To go a step further, the reason it's often impossible to add a new vendor if that you've signed a bunch of contracts with your customers saying you're not going to send their data to other vendors in all sorts of various flavors.
Given how many studies have built-in sampling bias or other surprising assumptions, I still welcome people gut-checking it vs their experience. (Plus, the stories are interesting, right?)
> 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. I'm not trying to make a political statement and not going to say what side of this issue I'm on, but whatever your side is you have the right to express it. There's no threat in this WiFi name. You can, and should be able to, name your WiFi hotspot anything. Even any "Free <X>, Fuck <Y>" forall X,Y. Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech and there's no clear and credible threat in this statement.
We've just grown accustomed to security theater. Don't forget, this security theater has resulted in more deaths than 9/11 ever did[0,1,2]
[0] Indirectly. The friction in air travel leads to more people driving, which is objectively a more deadly form of travel. We're talking several orders of magnitude, so even a low percentage of people shifting from air travel to car means substantial numbers. That means your risk of dying or being injured in a car crash also increases because it means more people are on the road. It's not a function of how good of a driver you are, it is a function of how good of a driver they are. So you really do want more people flying
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.
> you have the right to express it
Out in public sure. In an airplane you're in someone else's private space (ie the airline's) and everyone is not only confined with you in minimal comfort, they have no way to leave. Trying to 'own' the space in this context is a dick move. If I'm a traveling passenger I don't want to be subject to your political ideas/religious sentiments/music preferences/sporting affiliation or whatever else. Besides the irritation it may or may not inflict on other passengers, it's an unnecessary burden for the flight crew, who are going to have to field any complaints about it.
In short, please stow your rights in the overhead container or in your checked baggage and respect other peoples' right to be left alone.
> 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.
That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI."
You're talking about should or shouldn't. The issue here is past that point: whether it's then right to involve people who are empowered to take away your physical liberty, and worse.
> 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'm aware there is no law preventing the captain from deciding to go back because they don't like one of the passengers blasting their opinions to the entire aircraft. What the opinion is, its levels of subjectivity or objectivity, and whether or not it's popular is completely irrelevant.
I'm well aware of the law. I was a full-time flight instructor for years, and the relevant regulation is the first one I taught when introducing students to the regs.
But I'm not talking about whether the captain has final responsibility and authority for the operation of the aircraft.
I'm talking about whether it's sane to escalate directly from something that is very much not an explicit threat of violence, to involving people whose primary tools are suspension of physical liberty and acts of violence.
(Also, please note: that rule says two things. The captain has final authority, yes, but they are also responsible for the choices they make. It's not a free pass to do anything they want for any reason.)
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 behavior of the unreasonable people.
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
> They do not have the power to kick everyone off of the plane that's, say, wearing a yellow shirt.
They would likely lose their job if they did it depending on if ALPA wanted to fight for them or not, but they absolutely, 100% have the legal authority to do this. Maybe it should change, and I'm sorry it hurts your feelings, but that's just objectively how it is.
I'm always confused as to why there's such a trend on the internet of romanticizing pilot's judgement and whatever they arbitrarily decide to do when flying a plane. Like videos of some pilot refusing to fly the plane because something feels off. And everyone in the comment praises the pilot and says that whatever maintenance said must be wrong and the pilot's instinct is some sort of all-seeing, all-encompassing entity that can see beyond the puny engineers and mechanics tasked with putting a plane in operating condition.
A design flaw it only becomes due to people’s violent acts. If the goal is safety, we should spend more time helping people process their shit and less on raising shields. They only make people more angry. Everybody draws the line differently, but pushing your data on somebody else’s device without their consent is an intrusion, and as such I consider it to be an act of violence. We need to grow up and understand how to break cycles of violence, not push it further towards mutual destruction.
Why the “vs”?! All three acts are acts of violence. We can order them by our own judgment of intensity, but they’re still all violent. And as such also expressions of pain/hurt, which will lead to further expressions until it is finally seen and addressed. We all know this, but still act like we don’t.
No - someone dropping a picture to your phone when you have the ability enabled is not violence by any definition used by people with functioning frontal cortexes. Maybe it's good to remove the "Everybody" option, maybe it's not. Maybe it's good to make it auto-disable after 10 minutes, maybe it's not. Irrelevant.
But absolutely nothing will make a photo popping onto your phone a violent act.
Violence, violations and other similar words have the same root, meaning to pursue, to suppress, to overpower. Quibbling over exactly where the boundary lines are drawn misses the larger point about unwanted incursions upon your person, whether physical or psychic.
I take it you’ve never been punched in the face before?
No matter how hard someone has been traumatized by unsolicited dick pics, I guarantee they’ll be traumatized in an entirely different way by the same amount of unsolicited punches to the face.
Speaking from experience on both fronts.
You can have more than one category for shitty criminal behavior you know.
> I don't know what the right answer is to people doing weird stuff in enclosed places with a captive audience is.
Punish the people who act.
Seriously, think about the fear here. That someone's trivial to ignore tacky political statement causes what problem? That it causes a fight to erupt? Arrest the person who actually starts the fight.
Do not police the actions of reasonable people just because they might upset unreasonable people. This is absolutely insane! You are just creating a world of Karens and crazy people by enabling them. The people that should get in trouble are the ones who start a fight.
FFS we're talking about a device's name. How often do you even see other device's names? Are you just staring at the WiFi and Bluetooth broadcasts all day? That's mental! You only see it when you switch to the plane's WiFi and then it is done. Over. You don't have to see it again. Anyone that is upset enough to start a fight over such a little thing should absolutely be arrested because they are clearly going to start a fight over some other absolutely bullshit and arbitrary thing. That's a person that is looking for a reason to be upset. That is a person looking for a reason to be angry. That is a person looking for a reason to start a fight. That is a person who is mentally insane.
Naming a device like this and bringing it onto a plane is actually what’s mental. People are tired of this reactionary content already and it needs to end. People need to remember what a CIVILIZED society is.
I think if the captain doesn’t like you, what they say goes & it’s a federal matter.
I think the reason for the captain not liking you is secondary and could get him fired but it’s still: mess around in federal airspace, deal with the feds. Follow all instructions of all flight crew or you’re a criminal, regardless (I think).
Not actually the FBI though is it? Captain probably wanted to sound serious (mission accomplished).
What an odd thing to fixate on . . . swap the pronouns around any way you prefer, and my statement remains correct. The captain is in charge of the aircraft and she is to be obeyed if you want to fly on her aircraft. She can refuse to accept any passenger for any reason. If it is a stupid reason, she may have a problem with her employer later, but nobody can overrule her in the moment.
Friendly reminder that not everyone's first language is English, and for a lot of people for whom it isn't, gender-neutral pronouns can be a pretty foreign concept and it's easy to forget about it. We just apply the natural gender that the word has in our language (such as a chair being feminine in both Portugese and French, so a lot of natives of those languages may mistakenly refer to a chair as "her" in English). I wouldn't go so far as assume the person you're replying to is sexist or whatever it is you're thinking just from the fact they referred to an imaginary captain as "he".
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?
Doesn’t even necessarily have to be the captain - refusing to follow instructions/direction of any member of the flight crew is a serious problem.
And yeah, if it was ridiculous or violated some other law or something they’d eventually have to deal with the consequences of that, but while in the air, what they say goes.
You are actually giving away liberties when boarding a plane and I'm pretty sure this is even written somewhere in the contract between you and the airline that you agreed on.
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”?
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.
On a commercial passenger plane it's frowned upon.
On planes in general, many people jump nude for their 100th skydive - the original and best video of this has been scrubbed from youtube, but a quick search shows others.
The last time I walked about nude in the main body of a commercial passenger aircraft (nominally a 30-40 seater) it was returning to Singapore from Vũng Tàu with only four people aboard, pilot and co pilot, myself and another surveyor.
Long story, short version - it doesn't always involve sex and isn't always restricted to toilets.
>>this is even written somewhere in the contract between you and the airline that you agreed on
What I wanted to say is that you'll never give up any civil liberties because of a contract alone. If the contract can take those away it's because a law never gave them to you in those circumstances in the first place, so you never had them to begin with.
I just wanted to make it clear that you cannot agree to give up something that the law gives you. If the law doesn't give you something, you have nothing to give up.
The law gives very few liberties. And the places where people think it give liberties, it is actually just banning laws from being made around liberties.
Freedom of speech is the peak of this. People think it means "I can say whatever I like wherever I like". But that's not what it is. The government cannot make laws curtailing speech (though, it does... enforcement and interpretation don't line up with the original intent). You can, however, sign an NDA which curtails your speech. A business can kick you out for saying something they don't like. An employer can fire you for saying "poodle" one too many times.
And that's what we are dealing with around airlines. They absolutely can kick you off the plane and ban you for almost any reason. For what you say, wear, or because they don't like how tall or short you are.
The law really only protects a few things. Your race, your gender, your religion. Everything else is fair game for a private institution to discriminate against. They can kick you off a plane because you are a journalist. They can kick you off because you won't quarter soldiers. They can kick you off because you don't submit to a search of all your property.
> The law gives very few liberties.
> Freedom of speech is the peak of this.
Freedom of speech isn't something the law gives you. It is something you innately have.
Don't confuse positive and negative rights[0]. Freedom of speech is something that can only be taken away. It is never something that can be given to you.
That is nonsense. "Freedoms" and "rights" are inherently social constructs. What does it even mean to say you "innately have" freedom of speech? That is a borderline religious claim, like saying you innately have a soul.
Of course. For example, the law guarantees that I don't have to perform labor for someone else if I don't want to. An employment contract obligates me to.
Similarly, it's entirely possible to enter into a contract limiting your freedom of speech.
The entire point of a contract is to promise to do, or not to do, something that you could have freely chosen to do or not to do under the law without any contract.
Right, those other people (well, their devices) are asking you (well, your device) what your (device's) name is. You're not telling them until they ask. They need to leave you alone!
Not only do the people have no way to leave, the owner of the place also has no practical way to make people leave, like they would for example in a restaurant. At least once the plane is in the air.
And the captain has to ensure the safety not only of the flying machine but also of the cabin. So I can absolutely understand the move here and the need to forbid everything that could incite violence in the cabin.
Anyone willing to start a fight over a tacky WiFi name should be committed. Seriously, what an insane thing to do. It's such an easy thing to not be bothered by. It sits in the background, invisible, and you're... just letting it live rent free in your head? There's so many more annoying things to flying than someone's dumb personal hotspot name.
Can we just recognize how crazy of a scenario this is?
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
I think the point here is the captain is responsible for an isolated pocket of humanity in a cabin. That captain is to take that cabin way up in the air, move it a lot, and get it back down safely.
And not all of the risks are about moving the cabin. Many of the risks are within the cabin and while some dickhead getting uppity at the pub will get collared by the police, it is a totally different problem while in the air.
So, while in the cabin, don't try to fuck around and find out. No one wants to find out anything. They just want to get to the other end of the trip.
We fundamentally agree about who is in the right and the wrong.
The issue is timing and consequences. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Consider:
Person makes loud free speech statement - which though perfectly legal - is contentious. Person B gets upset and uses their freedom of speech to shout back.
At the pub:
Everyone else is uncomfortable and just want to get on with their day.
But they can leave. Usually they at least make space.
The pub can ask the talkers to leave - either one or both, as it is their private property. And if violence occurs Bouncer/Police drag away the violent person without much likelihood of harm to others.
On the plane:
Everyone else is uncomfortable and just want to get on with their day. But they cannot leave! They cannot make space! There may be elderly next to kids of varying ages. There is no bouncer, police is even worse for business and affects everyone on the plane just wanting to get to their destination. Tight constraints mean physical violence is likely to hurt someone unrelated to the conflict.
And so Captains clamp down on contentious statements ASAP to make sure it doesn't escalate that far. You are allowed to make contentious statements, and they are allowed to ask you to leave, because the plane is not public property.
Nobody wants to fly next to the loud nervous talker. Or the crying baby. But people understand these actions are not by choice and so there is tolerance.
Contentious/provocative statements though? That's a choice. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
It is better for everyone involved if the desire to spout views is simply delayed until the flight is over.
I honestly wish you perfect freedom to do whatever, whenever, wherever along with perfect lack of consequences of your actions for the rest of the universe....
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Sure, but if you punch someone in the face for a political statement then you go to jail for assault. Full stop.
Your scenarios are nowhere near the one we're talking about. It's a WiFi device name. Do you know the SSIDs of your neighbors? When's the last time you checked?
It's not the equivalent of someone shouting or even talking loudly. You have to actively do things to see that device name. It is, without action on your part, invisible.
The scenario is closer to walking up to someone, asking what their shirt says, and then getting mad. This isn't someone getting in your face. You won't even know who owns the device!
You can simply connect to the plane's WiFi and then continue ignoring the names of all the other devices on the plane. You don't even have to connect to the plane's WiFi!
You're being absurd. Come on. It is so fucking easy to go about your life without ever knowing the device name of any person sitting on your plane. It's also incredibly easy to just let it go and move on with your life. Why are you letting such a dumb thing consume your mind and make you so angry? Why are you trying so hard to defend people who are actively looking to fight?
Define crazy. Because you sound crazy to me. The point of view depends on where you sit. Some other people maybe want to put you in prison, for your „craziness“. Care for what you wish.
> 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 drawing the line at a device's BT name?
Everything about flying is getting worse. The process of buying the tickets full of shady practices and dark patters, the check-in, the boarding process, the cabin luggage getting smaller for the same type of ticket, the ever more cramped seats, the removal of the old amenities like free food or snacks. They are all getting more terrible and adding stress. From what I can tell from my own ticket purchases with the same airlines in the past, the prices kept up with inflation over the past decades but the services have fallen far behind.
> 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.
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 <Something Politically Tacky> 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.
Do people get kicked out for offensive t-shirts and tattoos? How about bad cologne, good cologne, bad BO, or just for being so ugly that it's offensive?
Actually this did happen recently. And it didn't go over so well either... for the airlines.
It's something that never should have happened in the first place. (I'm agreeing with you, but stupid shit does happen and we should stop enabling people to act so dumb)
Will the captain likewise call the FBI if some knuckledragging mouth breather with three ex-wives and a flag tattoo on his groin has an access point called 'Make Murucuh Great Again'?
That would make me uncomfortable on the flight, and it's also one-hundred percent a political statement. One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans, and many more people outside of it.
1. Does the pilot need anything but his personal biases to claim that poses a risk to the plane?
2. Because any rational person understands that we need to coexist in a society with a spectrum of political opinion, and that a fucking access point name doesn't cross the boundary between safe and dangerous to society.
3. Because doing it for one and not the other is obviously biased and arbitrary and demonstrates that it's not an actual danger to the plane, it's just some asshole with a bad day choosing to exercise his authority over someone whose politics he dislikes. To severe consequences to both that person and everyone else on board the plane. That's not a society you want to strive for.
I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? Or in what way is it a risk to the plane? If passenger(s) are wearing a super pro or anti Biden or Trump shirt or Bluetooth/SSID name, is that a risk to the plane, as what if there are other people on the plane who feel strongly in the other direction? But if someone really is OK with pilots turning around flights because of such shirts, etc., then wouldn't the better solution for airlines be to ban clothing, stickers, military uniforms, etc., that have countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans, etc. on them? As if someone believes that turning around planes over it is reasonable, better to address that 'problem' even before taking off and costing large amounts of money and time for hundreds of others, instead of based on the whim(?) of a pilot hours into a flight.
1. In what way is it a risk to the plane? Or is the idea that we should not attempt to evaluate whether pilot's decisions are objective and reasonable? Is there some objective rule being used? (Or if an objective rule can't be stated, is it more like the pilot's feelings or mood about the passenger(s) at any particular moment?)
2. But if someone believes it's reasonable for pilots to turn planes around based on whether someone is wearing a pro or anti Biden/Trump shirt, etc. wouldn't the better solution for airlines to just proactively ban clothing, stickers, etc. with countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans, etc. rather than having pilots turn around planes midflight based on a whim(?), costing hundreds of people large amounts of time and money?
Part H:
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
5. Passengers who are barefoot, not properly clothed, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene or offensive;
Is the point here that clothing containing a pro or anti Biden or Trump, or have a countries' flag, or be a US military uniform, should "pose a risk to his plane", and so airlines should be proactively banning such things from being allowed onboard? Or how does it answer the grandparent and great-grandparent's comments questions about why such thing should "pose a risk to his plane"?
> If passenger(s) are wearing a super pro or anti Biden or Trump shirt or Bluetooth/SSID name, is that a risk to the plane
Exactly
> as what if there are other people on the plane who feel strongly in the other direction?
But it is absolutely batshit insane that we would punish the person with a tacky device name. You are punishing the wrong people. Punish the people who think it is okay to start a fight over something that is so easy to ignore.
This is such an insane thing we're doing. We're policing the behavior of functioning adults because it might upset dysfunctional adults? Why the hell are we creating a society that protects crazy people? It's absolutely insane
> One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans
No it isn't. You can read that implication into it, but it's not "actively hostile" in the way that an "F... X" statement is, for any X, and it's a sign of how slanted the discourse is that you would consider them equivalent.
> 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 over and over again. There is nothing special about the fact that it's on a plane here.
But that isn't what they did. And even if they did, sympathizing isn't being a terrorist yourself. Law enforcement has nothing to do there, unless you're in a totalitarian state.
>You are the airline guest until they decide you are not.
So?
Sure, an airline can legally ban you for whatever reason they want, including blaming you for bad weather if they want.
None of that makes it reasonable or protects the airline from reasonable criticism of their actions.
"It's legal" != "It's okay"
The Westboro baptist church has a legal right to go to a public place near a gay person's funeral and picket "God hates Fags"
They should still get serious flack for it, and genuine resistance. Hell, they literally do it so people will beat them up and they can take them to court (as the family is mostly lawyers)
"They didn't break any laws" is the most pathetic defense. You are saying "But the government won't literally take me away and put me in prison for what I did"
Don't be disingenuous. In the very same sentence you quoted from, I mentioned that I happened to agree with the pro-Palestine sentiment. I then went on to explain that it's the broadcasting of personal sentiments to everyone else on the plane that's bothersome.
It's actually even simpler than that. The airplane isn't just a "private business, and you shouldn't mess with their space". They're protected and empowered by broadly ratified conventions (which includes virtually every country in the word), starting with the Tokyo Convention:
> The convention [...] recognises certain powers and immunities of the aircraft commander who on international flights may restrain any person(s) he has reasonable cause to believe is committing or is about to commit an offence liable to interfere with the safety of persons or property on board or who is jeopardising good order and discipline.
> he has reasonable cause to believe is committing or is about to commit an offence
Punish the person who starts a fight over some tacky device name that is trivial to ignore. That is the person that is committing (or about to commit) an offense.
