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

921–930 of 1001 posts

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

#921

Post by petre »

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?

You're probably right, they would have probably named it somewhat more entertaining, like "Allahu ackbar". "Bomb" is quite boring. Sounds like an enegy drink brand. Which would be be a unfortunate idea to serve on a plane. Anyway, airlines are quite mundane and like to make a security theatre out of one's luggage, which is mosty underwear, not even something more remotely entertainling off board, like nitricellulose. Not to mention bottled water, uh dangerous liquids, clearely nuclear grade.

My wife would have probably freaked out if she saw a wifi network named "bomb" on the plane. So as an airline security officer I'd totally ban this kind of behaviour.

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

#922

Post by malfist »

crjohns648 wrote: post #772
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 don't think a threatening name would be unheard of in a hijacking scenario. Someone calls saying they have a bomb on board, and as evidence there is a Bluetooth device called "bomb," showing they have an accomplice on board. They then make demands. This scenario doesn't seem unreasonable in light of pre-9/11 hijacking attempts. Yes, this was a huge reaction to something that was almost certainly benign, but "almost…

Why would they choose bomb? They could just pick any bluetooth name. That means any bluetooth name is as threatening (or non-threatening) as another.

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

#923

Post by megous »

sbayg wrote: post #849
rashinol wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Hard for to assess that stat given the polling organization has this on their Wikipedia page. “On 29 August 2024 the Israel Defense Forces released Hamas documents[6] that it said showed that, unbeknownst to the PCPSR, Hamas had secretly falsified its levels of public support in polls conducted by the PCPSR.[7] Rejecting the IDF claims, Shikaki said it was 'highly unlikely' that Hamas had falsified its results, but v…

Israel gov./IDF/etc. is known to falsify Hamas documents, force false confessions from UN workers using brutal violence and to regularly lie to justify its actions or shape public opinion. Anything they say about the other side means very little without actual independent investigation/corroboration or direct observable evidence. Independent journalists are allowed to go to Israel, so there's no need to lower the standards.

Results of the promissed probe: https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/991

Not independent probe, but more information.

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

#924

Post by gspr »

petre wrote: post #879
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…

Yes, I guess he could havr tuned off his BT when asked repeatedly to do so, instead of wasting oassenger time and airline fuel.

… if he even remembered that it was his device in the first place! I don't remember what names my phone or my seldomly used "park speaker" report.

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

#925

Post by jim33442 »

jeroenhd wrote: post #671
jim33442 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rename is a fairly common feature on Bluetooth speakers and headphones, for example my Bose NC-700.

I own zero Bluetooth audio devices with rename functionality. I don't think it's common at all. Especially in the "cheap, obnoxious Bluetooth speaker" category. My phone will show me a different name for a "renamed on phone" Bluetooth device, but all other devices in the area won't.

The cheapo ones probably won't have it. Any brand name will have its own app that will have a rename feature like half the time. Not particularly expensive brands either.

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

#926

Post by netsharc »

eudamoniac wrote: post #845
netsharc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that scenario work? Someone's under duress because presumably there's a terrorist on board. He lets the crew know there's a bomb onboard. The plane turns around, and the terrorist... lets the plane land safely? OK maybe the bomb blows up when it crosses some longitude, because this is like the movie Speed, and turning around means the plane never cross that longitude.. If you mean another type of duress, nam…

How does your scenario work? Someone anonymously shouts BOMB ONBOARD and the plane just continues to its destination? "I guess they can blow us up whenever, so might as well keep going..."

Wow, ok, because someone anonymously shouting (how the hell does that work?) is the same as a Bluetooth device broadcasting its name, which happens to be "Bomb"...

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

#927

Post by zdp7 »

srean wrote: post #518
godelski wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now take your scenarios and weight them by their probabilities - 0.001% - 99.998% - 0.001% If you think I'm exaggerating here, you're right, but in the conservative direction. There are 44k flights in the US PER DAY. There have been 8 bombings, * since 9/11* [0]. 4 of those involved US craft (not all passenger craft either), and * 0* of them succeeded. My numbers are an over-estimate if you take all 8 and count it ag…

What would have been your estimated odds, of a plane hitting twin towers out of malice, a day before 9/11 happened. I agree with your comments more often than not, I empathize with your annoyance, but if you play out the game theoretic consequences there are no non-annoying outcomes. I don't like it but that's how it is. Low probability events with outsized consequences are very difficult to reason through. One poten…

If you were the FBI, much higher than you are assuming. Read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot . The FBI had the plans for the foiled first attempt for 9/11.

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

#928

Post by close04 »

7952 wrote: post #777
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"?

That sounds like a technicality. You can absolute agree to not do something that would otherwise be lawful. You still have the same rights, but you have other restrictions on you. The two can exist concurrently.

Everything is a technicality if you squint hard enough.

I see you’re confused about the concepts. You’re mixing “things that are legal (sometimes)” (smoking, but not on the plane) and “rights that you have all the time” (freedom of speech, even on a plane). Your employer can’t take your kidney because your contract says you must give one if you’re late to work even if giving away a kidney is legal. But you can still agree to give it if you want to.

If you have the same rights given by law then you can’t have any restrictions on those rights that aren’t in the law. Your rights have the same restrictions they always had and a contract can’t add a couple more. So you have your freedom of speech that a contract can’t take away, the law already defines the restrictions. But a restriction to smoke in the bathroom, which was never your right to begin with, is fine because the law never gave you the right to smoke in a plane bathroom.

You have your rights or you don’t. Calling this a technicality is a lame cop out.

Now you could argue (but you didn’t) that “broadcasting” the word “bomb” on a plane doesn’t constitute free speech. You’re not allowed to yell this at a concert either, it depends if broadcasting (not reading the BT spec to see who initiates the communication) a BT name and shouting are equivalent. But I can’t imagine saying “free X, screw Y” is anything but free speech for anyone not on Y’s payroll. A contract can’t put a restrictions on expressing opinions without them already existing in the law. Do you think there’s a law that says “free to state your opinion except on planes”?

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

#929

Post by Scroll_Swe »

defrost wrote: post #698
Scroll_Swe wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do know that "zionists" is a code work for jews in general right? A zionist is someone who thinks Israel has a right to exist. Then I am a zionist and I am white as snow.

Not all Jews are Zionists .. so they are not equivalent words. eg: https://www.jewishcouncil.com.au/who-we-are

I will ask you the one question.

Should Israel exist at all according to you?

If you say no, you basically are saying "Fuck Jews" to 99% of Jews.- Linking some fringe group wont change that. :)

Either leftie or nazi, they both have the same views on Israel it is crazy.

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

#930

Post by tim-tday »

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…

People who feel strongly about those political views routinely murder, rape, kidnap and bomb.

Being on a plane does 100% change the calculus of free speech. You can’t say something that threatens the life and safety of the people trapped on there with you. This is literally one of the canonical acceptable limits to free speech. It is typically presented as “shouting fire in a crowded theater”

Post reply on HN