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

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

Post by bschwindHN »

fsckboy wrote: post #489
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…

[flagged]

I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, but what exactly is your vision of HN "without politics"? It's very hard to avoid because so many technical things have overlap with politics, and lots of technical decisions have political implications. HN currently loves talking about all things AI, and that's probably one of the biggest political topics out there.

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

#513

Post by sixothree »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #187
diab0lic wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree from a logical perspective. However if the plane blew up and it came out that some passengers had posted online that there was a “bomb” blue tooth device and they didn’t turn around… the court of public opinion would be pretty harsh. This was more or less their only choice from a liability perspective.

> if the plane blew up and it came out that some passengers had posted online that there was a “bomb” blue tooth device and they didn’t turn around This story is just stupid. If you actually think you have a bomb onboard, you divert to the nearest airport. (And if you think you discovered a bomb accidentally left discoverable, you don’t ask for it to be please turned off.) The pilots and crew knew they were being idi…

I presume a passenger reported it. And the pilot was not allowed to ignore it.

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

#514

Post by _moof »

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…

> 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 empowered to take away your physical liberty, and worse.

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

#515

Post by [deleted] »

pdonis wrote: post #495
da_chicken wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sup…

[deleted]

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

#517

Post by neya »

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.

That's such a poor argument. What is the alternative here? Just let anyone fly with a dozen devices with the names BOMB and CRASH hoping that an actual bomb doesn't go off? Systems and processes exist for a reason.

Your example of 150ml liquids has no connection to this security measure nor incident either. That's just a straw man.

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

#518

Post by srean »

godelski wrote: post #387
mlyle wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the options: - You have an actual bomb that's been slipped onto someone else's stuff that is cellphone triggered; perhaps when you get to UK cellular service, perhaps after cabin altitude + time, or whatever. Making the announcement doesn't hurt at all. You want to turn back in this case. - You have a person who has a device with a name in bad taste, either because of humor or malice. Making the announcement d…

Now take your scenarios and weight them by their probabilities - 0.001% - 99.998% - 0.001% If you think I'm exaggerating here, you're right, but in the conservative direction. There are 44k flights in the US PER DAY. There have been 8 bombings, * since 9/11* [0]. 4 of those involved US craft (not all passenger craft either), and * 0* of them succeeded. My numbers are an over-estimate if you take all 8 and count it ag…

What would have been your estimated odds, of a plane hitting twin towers out of malice, a day before 9/11 happened.

I agree with your comments more often than not, I empathize with your annoyance, but if you play out the game theoretic consequences there are no non-annoying outcomes. I don't like it but that's how it is.

Low probability events with outsized consequences are very difficult to reason through. One potentially chipped thermal insulation ceramic tile, should we engage reentry or not. What are the odds that the tile did get chipped, what are the consequences if it did.

The only good way to play this is for a country to not act in ways that motivates potential acts of organized terrorism. That would leave only the positively deranged solitary cuckoo brains to deal with.

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

#519

Post by dnnddidiej »

stuckkeys wrote: post #516

That should be a perma ban. I get jokes, but there should be boundries.

If they even controlled the name the "joke" could have been done months earlier and meant bomb as in excellent.

Better to scan baggage for the actual, ya know, bombs. Fine people joking about bombs verbally or written sure.

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

#520

Post by stephbook »

neya wrote: post #517
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.

That's such a poor argument. What is the alternative here? Just let anyone fly with a dozen devices with the names BOMB and CRASH hoping that an actual bomb doesn't go off? Systems and processes exist for a reason. Your example of 150ml liquids has no connection to this security measure nor incident either. That's just a straw man.

> Just let anyone fly with a dozen devices with the names BOMB and CRASH?

That sounds terrible. Please get me the manager.

Post reply on HN