4 ms·

According to the article, it was a Fitbit device belonging to a teenager... Chances are, the kid selected that nickname for the device a long while ago and forg

According to the article, it was a Fitbit device belonging to a teenager... Chances are, the kid selected that nickname for the device a long while ago and forgot about it, and was probably unaware that the device was using Bluetooth at all, and that they should turn off their fitness tracker when the announcement came through... At the same time, some people in the comments under the article are more or less calling for the death penalty for the kid...

yulfvanschmidt 4mo ago
Pretty absurd stuff. Obviously if FAA safety first is going to apply not to aviation employees but to something that is easy to DOS attack as the consumer this doesn't work.. They could at least implement a policy of scanning Bluetooth and similar beacons at security gates though. More theatre, more fun at least doesn't mean more turning around.
- thrownthatway 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Xirdus 4mo ago
    > Hard to imagine at least one person didn’t see the device name and immediately brush it off as entirely unimportant. There are hundreds of BT devices everywhere that people waiting for a flight hang out. Without automatic scanning for the specific purpose of catching weird names, it'd be near impossible for the weird name to ever show up for anyone except the owner. And most devices don't advertise their BT name unless in pairing mode, so no, it wouldn't show up in the security screening either.
    - voidpointer 4mo ago
      So, how did it eventually show up? Owner's phone goes off/airplane-mode, watch starts advertising; someone else wants to connect their BT headphones and sees the name of the watch?
      - Forgeties79 4mo ago
        There are way fewer Bluetooth signals active at once on an airplane then there are in an airport. There is also the entire duration of the flight for it to be discovered. Also take in to account that most people are not fidgeting with their device settings when they are walking around an airport, they are trying to get through security and get to their gate. Once you are on a plane that’s when you usually stop and start setting up your devices, such as connecting headphones.
      - Xirdus 4mo ago
        I suspect it went something like this. "Please turn on the airplane mode now." Phone put into airplane mode. Phone disables BT. Watch loses connection. Because of questionable engineering choices, it automatically enters pairing mode and looks for another known device while also broadcasting its name. Most BT and WiFi devices in the area are turned off so the list of broadcasting devices is very short. The plane crew (I assume) manually check for strong 2.4G signals as part of take off procedures. "The Bomb" is sticking out like a sore thumb among the 5-10 other Fitbits and JBLs. Importantly, the set of circumstances is so specific it couldn't have happened anywhere that is not an inside of an airplane about to take off - but also it would've happened inside every airplane about to take off.
        thrownthatway 4mo ago
        > Most BT and WiFi devices in the area are turned off You’re kidding right?
Andrex 4mo ago
[flagged]
- Forgeties79 4mo ago
  I’ve never understood this logic. If we want to treat people who are under 18 as adults in certain legal circumstances, then we should just establish a new age or set a concrete exception based on the law violated. Making special exceptions on a case by case basis where people have to argue about it, especially when it demonstrably affects certain demographics more than others, is a terrible way to operate. I’m going to go out on a limb and say you probably don’t have kids. If your teenager got in trouble for a messed up “joke” like this and the result was a criminal proceeding where they’re tried as an adult you’d be (rightfully) crying that it’s too much. Also what does columbine have to do with this? Unless your implication is that any kid around the age of 17 should be treated as a potential school shooter.
- gspr 4mo ago
  > Throw the book at him, he should have known better. What book!? The book of laws that outlaw jokes in bad taste potentially made years ago, outside the context of air travel altogether, only to be forgotten about and accidentally brought into the context of air travel where one can conceivably think of laws that make those jokes problematic? Come on!
  - The_President 4mo ago
    Can't make "Gate C4" jokes anymore.
- therealpygon 4mo ago
  Are you really trying to equate murder with naming a Bluetooth device and that a child should have their life ruined on the same scale as if they were equivalent in impact or intent, with little knowledge of the actual situation or intent? Weird how you want kids to be punished for stupid mistakes. If you drive, you probably put more people lives in danger last week than that kids fitness tracker. When you speed, you put lives in danger (statistical fact, none of that “but I am good driver crap”) — will you ask for the death penalty if a cop sees you going 1mph over? Or do you only want strong punishment for others as is usually the case with such opinions?
jMyles 4mo ago
> some people in the comments The commenters' status as people (I presume here you mean biological humans) seems unlikely to me.
- quietbritishjim 4mo ago
  I wouldn't like to guess either way about this particular article, but it's possible many really are people. Certainly there were plenty of online commenters for news articles reacting in exactly this sort of way long before there were LLMs.
  - jMyles 4mo ago
    It seems very obvious to me that certain constituencies in online commenting are at all-time highs for loudness: * police/prison/statist notions of justice * auto industry / auto-first infra * both pro- and anti-israel * pro-IP / copyright industrial complex There are a bunch more. Maybe it's a shift in actual human sentiment, but without evidence, I don't think it makes sense for that to be the first presumption. Fortunately, we're gonna get this here web-o-trust thing going in the next 10 years or so and not have to doubt who the humans are anymore. Riiight?
redsocksfan45 4mo ago
[dead]
petre 4mo ago
Awful joke. There have to be at least some consequences for the kid, like getting banned for flying United for 10 years.
- gspr 4mo ago
  > Awful joke. There have to be at least some consequences for the kid, like getting banned for flying United for 10 years. Take a step back. You yourself describe it as a joke. Are you really saying that the quality of the joke ("awful") should result in the origin of the joke (a kid, even!) should be banned from a major air carrier for 10 years? Does this really seem like a proportional response? And this doesn't even begin to consider another possibility: the device was named what it was named in a completely different setting, and the owner just forgot about it. That makes it not even a joke, just forgetfulness. Was any of this a good idea? No, probably not, but people need to calm down.
  - voidpointer 4mo ago
    > Was any of this a good idea? No, probably not, but people need to calm down. I can understand the safety concern - and I think the decision to turn around was ultimately the right call. Especially given that they had called for people turning off BT for some time. The fact that the device was not turned off suggests to me that the owner did not know they were the cause of this. If they had done this by intent and were set on going through with it even after the turnaround was initiated, they would have also had the sense to drop the device into some other seat or leave it in the lavatory... If it turns out they did this with full intent, there should be some _appropriate_ consequence
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - gspr 4mo ago
      > If it turns out they did this with full intent, there should be some _appropriate_ consequence Sure, if evidence is uncovered of the guy say telling his friends "haha, I'm gonna make them turn the plane around", I can get behind the baying for consequences. We're nowhere near that. There's plenty of non-nefarious ways this could all have come about, and people need to put down their pitchforks.

