KoboldCoterie 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, […]

[–] 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