United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert • Hacker News Board

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

#871

Post by godelski » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:17 PM UTC

inoffensivename wrote: post #857

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…

> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech The First Amendment only prevents the government from penalizing your speech. It doesn't stop a private company (airline) kicking you off an airplane for something you said or did. The PIC (Pilot In Command, aka Captain) is the final authority for the safe operation of the flight (14 CFR Part 91.3). If the Captain determines that a threat exists, they are…

  >  It doesn't stop a private company

Read the story a bit more. There's the FBI and TSA being involved *which are government agencies*. There is a big difference between "getting kicked off the plane" and "getting kicked off the plane and getting arrested".

  > they are empowered to do pretty much anything reasonable to deal with the threat

Someone naming their phone "Free Palestine, F Israel" is not a threat. Full stop.

I don't care what your politics are, that is not a reasonable nor credible threat. If there was a credible threat the conversation would be different, but it is a tacky political statement.

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

#872

Post by kube-system » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:21 PM UTC

f33d5173 wrote: post #822

kube-system wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're discussing threats. Serious threats are made seriously.

The definition of threat that the rest of us are using, and the one that is relevant to airline security is:

"An indication of impending danger or harm."

Not "An expression of an intention to inflict pain, harm, or punishment."

Using the second definition in this context is absolutely bonkers -- a threat actor doesn't have to make a first-person expression of threat to be a threat.

A "security threat" refers to the former -- the situation.

It's also important to note that the situation was not taken seriously just because of the bluetooth device name -- but because it was not turned off even after all of the passengers were instructed to turn off all of their bluetooth devices. They were well aware that people are just stupid sometimes, but didn't take it seriously until it was done in defiance of crew commands.

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

#873

Post by sowbug » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:22 PM UTC

inoffensivename wrote: post #857

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…

> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech The First Amendment only prevents the government from penalizing your speech. It doesn't stop a private company (airline) kicking you off an airplane for something you said or did. The PIC (Pilot In Command, aka Captain) is the final authority for the safe operation of the flight (14 CFR Part 91.3). If the Captain determines that a threat exists, they are…

Doesn't 91.3(a) already give the PIC absolute authority to act regardless of whether there's a threat? Why invoke the FBI?

> Turning the plane around and landing is certainly in the realm of "reasonable".

Agreed. But doing it without the FBI threat would also be in the realm of reasonable. Which, it could be argued, means that making the FBI threat was unreasonable, or at least very close to it.

Beyond a certain point, even a PIC can cry wolf.

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

#874

Post by School-Cotton » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:22 PM UTC

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"?

> No contract is allowed to take away what the law gives you.

That's incorrect. In fact this is exactly what all contracts do.

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

#875

Post by godelski » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:23 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #841

_moof wrote: post #514

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. That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI." You're talking about should or shouldn't. The issue here is past that point: whether it's then right to involve people who are…

> That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI." Yes, but on an aircraft the captain is the dictator. They can do basically whatever they want within the confines of law and company policy - and honestly with enough seniority, which the captain on a transatlantic flight has a lot of - they can probably ignore company policy once or twice and get away with it and keep their job. As far as I…

  > blasting their opinions

It is a fucking device name. That is so easy to ignore and not be affected by.

Anyone being pissed off and willing to start a fight over a device name should be committed. Put that person in jail, not the person with the tacky device name. Otherwise you are just creating a world where you police the behavior of reasonable people because they might upset unreasonable people. Police the behavior of the unreasonable people.

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

#876

Post by School-Cotton » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:24 PM UTC

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #652

anigbrowl wrote: post #451

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. > 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…

> 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 way to leave. Its not private space. Its public because they sell tickets. Its like going to any other event, and I don’t think there’s a constitutional exception to free speech on airplanes where you can’t express your opinions.

It is perfectly legal to sell tickets to an event and require people going there not to express political opinions.

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

#877

Post by godelski » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:29 PM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #624

_moof wrote: post #514

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. That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI." You're talking about should or shouldn't. The issue here is past that point: whether it's then right to involve people who are…

I don't know what the right answer is to people doing weird stuff in enclosed places with a captive audience is. The wifi name probably should have been ignored. But the incidents of people airdropping profane pictures to randos on planes...

  > I don't know what the right answer is to people doing weird stuff in enclosed places with a captive audience is.

Punish the people who act.

Seriously, think about the fear here. That someone's trivial to ignore tacky political statement causes what problem? That it causes a fight to erupt? Arrest the person who actually starts the fight.

Do not police the actions of reasonable people just because they might upset unreasonable people. This is absolutely insane! You are just creating a world of Karens and crazy people by enabling them. The people that should get in trouble are the ones who start a fight.

FFS we're talking about a device's name. How often do you even see other device's names? Are you just staring at the WiFi and Bluetooth broadcasts all day? That's mental! You only see it when you switch to the plane's WiFi and then it is done. Over. You don't have to see it again. Anyone that is upset enough to start a fight over such a little thing should absolutely be arrested because they are clearly going to start a fight over some other absolutely bullshit and arbitrary thing. That's a person that is looking for a reason to be upset. That is a person looking for a reason to be angry. That is a person looking for a reason to start a fight. That is a person who is mentally insane.

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

#878

Post by anang » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:31 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #867

anang wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not an impossible thing to happen but it is so unlikely that I don't go around letting the idea dictate anything about my life. Another take: the likelihood of getting struck by lightening surely dictates what you do during a thunderstorm? In the same way that the likelihood (or lack there of) dictates how often you buy lottery tickets. If we didn’t attempt to mitigate terrorist attacks at all, would they be a…

> what you do during a thunderstorm? And now the odds have changed! But that doesn't change the terrorism odds. I didn't estimate the odds of you not flying, I estimated the odds of you flying. We are already talking about being in the middle of a thunderstorm!

Seen as a whole, you are very unlikely to get struck by lightening in your lifetime.

If you make a habit of running around in thunderstorms in an open field holding a metal rod in the air, then the likelihood suddenly increases A LOT.

What I mean is, the odds are only low that you get struck by lightening because precautions are taken place during lightening storms. In the same way, we only know the statistical likelihood of a terrorist attack involving an airplane in the current, overly cautious, context.

Sure, a lot of it is probably security theater, but I think the whole "don't talk about bombs on an airplane" is probably a pretty solid blanket rule.

If we stopped teaching kids what to do during a lightning storm, and if we stopped being overly cautious about airplane security, surely we would see both of those statistic move in the opposite direction.

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

#879

Post by petre » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:34 PM UTC

gspr wrote: post #785

petre wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Yes, I guess he could havr tuned off his BT when asked repeatedly to do so, instead of wasting oassenger time and airline fuel.

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

#880

Post by godelski » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:34 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #829

close04 wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The law gives very few liberties. And the places where people think it give liberties, it is actually just banning laws from being made around liberties. 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…

  > The law gives very few liberties.
  > Freedom of speech is the peak of this.

Freedom of speech isn't something the law gives you. It is something you innately have.

Don't confuse positive and negative rights[0]. Freedom of speech is something that can only be taken away. It is never something that can be given to you.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights