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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by tga_d »

inoffensivename wrote: post #893
godelski wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't stop a private company Read the story a bit more. There's the FBI and TSA being involved * which are government agencies* . There is a big difference between "getting kicked off the plane" and "getting kicked off the plane and getting arrested". > they are empowered to do pretty much anything reasonable to deal with the threat Someone naming their phone "Free Palestine, F Israel" is not a threat . Full s…

> Someone naming their phone "Free Palestine, F Israel" is not a threat. Full stop. The bluetooth device's name was BOMB. We're trained to treat even vague threats seriously. The captain in this case is in a terrible situation. Do nothing, get pilloried for not taking action. Turn around, get pilloried for that. I hope I'm never in this position because there are really no good options. All of you making comments hav…

These are two separate incidents, please read the article. While the latest one is certainly arguable and I suspect most people would understand why someone would want to take it seriously (even if they themself would not), the earlier "Free Palestine" one seems absurd to label a threat, and I would be very curious how someone would justify it as such.

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

#902

Post by raddichio »

root-parent wrote: post #72
fortran77 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Biased much? You could have used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking That says: "Airplane hijackings have occurred since the early days of flight. ...Pre-1929, 1929–1957, 1958–1979, 1980–2000, and 2001–present." "...Between 1958 and 1967, there were approximately 40 hijackings worldwide..According to the FAA, in the 1960s, there were 100 attempts of hijackings involving U.S. aircraft: 77 successful and…

Classic quibbling over the intended meaning of a comment and its most literal interpretation. Treating it as the commenters 'conclusion' is disingenuous, it is a statement based on the most commonly publicized events. Why would anyone look up a history of all airplane hijackings when it is well known and publicized and in some corners celebrated that the PLO/PFLP performed these actions against civilian aircraft? You only need to know they did it once to know the chance is nom-zero that these partisans present a security risk to civilian aircraft. The appeal to the data is hand-wringing.

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

#903

Post by zdp7 »

School-Cotton wrote: post #874
close04 wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

> No contract is allowed to take away what the law gives you. That's incorrect. In fact this is exactly what all contracts do.

Pretty sure you are mistaken. Look up public policy violations. Typically you can't negotiate away rights

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

#904

Post by pc86 »

godelski wrote: post #875
pc86 wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI." Yes, but on an aircraft the captain is the dictator. They can do basically whatever they want within the confines of law and company policy - and honestly with enough seniority, which the captain on a transatlantic flight has a lot of - they can probably ignore company policy once or twice and get away with it and keep their job. As far as I…

> blasting their opinions It is a fucking device name. That is so easy to ignore and not be affected by. Anyone being pissed off and willing to start a fight over a device name should be committed. Put that person in jail, not the person with the tacky device name. Otherwise you are just creating a world where you police the behavior of reasonable people because they might upset unreasonable people. Police the behavi…

Do you see how what you said is irrelevant whether it's the right way to think about it or not? The captain saw it, or had it brought to his attention, and decided to get rid of it. End of story. It doesn't matter whether or not it's easy to ignore, or whether anyone was truly affected by it, or anything else.

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

#905

Post by maerF0x0 »

chrisss395 wrote: post #848

Here is the reddit thread where passengers were live replying. I don't seem confirmation of what the Bluetooth device name was. There is one comment in there claiming the following: "Wife is on the plane. Guy had a speaker named bomb. He just confessed to it. He said he named it forever ago and forgot about it. He’s 16 years old. Wife’s friend is sitting next to him as they are questioning him." https://www.reddit.co…

If he confessed and indicated it was forever ago, they didnt need to waste all that fuel and time. It was clearly a mistake and just like other controls the owner was on the plane keeping him accountable (this is something they do for luggage, they'll remove luggage if the owner is not on the plane) .

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

#906

Post by mrguyorama »

godelski wrote: post #883
barbazoo wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more you have to actively seek it out to even see it. These people are looking for ways to get triggered.

It really seems like people in the threads are doing the exact same thing. The only argument they are making is that you shouldn't be allowed to make you're device's name because... it might make unstable and irrational people upset. Why the fuck are we protecting unstable and irrational people? Punish them? What is so difficult about this? Seriously

Or hell, help them, get them the therapy they need, or counseling they require to understand that they have to live and let live most of the time.

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

#907

Post by mrguyorama »

thrownthatway wrote: post #741
basilikum wrote: post #736

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. If you are in any way harassing people by shouting through the plane for example, I agree. But the SSID of a WiFi network isn't that. No one is forced to continually read the list of available hotspots…

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#908

Post by gpvos »

chimeracoder wrote: post #74
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Free Palestine” isn’t exactly fringe. In fact, outside America and Israel, I’d bet it’s the default stance

> “Free Palestine” isn’t exactly fringe. In fact, outside America and Israel, I’d bet it’s the default stance That's certainly not true in many European countries

I'm pretty sure it is. Maybe a little less so in Germany, but even there.

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

#909

Post by chatmasta »

tuumi wrote: post #824
chatmasta wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen multiple comments referencing this was the default device name… did I miss something in the article or is that sourced from elsewhere?

I'm so confused. We're all commenting on an article that explicitly says it was verified by multiple sources to be a Fitbit. The kid named his Fitbit Bomb. Why are so many people saying it was a speaker? Did they change the article?

It didn’t mention anything about Fitbit when I read it yesterday. Looks like it was updated:

> This article was updated on Monday, June 1, 2026, to include an official statement from United Airlines and additional context on the incident. It was originally published on Sunday, May 31, 2026.

> …

> It has now been reported by various outlets, including the New York Post [0], that the device responsible for the threatening Bluetooth name was a Fitbit. This is a wearable smartwatch and fitness tracker that comes with Bluetooth capability to sync with other devices, such as phones or computers. The 16-year-old owner and the device were not deemed a threat by authorities.

[0] https://nypost.com/2026/05/31/us-news/united-airlines-flight...

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

#910

Post by chatmasta »

Note the article has been updated today (June 1) with a statement from United and reporting from the New York Post which clarified the device in question was a FitBit.

> This article was updated on Monday, June 1, 2026, to include an official statement from United Airlines and additional context on the incident. It was originally published on Sunday, May 31, 2026.

> …

> It has now been reported by various outlets, including the New York Post [0], that the device responsible for the threatening Bluetooth name was a Fitbit. This is a wearable smartwatch and fitness tracker that comes with Bluetooth capability to sync with other devices, such as phones or computers. The 16-year-old owner and the device were not deemed a threat by authorities.

[0] https://nypost.com/2026/05/31/us-news/united-airlines-flight...

Post reply on HN