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

561–570 of 1001 posts

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

#561

Post by joxdosba »

brigandish wrote: post #548
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.

That does not actually address the parents point in any way.

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

#562

Post by FabCH »

linkregister wrote: post #468
rayiner wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

TSA is famous for failing tests for decades. Here’s the latest one: https://abcnews.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-ope...

Over the years, their failure rate has consistently been 80-95%.

I don’t think you can reasonably call that „generally successful“.

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

#563

Post by godelski »

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…

  > This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue.
Do you think we're talking about a device named "bomb"? We're talking about a device named "Free Palestine, F Israel". Those are two different situations. How can you even claim the latter is a physical threat? I also don't care if it said "F Palestine". Neither is a credible threat on the plane or the passengers.

The only issue I can see that causing is a fight. And anyone that is willing to start a fight because someone has s stupid device name should be committed because they're insane. That's crazy amounts of petty.

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

#564

Post by joxdosba »

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…

I’d certainly want everyone who’d feel uncomfortable because of a “Free Palestine” WiFi access point to feel maximally uncomfortable.

I really don’t think this is an uncommon opinion.

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

#565

Post by willy_k »

brigandish wrote: post #554
willy_k wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That not turning that Bluetooth device off when told to was going to end up delaying the flight. This thread is discussing the “Free Palestine, F Zionists” WiFi hotspot and the threat to turn it off within 30 seconds or face the FBI. Which is explicitly not a threat, whereas “BOMB” in the context of a plane is more obviously a potential threat.

> explicitly not a threat I don't see that as necessarily true. I can imagine many situations where F INSERT NAME OF ENTITY would be considered threatening. If they had F the captain of this plane , would the captain be wrong to feel threatened at all?

Threatening is not the same as an actual threat. If someone stood up on a plane and yelled “bomb”, the default implication is that there is a bomb present.

If someone gets up and yells “F the captain”, it is reasonable to be fearful that they might act on that sentiment, but the statement itself is not a threat; not an expression of intention (or in the former case, presence of an object that is intended) to inflict evil, injury, or damage.

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

#566

Post by godelski »

pdonis wrote: post #500
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 respon…

  > Am I missing something?
Yes

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

#567

Post by whycome »

elliotec wrote: post #546
gpm wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

It seems like some newer speakers allow it. I really wanna know what speaker he actually had.

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

#568

Post by teiferer »

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…

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

While I agree with you that this was obviously a ridiculous overreaction, an air plane is not a public space. It's more akin to being in someones living room in that the pilot has absolute authority over whom to kick out for whatever reason. If they don't like your hair, they can have you escorted out by police if you don't comply. They won't do it normally because it's bad PR and their employer wouldn't like it, but they could. Not free speech amendment violated.

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

#569

Post by brigandish »

dfedbeef wrote: post #450
dataflow wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't think people would be mocking bombing victims

[dead]

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

#570

Post by whycome »

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.

Define Common
Post reply on HN