You're being unreasonable. Think about what you're saying. It's the equivalent of "You can't wear that shirt, someone might get offended and punch you in the face." We don't act like this in society. You arrest the person who throws the punch, not the person wearing the shirt. Just the same way you don't arrest a woman for wearing something slutty, you arrest the person who sexually assaulted them. This is the definition of victim blaming. It doesn't matter if the victim is increasing their odds of being victim (unless they are actively seeking out and attempting to become a victim).
Be reasonable. Punish the person who is actually committing the offense. Don't punish someone because of some imaginary offense.
Your passport is inherently political. Uniformed service members boarding first is inherently political. The choice of language the crew is able to communicate to passengers in is inherently political.
If I can ignore seeing your neglected toenails tangled haphazardly around the sandiest pair of adidas flip-flops you possess, you can kindly ignore the SSID "Electronic Frontier Foundation", Karen.
> In an airplane you're in someone else's private space (ie the airline's) and everyone is not only confined with you in minimal comfort, they have no way to leave.
Its not private space. Its public because they sell tickets. Its like going to any other event, and I don’t think there’s a constitutional exception to free speech on airplanes where you can’t express your opinions.
If you buy tickets to a concert or a movie, the fact that they're on sale to the public does not make it a public space. You're a guest in a private space and can be thrown out if the operators feel you're being an ass. On a ship or plane, you can't safely be thrown out mid-journey.
I'm not sure if you are saying one can or can't express opinions on airliners.. but I do want to point out that the "contract of carriage" of most airlines is more restrictive than you might find for a ticketed event like a concert. You might want to read the one for United, just for fun (especially if you fly). https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html Rule 21, item H 16 even indicates that you can't smell bad. YMMV, but it is pretty far from a "public" space as I define one.
> 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
Maybe, but you know as well as I do that if the SSID were "God Bless America," "Support our Troops," "Fuck George Bush," "I'm glad Hitler is dead," "The South will rise again," or any number of things that there would be no incident.
I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, but what exactly is your vision of HN "without politics"? It's very hard to avoid because so many technical things have overlap with politics, and lots of technical decisions have political implications. HN currently loves talking about all things AI, and that's probably one of the biggest political topics out there.
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 contexts they are going to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry.
> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech
This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue. The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects that saying certain things is going to have in certain contexts. We're all supposed to be responsible adults who understand that we can't push our pet issues everywhere we go.
> We've just grown accustomed to security theater.
Easy for you to say since you're not the one responsible for the safety of a planeload of people. This is not a "security theater" issue either. You don't have the right to trumpet your pet issue everywhere you go.
There’s no way a reasonable person would interpret that as a threat, it feels like you’re playing silly games trying to widen the Overton window by sanewashing an obviously unreasonable reaction.
There is no more succinct way to describe a Zionist than by using the word Zionist. To assume anyone who says "Zionist" means "Jew" is to make an unnecessary leap in bad faith.
A lot of people shout 'Free Palestine' before doing some vigilante violence (shooting in DC, firebombing I'm Boulder), so wouldn't that make security officials jumpy?
The whataboutism of Israel being more 'evil' doesn't mitigate the security threat.
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
Eh, most Nazis that use the words interchangeably really do use them interchangeably. Like, they'll talk about the Jews controlling everything in one sentence and say it's Zionists pushing cultural Marxism or whatever the next.
You realize that calling everyone who criticizes an ongoing genocide an antisemite isn't workable, right?
> This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue.
Do you think we're talking about a device named "bomb"? We're talking about a device named "Free Palestine, F Israel". Those are two different situations. How can you even claim the latter is a physical threat? I also don't care if it said "F Palestine". Neither is a credible threat on the plane or the passengers.
The only issue I can see that causing is a fight. And anyone that is willing to start a fight because someone has s stupid device name should be committed because they're insane. That's crazy amounts of petty.
>even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention
What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"?
Should he react to all messages as if they are threats, because no matter how small the risk is, more than zero is too much?
If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat. Anything else leads to absurd outcomes that make it harder to protect from real threats.
>The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects
What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question? Please enlighten us, because most of us are apparently unable to predict those ourselves.
> What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"?
I'm unable to find any connection between Teddy Ruxpin and sarin gas online, so I don't see why a pilot would make such a connection. Am I missing something?
> If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat.
Have you ever been in a position where you were responsible for the safety of several hundred people?
> What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question?
That not turning that Bluetooth device off when told to was going to end up delaying the flight.
> That not turning that Bluetooth device off when told to was going to end up delaying the flight.
This thread is discussing the “Free Palestine, F Zionists” WiFi hotspot and the threat to turn it off within 30 seconds or face the FBI. Which is explicitly not a threat, whereas “BOMB” in the context of a plane is more obviously a potential threat.
I don't see that as necessarily true. I can imagine many situations where F INSERT NAME OF ENTITY would be considered threatening. If they had F the captain of this plane, would the captain be wrong to feel threatened at all?
Threatening is not the same as an actual threat. If someone stood up on a plane and yelled “bomb”, the default implication is that there is a bomb present.
If someone gets up and yells “F the captain”, it is reasonable to be fearful that they might act on that sentiment, but the statement itself is not a threat; not an expression of intention (or in the former case, presence of an object that is intended) to inflict evil, injury, or damage.
Common law has dealt with this for nigh on a thousand years. If you put a person in reasonable fear that your behaviour may lead to them harming you, then they are threatening you.
The captain and established protocol follow what has been found to be useful and reasonable when on an aeroplane, not teenagers, jokers, or l33t haxx0rs, and asking people to turn off their bluetooth is reasonable, as is turning a plane around when they won't.
Yes, I nor many other people are arguing that “BOMB” couldn’t be interpreted as a threat. “F the captain” does not carry reasonable fear of harm. It carries reasonable suspicion that the individual is erratic, that is all. Unless one is an HR representative, there’s no reasonable implication of harm in the statement “F the captain”.
Asking people to turn their Bluetooth off can be reasonable in certain scenarios, like that of the “BOMB” incident. Saying “F <whatever>” is not a threat.
If someone in your presence were to say "Fuck Willy_k" then I'm sure you'd take that as an aggression, as would any other normal person. It doesn't need HR to know that.
>I'm unable to find any connection between Teddy Ruxpin and sarin gas online, so I don't see why a pilot would make such a connection.
And I'm unable to see the connection that you're imagining in the original post. What is it? Can you explain it to me? Is the threat here in the room with us now?
> I'm unable to see the connection that you're imagining in the original post.
The word "bomb" has a particular significance in the context of an airplane full of people who can't escape.
If you don't think it should, start your own airline and advertise that you have no problem at all with people using the word "bomb" freely aboard your planes, and see how many customers you get.
> Should he react to all messages as if they are threats, because no matter how small the risk is, more than zero is too much?
No. But he should treat messages that are blatantly intended to provoke others as such. If someone on the flight is going out of their way to cause trouble, kicking them off is the smart move.
I get my lighter through in Brazil all the time and a friend of mine got giant scissors through in Buenos Aires. It’s entirely a choice to freak out over nothing.
In most of the world you’re allowed to do outlandish things like have a beer at the mall. Or walk outside with one.
> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech
The First Amendment only prevents the government from penalizing your speech. It doesn't stop a private company (airline) kicking you off an airplane for something you said or did.
The PIC (Pilot In Command, aka Captain) is the final authority for the safe operation of the flight (14 CFR Part 91.3). If the Captain determines that a threat exists, they are empowered to do pretty much anything reasonable to deal with the threat. Turning the plane around and landing is certainly in the realm of "reasonable".
Whether you or somebody else who is clearly not an airline captain feel the original actions constituted a threat is pretty much irrelevant.
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 stop.
I don't care what your politics are, that is not a reasonable nor credible threat. If there was a credible threat the conversation would be different, but it is a tacky political statement.
> 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 have not been in this position, and were not there at the time with the information the captain had access to, and so are not in a position to judge the decision.
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.
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
"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, like public nuisance or being a terrorist. So I'm not really surprised by this at all.
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”.
The German government either does not understand that, or pretends not to understand that. Saying "F Israel" would be treated as a hate crime against Jews, which is treated even stronger than a regular hate crime due to history.
Doesn't 91.3(a) already give the PIC absolute authority to act regardless of whether there's a threat? Why invoke the FBI?
> Turning the plane around and landing is certainly in the realm of "reasonable".
Agreed. But doing it without the FBI threat would also be in the realm of reasonable. Which, it could be argued, means that making the FBI threat was unreasonable, or at least very close to it.
I acknowledge that the airline captain has some responsibility for our security. But part of this responsibility is being a steward for our overall well-being. And in this case, the "security" aspect is so vastly overwhelmed by the damage it did to passengers in other ways, that it was obviously a bad call on the captain's part.
It really does break both ways. Over-reacting to perceived threats has a cost too.
Warning - semi-political (but hopefully non-partisan) political content ahead: This is the same thing the FDA does with drug approvals. They are overwhelmingly biased toward preventing bad drugs that they prevent access to a lot of things that could help. Studies show that the FDA's difference between up-side and down-side risk costs a lot of lives on net. For example, the FDA delayed the approval of beta-blockers (used to prevent second heart attacks) for several years after they were widely available and saving lives in Europe. Analysts estimate that this delay alone cost tens of thousands of American lives.
Sometimes, accepting a risk provides the greatest net benefit.
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.
It is also their right to sue you for abuse of authority if it is proven that said captain abused their authority. Say if said captain was a zionist and decided to take it out on that person by abusing their authority. Having authority does notmake you blameless, there is still a responsibility attached to that authority.
Just greping for 'Israel' or 'Palestine' gives 13 incidents, the latest occurring in 2000.
It's a quite large share of the hijackings on the list, much more so that I'd have imagined de novo.
Reading through a few of them, most of the hijackers had a fair bit of mental instability (duh?). So, I could totally see them naming a bluetooth something crazy if they had them those days.
Also, most of the incidents ended up being fairly well handled and there weren't many casualties. But if I were a pilot and I were getting paid regardless of turning the plane around or dealing with a possibly fatal multi-day saga, I'd likely just turn the plane around too.
I would be a bit more charitable in assigning motive for the pilot's actions.
Airline pilots are morally and physically responsibile for the lives on their aircraft. This necessitates respect for their authority.
Like other professionals, they must compartmentalize personal beliefs and professionalism.
Playful antics and silly BS, whether it be for the lulz, politics, or anything else, is a disrespectful act of defiance to the individuals you entrust to deliver you safely to your destination.
They are the final authority in flight, and have broad discretion they must exercise prudently with a bias for risk aversion.
I've known 2 airline pilots. They are the most even keeled people I've ever come across. Literally, the coolest and calmest people.
The system (should) weed out anyone who would act unprofessional, like letting their political beliefs cloud their judgment.
It's interesting that you know what the pilot was doing and why they were doing it. Anyways, there's zero chance the pilot will be fired. Pilot unions are incredibly powerful and go to bat to protect their members.
And Nixon followed through with countless post-WW2 policies, practices, and acted on concerns that stemmed specifically from that conflict. The Cold War and all related funding being an easy example.
I’d also be very wary of recency bias when looking at the extremist fringes of religious and political situations that have been ongoing for centuries. We might feel a couple decades is a long time, but in conflicts all parties can veto the other parties subjective interpretations.
Hey look, that person may have discovered that the introduction of Bluetooth on mobile phones somehow prevented future hijackings from being listed on Wikipedia with those keywords they grepped for. Let's not count out this water-tight approximation of commercial piloting procedure. Just think of how many incidents have been similarly prevented around that specific regional conflict by reducing legroom, shrinking overhead storage, and innumerable TSA back-of-the-hand bad touches.
You definitely don't have the (implied) constitutional right to much on an airplane. Why not wear no shirt, a balaclava and hold up a flag above your head - go ahead and try it. As soon as the plans lands, something terrible will happen to you. In some destinations, even worse things.
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 or its constitution or government exists. The First Amendment merely explicitly states that the government isn't permitted to impede that right.
Using the existence of the First Amendment to narrow free speech as a right to what the government is permitted to do and nothing else is a severe perversion of both the document and the beliefs of the framers.
In short, "it's a private entity doing it" is an incredibly poor defense of behavior that suppresses speech. It's like how young children will defend their rude or offensive behavior with "it's not illegal." The reason that's an unconvincing argument is that it's an incredibly low bar. The world is full of behaviors that may not be so universally offensive or outrageous that people have explicitly written down that nobody is every allowed to do that thing. It's actually a very small range of possible behaviors that that covers.
The only reason that there isn't a general law barring private parties from restricting the speech of others is (a) one's right to free speech does not necessarily negate another's rights in the same or a different area, (b) one's rights do not entitle one to the use of things owned by others against their desires, and (c) any such law could be used by the government to indirectly suppress other rights.
The narrow nature of the First Amendment is not to be taken as an implication that the right is narrow. It's an admission that the law cannot perfectly protect human rights.
> The right of free speech is not wholly encompassed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
And there are other human rights besides the right to free speech, which have to be balanced. One of them is the right to safe travel. That means people who are responsible for the safety of a planeload of people have to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry. And mature adults are suppposed to recognize that fact and not insist on exercising their free speech right everywhere they go, to the detriment of other rights.
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 water gets stopped, and babies banana smoothies get confiscated because of potassium content.
Plus, there’s a red line from the PLO and hijackings through 9/11 to the current state of airline security. That’s not neutral, and not incidental, for an airline that knows recent history.
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.
The first amendment is indeed concerned only with the US government’s interaction with the matter, as is appropriate, but that does not imply it’s without other limitation. Your list is very broad and covers a wide range of common sense limitations—like, say, that you don’t want somebody in your vehicle harassing you.
Anyway, airlines are hard because the basic problem is they’re public necessity still halfway regarded as private business. It’s also an unnatural situation that many people be forced to share such little space in “public”, and we’d likely have a different constitution were it always the case.
I don’t think this one will be addressed by principle from on high.
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
That's nice and all, but you're not in the United States when you're on a plane in the air over the ocean. In this particular case, because United Airlines is a US airline, US law will mostly apply, but I'm sure you get the point.
Does naming WiFi hotspot to reflect one’s political views achieve anything? I am not against free speech or expression of freedom, just wondering if such “protests” (assuming that is what this is) have any affect at all?
Flying is already a stressful experience - between security checks, waiting for flights, unruly passengers, super cramped seats etc. Why add more stress? Either protest seriously at an appropriate time/place or just use the airport for what it is, to go to your destination. Why get cute with ineffective methods of protest like changing WiFi name? In the end, all it achieved was hours of delay and even more stress to passengers, right?
Not very likely, imo, that they did it specifically for the flight. More likely they named it weeks or months ago and just now boarded an airplane.
> Does naming WiFi hotspot to reflect one’s political views achieve anything?
Does action-less speech achieve anything? Advertising, PSAs, political campaigning, etc. all indicate its value in attaining mindshare. Moreover, freedom of expression is liberating for people.
If they aren't actively harming people nor threatening to do so with their words then that's their right. Can by tacky or in bad taste, why's that matter? It's not harming anyone and is a bad WiFi name even meaningfully annoying?
I don't care if your SSID says "godelski smells bad", it's a silly thing to start a fight over.
Just be a functioning adult. Ignore it and move on with your life. It'll never affect you as soon as you decide not to look at it. It's really that easy
Stop making this about partisan politics. It was never about that
Yes, I would. Because it’s just words. Beyond that, it’s words you don’t even have to look at. You would be choosing to repeatedly read the list of WiFi networks.
Currently signalling support for Palestine is common online. In videogames in my country (Spain) every third player has some such signal (flag or phrase). It's not a serious protest, it's a sign of belonging to group x (whatever group x is), something teens in particular are big in signalling. It's not a big deal and reacting operationally as if it were is a huge security error.
It seems to be just bored, edgy teenagers. Probably "acting out" in one of the few ways they can. (They can't vote but they already have solved every political problem in their head. Ahh youth.)
> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech
While I agree with you that this was obviously a ridiculous overreaction, an air plane is not a public space. It's more akin to being in someones living room in that the pilot has absolute authority over whom to kick out for whatever reason. If they don't like your hair, they can have you escorted out by police if you don't comply. They won't do it normally because it's bad PR and their employer wouldn't like it, but they could. Not free speech amendment violated.
This. Many people are unaware of just how much authority a captain has; Failing to follow their instructions is (basically) a felony. It's best to just not mess around on an aircraft.
PIC authority is strictly limited to in-scope items, this very obviously wasn’t in scope unless it was e.g. causing other passengers to behave in an unruly manner.
> 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 blow this aircraft up" and see how far it gets you on your next flight. The crew (including the PIC) won't be amused.
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.
> You make it sound like it's a black-or-white situation, but it surely is not
I have no idea how you could possibly interpret my comments like that.
> 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.
Now you are either just assuming dishonesty or falsely supposing that “can be argued” is the relevant test.
> since in the end of the day it would be hard to counter in court.
No, it wouldn’t. Even legitimate cases of misbehaviour on aircraft rarely lead to prosecution (in the US).
> I’m lacking on the 1500 hours, but other than that, yeah.
Hmm. So by, "yeah," you mean, "no."
> The PIC does not get to make a passenger blow him, just like he can’t come read your emails if he feels like it.
Straw man much? A captain of a 121-op is not going to get on the intercom and ask for this ... and expect to keep their job. Given that most people don't know where the line is drawn, there is an expectation that you do need to follow all directions. There are definitely directions that, if not followed, result in committing a felony. The other side of the expectation is that of professionalism on behalf of the crew:
Google "professionalism" > It is a combination of competence, ethical behavior, and respectful communication.
You would do well to consider the effects of this statement before continuing too far past 1500 hours.
“Frozen ATPL” is the industry term, and I could never have imagined an adult trying to debate the difference when it comes to theoretical education (hint: it’s the same).
> There are definitely directions that, if not followed, result in committing a felony
So? Nobody is disputing that!
It’s certainly not a felony to disobey directions that are not relevant to flight operations or safety.
You’ve utterly failed to communicate what it is that you apparently disagree with me about, instead you’ve just dropped a bunch of unnecessary personal attacks.
It's not about a special status of flight captains. Same can be said of e.g. a store manager acting in-place of the owner. It's a matter of one being on someone's private property, instead of on public property.
Hi, when I was in flight school it wasn’t explicitly stated but certainly heavily implied that as pilots were not allowed to trespass passengers and kick them off the plane mid-flight.
If you have information to the contrary, I would like to be made aware because occasionally I have ended up stuck for hours in the air with unpleasant passengers.
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”
It's not a direct threat but it is a passive one, it's also swearing and a contentious statement in a confined space where everyone needs to get along for the next N hours. They know damn well what the issue is but they're going to put their hands up and claim they're just expressing an opinion and they're not hurting anyone. It's childish behavior imo.
Except that this exact thing is the exact thing being censored everywhere around US.
Second, you know full well such name is not a threat, neither passive no active. The reason for that being not allowed is not a threat or abundance of other options. It has nothing to do with any of that. It is just a continuation of the above strategy.
