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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by godelski »

pc86 wrote: post #904
godelski wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, I do not see that. The captain is not a dictator on the plane. They can act according to reasonable and credible threats but their power is not infinite. They do not have the power to kick everyone off of the plane that's, say, wearing a yellow shirt.

If a fight breaks out then arrest the person that started a fight. But if your argument is "we can't let X happen because it might start a fight" then maybe consider stop serving alcohol before you get all uppity on some tacky device name

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

#942

Post by godelski »

close04 wrote: post #696
steve1977 wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that if I'm responsible for the safety of a very heterogenous group of people in the cabin of my airplane, I will assume that those people are already stressed and will probably act even less rational than they normally would. And that's all that matters in that moment. > If they're that crazy you put them in a hospital because clearly they need help Oh believe me, I would if I could...

> I will assume that those people are already stressed and will probably act even less rational than they normally would They turned what most passengers considered at most tasteless into a real threat worthy of returning to base. How can this possibly help with the stress? If this was to reduce stress, it was disproportionate and backfired in a major way. Why are airlines adding to every part of that stress but draw…

  > Why are airlines adding to every part of that stress but drawing the line at a device's BT name?
Serving alcohol: no problem!

Tacky device name: oh no! Someone might be offended and start a fight! We can't let that happen!!!!

This is so many levels of absurd and it's incredible how many people are defending crazy people. I never thought it would be contentious to claim that we should punish people for being tacky just because they might trigger people that are institutional amounts of crazy.

I mean if the real concern is that a fight might break out, well I sure know a bigger "social lubricant" than a tiny protest that most people are never ever going to see.

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

#943

Post by godelski »

mrguyorama wrote: post #906
godelski wrote: post #883

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

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

#944

Post by godelski »

MobiusHorizons wrote: post #473
virgil_disgr4ce wrote: post #460

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 Ah yes, the classic "your politics," but of course the person having this opinion's politics are perfectly fine, because they're the "normal" person with the "normal" politics, not like that crazy person who thinks some randos shouldn't be the subject of genocide. How dare they!

I believe the idea is that no one should be declaring their political beliefs loudly in such an environment regardless of how “normal” they are. I’m not sure broadcasting a WiFi endpoint meets my threshold for “loudly”, but otherwise I tend to agree.

  > I’m not sure broadcasting a WiFi endpoint meets my threshold for “loudly”
And that's why so many of us are treating this as insane. A SSID is not "loud". You can go your whole flight without ever knowing about any other passenger's device names. You have to take action to find out. That action might be the 5 seconds it takes to connect to the plane's WiFi, but serial, if you get triggered over a piece of text that's easy to ignore, you're absolutely mental.

"Loud" is in your face. "Loud" is hard to ignore. "Loud" is you'll know even if you take no action.

I agree, and I think most people do, that it's not a great idea to annoy other people, but it's magnitudes worse to start a fight over someone being incredibly low amounts of annoying. I'd long defend the lunatic who yells at the person who keeps bumping their seat than the person who yells at someone for the same of their SSID. Both are crazy, but come on, the latter isn't even defensible in the slightest. It's so easy to ignore and it's not like it's actively bothering you unless you let it

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

#945

Post by godelski »

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…

  > The bluetooth device's name was BOMB.
I repeat

  >> Read the story a bit more.
The bare minimum of participating in the comments is RTFA. We are not talking about the bomb example and it's been stated several times that we aren't. You need to rest before accusing others of not reading, least you want people to believe you're illiterate

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

#946

Post by godelski »

tardedmeme wrote: post #897
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…

"Free Palestine, F Israel" being treated as a threat is consistent with how all other Palestine/Israel speech is treated. E.g. in the UK if you said that in public you'd be considered a terrorist sympathiser (which is criminal). If you said it in Germany you'd be considered a Nazi (which is criminal). If you said it in the USA, they couldn't directly criminalise you based on speech but they'd find something else, lik…

  > If you said it in Germany you'd be considered a Nazi
Damn. If that's true then we're really labeling the wrong group of people as "Nazis". (I don't believe it's actually true though)

I mean we do understand that "Israel", "Jews", and "Zionists" are 3 different things, right?

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

#947

Post by godelski »

inoffensivename wrote: post #896
emidln wrote: post #889

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an airline pilot is so bereft of fortitude that they perceive a political wifi network name as a threat, they should be disallowed command of the aircraft. They need therapy. Mental weakness like this should not be tolerated in those responsible for the safe operation of human lives.

I dunno which article you were reading, but the linked article says it was a bluetooth device named BOMB. Our training is to treat even vague threats seriously.

The same one you didn't read.

But thanks for telling everyone you didn't read the entire article. I do appreciate when people tell on themselves

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

#948

Post by godelski »

throw4788547 wrote: post #837
joxdosba wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear “free Palestine” shouted tens, or hundreds of times every day while walking outside on the street. Only time violence is involved is when drunk American or Israeli tourists get uppity, otherwise the protestors just stand there and make noise.

How would you, or the protesters you hang out with daily, feel if someone shouted “Fuck Gaza”?

I don't know about the other user, but I hear both shouted. So... the same?

Don't make this about party politics. The politics here is about if you're allowed to have a dumb SSID. IDGAF if that's "Fuck Gaza" or "Fuck Israel" or "Cheney shot a man then made him apologize" or "Obama is a Muslim".

We're talking about restricting the names of SSIDs that aren't in the category of "I'm going to blow up this plane". Seriously, this whole conversation is fucking dumb because people are acting on partisan politics and not on what's actually happening. I need a fucking beer, or 10

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

#949

Post by godelski »

bonesss wrote: post #658
godelski wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of them is the right to safe travel. I'm sorry, but you're acting crazy if you think someone naming their device "free Palestine" is a credible threat. That's absolutely bonkers

How about taking the full quote, and defining the terms in that full quote? Otherwise you’re just straw-manning based on cherry picking. Threats in airplanes, post 9/11, land different. “ Free D.C., Fuck Americans ” says something different to fellow passengers than “ Free D.C. ”. Not crazy, not bonkers. Yes, a threat. And in an airline context: they are all treated as credible… that’s why your shoes get checked, and…

  > that’s why your shoes get checked
Your shoes (used to) get checked because one person tried to hide a bomb there. And guess what, it wasn't even successful!

Seriously, your chances of getting killed in a plane based terrorist attack is approximately zero. I know 9/11 happened and other attacks, but there's a fuck ton of flights that happen every single day.

Let's put it this way, I don't fear stepping outside my door and getting mauled by a bear. I'd also call anyone that is crazy. And the odds of that happening are >10000x more likely to happen than being subject to a terrorist attack.

Your fear is irrational

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

#950

Post by godelski »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #735
da_chicken wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right of free speech is not wholly encompassed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In fact, it's the other way around, it's because the right of free speech is recognized as a universal, natural right then the US Federal Government is not permitted to make a law suppressing speech. The First Amendment does not create the right. The right is there, naturally, whether or not the United States…

The First Amendment is academic in a country where foreign visitors are expected to hand over their social media history just in case there's criticism of Glorious Leader and the Great Country He Leads. And Great Leader recently asked social media sites to provide details of critics. The ship has sailed. The plane has crashed. The party is over. There may be survivors, but right now it's too early to tell.

It's incredibly ironic that you criticize the degradation of free speech while you are actively defending that degradation. I hope the irony isn't lost on you
Post reply on HN