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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by knollimar »

thrownthatway wrote: post #741
basilikum wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If you are in any way harassing people by shouting through the plane for example, I agree. But the SSID of a WiFi network isn't that. No one is forced to continually read the list of available hotspots…

[flagged]

Which causes that have extremists are okay? Or you're saying all of them?

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

#772

Post by crjohns648 »

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.

I don't think a threatening name would be unheard of in a hijacking scenario. Someone calls saying they have a bomb on board, and as evidence there is a Bluetooth device called "bomb," showing they have an accomplice on board. They then make demands. This scenario doesn't seem unreasonable in light of pre-9/11 hijacking attempts.

Yes, this was a huge reaction to something that was almost certainly benign, but "almost certainly" isn't an acceptable risk for 100s of people in an explosive flying cylinder. It truly sucks, there maybe can be better procedures, but "100s of people majorly inconvenienced" is better than "100s of people dead in fireball."

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

#773

Post by vidarh »

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.

If anything, this aversion has now made it clear that sneaking a device that can be made coin-sized into a bunch of passengers luggage would be sufficient to throw air travel into total chaos...

That doesn't seem like a smart precedent to set.

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

#775

Post by formerly_proven »

wat10000 wrote: post #293
markdown wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Refused, or unable? It might have been in the luggage compartment, or they just might not have known how.

This presupposes knowing that a fitbit uses bluetooth. As I understand it, there are also models (e.g. Fitbit Charge) which cannot be turned off anyway.

Plus there is an overall assumption here that the owner of a Fitbit knows that the device nickname is visible to anyone, and not just themselves.

These things are certainly not at all obvious in an app-centric bluetooth device context.

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

#776

Post by pluc »

The level of idiocy... like what was the alert for? "A bomb was registered through bluetooth?" They really thought that a legitimate bomb, calling itself a bomb and registering on a device bluetooth spectrum was a threat? And these people are allowed to fly planes? What if my laptop's name is dabomb and I register on the plane's wifi node, will that trigger a call to a SWAT team?

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

#777

Post by 7952 »

close04 wrote: post #689
steve1977 wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are actually giving away liberties when boarding a plane and I'm pretty sure this is even written somewhere in the contract between you and the airline that you agreed on.

No contract is allowed to take away what the law gives you. Either the law says "except on a plane/ship/etc." (which is plausible) or the contract is invalid. Can you imagine how it would be if every contract you sign had a "I own you now, no backsies"?

That sounds like a technicality. You can absolute agree to not do something that would otherwise be lawful. You still have the same rights, but you have other restrictions on you. The two can exist concurrently.

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

#778

Post by Zambyte »

mvdtnz wrote: post #503
umpalumpaaa wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The device was probably in checked baggage. Or in an overhead compartment where the owner would have been seen and socially ostracized for removing it.

It was a fitness wristband. The kid probably didn't even know it used Bluetooth.

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

#779

Post by gosub100 »

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…

So if your name is Gunnar, no chance in breaking into the industry?

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

#780

Post by ChrisRR »

plastic041 wrote: post #580

I kind of get that a device named BOMB made the plane turn back. However, I don't understand this part: > flight attendant told passengers over the PA system that they "must turn off Bluetooth immediately," or else the aircraft would have to turn around. If there's a BOMB, turning off Bluetooth won't make it much safer. I mean, a turned-off bomb is probably safer than a turned-on bomb, but it's still a bomb. Pilots:…

If you're an in emergency situation, then "probably" safer is better than nothing
Post reply on HN