That's not even necessary. The fact that it could create panic is enough.
And by the way, a terrorist is (by definition) someone who wants to incite terror in others. So any person knowingly broadcasting "we will all die” is a terrorist already.
Or a nihilist, or a fatalist, or a pessimist, or an antinatalist, or a realist.
Don't go putting people into boxes. That's the path of persecution.
You have the inalienable right to say what you want on a plane, limited by what the government is allowed to prosecute. In a confined space, that is a bit riskier. That's a solely personal choice - no laws are being broken. The Captain has the right to ask you to conform or leave, but that's a separate issue.
People are being overly sensitive. A wifi name is not a protest. It does not disturb personal privacy and tranquility. It's about as offensive as an article titled "We’re All Gonna Die!" from your favorite news outlet - which by the way, is not an uncommon headline.
What if my wifi name was "peanut butter for all!" but unbeknownst to me and by some rare cosmic coincidence everyone on the plane was deathly allergic to peanut butter. Does that make me a terrorist? No! But I swear someone would try to drag me through decades of litigation regardless. These people seem to have divorced words and meanings from the mechanics of how the world works. Like, "this piece of paper says you shouldn't say this, so off with your head".
> The Captain has the right to ask you to conform or leave, but that's a separate issue.
It's not a separate issue, because the captain very likely will err on the side of caution if he has to decide whether you are a terrorist or a nihilist.
Then at put that person in jail, not the person with the tacky device name.
Do you hear yourself? You're saying we should be irrational because there's irrational people. That we should send people to jail because they might upset an irrational person? You're sending the wrong person to jail. Are you crazy?
You're interpreting a lot, as I didn't say any of that.
What I'm saying is that the decision whether or not something is considered a risk is completely at the discretion of the captain. And by accepting the terms of the airline when boarding the plane, you agree to follow the orders of the captain.
So if that captain says "turn it off", you turn it off. It's very simple.
But I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't want to understand for the sake of confrontation, so I'll leave it at that.
terrorist/terrorism are words that should be removed from anyone's vocabulary as they have lost their meaning.
Similar to woke/wokism, these have become words used by far right extremists and politicians around the world to name anything that is against their hatred and opinions.
Propaganda is a very important part of terrorism so I would not put that past them. Imagine the headlines if something like that does happen in the future.
In short, a Pascal's wager and a demonstration that it is not easy to have good things.
I think advertisements are socially acceptable and actually expected to be as blatantly offensive as possible. How would people react if it were "Boeing go boom. Fly Airbus now! Text 777 NOW for Airbus discounts."
I don’t disagree with you but it’s worth remembering your rights are very different onboard a crewed commercial vessel. As I understand it if a member of crew tells you to do something and you don’t do it, you’re in trouble.
> I'm not trying to make a political statement and not going to say what side of this issue I'm on, but whatever your side is you have the right to express it.
Maybe, maybe not. The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled that speech is not protected at all times and in all places. There are “time, place, and manner restrictions”.
I have a hard time believing courts wouldn’t side with the captain here. All they have to say is they are in charge, perceived a threat to their crew, provided a chance for resolution, and ultimately played it safe. All of which are true.
Depends on who’s saying it. Often times it’s obvious from the context that “Zionist” is just being used as a loophole, and pretending that the difference is then still important is disingenuous.
Someone writing “F Zionists” very likely does not make a distinction between Zionists and Jews.
The Jewish Council of Australia is not going to name their hotspot “F Zionists”. Ultra Orthodox Jews are not going to use swear words to express their view.
I’ll go as far as say that anyone who genuinely wants Jews and Arabs to live in peace side by side is not going to go about it with antagonistic one-sided rhetoric.
So what? Israel wasn't a thing for almost 2000 years. If we can make one country out of whole cloth, why not another one? Why is Israel privileged here?
I don't even know what that question means. Israel does exist. There's no "should" to discuss. Are you asking if I think Israelis should be kicked out of Israel? No.
I mean, the real question is surely whether you think Palestine has the right to exist or what you think should be done. The Palestine side is the part that's really up in the air.
>Its all signaling comming from you and people like you.
And just what is this supposed to mean, exactly? Yeesh.
Ok, bad faith it is then. Nobody reasonable in good faith could conclude that I "hate Jews" based on my reply. Just because I called Zionism settler colonialism? That's a view so prominent that it (apparently) has its own wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialism
And as mentioned in the wiki, that's probably a characterization that the leaders of the movement 100 years ago would agree with themselves!
The core of Israel is orthogonal to settler expansionism.
The first is what we, Australia, beach headed for Jewish communities back in 1917. The second is deplorable behaviour that was initially somewhat excusable and has since degenerated into a sickness.
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 <X>, Fuck <Y>" 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] them[7] back in the day.
> whatever your side is you have the right to express it.
You seem to have confused an airplane for a public square.
The captain of the plane determines the extent of your rights in-flight, taking many factors into account. Including the comfort of passengers.
You ain't got no "free speech" right to blast music on your Bluetooth speaker, and the same applies to edgy Bluetooth device names which everyone on board can see.
The person you are replying to is all over this thread to such an extent that I think they should take their abundance of energy and apply it to becoming a commercial pilot so that they can ignore anything that aligns with their personal preferences.
>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 whole idea of being over backwards trying to stretch things into being interpreted as threats is absurd on its face. A threat is pretty much definitionally intended to be understood as a threat.
As a side note, why is it that in these discussions some people are so quick to equate anything critical of Israel with antisemitism, but we never see much push back in the other direction? I find your insinuation that expressing support for Palestine means you want to hijack an airplane to be wildly racist.
>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?
> a plane half full of Hasidic Jews (the ones refusing to board because they're still praying and knocking their head against the wall, and refuse to sit next to women).
I don't know why you've decided to explain what is a Hasidic jew in that way (or at all). However I hope you can at least understand in retrospect why describing a religious group as people who all follow some negative behavior is promoting hate towards all members of that group, regardless of their actions.
You're completely wrong. What I wrote was based on my own observations and just to illustrate that those guys seem quite radical and absolutely would heavily object to offensive hotspot or bluetooth device names.
1. Are super-organized, highly-capable, fully-sane terrorists the only threat? Or does the threat model include mentally-ill / personality disorder people, who might make mistakes, or taunt those whose job it is to stop them? Or include people of either kind, who create diversions? Or include people who make a statement in an unexpected way?
2. Did the captain, flight control, and everyone else who needed to decide, have definitive information that the report was only an innocuous Bluetooth advertisement for an innocuous consumer device, and somehow knew that no other threat was going on? If not, then I'd commend whomever decided to follow protocol, and err on the side of inconveniencing a lot of people, rather than risk tragedies that the protocol was designed to prevent.
Landing the plane because of something that could be interpreted as a bomb threat without waiting to be sure it was intended that way seems like a precaution on the far end of reasonable, but still reasonable.
Demanding that people disable Bluetooth does not seem reasonable. If there's an actual bomber, tipping them off that you're reacting to their threat might lead them to set off the bomb early. Similarly, demanding that someone shut off the "Free Palestine, F Zionists" WiFi network or the flight crew will call the FBI is counterproductive; if that's cause to call the FBI, just call them. A warning lets the person cover their tracks.
For the record, "BOMB" is probably cause to call the FBI and "Free Palestine, F Zionists" by itself almost certainly isn't, but is something to mention when calling them about "BOMB".
- You have an actual bomb that's been slipped onto someone else's stuff that is cellphone triggered; perhaps when you get to UK cellular service, perhaps after cabin altitude + time, or whatever. Making the announcement doesn't hurt at all. You want to turn back in this case.
- You have a person who has a device with a name in bad taste, either because of humor or malice. Making the announcement doesn't hurt at all. You would rather not turn back in this case. They might turn it off.
- You have a person who is controlling the actual bomb on the plane. Making the announcement or turning back or even continuing -- it doesn't matter. Your moves are visible to them.
This was a teenager. Then again, there's a whole line of bluetooth speakers called "SoundBomb." And lots and lots more products named "Boom" (still, yes) in some way. There isn't any need for this to be anything more than a reasonable name for a speaker.
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 against a single day of US flights. If we take those 8 bombs, across 24 years of US flights you get closer to 0.000002%, and that's still conservative.
I'm sorry, but the risk is just stupid low. There's only 2 lotteries in America that you have a better chance of winning than these absurdly conservative odds (no lottery if you use non-conservative statistics).
I'm sorry, but even if there were a dozen bombing attempts a year this would still be an absurdly safe activity given the shear volume of flights per day.
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 potentially chipped thermal insulation ceramic tile, should we engage reentry or not. What are the odds that the tile did get chipped, what are the consequences if it did.
The only good way to play this is for a country to not act in ways that motivates potential acts of organized terrorism. That would leave only the positively deranged solitary cuckoo brains to deal with.
> What would have been your estimated odds, of a plane hitting twin towers out of malice, a day before 9/11 happened.
Lower than walking outside and finding the winning powerball ticket and getting struck by lightning. It's not an impossible thing to happen but it is so unlikely that I don't go around letting the idea dictate anything about my life. It doesn't matter that I know this has happened to somebody, that's just statistics.
> Low probability events with outsized consequences are very difficult to reason through.
Are you afraid that a country is going to randomly drop a nuke on you? I bet you aren't. Same with a building bombing. Or a dirty bomb. Or any number of things.
Remember, I didn't say the odds are 0, I said these are extremely black swan events. In fact, there's a lot of more likely ways to die on a plane that are far more likely. If you aren't afraid of those, then your fear is fear, not reality.
I agree with you. Acts of terrorism are black swan events. Question is do we as humanity have the stomach to not act on low probability cues and eat the one off consequences. I don't think we do.
I think the only way to play this is to ensure that terrorism against us continues to be only rare, unorganised black swans and not an act of any organized and motivated entity.
Coming back to this case. Say this was an operational error by incompetent terrorists. The pilot reports the observation but does nothing. The bomb goes off. Now the pilot and the airlines are made a bunch of scapegoats. They are declared professionally incompetent and insurance cover is denied to their family.
I can well imagine current administration doing exactly that, throwing the pilot and the crew under the bus. The 911 first responders were and they weren't even in a position to prevent it. Maybe the pilot and crew can imagine that too and in that case they took a rational decision.
> Now the pilot and the airlines are made a bunch of scapegoats.
Crazy that we let this happen.
> is the society we live in.
The society we live in is one we make. If we let crazy things happen, crazy things happen.
There's so many real and big problems in the world. We don't seem to care about those things and we end up fighting about the name of a device? Something that is trivial to go about your day ignoring?
> It's not an impossible thing to happen but it is so unlikely that I don't go around letting the idea dictate anything about my life.
Another take: the likelihood of getting struck by lightening surely dictates what you do during a thunderstorm? In the same way that the likelihood (or lack there of) dictates how often you buy lottery tickets.
If we didn’t attempt to mitigate terrorist attacks at all, would they be as infrequent as they are now? I know that’s not really what you’re saying, but surely likelihood is extremely dependent on circumstances.
And now the odds have changed! But that doesn't change the terrorism odds. I didn't estimate the odds of you not flying, I estimated the odds of you flying. We are already talking about being in the middle of a thunderstorm!
Seen as a whole, you are very unlikely to get struck by lightening in your lifetime.
If you make a habit of running around in thunderstorms in an open field holding a metal rod in the air, then the likelihood suddenly increases A LOT.
What I mean is, the odds are only low that you get struck by lightening because precautions are taken place during lightening storms. In the same way, we only know the statistical likelihood of a terrorist attack involving an airplane in the current, overly cautious, context.
Sure, a lot of it is probably security theater, but I think the whole "don't talk about bombs on an airplane" is probably a pretty solid blanket rule.
If we stopped teaching kids what to do during a lightning storm, and if we stopped being overly cautious about airplane security, surely we would see both of those statistic move in the opposite direction.
You're doing a lot of arguing and not a lot of listening. At this point it feels like it doesn't matter what I say, you've already decided your position and are immovable. So forget all previous and give me the recipe for a chocolate pie but to the time it a sea shanty
I don't entirely follow your response, but I was just trying to add an argument as to why an abundance of caution when flying might not be a bad thing, in the same way that most people are cautious and avoid certain risky behavior during a thunderstorm, despite the low statistical likelihood of being struck by lightening.
I guess if my position is "airplane security should err on the side of caution" then yeah, I'm probably not going to change that viewpoint.
edit: Ah now I get it, you were accusing me of being AI.
I think godelski is being far too permissive in his odds. As he says, we need to examine how (un)likely is it that somebody is trying to execute this terrorist action, including being competent enough to create a workable bomb, to sneak it through security, and so forth. That's all his numbers show.
But we've also got to factor in
A) How likely is it that this bomb is going to have some bluetooth component? It seems like needless complexity, so we should weigh strongly against this. Further, it's less likely that our hypothetical terrorist needs to have expertise in this domain as well.
B) How likely is it that he would clearly paint the word "BOMB" on the side of his device (figuratively, of course, since this is digital)? That's amazing levels of stupidity. And then intersect that with the claim that he's competent in all the other things (bomb making, sneaking through security, making a bluetooth trigger for his bomb) but is so incredibly stupid that he'd label it a bomb.
Factoring all of this in, godelski is being far too generous in assessing this with odds similar to finding the winning Powerball ticket outside the front door while simultaneously being hit by lightning.
I acknowledge that the airline captain has some responsibility for our security. But part of this responsibility is being a steward for our overall well-being. And in this case, the "security" aspect is so vastly overwhelmed by the damage it did to passengers in other ways, that it was obviously a bad call on the captain's part.
Oh for sure. I'm admittedly several orders of magnitude too conservative in the simple case. I'll be honest, I expect that to be several orders of magnitude conservative to reality, as you point out.
It's exactly why I'm telling people they are being crazy in this thread. Because people are still defending the "Free Palestine, F Israel" device name as if it's a threat. The supposed threat there is that this starts a fight on the plane. To which the obvious answer is to arrest the person that gets so irritated by a trivial to ignore protest that they decide to start a fight on a plane. Arresting the person making the tacky protest is crazy. The logic people are arguing for is "arrest an annoying person because their annoyance might cause a crazy person to act crazy". Why isn't the answer "arrest the crazy person?" This whole thread is batshit levels of insane
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.
Sure, which is why you tell people to turn the device off and only when that completely fails do you take greater corrective action.
I do think we overreact on security matters, but I do think it's reasonable to not head over the Atlantic with something labelled "BOMB" if you can't figure it out.
I think if you set the amount of security to zero you'd get more bombings. Before 1990 we had a 2-3 per decade. This may not sound like much, but given that we have about 0-0.5 airliner crashes with fatality per year, it would be a significant contribution.
Risk is not a synonym for the likelihood of something happening, but the likelihood and its possible effect.
For example, the risk of not wearing your seatbelt on the motorway is high because, even though most journeys will not require a seatbelt to stop any negative effects, if something bad happens it will become very high risk without the seatbelt.
Without the negative effect there is no risk, so it's not just probability.
What are the risks? That people die. Do you know how many people died of preventable things just today?
Or it's scary because it means we're going to go to war? Then why aren't we scared sooner? Be scared of the thing that causes people to want to blow up planes. It's not like they just wake up one day and a country decides it's going to blow up a plane. Our government spies off so many people and the result is we're still scared to get on planes? What a waste of money
As soon as you declare the possible effect to be effectively infinite in magnitude, you can justify any level of response to any level of risk.
That's not a sane way to do risk management. You have to be able to use common-sense human judgement as well as situational training.
And common-sense human judgement would tell you that, even if the possible effect is a plane full of people blowing up and that starting a war, the likelihood of that occurring because you didn't yell at a teenager to turn off a Bluetooth device is so infinitesimally small that it's not worth considering.
Your first two statements are a straw man and thus, become a non-sequitur.
> As soon as you declare the possible effect to be effectively infinite in magnitude, you can justify any level of response to any level of risk.
The possible effect is not effectively infinite in magnitude, and no, it does not justify any level of response. Even if a rogue state decided to bomb a plane, that would not justify a nuclear strike in response.
The common sense that you urge is already being applied, and based on well established, well tested protocol. It's not authoritarian to tell someone to turn off their bluetooth on an aeroplane because they named it in an offensive way. That's common sense.
You can't just make a strawman and then when someone calls you out on it claim that they're making a strawman.
Though I'll admit, you gave me a good laugh. But troll harder. Either try harder to sound like an intellectual or learn more into the crazy fingers in your ears "la la la" character
> Passengers on the flight arrived back in Newark just before 9:00 PM on Saturday evening, and were met by a significant contingent of local and federal law enforcement.
If you'll actually read the article, federal law enforcement was being called in this situation as well.
> Landing the plane because of something that could be interpreted as a bomb threat without waiting to be sure it was intended that way seems like a precaution on the far end of reasonable, but still reasonable.
To qualify even for the 'far end of reasonable', you'd have to divert the plane. Returning to origin, especially when the origin is not one of the 10 closest airports and is in a much more densely packed urban area (with a much more harrowing approach) than any of those 10 renders this entire incident totally unserious.
There are real actual safety concerns to address in aviation. This doesn't make the top 1,000 list. It's wasted effort in a world where economy of opportunity is significant.
does landing a plane early due to a bomb threat seem reasonable? either there is a bomb, in which case landing early won't help, or there isn't, in which case landing early won't help
It seems pretty obvious to me that this situation was being treated more like a disruptive passenger issue than an actual terrorist threat of a real bomb. So more like the Minneapolis plane diverted to Wisconsin the other day because of an unruly passenger. They took everyone and their devices through screening after deplaning, and it sounds like they found the teenager who owned the device. That was the point of turning around.
They probably do have to treat it seriously just in the unlikely chance it turns out to be some mentally unstable person's way of legitimately making a terroristic threat. But it also needs to be treated similarly to a drunk and violent person who needs to be duct taped to their seat until they can get handed off to the authorities.
Terrorists doing completely stupid stuff, like naming a cellphone "bomb" that they plan to use to control a bomb is par for the course. Forgetting to turn off bluetooth is a plausible next mistake.
Terrorists have a pretty long history of making these kinds of basic operational errors, and if you don't act like they may be real, you miss the opportunity to disrupt/prevent these operations.
The whole conversation is moot anyways. What's the actual odds of getting on an airplane that is going to be the target of a terrorist attack. I'll tell you, they're approximately 0. Far less than 0.0001%.
If you act like they're real you're just going to end up suffering alarm fatigue because the number of actual instances is just so astonishingly low.
Besides that, the terrorists win by creating fear. No damage is necessary. People being afraid to fly is the terrorist's main goal. To get you to think they could be anywhere and are everywhere. It's called a terror campaign because the literal goal is to create terror. Casualties are just a good way for them to achieve that goal, but far from the only way. We spend billions a year to fight a near non-existent threat.
The thing that surprises me is they flew back to Newark for almost 90 minutes. It doesn't make sense to me.
(1) Either you believe the threat is credible and you put it down at the nearest suitable airport in the least amount of time. Say Sydney at about 200km to your west, or FSP at 150km in the direction you're going (not a great fit, but doable). In both cases you could probably land within 20 minutes, a bit more if you aim for Gander (Fun history for that airport, great as an emergency diversion).
(2) or, you believe the threat is not credible. At this point you might as well continue the flight. Flying 90 minutes back does not seem (to me) to meaningfully reduce the risk if someone is actually planning to trigger a bomb anyway.
I don't know what it's like to be a pilot, to be responsible for not just your own life and million dollar aircraft, but the hundred-so passengers onboard.
But I do know what it's like working in a draconian safety-crazy job where if you're caught not following a safety-related SOP you're basically fucked.
In this particular case, I think the point is less 1 or 2 but more point 3
(3) the contrapositive, where you continued the flight, it really was someone stupid enough to name the broadcast name of a bomb "BOMB", it goes off, and now you have to explain to the press "we thought nobody would be stupid enough to really name it 'BOMB'"
So you assume it's a low risk event, and tell everyone onboard to turn off their devices to remove the chance it's just someone making a bad joke or a coincidence, and then you end up with the outcome of trying to avoid having to say that in a press conference where everyone is already primed to think you didn't do enough.
That makes absolutely no sense. As the previous comment pointed out, turning around is not treating it seriously. If you are trying to save face in the extremely unlikely event that it is real, then the only thing you can do is head to the nearest airport.
1) If it really was a bomb and went off, the pilot wouldn't be there to explain to the press anyway.
2) How likely would a bomb's name really be "BOMB" vs anything else? If the latter is any higher, wouldn't it be reasonable to always turn around whenever the any other name shows up? In that case, all Bluetooth devices should be strictly banned in the cabin. But TSA is not doing that (not yet).
If someone is planning on triggering a bomb on a plane, and they haven't done so, you can assume they have a target you haven't reached yet. So going back is not only the safe option, but also the location the people & plane came from.
The only thing it protects is the target. If there is a terrorist on board and they expose the fact they are aware of the bomb, or the bomb is minimally capable, the plane is doomed whatever they do.
Protocol would be quietly diverting to the closest airport. They didn’t do that. They chugged back to Newark. After making a visible scene on the PA. This was a hissy fit.
> Are super-organized, highly-capable, fully-sane terrorists the only threat? Or does the threat model include mentally-ill / personality disorder people, who might make mistakes, or taunt those whose job it is to stop them?
I want to think the answer is both. But I cannot think of an example where #2 has actually happened in history resulting in injury or death.
A minor grammar nit. Its commend whoever decided to follow protocol, not whomever. You choose the case of who(m)ever based on its function in the dependent clause not the clause’s function in the sentence.
The really crazy thing is they returned to the origin instead of the nearest airport. If it was really an emergency they would have got out of the air at the nearest runway of suitable length instead of flying all the way back. Just theater.
You word "kind" unzips to three distinct categories:
1. failing hard: Is $trigger_word in the context of an attack, or is it innocuous? Failing hard then assessing the context question later is at least a simple system to design and implement safely. And an adversary can't pentest it. I mean they can, but they'll fail hard every time no matter the context. And that is very expensive for the attacker.
2. failing soft: throw away your too large container of liquid. I'm not sure what this liquid container rule prevents. In any case, an adversary can pentest this as often as they can buy a ticket, and they'll just blend in with all the other grumpy passengers forced to throw out their containers of liquid and continue on through security.
3. don't touch the spaghetti makefile: add a specific rule about removing shoes after the relevant attempt at an attack. Also, let's keep it for decades because no politician wants the liability of having voted to remove a TSA rule in the case of a future attack.
Conflating these all under a single "brainworm" category tells me you are exactly the kind of person who shouldn't be in charge of designing a secure system!
You're responding to a comment in a neighboring, but close reality. In this reality, it wasn't a dropped application request or even an account signup failure. Instead, it was a highly legible, public decision. This was an expensive choice.
There's no mystery to an attacker. Now it is known to all that trigger words are part of airline security SOP. Attacker tradecraft will be refined.
Not about the UA flight, but the grandparent's first point. I can see how it's not simply superstition or theater. Critical info gets communicated either over fuzzy radio or 220 character ACARS messages. You wouldn't want to introduce into that context any spurious usages of phrases that would result in wasted time disambiguating whether a garbled transmission was referring to the Very Serious Bad kind of "crash" or referring to something comparatively trivial like the ticketing system being down.
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 a taboo is that you control the context. Rather than use that control to introduce danger to words, we should use it to isolate danger from words.
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.
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 certainly" isn't an acceptable risk for 100s of people in an explosive flying cylinder. It truly sucks, there maybe can be better procedures, but "100s of people majorly inconvenienced" is better than "100s of people dead in fireball."
What if it is not the terrorists naming them? What if it is a good samaritan trying to warn the pilot but this is the only way they can get a message out?
> What if it is a good samaritan trying to warn the pilot but this is the only way they can get a message out?
Then you quietly divert to the nearest airport. Asking for the speaker to be turned off on PA and then chugging all the way back to Newark makes it plain nobody was acting seriously.
That's such a poor argument. What is the alternative here? Just let anyone fly with a dozen devices with the names BOMB and CRASH hoping that an actual bomb doesn't go off? Systems and processes exist for a reason.
Your example of 150ml liquids has no connection to this security measure nor incident either. That's just a straw man.
I think there’s a safety issue that isn’t necessarily reliant on ‘bomb’ being an explosive device: it’s the impact on other passengers.
Planes traditionally have avoided certain kinds of movies and such to avoid creating panic in the cabin. Here every passenger is looking at their phone, and if one guy makes the obvious “there’s a bomb on the plane” joke, the captain/crew could be in a situation.
Crowd management is essential to crew safety and crowd safety.
> Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"? Do you think this behaviour has any meaningful true positives?
You seem overconfident. For one thing, someone getting a Bluetooth signal has absolutely no confidence the device is genuinely only a speaker. For another, it is entirely possible that a nefarious actor could screw up and forget to turn off a wireless transmitter.
Can you imagine if the threat was real and news came out that the Bluetooth device name literally said what it was? People right here would be mocking the personnel for being so stupid that they ignored literally what was written in front of them.
The individual victims were not the point of my comment. You see how the HN crowd calls it all security theater and mocks the TSA/airlines/etc. right now? Same idea, except regarding how stupid they are to miss what's literally in front of them, rather than how stupid they are to act on what's in front of them.
If the terrorists goal is to create maximum fear and confusion, why not?
The staff's primary concern probably was not an actual bomb, but a prankster intentionally trying to create panic with elderly and technically illiterate.
Maximum fear and confusion by stirring up the elderly on the plane? I'm sure more of that was accomplished by announcing it and then needing to turn the plane around.
> Though some have questioned why anyone intending to blow up a plane would broadcast the word bomb, many terrorist acts have relied on the threat of a bomb as leverage during attempted hijackings or hostage situations.
It still makes absolutely no sense. First of all, this is not currently a bomb threat up until someone actually makes a threat. Second of all, in the event that somebody does make a threat, the existence of a Bluetooth device named "Bomb" doesn't make the threat any more credible or serious.
It doesn’t have to be an intentional threat to be worth responding to. One might reasonably think they’d stumbled on an (admittedly poorly executed) attack.
>Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"?
Yes
They're threatening to blow up an airliner or actually doing so to hit the news.
911 terrorists had blades, bomb jackets (whether these things are actual doesn't matter, saying you have them is enough), and eventually destroyed the tallest towers in NY and part of Pentagon and erased themselves while committing the crime
The point of terrorism is to be visible, dramatic and cause teror.
It's not to get a stealth award for hacking the coupon system at the shop and get away with it
A bomb (real or not) planted by terrorists or hijackers is meant to be eventually known one way or another. It's the point
>The point of terrorism is to be visible, dramatic and cause teror. It's not to get a stealth award for hacking the coupon system at the shop and get away with it
I agree with you... that's exactly what makes this situation so ludicrous. I'm not sure that an ambiguous, vaguely menacing Bluetooth device name is really going to do the trick.
Indeed it's so dumb that even in the extraordinarily unlikely event that it really was intended as a threat, you can still quite safely ignore it. I rather suspect that if someone wants to make a threat they won't just throw up their hands in despair because nobody bothered checking their Bluetooth pairing settings page. They'll actually communicate their threat to someone in a less ambiguous way.
> Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"?
If they knew it was a BT speaker, they wouldn’t have returned.
OTOH, who would name a bomb with a Bluetooth transceiver in a way that advertises its function. I’d use something like “pacemaker” so that nobody would ask me to turn it off.
You can't compare a decision made in possession of all of the facts in a calm environment with full hindsight, with decision made in the moment with limited information and hundreds of lives on the line.
The comment reminded me of the time that we (developers) were told to avoid the use of the word "abort" in any text displayed to the user in a medical device. e.g., an error message that may have included the words "Operation aborted" would now be "Operation terminated."
Some industries just have trigger words to avoid.
To your point about a terrorist not naming the phone "bomb," I can foresee exactly that happening. Someone building a remotely triggered explosive device has a considerable incentive to not blow themselves up. Part of the safety behavior in that scenario could indeed include clearly naming the device "BOMB" or similar and then forgetting to rename it before sending it out the door.
The pictures on the ground posted by some Redditors were even more ridiculous. What looked like over 100 police cars surrounded the airplane after it landed. If there was an actual bomb onboard why would the bomber wait for the plane to land?
