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

391–400 of 1001 posts

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

#391

Post by echoangle »

rbanffy wrote: post #346
hammock wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are super-organized, highly-capable, fully-sane terrorists the only threat? Or does the threat model include mentally-ill / personality disorder people, who might make mistakes, or taunt those whose job it is to stop them? I want to think the answer is both. But I cannot think of an example where #2 has actually happened in history resulting in injury or death.

There was a guy who hid explosives in a shoe and we had to take off our shoes for many years because of him.

I don’t know how that contradicts the original comment since that plot didn’t work and didn’t result in deaths or (significant) injuries.

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

#392

Post by Geof25 »

f_allwein wrote: post #383
dualvariable wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A redditor who's wife and her friend were on the flight said that the 16yo boy next to wife's friend admitted to naming his speaker "Bomb" long enough ago that he had forgotten he'd named it that. Wife's friend got to hear the questioning That is also stated clearly in the comments. Reddit really wants to run with the default speaker name theory, though.

Also, who carries a Bluetooth speaker on a plane? And for what purpose?

Speaker in carry on luggage to be used in vacation. They were flying to Malaga

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

#393

Post by godelski »

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.

The whole conversation is moot anyways. What's the actual odds of getting on an airplane that is going to be the target of a terrorist attack. I'll tell you, they're approximately 0. Far less than 0.0001%.

If you act like they're real you're just going to end up suffering alarm fatigue because the number of actual instances is just so astonishingly low.

Besides that, the terrorists win by creating fear. No damage is necessary. People being afraid to fly is the terrorist's main goal. To get you to think they could be anywhere and are everywhere. It's called a terror campaign because the literal goal is to create terror. Casualties are just a good way for them to achieve that goal, but far from the only way. We spend billions a year to fight a near non-existent threat.

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

#394

Post by echoangle »

karlgkk wrote: post #284
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.

> Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"? Do you think this behaviour has any meaningful true positives? You know how they ask you if you have any contraband or if you’re a terrorist or whatever? You’d be surprised at how many people get busted because they answer truthfully

> You’d be surprised at how many people get busted because they answer truthfully

Would I? For contraband maybe with naive tourists who just don’t know that what they’re carrying is considered contraband, but I would love a source on a single terrorist being caught because they confessed after being asked in a form.

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

#396

Post by Bender »

dylan604 wrote: post #98
Bender wrote: post #8

People prank others all the time with goofy names [1] (2014) So are we at the point where that will change and devices will have to just assign random sanitized dictionary names? "Connect to my 'apple horse bunny farm'" There are programs that can flood an area with tens of thousands of fake access points (scapy-fakeap) . Or thousands of drones for that matter. [2] [1] - https://observer.com/2014/03/park-slope-kiddie…

I really don't appreciate you posting my unhashed password to the public like that

Well next time pick one that browsers automatically filter out, example "hunter2" browsers automatically filter some passwords per W3C standards, notice you can't see my password. [1]

[1] - https://bash-org-archive.com/?244321

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

#397

Post by koolba »

stouset wrote: post #352
koolba wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By taking a stand and inconveniencing the world around me, I hope to induce change for everyone. What’s the alternative? Lose track of my stuff or risk it being stolen?

No, you don’t. You are being an asshole to prove a point. But I am going to assume that you are an intelligent person, and since you are, you know as well as I do that nobody you are treating this way is in a position to do anything about the situation. Nobody in line is going to empathize with your stand when you are disrupting their travel. You are doing this so you can feel high and mighty, but you know damn well…

> You are being an asshole to prove a point.

How is waiting for my turn to go through the metal detector or be patted down being an asshole? I arrived before the people behind me and I’m following the security procedures of the airport.

It explicitly says to keep your belongings in your position at all times. To keep your bags in view. In fact they ask you if you ever lost sight of your bags.

If people don’t want to wait in line for people following the rules then let them be inconvenienced to the point where they will get the rules changed to speed up the process.

But I’m not going to give in to the stupidity of the security rules and forsake my own belongings to accommodate someone who doesn’t care enough to either come early and deal with the potential ramifications of the rules their elected leaders have chosen for them.

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

#398

Post by al_borland »

f_allwein wrote: post #383
dualvariable wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A redditor who's wife and her friend were on the flight said that the 16yo boy next to wife's friend admitted to naming his speaker "Bomb" long enough ago that he had forgotten he'd named it that. Wife's friend got to hear the questioning That is also stated clearly in the comments. Reddit really wants to run with the default speaker name theory, though.

Also, who carries a Bluetooth speaker on a plane? And for what purpose?

Most BT speakers have a battery, which means it has to be in carry-on luggage. Why it would be powered on is the question, but this could have happened inadvertently by getting knocked around in a bag.

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

#399

Post by jmkni »

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.

Could also have been a prank played on somebody who wasn't even aware

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

#400

Post by al_borland »

xrd wrote: post #85

What's to prevent terrorists from going through TSA, waiting in the scanning line when everyone is still going through, and then planting a bluetooth device into someone else's bag? I never open my carryon once I have packed it. This reminds me of the SNL sketch where TSA employees had no answer for someone bringing two separate bottles of 3.9 ounces onto the plane. I'm sure Sean Duffy, of Real World and now Sec of T…

You're supposed to wait to walk through the scanner until your bag is in the x-ray machine, or far enough along to not be tampered with. Doing that, I'm still always waiting on the other side to see by bag come out the other end.
Post reply on HN