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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by godelski »

steve1977 wrote: post #589
godelski wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think... a device named "Free Palestine, F Israel" could... create panic? I'm sorry, that is crazy. Only a crazy person would panic over that

I don't fly very often, but every time there's at least one person I would consider crazy enough for that.

Then at put that person in jail, not the person with the tacky device name.

Do you hear yourself? You're saying we should be irrational because there's irrational people. That we should send people to jail because they might upset an irrational person? You're sending the wrong person to jail. Are you crazy?

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

#622

Post by joxdosba »

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?

Name a single one of those situations, I can’t imagine any.

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

#623

Post by jolmg »

joxdosba wrote: post #616
jolmg wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hi, when I was in flight school it wasn’t explicitly stated but certainly heavily implied that as pilots were not allowed to trespass passengers and kick them off the plane mid-flight. If you have information to the contrary, I would like to be made aware because occasionally I have ended up stuck for hours in the air with unpleasant passengers.

Was just clarifying GP's general point and not stating anything specific to pilots.

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

#624

Post by mlyle »

_moof wrote: post #514
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…

> 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…

I don't know what the right answer is to people doing weird stuff in enclosed places with a captive audience is.

The wifi name probably should have been ignored. But the incidents of people airdropping profane pictures to randos on planes...

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

#625

Post by vkou »

steve1977 wrote: post #545
vkou wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

1. Does the pilot need anything but his personal biases to claim that poses a risk to the plane?

2. Because any rational person understands that we need to coexist in a society with a spectrum of political opinion, and that a fucking access point name doesn't cross the boundary between safe and dangerous to society.

3. Because doing it for one and not the other is obviously biased and arbitrary and demonstrates that it's not an actual danger to the plane, it's just some asshole with a bad day choosing to exercise his authority over someone whose politics he dislikes. To severe consequences to both that person and everyone else on board the plane. That's not a society you want to strive for.

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

#626

Post by joxdosba »

jolmg wrote: post #623
joxdosba wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, when I was in flight school it wasn’t explicitly stated but certainly heavily implied that as pilots were not allowed to trespass passengers and kick them off the plane mid-flight. If you have information to the contrary, I would like to be made aware because occasionally I have ended up stuck for hours in the air with unpleasant passengers.

Was just clarifying GP's general point and not stating anything specific to pilots.

You’re badly wrong, aircrew has actual legal authority which stems from the fact that they’re aircrew.

Absolutely nothing to do with private property, especially considering that you can’t trespass people on a plane.

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

#627

Post by _3u10 »

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.

Agreed. I’m glad I live in a normal country, last time I was in the US and Canada it struck me how truly insane it is.

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

#628

Post by prmoustache »

chatmasta wrote: post #230
K0balt wrote: post #156

This is a hilariously stupid reaction to a stupidly hilarious decision made by a speaker manufacturer. And also a new vector for a ransom-attack on the Bluetooth namespace in certain environments via malicious BLE advertising. The worst thing that could have happened here was for someone to take this seriously.

I’ve seen multiple comments referencing this was the default device name… did I miss something in the article or is that sourced from elsewhere?

I own a bluetooth speaker from the Boom brand and it has obviously the model name as bluetooth ID.

Changing it would require installing an app that I don't really want to for obvious reasons. Additionally some bluetooth device never really turn down completely and still advertize their bluetooth ID via BLE so the teenager in question may not even have realized he could change anything and the commands given (turn off bluetooth) were completely stupid as it wouldn't change anything if people turned down their smartphone bluetooth.

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

#629

Post by strathmeyer »

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…

[dead]

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

#630

Post by _3u10 »

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…

It doesn’t.

I get my lighter through in Brazil all the time and a friend of mine got giant scissors through in Buenos Aires. It’s entirely a choice to freak out over nothing.

In most of the world you’re allowed to do outlandish things like have a beer at the mall. Or walk outside with one.

Post reply on HN