7 ms·

Andddd now everyone knows that an arbitrary text string in a device hostname is enough to ground a flight.

basilikum 4mo ago
To be honest calling the police and saying you have a bomb planted on flight XYZ and want 100000$ or you'll detonate it, is probably also enough.
- bluescrn 4mo ago
  But bombs apparently use bluetooth now, so he can't detonate it from more than a few metres away...
  - lostlogin 4mo ago
    > he can't detonate it from more than a few metres away... Reliably bomb detonation is on the roadmap for Bluetooth 8.
  - ssl-3 4mo ago
    In the most simplistic terms, yeah. That's true. But the constraints aren't really shaped like that. For instance: A completely-innocent Airtag speaks only bluetooth, and it can be activated from continents away -- as long as any Apple phone is nearby with a shred of Internet access. My similarly-innocent Samsung phone is programmable (using its built-in Routines function) to perform actions in response to becoming disconnected from any given Bluetooth device.
lostlogin 4mo ago
The other incident mentioned is worse I think. It wasn’t a potential threat, it was stating an opinion. “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.”
- dghlsakjg 4mo ago
  Given that the Palestinian Liberation Organization has an actual history of multiple hijackings, this makes a slight amount of sense. Of course, someone planning to hijack a flight would probably never try to do so with WiFi ssid’s, not to mention that hardened cockpit doors and passenger attitudes mean that PLO style hijackings are now impossible. Of course, telling people to turn off the network name (bomb, Palestine or otherwise) and everything will be fine, is a tacit admission that the whole thing is theater.
- HDBaseT 4mo ago
  Genuine question, what could the FBI actually do? I understand that the United States is actually a puppet for Israel, although the name on a Bluetooth device isn't really breaking any laws? It's not calling harm to someone, its not a threat. I thought America was the place of free speech?
  - linkregister 4mo ago
    Passengers are required to follow orders by flight crew regarding flight safety. If the passenger shut off the device, it does appear that 1st Amendment speech protections would apply (prior restraint is expressly forbidden). If the passenger failed to comply, then I suppose the FBI could detain them for failing to follow the lawful order.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
asdff 4mo ago
You can probably sharpie "I have a bomb" on your forehead and get the same result

To be honest calling the police and saying you have a bomb planted on flight XYZ and want 100000$ or you'll detonate it, is probably also enough.

bluescrn 4mo ago
But bombs apparently use bluetooth now, so he can't detonate it from more than a few metres away...
- lostlogin 4mo ago
  > he can't detonate it from more than a few metres away... Reliably bomb detonation is on the roadmap for Bluetooth 8.
- ssl-3 4mo ago
  In the most simplistic terms, yeah. That's true. But the constraints aren't really shaped like that. For instance: A completely-innocent Airtag speaks only bluetooth, and it can be activated from continents away -- as long as any Apple phone is nearby with a shred of Internet access. My similarly-innocent Samsung phone is programmable (using its built-in Routines function) to perform actions in response to becoming disconnected from any given Bluetooth device.

lostlogin 4mo ago

The other incident mentioned is worse I think. It wasn’t a potential threat, it was stating an opinion. “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.”

dghlsakjg 4mo ago
Given that the Palestinian Liberation Organization has an actual history of multiple hijackings, this makes a slight amount of sense. Of course, someone planning to hijack a flight would probably never try to do so with WiFi ssid’s, not to mention that hardened cockpit doors and passenger attitudes mean that PLO style hijackings are now impossible. Of course, telling people to turn off the network name (bomb, Palestine or otherwise) and everything will be fine, is a tacit admission that the whole thing is theater.
HDBaseT 4mo ago
Genuine question, what could the FBI actually do? I understand that the United States is actually a puppet for Israel, although the name on a Bluetooth device isn't really breaking any laws? It's not calling harm to someone, its not a threat. I thought America was the place of free speech?
- linkregister 4mo ago
  Passengers are required to follow orders by flight crew regarding flight safety. If the passenger shut off the device, it does appear that 1st Amendment speech protections would apply (prior restraint is expressly forbidden). If the passenger failed to comply, then I suppose the FBI could detain them for failing to follow the lawful order.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

asdff 4mo ago

You can probably sharpie "I have a bomb" on your forehead and get the same result