Not The Onion

21624 readers

921 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

278

United flight forced to turn around because of a Bluetooth speaker name (www.theverge.com)

submitted 2 days ago by resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

134 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/47299437

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, […]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Or we could stop pushing security theatre.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz -4 points 2 days ago (1 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...

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yes, terrorists are absolutely going around naming their WiFi and Bluetooth devices 'bomb'.

[–] imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (2 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.

[–] joelfromaus@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

Best case, inconvenience. Worst case, death. Being stuck in a metal tube kilometres above the earth I’m going to lean towards caution.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This resembled the actual thing less than finger guns resemble the real ones.

[–] imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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:

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Finger guns

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago (1 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..."

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So is your suggestion to do away with airline security?

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago

Not entirely. But it's undeniable that most security measures are rooted in nothing more than a desire for a bigger budget.