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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by hinata08 »

blablabla123 wrote: post #677
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…

I used to work with a small Aviation-related software company. There it was really not like this, the boss made jokes about it. On the other hand engineering-wise things were done really differently: no branches, fail fast, only e2e tests etc. Probably the rift between small companies and corporate culture also applies here.

The French ministry of foreign affairs (state department) have been giving advice to traveller for decades

There was a time when their advice for travels to the US of A was to not tell TSA or law enforcement that you had a bomb in your bag, as it wasn't funny anymore and they would not take it as a joke

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

#793

Post by doginasuit »

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.

I thought it was strange the airline didn't disclose the actual word, how could that be sensitive? Covering up what was a clear overreaction in hindsight seems to fit. Best to let people blame the teenager.

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

#794

Post by jMyles »

hypfer wrote: post #645

The meta narrative here is a shift towards more authoritarian ideas gaining further foothold/dominance. As can be seen in the naming treatment + the comments on that article + comments here. But also can be seen in various other places. In fact, it has already happened to a degree where we see these lagging(!) indicators pop up. So wherever we currently stand is further than those. To which degree though I couldn't s…

It's beyond obvious at this point that we exist alongside a massive bot brigade (or many midsize bot farms) ready to chime in with senseless, cookie-cooker support for short-shrift authoritarian ideology.

It's palpable in the comment sections of many corporate news outlets, as well as on reddit.

Unless there's evidence that this pattern of comments is from real biological humans, I see no reason to presume that it is.

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

#795

Post by Forgeties79 »

voidpointer wrote: post #788
Xirdus wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hard to imagine at least one person didn’t see the device name and immediately brush it off as entirely unimportant. There are hundreds of BT devices everywhere that people waiting for a flight hang out. Without automatic scanning for the specific purpose of catching weird names, it'd be near impossible for the weird name to ever show up for anyone except the owner. And most devices don't advertise their BT name un…

So, how did it eventually show up? Owner's phone goes off/airplane-mode, watch starts advertising; someone else wants to connect their BT headphones and sees the name of the watch?

There are way fewer Bluetooth signals active at once on an airplane then there are in an airport. There is also the entire duration of the flight for it to be discovered. Also take in to account that most people are not fidgeting with their device settings when they are walking around an airport, they are trying to get through security and get to their gate. Once you are on a plane that’s when you usually stop and start setting up your devices, such as connecting headphones.

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

#796

Post by voidpointer »

gspr wrote: post #785
petre wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awful joke. There have to be at least some consequences for the kid, like getting banned for flying United for 10 years.

> Awful joke. There have to be at least some consequences for the kid, like getting banned for flying United for 10 years. Take a step back. You yourself describe it as a joke. Are you really saying that the quality of the joke ("awful") should result in the origin of the joke (a kid , even!) should be banned from a major air carrier for 10 years? Does this really seem like a proportional response? And this doesn't e…

> Was any of this a good idea? No, probably not, but people need to calm down.

I can understand the safety concern - and I think the decision to turn around was ultimately the right call. Especially given that they had called for people turning off BT for some time.

The fact that the device was not turned off suggests to me that the owner did not know they were the cause of this. If they had done this by intent and were set on going through with it even after the turnaround was initiated, they would have also had the sense to drop the device into some other seat or leave it in the lavatory...

If it turns out they did this with full intent, there should be some _appropriate_ consequence

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

#797

Post by 1970-01-01 »

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.

You forgot to add the cherry: they refuse to publish the "four-letter-word" as if we're stupider than they are and will never precisely figure out the puzzle. This story is equally as stupid as it is frustrating.

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

#798

Post by [deleted] »

voidpointer wrote: post #796
gspr wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Awful joke. There have to be at least some consequences for the kid, like getting banned for flying United for 10 years. Take a step back. You yourself describe it as a joke. Are you really saying that the quality of the joke ("awful") should result in the origin of the joke (a kid , even!) should be banned from a major air carrier for 10 years? Does this really seem like a proportional response? And this doesn't e…

> Was any of this a good idea? No, probably not, but people need to calm down. I can understand the safety concern - and I think the decision to turn around was ultimately the right call. Especially given that they had called for people turning off BT for some time. The fact that the device was not turned off suggests to me that the owner did not know they were the cause of this. If they had done this by intent and w…

[deleted]

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

#799

Post by lazide »

Barbing wrote: post #537
_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…

I think if the captain doesn’t like you, what they say goes & it’s a federal matter. I think the reason for the captain not liking you is secondary and could get him fired but it’s still: mess around in federal airspace, deal with the feds. Follow all instructions of all flight crew or you’re a criminal, regardless (I think). Not actually the FBI though is it? Captain probably wanted to sound serious (mission accompl…

Doesn’t even necessarily have to be the captain - refusing to follow instructions/direction of any member of the flight crew is a serious problem.

And yeah, if it was ridiculous or violated some other law or something they’d eventually have to deal with the consequences of that, but while in the air, what they say goes.

Post reply on HN