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

#491

Post by HaZeust » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:14 AM UTC

jim33442 wrote: post #318

jeroenhd wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't rename most Bluetooth speakers. "Bomb" was the name the selling brand gave the speaker. By making everyone turn off their Bluetooth, the kid whose speaker had turned on probably couldn't even see the device broadcasting the name. People linked to one by a company made Hellotec but Hama has a similarly named device, and plenty of other speaker manufacturers try to make a pun out of "boombox" by naming their…

Rename is a fairly common feature on Bluetooth speakers and headphones, for example my Bose NC-700.

+1 on this for my Soundlink, but it's important to mention it has to be through the Bose app itself. I don't think you can rename devices from a pairing device's native bluetooth settings?

Otherwise, I trust many folks in an HN comment section would reminisce on stories from their earlier years, where they'd rename the Bluetooth devices around a densely-populated area to cause mischief.

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

#492

Post by pdonis » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:17 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #379

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.

> 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…

> This is clearly not a threat.

To you, who made up the scenario and specified that it's not a threat, sure, it seems that way.

To the pilot of an airplane full of people whose safety he is responsible for, even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention to. In real life you don't get to specify what "clearly" is or is not the case. People have to make judgment calls, and in certain contexts they are going to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry.

> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech

This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue. The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects that saying certain things is going to have in certain contexts. We're all supposed to be responsible adults who understand that we can't push our pet issues everywhere we go.

> We've just grown accustomed to security theater.

Easy for you to say since you're not the one responsible for the safety of a planeload of people. This is not a "security theater" issue either. You don't have the right to trumpet your pet issue everywhere you go.

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

#493

Post by kingofmen » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:17 AM UTC

umpalumpaaa wrote: post #486

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…

I see what you are saying but then where do you draw the line? What if the wifi name is “fuck all pilots” - “united is doomed” or “we will all die”?

Not OP, but why draw a line for WiFi names at all? Do you think an actual terrorist goes around drawing attention like that?

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

#494

Post by r3trohack3r » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:18 AM UTC

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…

> What's to prevent terrorists … planting a bluetooth device into someone else's bag

Reminds me of Professor Chaos trying to flood the world by leaving the garden hose on.

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

#495

Post by pdonis » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:20 AM UTC

da_chicken wrote: post #487

mancerayder wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You definitely don't have the (implied) constitutional right to much on an airplane. Why not wear no shirt, a balaclava and hold up a flag above your head - go ahead and try it. As soon as the plans lands, something terrible will happen to you. In some destinations, even worse things.

The right of free speech is not wholly encompassed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In fact, it's the other way around, it's because the right of free speech is recognized as a universal, natural right then the US Federal Government is not permitted to make a law suppressing speech. The First Amendment does not create the right. The right is there, naturally, whether or not the United States…

> The right of free speech is not wholly encompassed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

And there are other human rights besides the right to free speech, which have to be balanced. One of them is the right to safe travel. That means people who are responsible for the safety of a planeload of people have to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry. And mature adults are suppposed to recognize that fact and not insist on exercising their free speech right everywhere they go, to the detriment of other rights.

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

#496

Post by CrendKing » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:21 AM UTC

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…

1) If it really was a bomb and went off, the pilot wouldn't be there to explain to the press anyway.

2) How likely would a bomb's name really be "BOMB" vs anything else? If the latter is any higher, wouldn't it be reasonable to always turn around whenever the any other name shows up? In that case, all Bluetooth devices should be strictly banned in the cabin. But TSA is not doing that (not yet).

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

#497

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:24 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #492

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…

> This is clearly not a threat. To you, who made up the scenario and specified that it's not a threat, sure, it seems that way. To the pilot of an airplane full of people whose safety he is responsible for, even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention to. In real life you don't get to specify what "clearly" is or is not the case. People have to make judgment calls, and in certain context…

>even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention

What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"?

Should he react to all messages as if they are threats, because no matter how small the risk is, more than zero is too much?

If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat. Anything else leads to absurd outcomes that make it harder to protect from real threats.

>The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question? Please enlighten us, because most of us are apparently unable to predict those ourselves.

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

#498

Post by fny » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:25 AM UTC

da_chicken wrote: post #487

mancerayder wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You definitely don't have the (implied) constitutional right to much on an airplane. Why not wear no shirt, a balaclava and hold up a flag above your head - go ahead and try it. As soon as the plans lands, something terrible will happen to you. In some destinations, even worse things.

The right of free speech is not wholly encompassed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In fact, it's the other way around, it's because the right of free speech is recognized as a universal, natural right then the US Federal Government is not permitted to make a law suppressing speech. The First Amendment does not create the right. The right is there, naturally, whether or not the United States…

I'm pretty sure Madison would have jailed you if you showed up on his lawn with an "ARSON" sign.

The founders believed in private property rights as much as free speech. Property was even a requirement for voting in most states.

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

#499

Post by justinhj » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:26 AM UTC

acwan93 wrote: post #240

justinhj wrote: post #112

This is like the Adam Sandler movie where he says bomb on an airplane. It's an overreaction, is it not? A terrorist is not going to call their bomb's bluetooth trigger bomb. Even if they are, are you telling me we have no idea whether there is a bomb in luggage or not?

Ben Stiller right? That’s Meet the Parents.

Thanks, always get those two mixed up.

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

#500

Post by pdonis » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 3:30 AM UTC

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #497

pdonis wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is clearly not a threat. To you, who made up the scenario and specified that it's not a threat, sure, it seems that way. To the pilot of an airplane full of people whose safety he is responsible for, even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention to. In real life you don't get to specify what "clearly" is or is not the case. People have to make judgment calls, and in certain context…

>even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"? Should he react to all messages as if they are threats, because no matter how small the risk is, more than zero is too much? If you can't know whether something is a th…

> What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"?

I'm unable to find any connection between Teddy Ruxpin and sarin gas online, so I don't see why a pilot would make such a connection. Am I missing something?

> If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat.

Have you ever been in a position where you were responsible for the safety of several hundred people?

> What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question?

That not turning that Bluetooth device off when told to was going to end up delaying the flight.