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

711–720 of 1001 posts

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

#711

Post by 47282847 »

mx7zysuj4xew wrote: post #650
mlyle wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's a design flaw in AirDrop, not an "incident"

A design flaw it only becomes due to people’s violent acts. If the goal is safety, we should spend more time helping people process their shit and less on raising shields. They only make people more angry. Everybody draws the line differently, but pushing your data on somebody else’s device without their consent is an intrusion, and as such I consider it to be an act of violence. We need to grow up and understand how to break cycles of violence, not push it further towards mutual destruction.

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

#712

Post by beng-nl »

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.

I get your point, but I think that such high risk situations simply are not compatible with common sense, case by case decision making. As a consequence we need some extremely risk averse rules that everyone always follows, no matter how insanely risk averse they sometimes are and everyone in the situation probably knows it and agrees it’s insane.

Because the alternative is a nebulous fog of war where safety decisions are mood, situation, experience, and personality influenced when they shouldn’t be. And when accidents happen we only have difficult to interpret decisions to trace back to. The decisions have to be brainless and black and white.

Could the black and white rules be better? Maybe yes. Then let’s change them carefully.

But I do believe the rules should be black and white, and I personally in this light truly don’t mind I can’t name my Bluetooth device bomb, and I can’t say bomb or joke about having a bomb, no matter how obvious it is that I don’t have one, if that’s the current black and white rules.

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

#713

Post by steve1977 »

no-name-here wrote: post #661
steve1977 wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? That is up to the captain to decide.

But as the GP comment asked: 1. In what way is it a risk to the plane? Or is the idea that we should not attempt to evaluate whether pilot's decisions are objective and reasonable? Is there some objective rule being used? (Or if an objective rule can't be stated, is it more like the pilot's feelings or mood about the passenger(s) at any particular moment?) 2. But if someone believes it's reasonable for pilots to turn…

> wouldn't the better solution for airlines to just proactively ban clothing, stickers, etc. with countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans

https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html

Rule 21 Refusal of Transport

Part H: Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:

5. Passengers who are barefoot, not properly clothed, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene or offensive;

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

#714

Post by realo »

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…

Ban clothing altogether.

Nudist flights for the easily terrorized.

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

#715

Post by imetatroll »

alterom wrote: post #681
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…

>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…

The person you are replying to is all over this thread to such an extent that I think they should take their abundance of energy and apply it to becoming a commercial pilot so that they can ignore anything that aligns with their personal preferences.

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

#717

Post by voidpointer »

According to the article, it was a Fitbit device belonging to a teenager... Chances are, the kid selected that nickname for the device a long while ago and forgot about it, and was probably unaware that the device was using Bluetooth at all, and that they should turn off their fitness tracker when the announcement came through...

At the same time, some people in the comments under the article are more or less calling for the death penalty for the kid...

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

#718

Post by steve1977 »

close04 wrote: post #689
steve1977 wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

That's not what I said though. I just said you're giving away liberties.

For example, at home, I'm free to walk around nude and scream.

On a plane, I'm not.

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

#720

Post by throw368498 »

defrost wrote: post #708
throw368498 wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on who’s saying it. Often times it’s obvious from the context that “Zionist” is just being used as a loophole, and pretending that the difference is then still important is disingenuous.

What's your position here? Are Jew and Zionist equivalent words in your opinion?

Someone writing “F Zionists” very likely does not make a distinction between Zionists and Jews.

The Jewish Council of Australia is not going to name their hotspot “F Zionists”. Ultra Orthodox Jews are not going to use swear words to express their view.

I’ll go as far as say that anyone who genuinely wants Jews and Arabs to live in peace side by side is not going to go about it with antagonistic one-sided rhetoric.

Post reply on HN