4 ms·

If he was going to harm the aircraft, he wouldn't have announced it in a tweet. If the FBI already had reasonable suspicion he would, they shouldn't have let hi

If he was going to harm the aircraft, he wouldn't have announced it in a tweet. If the FBI already had reasonable suspicion he would, they shouldn't have let him get on the plane in the first place. There is no rational reason for their action. This is simply a PR move by United and the FBI. Which leads to the same conclusion: just don't tweet things like this. Not because you're wrong, but because they are assholes.

DanBC 12y ago
> If he was going to harm the aircraft, he wouldn't have announced it in a tweet. You can't know that. > If the FBI already had reasonable suspicion he would, they shouldn't have let him get on the plane in the first place. They may well have stopped him getting on the plane if he'd made similar tweets beforehand. "I'm going on a plane next month. What should I do with EICAS ;-)" would probably have had the same effect. He shouldn't have had his stuff confiscated, but he has no excuse for not knowing how "they" reacted. Their over reaction is entirely predictable, not just from theory but from their past behaviour.
ghshephard 12y ago
"If he was going to harm the aircraft, he wouldn't have announced it in a tweet." Many, Many bad actors have a pretty good trail/history of signals that made it clear that they were going to do something stupid. And a lot of them are stopped because authorities stepped in when those signals were reported. Would you want to be the person who was notified that someone was communicating they were considering interfering with the proper operation of an aircraft, and ignored them, only to discovery they later on did do damage to the aircraft? I think at the very least, people responsible for flight safety can engage with those making claims they are going to endanger airplanes, and subject them to a strenuous interview to determine what their actual intent is.
- Lorento 12y ago
  It's one thing to unobtrusively investigate a suspicious person, but actually interrupting their life just because your heuristics aren't good enough sound like a ding to free speech. If everyone joked about hacking planes, that would no longer be a risk factor.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    I learned at the age of five or six to never make jokes about airplane safety - and that was 20 years prior to 9/11. Most adults in North America have enough common sense, particularly after 9/11, not to start mouthing off about endangering airplane security. It's like being humorous regarding the safety of the president - it's just one of those things that if you do it, you know are going to get a visit by the authorities, and, quite possibly, go to prison. There are certain topics around which you do not have absolute freedom to say whatever you want, particularly when you are in an airplane. In this case, all the authorities did was interview him, and seize his electronics. My reading of the story is they didn't even charge him with a crime or put him in a cell. I don't find it surprising whatsoever that United Airlines does not want him flying on their planes. What did he expect was going to happen?
    - pyre 12y ago
      > I don't find it surprising whatsoever that United Airlines does not want him flying on their planes. This is more a function of the airlines just being stupid though. There was a case where an Arabic family was taken off of an airplane because on of the teenagers asked how safe it was to sit in a seat next to the wing. The FBI cleared them, but the airline refused to allow them back on a plane.
      - ghshephard 12y ago
        Robert's exact statement was, "Find myself on a 737/800, lets see Box-IFE-ICE-SATCOM, ? Shall we start playing with EICAS messages? "PASS OXYGEN ON" Anyone ? :)" I.E. He was talking about directly interfering with the planes EICAS system. What if he'd joked about running a GPS, or VOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range) jammer during final approach? At what point do the authorities decide they need to have a conversation with such an individual?
        pyre 12y ago
        The issue is that the authorities did have a talk with him, but the airlines have deemed that the authorities' assurances are inadequate. That was the portion of the example that I was referring to. The airlines have said "FBI says this guy is ok? Screw that, don't let him on anyways!"
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Would you want to be the person who was notified that someone was communicating they were considering interfering with the proper operation of an aircraft, and ignored them, only to discovery they later on did do damage to the aircraft? That's the problem with concentrating blame. It leads to net counterproductive behavior. One in such a position is thinking about their position, not just the people they are protecting.

DanBC 12y ago

> If he was going to harm the aircraft, he wouldn't have announced it in a tweet. You can't know that. > If the FBI already had reasonable suspicion he would, they shouldn't have let him get on the plane in the first place. They may well have stopped him getting on the plane if he'd made similar tweets beforehand. "I'm going on a plane next month. What should I do with EICAS ;-)" would probably have had the same effect. He shouldn't have had his stuff confiscated, but he has no excuse for not knowing how "they" reacted. Their over reaction is entirely predictable, not just from theory but from their past behaviour.

ghshephard 12y ago

"If he was going to harm the aircraft, he wouldn't have announced it in a tweet." Many, Many bad actors have a pretty good trail/history of signals that made it clear that they were going to do something stupid. And a lot of them are stopped because authorities stepped in when those signals were reported. Would you want to be the person who was notified that someone was communicating they were considering interfering with the proper operation of an aircraft, and ignored them, only to discovery they later on did do damage to the aircraft? I think at the very least, people responsible for flight safety can engage with those making claims they are going to endanger airplanes, and subject them to a strenuous interview to determine what their actual intent is.

Lorento 12y ago
It's one thing to unobtrusively investigate a suspicious person, but actually interrupting their life just because your heuristics aren't good enough sound like a ding to free speech. If everyone joked about hacking planes, that would no longer be a risk factor.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  I learned at the age of five or six to never make jokes about airplane safety - and that was 20 years prior to 9/11. Most adults in North America have enough common sense, particularly after 9/11, not to start mouthing off about endangering airplane security. It's like being humorous regarding the safety of the president - it's just one of those things that if you do it, you know are going to get a visit by the authorities, and, quite possibly, go to prison. There are certain topics around which you do not have absolute freedom to say whatever you want, particularly when you are in an airplane. In this case, all the authorities did was interview him, and seize his electronics. My reading of the story is they didn't even charge him with a crime or put him in a cell. I don't find it surprising whatsoever that United Airlines does not want him flying on their planes. What did he expect was going to happen?
  - pyre 12y ago
    > I don't find it surprising whatsoever that United Airlines does not want him flying on their planes. This is more a function of the airlines just being stupid though. There was a case where an Arabic family was taken off of an airplane because on of the teenagers asked how safe it was to sit in a seat next to the wing. The FBI cleared them, but the airline refused to allow them back on a plane.
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      Robert's exact statement was, "Find myself on a 737/800, lets see Box-IFE-ICE-SATCOM, ? Shall we start playing with EICAS messages? "PASS OXYGEN ON" Anyone ? :)" I.E. He was talking about directly interfering with the planes EICAS system. What if he'd joked about running a GPS, or VOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range) jammer during final approach? At what point do the authorities decide they need to have a conversation with such an individual?
      - pyre 12y ago
        The issue is that the authorities did have a talk with him, but the airlines have deemed that the authorities' assurances are inadequate. That was the portion of the example that I was referring to. The airlines have said "FBI says this guy is ok? Screw that, don't let him on anyways!"
nitrogen 12y ago
Would you want to be the person who was notified that someone was communicating they were considering interfering with the proper operation of an aircraft, and ignored them, only to discovery they later on did do damage to the aircraft? That's the problem with concentrating blame. It leads to net counterproductive behavior. One in such a position is thinking about their position, not just the people they are protecting.