Live data from Hacker News

United Airlines 767 returns to Newark after Bluetooth name sparks alert

simpleflying.com

591–600 of 1001 posts

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

#591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone willing to start a fight over a tacky WiFi name should be committed. Seriously, what an insane thing to do. It's such an easy thing to not be bothered by. It sits in the background, invisible, and you're... just letting it live rent free in your head? There's so many more annoying things to flying than someone's dumb personal hotspot name. Can we just recognize how crazy of a scenario this is?

People are not rational. Or at least one cannot assume they are when it comes to safety. People start actual fights over small groups of other people, that neither of them know personally, who are chasing after a ball on a pitch.

So what's your argument? We all act crazy because crazy people might exist? That's just as crazy as being afraid of terrorists.

Why would you let the crazy people run the world. If they're that crazy you put them in a hospital because clearly they need help

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

#592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or a nihilist, or a fatalist, or a pessimist, or an antinatalist, or a realist. Don't go putting people into boxes. That's the path of persecution. You have the inalienable right to say what you want on a plane, limited by what the government is allowed to prosecute. In a confined space, that is a bit riskier. That's a solely personal choice - no laws are being broken. The Captain has the right to ask you to conform…

> The Captain has the right to ask you to conform or leave, but that's a separate issue.

It's not a separate issue, because the captain very likely will err on the side of caution if he has to decide whether you are a terrorist or a nihilist.

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

#593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a device name. Why is anyone feeling uncomfortable? It's crazy to be upset by such an easy to ignore thing

Exactly, I’d imagine anyone genuinely bothered by such a network name must be a particularly unpleasant person anyway.

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

#595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every other country seems to do the same thing though

It's not just security theater. It shifts the attack vector entirely. Instead of airplanes as weapons that could be used to kill thousands, terrorists can blow up a few hundred people. Those checkpoints are only there to provide a soft target instead of letting it be a plane.

> Instead of airplanes as weapons that could be used to kill thousands...

As pilots had been screaming for for years prior to 2001, cockpit doors have been reinforced and locked, and cabin procedures have changed so that those doors are rarely unlocked. [0] This happened shortly after the WTC bombings that totally destroyed the buildings. This means that the only people who can get control of an aircraft are the crew of that aircraft.

The first of the two things that stops "another 9/11" had a one-time monetary cost and was done twenty five years ago. The second was the murder of everyone on board three airliners by hijackers. Prior hijackings were a diversion and an annoying delay. Now that "hijackers will kill you all" is on the table, hijackers will be outnumbered ten or thirty to one and will not succeed. Remember that the plane intended to crash into the Pentagon crashed in a field somewhere because its passengers heard about the ones that hit WTC and -correctly- determined that they had absolutely nothing to lose.

> ...terrorists can blow up a few hundred people [at a checkpoint].

The fact that this doesn't happen indicates that even a jetliner with a flimsy, unlocked cockpit door wouldn't be used as a weapon to kill thousands. Murder -let alone mass murder- is vanishingly rare. By and large, people simply don't want to kill or injure each other... they just want to go about their business.

To support this point, I'd like you to tell me when was the last time you heard about a cell-phone-battery-bomb? You may remember those from back when Israel's military booby trapped the batteries of phones that they believed were going to be delivered to many members of the opposing military... and then set off those bombs all at once. Shorty after the bombings, Bunnie Huang [1] did some thinking and came to the conclusion that not only is it pretty easy to fabricate such remotely-triggerable bombs with like five-figures [2] worth of perfectly ordinary equipment that is entirely legal for anyone to have, if one built such a bomb with the explosive force of a hand grenade it would be [3] undetectable to a TSA CT scanner operator, and -because batteries are sealed- entirely undetectable to explosives swabs.

If The Terrorists Are Constantly Out To Get Us, why haven't we seen these bombs? It has been what, three years or so since those very clever booby traps were distributed to and used against opposing forces? Where are the domestic bangs and booms?

[0] One expects that airlines did not wish to do this because its cost was greater than zero. I wonder how the cost compared to the destruction of three airliners, two skyscrapers, all the deaths and cleanup, and twenty five years (and counting) of security theater.

[1] Huang is a fellow with fairly substantial commercial electronics design and fabrication experience

[2] USD

[3] ...in part because of the variance in battery construction from manufacturer to manufacturer and even from model to model...

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

#596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are not rational. Or at least one cannot assume they are when it comes to safety. People start actual fights over small groups of other people, that neither of them know personally, who are chasing after a ball on a pitch.

So what's your argument? We all act crazy because crazy people might exist? That's just as crazy as being afraid of terrorists. Why would you let the crazy people run the world. If they're that crazy you put them in a hospital because clearly they need help

The argument is that if I'm responsible for the safety of a very heterogenous group of people in the cabin of my airplane, I will assume that those people are already stressed and will probably act even less rational than they normally would. And that's all that matters in that moment.

> If they're that crazy you put them in a hospital because clearly they need help

Oh believe me, I would if I could...

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

#598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Risk is not a synonym for the likelihood of something happening, but the likelihood and its possible effect . For example, the risk of not wearing your seatbelt on the motorway is high because, even though most journeys will not require a seatbelt to stop any negative effects, if something bad happens it will become very high risk without the seatbelt. Without the negative effect there is no risk, so it's not just pr…

What are the risks? That people die. Do you know how many people died of preventable things just today?

Or it's scary because it means we're going to go to war? Then why aren't we scared sooner? Be scared of the thing that causes people to want to blow up planes. It's not like they just wake up one day and a country decides it's going to blow up a plane. Our government spies off so many people and the result is we're still scared to get on planes? What a waste of money

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

#599

I kind of get that a device named BOMB made the plane turn back. However, I don't understand this part: > 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 there's a BOMB, turning off Bluetooth won't make it much safer. I mean, a turned-off bomb is probably safer than a turned-on bomb, but it's still a bomb. Pilots:…

It was not about whether to turn back or not but rather to identify whether the device is in cabin or not. If it disappears after being asked, they do not need to empty the cargo hold when searching for the device after landing. They were going to turn around regardless.

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

#600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 normall…

This. Many people are unaware of just how much authority a captain has; Failing to follow their instructions is (basically) a felony. It's best to just not mess around on an aircraft.

It's not about a special status of flight captains. Same can be said of e.g. a store manager acting in-place of the owner. It's a matter of one being on someone's private property, instead of on public property.
Post reply on HN