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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by simulator5g »

fwipsy wrote: post #259
HNisCIS wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I haven't met anyone who is actually uncomfortable with the term "master," only people concerned about what others might think of them. It's not really being inclusive; it's just signaling inclusivity. Surely the time would be better spent, I don't know, volunteering to tutor underprivileged students or something? Or just living your damn life.

I have met several people who are uncomfortable with the 'master/slave' terminology. In my experience, those who do not experience much racism in their day to day lives do not find it offensive, and vice versa. Therefore, it is at least slightly offensive in my opinion.

Once I was explaining how my day went to an ex, and my day happened to involve the terms, and they were absolutely floored that those terms were still used. Then the whole conversation was about racism in tech, and that had significantly less aura than my story of how I fixed everything. Beware ye olde words, lest ye scare thein hoes.

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

#432

Post by PaulStatezny »

dhosek wrote: post #422
neilv wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. 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? Or include people of either kind, who create diversions? Or include people who make a statement in an unexpected way? 2. Did the captain, flight control, and everyone else who needed to decide,…

A minor grammar nit. Its commend whoever decided to follow protocol, not whomever. You choose the case of who(m)ever based on its function in the dependent clause not the clause’s function in the sentence.

A minor spelling nit. It's "it's", not "its", when used as a contraction for "it is". ;)

Sorry, you teed it up too well. I had to!

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

#433

Post by dataflow »

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.

> Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"? Do you think this behaviour has any meaningful true positives?

You seem overconfident. For one thing, someone getting a Bluetooth signal has absolutely no confidence the device is genuinely only a speaker. For another, it is entirely possible that a nefarious actor could screw up and forget to turn off a wireless transmitter.

Can you imagine if the threat was real and news came out that the Bluetooth device name literally said what it was? People right here would be mocking the personnel for being so stupid that they ignored literally what was written in front of them.

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

#434

Post by punkyblewster »

Balgair wrote: post #427
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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings Just greping for 'Israel' or 'Palestine' gives 13 incidents, the latest occurring in 2000. It's a quite large share of the hijackings on the list, much more so that I'd have imagined de novo . Reading through a few of them, most of the hijackers had a fair bit of mental instability (duh?). So, I could totally see them naming a bluetooth something crazy if they…

Let's get real. This was a pilot using authority granted to them for security purposes to punish somebody whose politics they disliked.

The pilot should be fired effective immediately.

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

#435

Post by schmookeeg »

abejfehr wrote: post #247
chatmasta wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I just found the theory referenced on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/KidsAreFuckingStupid/comments/1tsts...

I can't explain why, but the top comment is the funniest thing in this whole episode to me:

Removed for violating Rule #6: Must be a kid and must be stupid.

Common reasons for this remove include but not limited to:

Teens are not considered kids as its a different kind of stupid.

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

#436

Post by roysting »

Zak wrote: post #248
neilv wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. 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? Or include people of either kind, who create diversions? Or include people who make a statement in an unexpected way? 2. Did the captain, flight control, and everyone else who needed to decide,…

Landing the plane because of something that could be interpreted as a bomb threat without waiting to be sure it was intended that way seems like a precaution on the far end of reasonable, but still reasonable. Demanding that people disable Bluetooth does not seem reasonable. If there's an actual bomber, tipping them off that you're reacting to their threat might lead them to set off the bomb early. Similarly, demandi…

Should we call the FBI because you have also written the forbidden character set; since you said doing so is probably cause to call the FBI?

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

#437

Post by jtbayly »

rincebrain wrote: post #429
hectormalot wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that surprises me is they flew back to Newark for almost 90 minutes. It doesn't make sense to me. (1) Either you believe the threat is credible and you put it down at the nearest suitable airport in the least amount of time. Say Sydney at about 200km to your west, or FSP at 150km in the direction you're going (not a great fit, but doable). In both cases you could probably land within 20 minutes, a bit more…

In this particular case, I think the point is less 1 or 2 but more point 3 (3) the contrapositive, where you continued the flight, it really was someone stupid enough to name the broadcast name of a bomb "BOMB", it goes off, and now you have to explain to the press "we thought nobody would be stupid enough to really name it 'BOMB'" So you assume it's a low risk event, and tell everyone onboard to turn off their devic…

That makes absolutely no sense. As the previous comment pointed out, turning around is not treating it seriously. If you are trying to save face in the extremely unlikely event that it is real, then the only thing you can do is head to the nearest airport.

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

#438

Post by 15155 »

echoangle wrote: post #391
rbanffy wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The plot worked, the device didn't (nor did it need to.)

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

#440

Post by slater »

punkyblewster wrote: post #434
Balgair wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings Just greping for 'Israel' or 'Palestine' gives 13 incidents, the latest occurring in 2000. It's a quite large share of the hijackings on the list, much more so that I'd have imagined de novo . Reading through a few of them, most of the hijackers had a fair bit of mental instability (duh?). So, I could totally see them naming a bluetooth something crazy if they…

Let's get real. This was a pilot using authority granted to them for security purposes to punish somebody whose politics they disliked. The pilot should be fired effective immediately.

How would the pilot know the perp's political leanings...?

edit: oh you mean the "f z" guy

Post reply on HN