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

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by alterom »

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…

>During this incident

In case you missed it, it was a different incident than the one we're discussing.

>You can, and should be able to, name your WiFi hotspot anything. Even any "Free , Fuck " forall X,Y

Edgy idea, bro.

Not like a certain terrorist organization[1] with Palestine Liberation in its name[1] literally pioneered armed airplane hijackings for its cause, successfully[2] performing[3] quite[4] a few[5] of[6] them[7] back in the day.

> whatever your side is you have the right to express it.

You seem to have confused an airplane for a public square.

The captain of the plane determines the extent of your rights in-flight, taking many factors into account. Including the comfort of passengers.

You ain't got no "free speech" right to blast music on your Bluetooth speaker, and the same applies to edgy Bluetooth device names which everyone on board can see.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberati...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_(1969)

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Airways_Flight_255

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_649

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

#682

Post by watwut »

Neil44 wrote: post #667
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…

It's not a direct threat but it is a passive one, it's also swearing and a contentious statement in a confined space where everyone needs to get along for the next N hours. They know damn well what the issue is but they're going to put their hands up and claim they're just expressing an opinion and they're not hurting anyone. It's childish behavior imo.

The issue is censorship of opposition to genocide. True unambigous political censorship

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

#683

Post by stef25 »

gpt5 wrote: post #678
stef25 wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> a plane half full of Hasidic Jews (the ones refusing to board because they're still praying and knocking their head against the wall, and refuse to sit next to women). I don't know why you've decided to explain what is a Hasidic jew in that way (or at all). However I hope you can at least understand in retrospect why describing a religious group as people who all follow some negative behavior is promoting hate towa…

I have no hate against any kind of jew, muslim or soccer team.

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

#684

Post by DanielHB »

MBCook wrote: post #324
DanielHB wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdote: I worked with software for battery EV power-train diagnostics, one of our devs decided to add emojis to success and error messages. He added a fire emoji to one success message. When testers saw it they were afraid that the customer would think it was a thermal runway problem. Had to do a last-minute revision of the software before shipping the new version. I was already pretty anti-emoji / personal touch /…

Whether you think emojis are ok or not, there are times and places. That’s not a time and place.

I know, I was against it when he added it, triggered a 5min discussion and I was "whatever, sure"...

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

#685

Post by goodcanadian »

caconym_ wrote: post #552
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…

If they were really worried, they probably would have diverted, yes. But ditching in the north Atlantic is something no pilot is going to do unless they are 100% sure there is a bomb that's going to go off, because people are probably going to die either way.

They are still never going to ditch as long as the plane can fly

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

#686

Post by GJim »

jim33442 wrote: post #313
diab0lic wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree from a logical perspective. However if the plane blew up and it came out that some passengers had posted online that there was a “bomb” blue tooth device and they didn’t turn around… the court of public opinion would be pretty harsh. This was more or less their only choice from a liability perspective.

The article mentions that terrorists have used fake bomb threats to achieve some other goal, which makes sense

> terrorists have used fake bomb threats to achieve some other goal

That 'other goal' being to cause disruption. Which this did.

Now we all know how to disrupt a flight anonymously. Grudge against ? Fill your boots!

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

#687

Post by Neil44 »

watwut wrote: post #682
Neil44 wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a direct threat but it is a passive one, it's also swearing and a contentious statement in a confined space where everyone needs to get along for the next N hours. They know damn well what the issue is but they're going to put their hands up and claim they're just expressing an opinion and they're not hurting anyone. It's childish behavior imo.

The issue is censorship of opposition to genocide. True unambigous political censorship

There are numerous spaces and opportunities for you to express your opinions. In fact almost anywhere else (in the US anyway)

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

#688

Post by dguest »

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.

Imagine the headlines though! (says your will boss, or bosses boss)

It's still stupid, but they are imagining the news:

> This guy said "it's probably fine" right before Flight 1337 explodes over the Atlantic.

Now personally I'd actually be willing to take that risk: the odds are so overwhelmingly in favor of it being a dumb prank; you might as well refuse to take a shower for fear of slipping on the soap.

But all it takes is one person up the chain of command to say "this would be bad PR" and you've lost your job.

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

#689

Post by close04 »

steve1977 wrote: post #536
_moof wrote: post #514

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. 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…

You are actually giving away liberties when boarding a plane and I'm pretty sure this is even written somewhere in the contract between you and the airline that you agreed on.

No contract is allowed to take away what the law gives you. Either the law says "except on a plane/ship/etc." (which is plausible) or the contract is invalid.

Can you imagine how it would be if every contract you sign had a "I own you now, no backsies"?

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

#690

Post by lmm »

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.

> One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans

No it isn't. You can read that implication into it, but it's not "actively hostile" in the way that an "F... X" statement is, for any X, and it's a sign of how slanted the discourse is that you would consider them equivalent.

Post reply on HN