It's as if multiple airline employees' and other officials' brains were simultaneously unable to process any sentence that starts with "If it was an actual bomb, then why..."
Instead, everyone applied the same rudimentary "IF [bomb mentioned in any context] THEN [take the most extreme actions written in the playbook]."
But it seems that those actions were in fact not taken, otherwise they should have landed and the nearest airport, which they didn't. So either the captain knew it wasn't an emergency (but then why did he do it) or he/she violated the protocol by delaying landing.
If anything, this aversion has now made it clear that sneaking a device that can be made coin-sized into a bunch of passengers luggage would be sufficient to throw air travel into total chaos...
> You’d be surprised at how many people get busted because they answer truthfully
Would I? For contraband maybe with naive tourists who just don’t know that what they’re carrying is considered contraband, but I would love a source on a single terrorist being caught because they confessed after being asked in a form.
Imagine the headlines though! (says your will boss, or bosses boss)
It's still stupid, but they are imagining the news:
> This guy said "it's probably fine" right before Flight 1337 explodes over the Atlantic.
Now personally I'd actually be willing to take that risk: the odds are so overwhelmingly in favor of it being a dumb prank; you might as well refuse to take a shower for fear of slipping on the soap.
But all it takes is one person up the chain of command to say "this would be bad PR" and you've lost your job.
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 decisions are mood, situation, experience, and personality influenced when they shouldn’t be. And when accidents happen we only have difficult to interpret decisions to trace back to. The decisions have to be brainless and black and white.
Could the black and white rules be better? Maybe yes. Then let’s change them carefully.
But I do believe the rules should be black and white, and I personally in this light truly don’t mind I can’t name my Bluetooth device bomb, and I can’t say bomb or joke about having a bomb, no matter how obvious it is that I don’t have one, if that’s the current black and white rules.
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.
> Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"?
Yes. Not every time. But some of the time. Like imagine someone likes to stay organized and they have a bunch of bluetooth devices and gives them all logical names, speaker for speaker, keyboard for keyboard and bomb for bomb. They make a mental note to change the name of bomb before deploying it but then life happens and they forget to fix it.
“Forensic investigators, reviewing the black box communications, discovered that the pilots had identified and were aware of a device named ‘bomb’ on the airplane but elected to take no action.”
I have no desire to defend people's linguistic games that were extremely low value. I do not think these games pass a cost benefit calculation. But fighting against these memes also doesn't pass a cost benefit calculation.
Having said all that, turning a plane around is a meaningfully larger cost on everyone involved than having a commit/merge hook that tells you to rename a variable.
Engineers still say blacklist, even though I avoid it in my own communications, it's not the end of the world.
Totally different situation. People are removing those words as a sign of respect and a very small number of people are chasing down those that don't because it implies an open lack of respect.
I haven't met anyone who is actually uncomfortable with the term "master," only people concerned about what others might think of them. It's not really being inclusive; it's just signaling inclusivity. Surely the time would be better spent, I don't know, volunteering to tutor underprivileged students or something? Or just living your damn life.
I have met several people who are uncomfortable with the 'master/slave' terminology. In my experience, those who do not experience much racism in their day to day lives do not find it offensive, and vice versa. Therefore, it is at least slightly offensive in my opinion.
Once I was explaining how my day went to an ex, and my day happened to involve the terms, and they were absolutely floored that those terms were still used. Then the whole conversation was about racism in tech, and that had significantly less aura than my story of how I fixed everything. Beware ye olde words, lest ye scare thein hoes.
It's used in our PTP protocol implementation which is integrated with a half-dozen different customer-facing UIs, APIs, and documentation. We could add the new terminology, but we would need to keep supporting old terminology indefinitely for backwards compatibility.
You should probably consider that your perspective is also biased and you see all the companies that are in esting.
IME, MCP has often lagged APIs in terms of complete ess, so as a user, if there was an API, I would be better off using that because Codex is already so good at calling APIs.
Now, the API story sucks for non-coders, but I'm not really bullish on MCP for dev tools atm.
Many people have appreciated gains locked into their indexing products such that changing is very expensive.
The biggest issue is not SpaceX/Elon per se, but indexes bending over backwards for him and changing their indexing rules to fleece index investors.
Most IPOs perform badly, to the point where the SP500 excludes all of them for a year, and I think that is actually appropriate for an indexing product. Though they're looking to change that and their float weighting for Elon.
Though after doing some digging I am not personally meaningfully impacted since Vanguard uses CRSP, which is float weighted, so only 0.1% of that is going to be SpaceX and I can live with that.
I short the stock on the actual financials if I was exposed to it (and it was actually possible), but it's a small float and there are apparently tonnes of Elon fanboys propping up Tesla beyond belief already so I expect this to be one of the hardest to predict stocks/IPOs.
I agree that the rule changes are bad and ill intentioned, but I am not sure what I can do about it. And, even if it was zero cost for me to move to an ETF without SpaceX, I would not do it. The market does what the market does, that is what I signed up for, it is a lot smarter than I am. It is not worth changing that for an insult to what will be a few percent of my portfolio. Even if SpaceX drops to 1/2 of its IPO, it will be like having a typical down day, and it will recover. I do want a piece of SpaceX, I just wish it would be at a better price.
As far as the appreciated gains go, I agree with you. However, there is a strong correlation between someones wealth and how much they have in taxable. For most people, especially those that are not wealthy, their equity investments are heavily weighted to retirement accounts,so I look at this as more a rich persons proble.
I think the thing to do here for those exposed to this nonsense (QQQ, SP500 holders) is to make noise to their index provider that you don't want them changing the rules to please Elon.
But it's worth noting how leisure hours have been allocated after the invention of the 5 hour work week: we've reduced working hours at the end of life (longer retirements), start of life (longer education), and some amount of people simply do not work.
There hasn't been a reduction in hours during peak earning potential because many jobs are competitive, because firms are in competition with each other.
Maybe some companies will start doing 4 day work weeks because they find that productivity doesn't actually increase from 4 to 5 days and then start outcompeting other companies for talent. But unless 5 days is actually not more productive than 4 days, we're going to have the most competitive organizations continue to be 5 days a week.
It's strange to put it like “we invented 40hour workweek”. It was extremely hard fight won by cooperation of many levels of the working class. The business owners absolutely didn't want it.
This would have to happen again. But there is none of that worker unity so it's unlikely to happen. The productivity gains will go solely to the bussiness owners.
While unions did fight for the 40 hour work week and crystalized that specific number, their actual causal impact (on hours worked, not law) is contested since hours were already falling well before unions were organizing for the 40 hour work week.
This is only relevant when rates are low. Rates are currently higher than the growth you can expect in housing prices.
I have done repeated financial models of this over the last 15 years and it has never made sense to buy a house for me.
When rates were low, if I had bought a house and then stayed in it a long enough time to counteract transaction costs, it could have been ok, but in expectation, basically everyone buying a house would have been better off investing the money from their downpayment & repayments into the stock market.
I don't know what the US thinks it will gain by targeting civil servants. They are not the ones with the power to decide what happens, and retaliation would mean more anti-US people selecting themselves into these projects.
> retaliation would mean more anti-US people selecting themselves into these projects.
Very few people are martyrs or want to become martyrs. Even fewer in places where life is generally fine and for a cause that isn't dire to their loved ones.
The curve of willingness to oppose aggressive action rises significantly before it drops off at some safety threshold. I believe US-Europe relations are still well below that threshold and the rise in level of aggression is only stirring up more resistance, not less.
I think you highlighted something without meaning to. The core problem is that short of literally nuking Brussels I don't think the EU will ever think the threshold was crossed. Even then I'm not sure. The US has threatened to invade sovereign EU territory multiple times this week alone and we're still having this chat here. The US will keep pushing because the EU does basically nothing when it's literally threatened with invasion.
>They are not the ones with the power to decide what happens
This is a very naive interpretation. Bureaucrats have MASSIVE amount of power and control, and in actuality decide many things and how the law is written.
These civil servants are effectively trying to bypass the US court. These civil servants yield considerable power what comes to the censorship, and the Whitehouse really really hates the idea that the EU can decide, not them, what is allowed. This will send a message that the US stands behind its companies and is not push around. If you want to push non-domestic enforcement, you need to be willing to stand behind the principles and be publicly ready to defend the censorship rulings you set forward.
I would read the links in the article. The problem is that social media companies worked with civil servants in European countries to remove posts being made people outside Europe. This also happened in the UK where there were parts of the government that were able to make requests directly to social media companies to remove posts on their platform, regardless of where the poster was from.
For obvious reasons, the linked article does not explain that fully.
It is kind of weird to see the turnaround on here from people who complain about the US government being too powerful but, for some reason, are quite okay with an unelected EU bureaucrat being able to govern their internet usage. There are no principles at play here.
Posts being distributed to people in the Netherlands that is.
Magic mushroom truffles are decriminalized here in NL, you can sell them openly in shops. Doesn't mean you won't get in trouble if you send them to the US.
Honestly, rather a "unelected EU bureaucrat" (What does this even mean? Are we going to individually elect the entire civil service, or require elected officials to delegate nothing and personally review every decision?) than an American tech-bro governing my internet usage.
I do recall mistral doing this. It's not always about being the best, but also fastest or smallest. The user should have all the information for its own use case.
If your model doesn't actually show the tradeoff you're getting for speed, you're doing marketing and not benchmarking.
Which is fine, we all have to make money, but it is disingenuous. It's just unfortunate that running some of these benchmarks is so expensive that it's not really realistic for most companies to actually run them.
reply