Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

simpleflying.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#481

Post by javawizard »

15155 wrote: post #441
vl wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is even better now phone calls are prohibited, but all these airlines had actual credit card phones installed in every seat just 20-15 years ago and really wanted you to do phone calls for $1 a minute. And some people did, and it was annoying, and it was “fine”. Now that they can’t charge extra suddenly it’s “against regulations”.

Can you potentially see the difference (red-tape-wise) between a centralized/trunking FAA-certified radio on one highly-specific frequency vs. random, uncertified rogue transmitters all over the spectrum? This wasn't a carrier regulation.

That's not what the parent comment is talking about.

Calling over the cellular network has been prohibited since time immemorial. What the parent comment is talking about is carriers also prohibiting making calls over airplane-supplied WiFi.

You can't, for example, join a Zoom meeting, or use your phone's built-in WiFi calling ability, on a typical flight nowadays, for better or for worse.

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#482

Post by linkregister »

kennywinker wrote: post #52
hluska wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No that was because they hate our freedom, not because of decades of occupation and war all over the middle east funded by US taxpayer dollars.

The stated reasoning by Osama bin Laden in a letter published in 2002 [1] was primarily a response to grievances over the US support of Israel's occupation of Palestine, as well as a number of unrelated grievances mostly due to the choices of the various monarchies in the Gulf Arab states. For example, retaining a presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia at the request of King Abdullah.

It may be satisfying to affirm a world view in either direction in the topic, but an understanding of 20th century history suggests that Al Qaeda noted some legitimate grievances while others were not factual or misrepresented. For example, the United States did not support Russia's campaign in Chechnya. Additionally, American military campaigns in Afghanistan were in direct response to Al Qaeda's mass killings of noncombatants and Taliban refusal to stop Al Qaeda military activity based in Afghanistan.

1. https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/server/api/core/bi...

Note: this hyperlink may die. The original copy published in The Observer has tragically suffered from link rot.

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#483

Post by ok_dad »

mlyle wrote: post #291
dualvariable wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems pretty obvious to me that this situation was being treated more like a disruptive passenger issue than an actual terrorist threat of a real bomb. So more like the Minneapolis plane diverted to Wisconsin the other day because of an unruly passenger. They took everyone and their devices through screening after deplaning, and it sounds like they found the teenager who owned the device. That was the point of tur…

Terrorists doing completely stupid stuff, like naming a cellphone "bomb" that they plan to use to control a bomb is par for the course. Forgetting to turn off bluetooth is a plausible next mistake. Terrorists have a pretty long history of making these kinds of basic operational errors, and if you don't act like they may be real, you miss the opportunity to disrupt/prevent these operations.

[flagged]

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#484

Post by furyofantares »

Eridrus wrote: post #189
neilv wrote: post #178

I once consulted on some aviation-related software (not the safety work prominent on my resume), and a company announcement came through, that you must never use a few specific words commonly heard in software development. The two no-no words I recall were "crash" and "bomb". Don't write them in code or documents, don't say them on the phone or videoconf, etc. Those terms have senses that people in aviation take extr…

This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"? Do you think this behaviour has any meaningful true positives? This is the kind of brainworms thinking that has people throwing our their 150ml liquids out at TSA and taking their shoes off.

> Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"?

Of course not!

That's what they'd name their bluetooth bomb.

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#485

Post by switchbak »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #459
Zak wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Landing the plane because of something that could be interpreted as a bomb threat without waiting to be sure it was intended that way seems like a precaution on the far end of reasonable, but still reasonable. Demanding that people disable Bluetooth does not seem reasonable. If there's an actual bomber, tipping them off that you're reacting to their threat might lead them to set off the bomb early. Similarly, demandi…

does landing a plane early due to a bomb threat seem reasonable? either there is a bomb, in which case landing early won't help, or there isn't, in which case landing early won't help

Certainly telling them to turn off bluetooth will not have any positive effect, if there was a bomb I presume it would only have a negative effect.

But some people are really dumb when it comes to having common sense with respect to tech (or non-tech too, hehe).

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#486

Post by umpalumpaaa »

godelski wrote: post #379
Eridrus wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"? Do you think this behaviour has any meaningful true positives? This is the kind of brainworms thinking that has people throwing our their 150ml liquids out at TSA and taking their shoes off.

> This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. To add more credence to your point, let's not forget this beautiful line in TFA | During this incident, a Wi-Fi hotspot named "Free Palestine, F Zionists" prompted the pilot to issue a warning to the cabin, telling the passenger responsible that they had "30 seconds" to remove the name or the FBI would meet the aircraft. This is clearly not a threat…

I see what you are saying but then where do you draw the line? What if the wifi name is “fuck all pilots” - “united is doomed” or “we will all die”?

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#487

Post by da_chicken »

mancerayder wrote: post #475
godelski wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. To add more credence to your point, let's not forget this beautiful line in TFA | During this incident, a Wi-Fi hotspot named "Free Palestine, F Zionists" prompted the pilot to issue a warning to the cabin, telling the passenger responsible that they had "30 seconds" to remove the name or the FBI would meet the aircraft. This is clearly not a threat…

You definitely don't have the (implied) constitutional right to much on an airplane. Why not wear no shirt, a balaclava and hold up a flag above your head - go ahead and try it. As soon as the plans lands, something terrible will happen to you. In some destinations, even worse things.

The right of free speech is not wholly encompassed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In fact, it's the other way around, it's because the right of free speech is recognized as a universal, natural right then the US Federal Government is not permitted to make a law suppressing speech. The First Amendment does not create the right. The right is there, naturally, whether or not the United States or its constitution or government exists. The First Amendment merely explicitly states that the government isn't permitted to impede that right.

Using the existence of the First Amendment to narrow free speech as a right to what the government is permitted to do and nothing else is a severe perversion of both the document and the beliefs of the framers.

In short, "it's a private entity doing it" is an incredibly poor defense of behavior that suppresses speech. It's like how young children will defend their rude or offensive behavior with "it's not illegal." The reason that's an unconvincing argument is that it's an incredibly low bar. The world is full of behaviors that may not be so universally offensive or outrageous that people have explicitly written down that nobody is every allowed to do that thing. It's actually a very small range of possible behaviors that that covers.

The only reason that there isn't a general law barring private parties from restricting the speech of others is (a) one's right to free speech does not necessarily negate another's rights in the same or a different area, (b) one's rights do not entitle one to the use of things owned by others against their desires, and (c) any such law could be used by the government to indirectly suppress other rights.

The narrow nature of the First Amendment is not to be taken as an implication that the right is narrow. It's an admission that the law cannot perfectly protect human rights.

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#488

Post by umpalumpaaa »

wat10000 wrote: post #290
neilv wrote: post #178

I once consulted on some aviation-related software (not the safety work prominent on my resume), and a company announcement came through, that you must never use a few specific words commonly heard in software development. The two no-no words I recall were "crash" and "bomb". Don't write them in code or documents, don't say them on the phone or videoconf, etc. Those terms have senses that people in aviation take extr…

I don’t buy it. I understand protecting people’s sensibilities by avoiding these words. That part makes sense. Same basic politeness as not using curse words in my variable names. But to turn an entire flight around because of a Bluetooth device name? How does that make any rational sense? Look at it from a Bayesian perspective. There’s some probability P that there’s a bomb on a random plane. Now, given that a speci…

It was not only because of the name. I think a big part of the turn around was the non compliance by the passengers. They were asked to turn off all Bluetooth devices but did not.

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#489

Post by fsckboy »

anigbrowl wrote: post #451
godelski wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. To add more credence to your point, let's not forget this beautiful line in TFA | During this incident, a Wi-Fi hotspot named "Free Palestine, F Zionists" prompted the pilot to issue a warning to the cabin, telling the passenger responsible that they had "30 seconds" to remove the name or the FBI would meet the aircraft. This is clearly not a threat…

Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed. > you have the right to express it Out in public sure. In an airplane you're in someone else's private space (ie the airline's) and everyone is not only confined with you in minimal comfort, they have no…

[flagged]

Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

#490

Post by driverdan »

Balgair wrote: post #427
godelski wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. To add more credence to your point, let's not forget this beautiful line in TFA | During this incident, a Wi-Fi hotspot named "Free Palestine, F Zionists" prompted the pilot to issue a warning to the cabin, telling the passenger responsible that they had "30 seconds" to remove the name or the FBI would meet the aircraft. This is clearly not a threat…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings Just greping for 'Israel' or 'Palestine' gives 13 incidents, the latest occurring in 2000. It's a quite large share of the hijackings on the list, much more so that I'd have imagined de novo . Reading through a few of them, most of the hijackers had a fair bit of mental instability (duh?). So, I could totally see them naming a bluetooth something crazy if they…

> the latest occurring in 2000

26 years ago. That is not a current thing and isn't relevant.

Post reply on HN