yulfvanschmidt 4mo ago

Pretty absurd stuff. Obviously if FAA safety first is going to apply not to aviation employees but to something that is easy to DOS attack as the consumer this doesn't work.. They could at least implement a policy of scanning Bluetooth and similar beacons at security gates though. More theatre, more fun at least doesn't mean more turning around.

thrownthatway 4mo ago
[flagged]
- Xirdus 4mo ago
  > Hard to imagine at least one person didn’t see the device name and immediately brush it off as entirely unimportant. There are hundreds of BT devices everywhere that people waiting for a flight hang out. Without automatic scanning for the specific purpose of catching weird names, it'd be near impossible for the weird name to ever show up for anyone except the owner. And most devices don't advertise their BT name unless in pairing mode, so no, it wouldn't show up in the security screening either.
  - voidpointer 4mo ago
    So, how did it eventually show up? Owner's phone goes off/airplane-mode, watch starts advertising; someone else wants to connect their BT headphones and sees the name of the watch?
    - Forgeties79 4mo ago
      There are way fewer Bluetooth signals active at once on an airplane then there are in an airport. There is also the entire duration of the flight for it to be discovered. Also take in to account that most people are not fidgeting with their device settings when they are walking around an airport, they are trying to get through security and get to their gate. Once you are on a plane that’s when you usually stop and start setting up your devices, such as connecting headphones.
    - Xirdus 4mo ago
      I suspect it went something like this. "Please turn on the airplane mode now." Phone put into airplane mode. Phone disables BT. Watch loses connection. Because of questionable engineering choices, it automatically enters pairing mode and looks for another known device while also broadcasting its name. Most BT and WiFi devices in the area are turned off so the list of broadcasting devices is very short. The plane crew (I assume) manually check for strong 2.4G signals as part of take off procedures. "The Bomb" is sticking out like a sore thumb among the 5-10 other Fitbits and JBLs. Importantly, the set of circumstances is so specific it couldn't have happened anywhere that is not an inside of an airplane about to take off - but also it would've happened inside every airplane about to take off.
      - thrownthatway 4mo ago
        > Most BT and WiFi devices in the area are turned off You’re kidding right?

