinate" since it perhaps dignifies the action too much. Also I highly respect John McCain's position against torture, aka "enhanced interrogation". However, the US isn't fighting against opponents who are playing by Marquess of Queensberry Rules. And the average American is willing to descend a little way down a "slippery slope". To quote a White House official:[1] "If Anwar al-Awlaki is your poster boy for why we shouldn't do drone strikes, good fucking luck." Yeah, sometimes right and wrong isn't completely black and white. There are shades of gray. There is a dark side that tries to seduce everyone. [1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rise-of-the-killer-drones-how-america-goes-to-war-in-secret-20120416 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rise-of-the-ki...
  - xnull1guest 12y ago
    Interesting quote and a good article by Michael Hastings (before his mysterious death) for those interested in the controversial subject of drone strikes. Thanks for the link! Given the use of the quote in the article to cast the CIA as dismissive of Constitutionality and of fundamental human rights would you say that you diverge from Hastings in your understanding (i.e. the CIA are 'right'?). I might be: I'm much more upset at the death of 76 children and 29 adult bystanders accidentally (?) killed while trying to target Ayman al Zawahiri (who is still reportedly at large) or in general the estimated 28:1 ratio of untargetted causualties to successful targets (themselves suspect in international law). Then again, even while Anwar al-Awlaki was no cupcake if his case were applied as a standard of justice in America any true sense or illusion of justice in the legal system we have would be lost.

ubernostrum 12y ago

As a frequent user of in-flight internet, I can tell you their login page has a big reminder saying that streaming video is not supported and giving examples like Netflix and HBO Go. The technical reason -- which is sound -- is that there's not enough bandwidth between plane/ground.

HackinOut 12y ago
I would expect that even if it wasn't mentioned, I mean it's a freaking internet access in a fast moving object 30,000 feet above ground! I don't like what Gogo just did, but kudos for undertaking this challenge. barnaby mentioned they have in-flight paid media services, of what sort/diversity/quality? I suppose it's a selection of movies stored on a server in the plane.
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  Yes, in-flight streaming services tend to have a bunch of stuff on a little server on-board, and the in-cabin routers can more than handle that. It's the plane<->ground link that's the chokepoint; on a lot of planes that bandwidth isn't much better (and sometimes worse) than a 4G cellular link, but shared among everyone on board.
- barnaby 12y ago
  Exactly, those media servers are in the plane.
wtallis 12y ago
Strictly speaking, GoGo's service isn't capable of handling streaming, but it's not clear to what extent bandwidth is the limiting factor. Really bad bufferbloat does horrible things to goodput. With proper QoS, it's likely that they could sustain at least one or two low-resolution YouTube streams, just not a whole plane full. Terrestrial ISP's can't handle everyone watching video at the same time, either. Jim Gettys reported on the CeroWrt-devel list that he tried to benchmark the in-flight Internet connection on a United flight to Hawaii last November, and it apparently crashed the connection. The routers and accompanying software being used for these systems are probably of exceedingly low quality.

xnull1guest 12y ago

2.) Makes a lot of sense. I think it is the most likely explanation for the MitM. 1.) GoGo doesn't need MitM on video streaming to aid in law enforcement, but it's an opportune time to mention that video streaming has been a target of the intelligence apparatus as recruiting videos and indictments of US imperialist activity is condemned there (for example Al-Awlaki's videos were censored from youtube for being seditious; to give context here Al-Awlaki was a US citizen assassinated without a trial and is one of four American citizens killed by drone strikes - while never engaging in violent actions himself he was given the moniker 'The Osama Bin Laden of the Internet' for his recruiting efforts). Another relationship video streaming services have with intelligence efforts is that logins and cookies (associated with Google Accounts in the case of Google) are good identifiers. In this case a MAC address could be associated with online accounts (I'm not saying this is done).

PhantomGremlin 12y ago
I think its (probably) wrong to kill US citizens without trial. I won't use the word "assassinate" since it perhaps dignifies the action too much. Also I highly respect John McCain's position against torture, aka "enhanced interrogation". However, the US isn't fighting against opponents who are playing by Marquess of Queensberry Rules. And the average American is willing to descend a little way down a "slippery slope". To quote a White House official:[1] "If Anwar al-Awlaki is your poster boy for why we shouldn't do drone strikes, good fucking luck." Yeah, sometimes right and wrong isn't completely black and white. There are shades of gray. There is a dark side that tries to seduce everyone. [1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rise-of-the-killer-drones-how-america-goes-to-war-in-secret-20120416 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rise-of-the-ki...
- xnull1guest 12y ago
  Interesting quote and a good article by Michael Hastings (before his mysterious death) for those interested in the controversial subject of drone strikes. Thanks for the link! Given the use of the quote in the article to cast the CIA as dismissive of Constitutionality and of fundamental human rights would you say that you diverge from Hastings in your understanding (i.e. the CIA are 'right'?). I might be: I'm much more upset at the death of 76 children and 29 adult bystanders accidentally (?) killed while trying to target Ayman al Zawahiri (who is still reportedly at large) or in general the estimated 28:1 ratio of untargetted causualties to successful targets (themselves suspect in international law). Then again, even while Anwar al-Awlaki was no cupcake if his case were applied as a standard of justice in America any true sense or illusion of justice in the legal system we have would be lost.