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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by throw297536 »

godelski wrote: post #946
tardedmeme wrote: post #897

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Antisemites use the terms “Zionists” as a dog whistle for Jews. I can show you threads on HN where it’s obvious from the context or where they’re used interchangeably.

This isn’t a new idea either. The Polish ethnically cleansed much of their last remaining Jews in 1968 with a campaign against “Zionism”.

https://www.polin.pl/en/march-68

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

#972

Post by alterom »

sdthjbvuiiijbb wrote: post #734
alterom wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>During this incident In case you missed it, it was a different incident than the one we're discussing. >You can, and should be able to, name your WiFi hotspot anything. Even any "Free , Fuck " forall X,Y Edgy idea, bro. Not like a certain terrorist organization[1] with Palestine Liberation in its name[1] literally pioneered armed airplane hijackings for its cause, successfully[2] performing[3] quite[4] a few[5] of[6…

>Not like a certain terrorist organization[1] with Palestine Liberation in its name[1] literally pioneered armed airplane hijackings for its cause, successfully[2] performing[3] quite[4] a few[5] of[6] them[7] back in the day. And? What's your point? You're implying that a pro-Palestine WiFi network name could even slightly plausibly be interpreted as a threat to hijack an airplane? You can't be serious. Also, the wh…

>And? What's your point? You're implying that a pro-Palestine WiFi network name could even slightly plausibly be interpreted as a threat to hijack an airplane?

If you actually read what it says, don't miss the "fuck Zionists" part of it, and know the history — it is something that can, at the very least, make some passengers extremely uncomfortable.

>I find your insinuation that expressing support for Palestine means you want to hijack an airplane to be wildly racist.

I find that you have no understanding of the words that you're using.

For example, a "Zionist" is any person who wants the existing state of Israel to continue existing — in any form — as a Jewish state, in exactly the same way that Ireland is existing as an Irish state.

This includes people who advocate for a two-state solution for Palestine, and, arguably, consider themselves to be pro-Palestinian.

Calling for a two-state solution is one way to express support for Palestine.

Saying "fuck Zionists" is another.

At the very least, it's an expression of hostility rather than support.

History towards a large group of people (nearly all Israelis, including 2M Israeli Arabs, pro-Palestinian supporters in favor of 2 state solution, and at least 9 out of 10 Jews worldwide), some of whom are likely to be on any large flight.

Now, an airplane is a place you share with a lot of people who can't get away from you during the flight, subject to basic rules of politeness, and you doing what the captain tells you to do.

You don't get to play your favorite music out loud on your Bluetooth speaker, even though that's your first amendment right.

The same applies to edgy Wi-Fi / Bluetooth names, which are visible to everyone on board.

It's up to the crew to decide what is, and what isn't OK to for you to do to protect the peace of other passengers for whom they are responsible. Everybody staying calm and attentive to the crew is a safety concern.

And it's your legal obligation to do what they say, which the person in question didn't do.

Disobeying captain's command is absolutely something that merits talking to the FBI.

On a ship and on a plane, the captain is the law.

Which part of this do you need help understanding?

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

#973

Post by The_President »

pjc50 wrote: post #838
Andrex wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There is something deeply stupid about assuming that naming your bluetooth device "bomb" is a real threat, let alone that it's going to be a real bomb. Reminds me of all those post Columbine "zero tolerance" policies where kids were punished for marginal doodles of guns. Or the "twitter joke trial". It's as is people are string matching for threat shaped words, not the semantics of a threat. Mind you, this gets harde…

I had them tell me I couldn't bring an M&M novelty childs toy bat on the plane, complete in its original packaging that said "ages 3+."

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

#974

Post by The_President »

gspr wrote: post #787
Andrex wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Throw the book at him, he should have known better. What book!? The book of laws that outlaw jokes in bad taste potentially made years ago, outside the context of air travel altogether, only to be forgotten about and accidentally brought into the context of air travel where one can conceivably think of laws that make those jokes problematic? Come on!

Can't make "Gate C4" jokes anymore.

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

#975

Post by HNisCIS »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #215
HNisCIS wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> it's fine to name all your variables slurs then? Hyperbole. Renaming “master” directories was a total circlejerk endeavor by the same crowd that came up with Latinx.

The issue wasn't really git master, that was a side effect. Google what MISO means and maybe go learn some actual kernel development.

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

#976

Post by School-Cotton »

close04 wrote: post #928
7952 wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are absolutely 100% wrong about this. It is entirely possible in the US to enter into contracts that limit your rights, including freedom of speech. People do this routinely, and it is enforceable.

The reason you can't give away your kidney in an employment contract is because there is a specific law banning that: the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, which bans transferring a human organ in exchange for valuable consideration.

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

#977

Post by alt_422568 »

pc86 wrote: post #843
atoav wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is if the captain doesn't like you because you're Zionist they can remove you?

Yes. The captain has the authority, by law, to remove anyone (or everyone) for any reason. There is basically nothing the captain is legally barred from doing while the plane is en route.

> There is basically nothing the captain is legally barred from doing while the plane is en route.

This is pretty wide of the mark. They have a lot of authority, yes, as it's the flipside of the flight's safety being their responsibility. They still aren't allowed to assault a passenger, say, or commit tax fraud, or needlessly break the air laws.

Also, while the plane is en route? As in, the captain throwing someone out of the plane mid-flight?

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

#978

Post by teiferer »

joxdosba wrote: post #959
teiferer wrote: post #957

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The PIC might not like a shirt you’re wearing, he can’t make you take it off. That's likely a false statement, even if unintentionally so. If the t-shirts print is offensive enough then I'm sure a strong enough argument can be made. After all, how are a "bomb" bluetooth name or a "free palestine" wifi ssid much different from a t-shirt with similar contents? Try wearing a t-shirt with "I'm carrying a bomb and will…

Well duh, obviously the PIC can order you to undress if you’re wearing a shirt made out of flaming batteries. > If the t-shirts print is offensive enough then I'm sure a strong enough argument can be made I’m pretty sure I’ve explained this: if it is necessary for the safe operation of the flight, then yes. The PIC does not get to do this because he personally finds your shirt offensive.

You make it sound like it's a black-or-white situation, but it surely is not. What consitutes a danger to the safe operation of a flight is quite broadly up for interpretation. The word "bomb"? A strongly worded hateful message? Lots of things can e argued to compromise safety, by claiming they cause fear in other passengers, by indicating aggressive attitudes of the wearer, but claiming mental instability. I'm not saying that any of this is good. See the BT or wifi examples. But not liking it doesn't change reality.

And that you as a pilot would personally not do that in many situations may be commendable, but doesn't mean others won't nor that they don't have the authority to do so since in the end of the day it would be hard to counter in court.

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

#979

Post by thomastjeffery »

simulator5g wrote: post #419
thomastjeffery wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that there isn't a simple canonical way to disambiguate, despite that being the obvious and superior solution. Taboo is a shitty communication feature. Taboo demands active silence in a system with too much entropy for that to be feasible. It would be far superior to train everyone to say "good crash" (and respond appropriately) instead. Words only have meaning in context. The whole point of instating…

That would not solve the problem. On a radio, you could have a moment of interference and only receive 'crash' when someone broadcasts 'good crash'. It is better to avoid certain words entirely. There is also no reason to use those specific words when you could describe, e.g. a software crash as a software problem, error, issue, etc.

If the communication medium is made ambiguous by high entropy, then the language needs to reduce that entropy somehow. The entropy we are taking about is temporal, like packet loss. The solution is for the speaker to be redundant and for the listener to be uncertain.

What you are advocating is silence, which implies confidence in the communication stream, which is the opposite of what we want.

We already knew that silence is hard to distinguish from signal noise, which is why we say copy instead.

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

#980

Post by anigbrowl »

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

It certainly does. My original comment was a suggestion that you don't lean on your rights when boarding a plane and wanting to broadcast your personality (not your politics specifically), because it's not your space and treating others as your captive audience is inconsiderate.

You've posted 16 times in this subthread and seem unable to accept any other point of view than complete agreement.

Post reply on HN