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

461–470 of 1001 posts

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

#461

Post by linkregister »

jancsika wrote: post #307
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.

You word "kind" unzips to three distinct categories: 1. failing hard: Is $trigger_word in the context of an attack, or is it innocuous? Failing hard then assessing the context question later is at least a simple system to design and implement safely. And an adversary can't pentest it. I mean they can, but they'll fail hard every time no matter the context . And that is very expensive for the attacker. 2. failing soft…

You're responding to a comment in a neighboring, but close reality. In this reality, it wasn't a dropped application request or even an account signup failure. Instead, it was a highly legible, public decision. This was an expensive choice.

There's no mystery to an attacker. Now it is known to all that trigger words are part of airline security SOP. Attacker tradecraft will be refined.

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

#462

Post by [deleted] »

dataflow wrote: post #433
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 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 i…

[deleted]

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

#463

Post by Retric »

stouset wrote: post #354
Retric wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s evidence that not all people involved in 9/11 knew they were going to die. Yet, they were still used effectively. Significantly less dedicated supporters are generally used as a funding source, but actual terrorist organizations have also used them for publicity events on the anniversary of attacks.

You are dodging the fact that getting a handful of planes to turn around is an act that induces frustration, annoyance, and insignificant costs at best. Not terror.

Terror is a tactic used by terrorist organizations, but it’s hardly the only thing they do.

“There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” Isn’t quite true, but publicity is inherently valuable to organizations dependent on outside donors. The Provos/IRA did similar things (attention grabbing and annoying) not just setting off bombs during the time of troubles.

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

#464

Post by anon84873628 »

netsharc wrote: post #86
eudamoniac wrote: post #59

Even if you discount the possibility of an intentional threat as silly, this could have been a warning from someone under duress. Turning around was the right move.

How does that scenario work? Someone's under duress because presumably there's a terrorist on board. He lets the crew know there's a bomb onboard. The plane turns around, and the terrorist... lets the plane land safely? OK maybe the bomb blows up when it crosses some longitude, because this is like the movie Speed, and turning around means the plane never cross that longitude.. If you mean another type of duress, nam…

People have watched too many silly action movies.

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

#465

Post by anon84873628 »

epolanski wrote: post #188

> 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. Wtf? I can understand a bomb, but this is just free speech.

I am curious about the laws governing something like that. Does it matter whether it's a domestic or international flight? Are pilots king of the vessel?

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

#466

Post by pesus »

anigbrowl wrote: post #451
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…

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 short, please stow your rights in the overhead container or in your checked baggage and respect other peoples' right to be left alone.

What does a Bluetooth device's nickname have to do with leaving people alone?

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

#467

Post by Cider9986 »

laweijfmvo wrote: post #428
samgranieri wrote: post #9

A 16 year boy apparently named his Bluetooth speaker “bomb” and couldn’t turn it off, as it was probably in checked luggage. Woof.

Wait so they thought there was a bomb on board but if they “turned it off” they’d keep flying? or they knew it wasn’t a bomb but turned around anyway to teach everyone a lesson? i’m not sure which is worse

Excellent point.

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

#468

Post by linkregister »

rayiner wrote: post #111
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…

Nothing. TSA is a joke. At first, the security theater arguably had a legitimate psychological purpose. The airline industry nearly collapsed after 9/11 because people were so scared of filing. But that was a generation ago—the psychological trauma in the aftermath of 9/11 dissipated ago. But we’re still stuck with the TSA because in the meantime it turned into a massive jobs program. We’d be better off spending TSA’…

I don't see any evidence of TSA being a jobs program. Their mission and the agents executing it appear to be toward flight security. I'm certain there are many counterexamples of misguided policies and agents exhibiting incompetence. But the general direction of the agency is to screen passengers prior to entering secure airport areas and this is generally successful.

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

#470

Post by simulator5g »

alex_young wrote: post #457
simulator5g wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea wasn't to convince anyone of anything, it was to reduce RF noise so the cops could find the offending device more quickly. Also if it were a real threat you would probably quickly identify someone who is unwilling to turn off their Bluetooth.

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.

if it were a real threat you would probably quickly identify someone who is unwilling to turn off their Bluetooth.
Post reply on HN