Admetus comments on United flight forced to turn around because of a Bluetooth speaker name

United flight forced to turn around because of a Bluetooth speaker name (www.theverge.com)

submitted 5 months ago by resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

136 comments fedilink hide all child comments

United flight 236 from Newark to Palma de Mallorca on Saturday night was forced to turn around just an hour after takeoff due to security concerns around a Bluetooth signal. Multiple Redditors claimed to be on the flight and reported that the crew repeatedly requested passengers to turn off their Bluetooth. According to one poster, […]

[–] Admetus@sopuli.xyz 70 points 5 months ago (23 children)

I mean, a 12 year old is more likely than not to name a cylindrical boombox a 'bomb' and forget about it. Hopefully a sincere apology will suffice instead of a ban or criminal charges.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 23 child comments

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 77 points 5 months ago (13 children)

According to discussion about this elsewhere, there's a bluetooth speaker model named 'Bomb' that defaults to that name, whose website, humorously, has been rate limited due to I'm sure more traffic than they've ever had in its entire existence.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[+] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz -13 points 5 months ago (12 children)

That's fucked up, and honestly negligent on the company's part. I hope they get sued.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 20 points 5 months ago (11 children)

Or we could stop pushing security theatre.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz -3 points 5 months ago (10 children)

I don't know, I think airlines should have a responsibility to address potential bomb threats on their commercial flights but that might just be me...

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 months ago (9 children)

Yes, terrorists are absolutely going around naming their WiFi and Bluetooth devices 'bomb'.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I think a simple rule of "Better safe than sorry" applies here. It is as if a robber comes with a plastic gun that looks like a real one. Nobody wants to figure out if it is real or not.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] joelfromaus@aussie.zone 4 points 5 months ago

Best case, inconvenience. Worst case, death. Being stuck in a metal tube kilometres above the earth I’m going to lean towards caution.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This resembled the actual thing less than finger guns resemble the real ones.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

I know that in modern times most toy guns look nothing like a real weapon (colorful, looking weird, and so on), but you can still find some guns like this one:

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago

Finger guns

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Not saying that's logical, but it's something the airlines have to act on. They have policies in place that they need to follow, and even if it's a finer comb than it needs to be it's better than having no policy at all.

People forget how many skyjackings there were in the 80s and 90s when they say airport security is worthless. Like "How many incidents have they prevented?" "Only all the ones that didn't happen..."

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

So is your suggestion to do away with airline security?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 months ago

Not entirely. But it's undeniable that most security measures are rooted in nothing more than a desire for a bigger budget.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 19 points 5 months ago (8 children)

Honestly, I don't see any way this could result in criminal charges. It's a Bluetooth name, not someone actually threatening with a weapon. It's like walking around with a fake gun. You can't be charged with anything without actual intent to deceive people, and good luck proving that.

At most, this is a civil charge. The airline might try to get some money out of this person.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] kunaltyagi@programming.dev 13 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Poor chap. Chances are the person was flying economy. No way that person can give enough to recoup even the lawyer fees for the airline

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 months ago

Yep. They might still try it to punish them/set an example. They're not getting enough out of it to be worth it though, so odds are nothing happens.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 5 points 5 months ago

I think it depends on the color of your skin.

Many kids with fake guns have been executed for this, because their skin is black

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

It could absolutely result in a criminal charge. If it results in a criminal conviction or not is another question.

But any prosecutor could make the argument that it's a terroristic threat.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago

It'd be a waste of time, but yeah.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] chocrates@piefed.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

You can still be prosecuted for things you didn't intend, the laws are usually less harsh. Manslaughter vs Murder for instance. I have no idea if a speaker whose name auto sets to bomb is illegal though. Seems dumb if it were

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 months ago

IIRC, all the laws about terrorism require intent.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] fizzle 2 points 5 months ago

Naming a Bluetooth device "bomb" could absolutely be intentionally disruptive or threatening.

Im not saying thats provable beyond reasonable doubt in this case.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent