[voidpointer]

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...

[jMyles]

> some people in the comments

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

[quietbritishjim]

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]

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?

[yulfvanschmidt]

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.

[petre]

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

[gspr]

> 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.

[petre]

Yes, I guess he could havr tuned off his BT when asked repeatedly to do so, instead of wasting oassenger time and airline fuel.

[gspr]

… if he even remembered that it was his device in the first place! I don't remember what names my phone or my seldomly used "park speaker" report.

[voidpointer]

> 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

[amiga386]

> I can understand the safety concern - and I think the decision to turn around was ultimately the right call.

I don't, and I think it fits what Bruce Schneier called "Cover Your Ass" security (he was referring to the equally stupid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_Mooninite_panic)

It sounds like a fantastic DDoS opportunity, you could shut down an entire nation's aviation just by putting a few tiny bluetooth transmitters in places that air passengers might accidentally pick them up. The attack relies entirely on the overreaction to non-threats by ignorant buffoons in positions of authority.

Personally, I think the airline and its policies should be publicly ridiculed. If we don't punish the airline for doing this, and make unequivocably clear that it did the wrong thing, that its "what ifs" are meaningless and bluetooth/wifi channel names are not a security threat, then this nonsense will just continue.

[voidpointer]

In general and long-term I agree with what you are saying. I assume this was a new/unknown situation. (On the other hand, the article links to other similar stories, so maybe I am cutting them too much slack). If "electronic device names" are of concern, there should be an established protocol to deal with them. Especially if this keeps happening.

[solenoid0937]

IDK, this was pure technical incompetence by rubes that can barely operate a smartphone. The delay relies entirely on these supposed "adults in the room" overreacting.

[gspr]

> 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.

[onemoresoop]

Let’s say it wasn’t a joke, who would name their explosive device bomb?

[criddell]

Clearly not a HNer. The name goes against RFC1178 in a couple of different ways.

[petre]

You're probably right, they would have probably named it somewhat more entertaining, like "Allahu ackbar". "Bomb" is quite boring. Sounds like an enegy drink brand. Which would be be a unfortunate idea to serve on a plane. Anyway, airlines are quite mundane and like to make a security theatre out of one's luggage, which is mosty underwear, not even something more remotely entertainling off board, like nitricellulose. Not to mention bottled water, uh dangerous liquids, clearely nuclear grade.

My wife would have probably freaked out if she saw a wifi network named "bomb" on the plane. So as an airline security officer I'd totally ban this kind of behaviour.