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

541–550 of 1001 posts

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

#541

Post by moi2388 »

MobiusHorizons wrote: post #473
virgil_disgr4ce wrote: post #460

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 Ah yes, the classic "your politics," but of course the person having this opinion's politics are perfectly fine, because they're the "normal" person with the "normal" politics, not like that crazy person who thinks some randos shouldn't be the subject of genocide. How dare they!

I believe the idea is that no one should be declaring their political beliefs loudly in such an environment regardless of how “normal” they are. I’m not sure broadcasting a WiFi endpoint meets my threshold for “loudly”, but otherwise I tend to agree.

Believing you do not have the right to name your Bluetooth what you want is also a political belief.

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

#543

Post by steve1977 »

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…

That's nice and all, but you're not in the United States when you're on a plane in the air over the ocean. In this particular case, because United Airlines is a US airline, US law will mostly apply, but I'm sure you get the point.

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

#544

Post by steve1977 »

kingofmen wrote: post #493
umpalumpaaa wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's not even necessary. The fact that it could create panic is enough.

And by the way, a terrorist is (by definition) someone who wants to incite terror in others. So any person knowingly broadcasting "we will all die” is a terrorist already.

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

#545

Post by steve1977 »

vkou wrote: post #534
steve1977 wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they have no way to leave Not only do the people have no way to leave, the owner of the place also has no practical way to make people leave, like they would for example in a restaurant. At least once the plane is in the air. And the captain has to ensure the safety not only of the flying machine but also of the cabin. So I can absolutely understand the move here and the need to forbid everything that could incite…

Will the captain likewise call the FBI if some knuckledragging mouth breather with three ex-wives and a flag tattoo on his groin has an access point called 'Make Murucuh Great Again'? That would make me uncomfortable on the flight, and it's also one-hundred percent a political statement. One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans, and many more people outside of it.

If the captain thinks it poses a risk to his plane, why not?

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

#546

Post by elliotec »

gpm wrote: post #406
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.

> long enough ago that he had forgotten he'd named it that Actually sounds a lot like "that was the default name but now that everyone's making a big deal about it I'm assuming I must have named it that". I wouldn't assume that this "confession" means that reddit's theory is at all incorrect. Witnesses are terribly inaccurate sources of information, unfortunately. (Not to say the alternative also couldn't be the case…

Renaming a Bluetooth device like a speaker permanently for everyone (as opposed to a nickname you give it in your phone or whatever) is difficult if possible at all and usually requires firmware or hardware changes, unless the option is given by the device or its companion app (which is very rare).

So your assumption seems the most likely. I highly doubt a 16 year old kid is firmware hacking a cheap speaker just to rename it for a "joke"

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

#548

Post by brigandish »

lotu wrote: post #531

This decision almost certainly came about because of people thinking what action was least likely to get them fired. Any rational person would realize the odds of an actual bomb are so close to zero you would need to start worrying about the sun spontaneously exploding if you were worried there was a bomb. The problem is that if you ignored it your boss could say you ignored a bomb threat and fire you. Also if they r…

That is covered in the article:

> Though some have questioned why anyone intending to blow up a plane would broadcast the word bomb, many terrorist acts have relied on the threat of a bomb as leverage during attempted hijackings or hostage situations.

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

#549

Post by ffaccount2 »

akudha wrote: post #527
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…

Does naming WiFi hotspot to reflect one’s political views achieve anything? I am not against free speech or expression of freedom, just wondering if such “protests” (assuming that is what this is) have any affect at all? Flying is already a stressful experience - between security checks, waiting for flights, unruly passengers, super cramped seats etc. Why add more stress? Either protest seriously at an appropriate ti…

Well we're talking about this now, so this was actually effective. The point of talking about something is to make people aware of the issue.

For example I don't leave my house often, so a walking protest in the middle of a city has zero chance to reach me. HN post does.

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

#550

Post by brigandish »

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…

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

To someone whose primary consideration is safety, like the captain of an aeroplane, your logic is entirely nonsensical.

Post reply on HN