This is a hilariously stupid reaction to a stupidly hilarious decision made by a speaker manufacturer. And also a new vector for a ransom-attack on the Bluetooth namespace in certain environments via malicious BLE advertising. The worst thing that could have happened here was for someone to take this seriously.
United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
821–830 of 1001 posts
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#822Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they wouldn't. A fundamental part of a threat is to make it very clear that there's a threat. The reason you threaten is to get some concession, otherwise you wouldn't bother threatening.
This is at odds with basically every major security incident postmortem in recent history. Most security failures happen when people wait to take something seriously until it is “very clear” that something is wrong. We have the luxury of hindsight while reading this article but listen to the tapes of any security failures and you’ll find it painfully obvious that the most common issue is that people don’t do anything…
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#823Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#824This is a hilariously stupid reaction to a stupidly hilarious decision made by a speaker manufacturer. And also a new vector for a ransom-attack on the Bluetooth namespace in certain environments via malicious BLE advertising. The worst thing that could have happened here was for someone to take this seriously.
I’ve seen multiple comments referencing this was the default device name… did I miss something in the article or is that sourced from elsewhere?
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#825> a flight attendant told passengers over the PA system that they "must turn off Bluetooth immediately," or else the aircraft would have to turn around. So if the person just takes back their bomb threat everything is ok? Or did they think the terrorist labeled their Bluetooth bomb “bomb” and this would disable it?
It wasn't a bomb threat: https://hellottec.com/product/bomb-portable-bluetooth-speake...
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#826Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#827Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now take your scenarios and weight them by their probabilities - 0.001% - 99.998% - 0.001% If you think I'm exaggerating here, you're right, but in the conservative direction. There are 44k flights in the US PER DAY. There have been 8 bombings, * since 9/11* [0]. 4 of those involved US craft (not all passenger craft either), and * 0* of them succeeded. My numbers are an over-estimate if you take all 8 and count it ag…
Risk is not a synonym for the likelihood of something happening, but the likelihood and its possible effect . For example, the risk of not wearing your seatbelt on the motorway is high because, even though most journeys will not require a seatbelt to stop any negative effects, if something bad happens it will become very high risk without the seatbelt. Without the negative effect there is no risk, so it's not just pr…
That's not a sane way to do risk management. You have to be able to use common-sense human judgement as well as situational training.
And common-sense human judgement would tell you that, even if the possible effect is a plane full of people blowing up and that starting a war, the likelihood of that occurring because you didn't yell at a teenager to turn off a Bluetooth device is so infinitesimally small that it's not worth considering.
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#828Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can understand the safety concern - and I think the decision to turn around was ultimately the right call. I don't, and I think it fits what Bruce Schneier called "Cover Your Ass" security (he was referring to the equally stupid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_Mooninite_panic ) It sounds like a fantastic DDoS opportunity, you could shut down an entire nation's aviation just by putting a few tiny bluetoo…
In general and long-term I agree with what you are saying. I assume this was a new/unknown situation. (On the other hand, the article links to other similar stories, so maybe I am cutting them too much slack). If "electronic device names" are of concern, there should be an established protocol to deal with them. Especially if this keeps happening.
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#829Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what I said though. I just said you're giving away liberties. For example, at home, I'm free to walk around nude and scream. On a plane, I'm not.
> I just said you're giving away liberties. >>this is even written somewhere in the contract between you and the airline that you agreed on What I wanted to say is that you'll never give up any civil liberties because of a contract alone. If the contract can take those away it's because a law never gave them to you in those circumstances in the first place, so you never had them to begin with. I just wanted to make i…
Freedom of speech is the peak of this. People think it means "I can say whatever I like wherever I like". But that's not what it is. The government cannot make laws curtailing speech (though, it does... enforcement and interpretation don't line up with the original intent). You can, however, sign an NDA which curtails your speech. A business can kick you out for saying something they don't like. An employer can fire you for saying "poodle" one too many times.
And that's what we are dealing with around airlines. They absolutely can kick you off the plane and ban you for almost any reason. For what you say, wear, or because they don't like how tall or short you are.
The law really only protects a few things. Your race, your gender, your religion. Everything else is fair game for a private institution to discriminate against. They can kick you off a plane because you are a journalist. They can kick you off because you won't quarter soldiers. They can kick you off because you don't submit to a search of all your property.
Re: United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert
#830Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
If the story had been "Bomb detonated on plane after bluetooth name sparks alert" then it would've been more than just objectionable