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

781–790 of 1001 posts

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

#781

Post by petre »

voidpointer wrote: post #717

According to the article, it was a Fitbit device belonging to a teenager... Chances are, the kid selected that nickname for the device a long while ago and forgot about it, and was probably unaware that the device was using Bluetooth at all, and that they should turn off their fitness tracker when the announcement came through... At the same time, some people in the comments under the article are more or less calling…

Awful joke. There have to be at least some consequences for the kid, like getting banned for flying United for 10 years.

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

#782

Post by defrost »

ChrisRR wrote: post #780
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

Sure.

What about non emergency situations such as, say, an objectional (to some) device name on a network?

I can't help but wonder would any of this happened had the device been named "Bomb" in Farsi using unicode.

Il nome della rosa - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose

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

#783

Post by Forgeties79 »

Andrex wrote: post #753
voidpointer wrote: post #717

According to the article, it was a Fitbit device belonging to a teenager... Chances are, the kid selected that nickname for the device a long while ago and forgot about it, and was probably unaware that the device was using Bluetooth at all, and that they should turn off their fitness tracker when the announcement came through... At the same time, some people in the comments under the article are more or less calling…

[flagged]

I’ve never understood this logic. If we want to treat people who are under 18 as adults in certain legal circumstances, then we should just establish a new age or set a concrete exception based on the law violated. Making special exceptions on a case by case basis where people have to argue about it, especially when it demonstrably affects certain demographics more than others, is a terrible way to operate.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say you probably don’t have kids. If your teenager got in trouble for a messed up “joke” like this and the result was a criminal proceeding where they’re tried as an adult you’d be (rightfully) crying that it’s too much.

Also what does columbine have to do with this? Unless your implication is that any kid around the age of 17 should be treated as a potential school shooter.

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

#784

Post by Xirdus »

thrownthatway wrote: post #737
yulfvanschmidt wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty absurd stuff. Obviously if FAA safety first is going to apply not to aviation employees but to something that is easy to DOS attack as the consumer this doesn't work.. They could at least implement a policy of scanning Bluetooth and similar beacons at security gates though. More theatre, more fun at least doesn't mean more turning around.

[flagged]

> Hard to imagine at least one person didn’t see the device name and immediately brush it off as entirely unimportant.

There are hundreds of BT devices everywhere that people waiting for a flight hang out. Without automatic scanning for the specific purpose of catching weird names, it'd be near impossible for the weird name to ever show up for anyone except the owner. And most devices don't advertise their BT name unless in pairing mode, so no, it wouldn't show up in the security screening either.

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

#785

Post by gspr »

petre wrote: post #781
voidpointer wrote: post #717

According to the article, it was a Fitbit device belonging to a teenager... Chances are, the kid selected that nickname for the device a long while ago and forgot about it, and was probably unaware that the device was using Bluetooth at all, and that they should turn off their fitness tracker when the announcement came through... At the same time, some people in the comments under the article are more or less calling…

Awful joke. There have to be at least some consequences for the kid, like getting banned for flying United for 10 years.

> Awful joke. There have to be at least some consequences for the kid, like getting banned for flying United for 10 years.

Take a step back. You yourself describe it as a joke. Are you really saying that the quality of the joke ("awful") should result in the origin of the joke (a kid, even!) should be banned from a major air carrier for 10 years? Does this really seem like a proportional response?

And this doesn't even begin to consider another possibility: the device was named what it was named in a completely different setting, and the owner just forgot about it. That makes it not even a joke, just forgetfulness.

Was any of this a good idea? No, probably not, but people need to calm down.

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

#787

Post by gspr »

Andrex wrote: post #753
voidpointer wrote: post #717

According to the article, it was a Fitbit device belonging to a teenager... Chances are, the kid selected that nickname for the device a long while ago and forgot about it, and was probably unaware that the device was using Bluetooth at all, and that they should turn off their fitness tracker when the announcement came through... At the same time, some people in the comments under the article are more or less calling…

[flagged]

> Throw the book at him, he should have known better.

What book!? The book of laws that outlaw jokes in bad taste potentially made years ago, outside the context of air travel altogether, only to be forgotten about and accidentally brought into the context of air travel where one can conceivably think of laws that make those jokes problematic?

Come on!

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

#788

Post by voidpointer »

Xirdus wrote: post #784
thrownthatway wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Hard to imagine at least one person didn’t see the device name and immediately brush it off as entirely unimportant. There are hundreds of BT devices everywhere that people waiting for a flight hang out. Without automatic scanning for the specific purpose of catching weird names, it'd be near impossible for the weird name to ever show up for anyone except the owner. And most devices don't advertise their BT name un…

So, how did it eventually show up? Owner's phone goes off/airplane-mode, watch starts advertising; someone else wants to connect their BT headphones and sees the name of the watch?

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

#789

Post by dzhiurgis »

godelski wrote: post #559
steve1977 wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they have no way to leave Not only do the people have no way to leave, the owner of the place also has no practical way to make people leave, like they would for example in a restaurant. At least once the plane is in the air. And the captain has to ensure the safety not only of the flying machine but also of the cabin. So I can absolutely understand the move here and the need to forbid everything that could incite…

Anyone willing to start a fight over a tacky WiFi name should be committed. Seriously, what an insane thing to do. It's such an easy thing to not be bothered by. It sits in the background, invisible, and you're... just letting it live rent free in your head? There's so many more annoying things to flying than someone's dumb personal hotspot name. Can we just recognize how crazy of a scenario this is?

Do people get kicked out for offensive t-shirts and tattoos? How about bad cologne, good cologne, bad BO, or just for being so ugly that it's offensive?

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

#790

Post by joxdosba »

ChocolateGod wrote: post #676
joxdosba wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no way a reasonable person would interpret that as a threat, it feels like you’re playing silly games trying to widen the Overton window by sanewashing an obviously unreasonable reaction.

A lot of people swap jew for zionist or israel to cover up their antisemitism, so yes "fuck jews" could be interpreted as a threat.

“Fuck Jews” cannot reasonably be interpreted as a threat.

It’s a nasty antisemitic thing to say, but that’s all it is.

Post reply on HN