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

631–640 of 1001 posts

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

#631

Post by [deleted] »

thombat wrote: post #556
jim33442 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean for a flight that doesn't go to/from the US.

The US requirement is that passengers on flights to the USA have been processed in conformance with US regulations _and_ since that processing have not had any contact with passengers processed otherwise. It's not in itself a stupid rule but does make the US rules contagious, since either other airports re-build to keep the US-bound and other passengers segregated or they have to apply US rules to all. This hit Auckl…

[deleted]

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

#632

Post by prmoustache »

klustregrif wrote: post #620

It’s seems like they just reported this initially as “four letter word” and then a media outlet later assumed it was bomb. It seems more likely it was a UE Boom, which has boom in its default Bluetooth name. If that’s the case the teen likely just owned the device and didn’t knot it was turned on. It’s rather long battery and it’s not obvious if it’s on or not.

Yes I have a speaker of the same brand, bluetooth ID is Boom4 as it is the model name. I have no idea if it can be changed, if it can, probably only through an app only a minority of users would have had installed anyway (I don't).

Aditionally the order given by the crew (turning off bluetooth) would have done no results as most people would simply assume turning off bluetooth on their smartphone/videogame console/laptop and wouldn't know how to do that on anything else.

The comments ont that link are completely crazy, I read about jail time or even death penalty.

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

#633

Post by N19PEDL2 »

thombat wrote: post #556
jim33442 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean for a flight that doesn't go to/from the US.

The US requirement is that passengers on flights to the USA have been processed in conformance with US regulations _and_ since that processing have not had any contact with passengers processed otherwise. It's not in itself a stupid rule but does make the US rules contagious, since either other airports re-build to keep the US-bound and other passengers segregated or they have to apply US rules to all. This hit Auckl…

I often fly from Milan Malpensa airport, and I’ve noticed there are two separate security areas: one for people flying to the US or Israel, and one for everyone else. I’d always wondered why this was the case, and now I get it.

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

#634

Post by prmoustache »

f_allwein wrote: post #383
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.

Also, who carries a Bluetooth speaker on a plane? And for what purpose?

If you want it at your destination you are kind of forced to as you can't transport batteries in your checked luggage.

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

#635

Post by godelski »

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…

  > One of them is the right to safe travel.
I'm sorry, but you're acting crazy if you think someone naming their device "free Palestine" is a credible threat. That's absolutely bonkers

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

#636

Post by prmoustache »

thrownthatway wrote: post #282
LoganDark wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know for certain if you change the setting General > About > Name in an iPhone it changes what everyone sees when they look at their list of available Bluetooth devices. > I assume other Bluetooth devices are the same, no? No. The iPhone is allowing you to configure what name it broadcasts. But you cannot just tell another device what to broadcast. That device must have its own mechanism for changing its name. Fo…

> Third-party peripherals usually do not have this functionality. What do you mean by ”usually” here? I’m certain all the regular name brands, eg JBL Bose Sonos B&O etc enable the device itself to be configured with a user set name via their app. I’m certain because I’ve used them and done so.

Almost nobody install apps of their bluetooth device.

People buy the speaker, charge it and turn it on, pair, play music, throw the packaging away, that's it. Usually the bluetooth name refer to the brand and model which is much more convenient to know which one you are connecting to than giving it a silly name.

I wouldn't expect most people to know they can do it in the first place and even those who do like me don't bother most of the time.

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

#637

Post by steve1977 »

godelski wrote: post #621
steve1977 wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You're interpreting a lot, as I didn't say any of that.

What I'm saying is that the decision whether or not something is considered a risk is completely at the discretion of the captain. And by accepting the terms of the airline when boarding the plane, you agree to follow the orders of the captain.

So if that captain says "turn it off", you turn it off. It's very simple.

But I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't want to understand for the sake of confrontation, so I'll leave it at that.

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

#638

Post by prmoustache »

HDBaseT wrote: post #381
jim33442 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every other country seems to do the same thing though

In Australia, you place your carry on luggage onto a tray and it passes through an xray machine, at the same time, you walk through a metal detector. Takes about 30 seconds depending on the line. It still feels incongruent with the reality of the situation in my opinion. I can hop on a bus with 200 other people, or on a train with literally 0 security carrying whatever I want in a bag with no staff nearby either.

These kinds of measures are always reactionnary to prior events. For example in Spain you do get your bag scanned (but I doubt scan operators are sufficiently trained to spot anything of importance anyway) at train stations before embarkments and also any governmental/official/administrative office because Spain has a history of bombing (mostly by ETA).

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

#639

Post by steve1977 »

no-name-here wrote: post #605
steve1977 wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? Or in what way is it a risk to the plane? If passenger(s) are wearing a super pro or anti Biden or Trump shirt or Bluetooth/SSID name, is that a risk to the plane, as what if there are other people on the plane who feel strongly in the other direction? But if someone really is OK with pilots turning around flights because of such shirts, etc., then wouldn't the…

> I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane?

That is up to the captain to decide.

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

#640

Post by godelski »

no-name-here wrote: post #605
steve1977 wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? Or in what way is it a risk to the plane? If passenger(s) are wearing a super pro or anti Biden or Trump shirt or Bluetooth/SSID name, is that a risk to the plane, as what if there are other people on the plane who feel strongly in the other direction? But if someone really is OK with pilots turning around flights because of such shirts, etc., then wouldn't the…

  > If passenger(s) are wearing a super pro or anti Biden or Trump shirt or Bluetooth/SSID name, is that a risk to the plane
Exactly

  > as what if there are other people on the plane who feel strongly in the other direction?
But it is absolutely batshit insane that we would punish the person with a tacky device name. You are punishing the wrong people. Punish the people who think it is okay to start a fight over something that is so easy to ignore.

This is such an insane thing we're doing. We're policing the behavior of functioning adults because it might upset dysfunctional adults? Why the hell are we creating a society that protects crazy people? It's absolutely insane

Post reply on HN