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

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by onemoresoop »

petre wrote: post #781
voidpointer wrote: post #717

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…

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

Let’s say it wasn’t a joke, who would name their explosive device bomb?

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

#812

Post by criddell »

onemoresoop wrote: post #811
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.

Let’s say it wasn’t a joke, who would name their explosive device bomb?

Clearly not a HNer. The name goes against RFC1178 in a couple of different ways.

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

#814

Post by voidpointer »

amiga386 wrote: post #810
voidpointer wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I can understand the safety concern - and I think the decision to turn around was ultimately the right call. I don't, and I think it fits what Bruce Schneier called "Cover Your Ass" security (he was referring to the equally stupid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_Mooninite_panic ) It sounds like a fantastic DDoS opportunity, you could shut down an entire nation's aviation just by putting a few tiny bluetoo…

In general and long-term I agree with what you are saying. I assume this was a new/unknown situation. (On the other hand, the article links to other similar stories, so maybe I am cutting them too much slack). If "electronic device names" are of concern, there should be an established protocol to deal with them. Especially if this keeps happening.

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

#815

Post by therealpygon »

Andrex wrote: post #753
voidpointer wrote: post #717

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…

[flagged]

Are you really trying to equate murder with naming a Bluetooth device and that a child should have their life ruined on the same scale as if they were equivalent in impact or intent, with little knowledge of the actual situation or intent?

Weird how you want kids to be punished for stupid mistakes. If you drive, you probably put more people lives in danger last week than that kids fitness tracker. When you speed, you put lives in danger (statistical fact, none of that “but I am good driver crap”) — will you ask for the death penalty if a cop sees you going 1mph over?

Or do you only want strong punishment for others as is usually the case with such opinions?

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

#816

Post by tuumi »

beng-nl wrote: post #712
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.

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 decision…

Pilots are explicitly trained to deal with high risk situations and to think rationally. They have a Threat and Error Management(TEM)system. Additionally, the training includes unruly passengers and bomb on board response. Once a threat is determined they squeak 7700. Inform ATC using the words "bomb on board", begin immediate descent and divert to the nearest suitable airport.

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

#817

Post by Shank »

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"

When China mentioned this to Apple, Apple agreed, and “Everyone” is not the default and also not available for more than 10 minutes now.

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

#818

Post by tuumi »

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.

It was in the article. The kid renamed his Fitbit "Bomb".

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

#819

Post by account42 »

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…

So if the pilot is informed that there is a bearded guy on the plane should he turn around as well? What if its an evil looking moustache?

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

#820

Post by tuumi »

duckduckman wrote: post #599
plastic041 wrote: post #580

I kind of get that a device named BOMB made the plane turn back. However, I don't understand this part: > flight attendant told passengers over the PA system that they "must turn off Bluetooth immediately," or else the aircraft would have to turn around. If there's a BOMB, turning off Bluetooth won't make it much safer. I mean, a turned-off bomb is probably safer than a turned-on bomb, but it's still a bomb. Pilots:…

It was not about whether to turn back or not but rather to identify whether the device is in cabin or not. If it disappears after being asked, they do not need to empty the cargo hold when searching for the device after landing. They were going to turn around regardless.

Every commercial cabin has a designated Least Risk Bomb Location (LRBL) Once a bomb is determined to be in the cabin they can move it to that location. Funny to think of them actually finding a Fitbit with that name and then moving it there. Then procedure would be to stack up luggage to absorb blast energy.
Post reply on HN