Andrex 4mo ago

[flagged]

Forgeties79 4mo ago
I’ve never understood this logic. If we want to treat people who are under 18 as adults in certain legal circumstances, then we should just establish a new age or set a concrete exception based on the law violated. Making special exceptions on a case by case basis where people have to argue about it, especially when it demonstrably affects certain demographics more than others, is a terrible way to operate. I’m going to go out on a limb and say you probably don’t have kids. If your teenager got in trouble for a messed up “joke” like this and the result was a criminal proceeding where they’re tried as an adult you’d be (rightfully) crying that it’s too much. Also what does columbine have to do with this? Unless your implication is that any kid around the age of 17 should be treated as a potential school shooter.
gspr 4mo ago
> Throw the book at him, he should have known better. What book!? The book of laws that outlaw jokes in bad taste potentially made years ago, outside the context of air travel altogether, only to be forgotten about and accidentally brought into the context of air travel where one can conceivably think of laws that make those jokes problematic? Come on!
- The_President 4mo ago
  Can't make "Gate C4" jokes anymore.
therealpygon 4mo ago
Are you really trying to equate murder with naming a Bluetooth device and that a child should have their life ruined on the same scale as if they were equivalent in impact or intent, with little knowledge of the actual situation or intent? Weird how you want kids to be punished for stupid mistakes. If you drive, you probably put more people lives in danger last week than that kids fitness tracker. When you speed, you put lives in danger (statistical fact, none of that “but I am good driver crap”) — will you ask for the death penalty if a cop sees you going 1mph over? Or do you only want strong punishment for others as is usually the case with such opinions?

jMyles 4mo ago

> some people in the comments The commenters' status as people (I presume here you mean biological humans) seems unlikely to me.

quietbritishjim 4mo ago
I wouldn't like to guess either way about this particular article, but it's possible many really are people. Certainly there were plenty of online commenters for news articles reacting in exactly this sort of way long before there were LLMs.
- jMyles 4mo ago
  It seems very obvious to me that certain constituencies in online commenting are at all-time highs for loudness: * police/prison/statist notions of justice * auto industry / auto-first infra * both pro- and anti-israel * pro-IP / copyright industrial complex There are a bunch more. Maybe it's a shift in actual human sentiment, but without evidence, I don't think it makes sense for that to be the first presumption. Fortunately, we're gonna get this here web-o-trust thing going in the next 10 years or so and not have to doubt who the humans are anymore. Riiight?

redsocksfan45 4mo ago

[dead]

petre 4mo ago

Awful joke. There have to be at least some consequences for the kid, like getting banned for flying United for 10 years.

gspr 4mo ago
> Awful joke. There have to be at least some consequences for the kid, like getting banned for flying United for 10 years. Take a step back. You yourself describe it as a joke. Are you really saying that the quality of the joke ("awful") should result in the origin of the joke (a kid, even!) should be banned from a major air carrier for 10 years? Does this really seem like a proportional response? And this doesn't even begin to consider another possibility: the device was named what it was named in a completely different setting, and the owner just forgot about it. That makes it not even a joke, just forgetfulness. Was any of this a good idea? No, probably not, but people need to calm down.
- voidpointer 4mo ago
  > Was any of this a good idea? No, probably not, but people need to calm down. I can understand the safety concern - and I think the decision to turn around was ultimately the right call. Especially given that they had called for people turning off BT for some time. The fact that the device was not turned off suggests to me that the owner did not know they were the cause of this. If they had done this by intent and were set on going through with it even after the turnaround was initiated, they would have also had the sense to drop the device into some other seat or leave it in the lavatory... If it turns out they did this with full intent, there should be some _appropriate_ consequence
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - gspr 4mo ago
    > If it turns out they did this with full intent, there should be some _appropriate_ consequence Sure, if evidence is uncovered of the guy say telling his friends "haha, I'm gonna make them turn the plane around", I can get behind the baying for consequences. We're nowhere near that. There's plenty of non-nefarious ways this could all have come about, and people need to put down their pitchforks.