> This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion.
| During this incident, 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.
We've just grown accustomed to security theater. Don't forget, this security theater has resulted in more deaths than 9/11 ever did[0,1,2]
[0] Indirectly. The friction in air travel leads to more people driving, which is objectively a more deadly form of travel. We're talking several orders of magnitude, so even a low percentage of people shifting from air travel to car means substantial numbers. That means your risk of dying or being injured in a car crash also increases because it means more people are on the road. It's not a function of how good of a driver you are, it is a function of how good of a driver they are. So you really do want more people flying
[1] https://www.govexec.com/management/2012/11/tsa-killing-us/59...
[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=677549
> you have the right to express it
Out in public sure. In an airplane you're in someone else's private space (ie the airline's) and everyone is not only confined with you in minimal comfort, they have no way to leave. Trying to 'own' the space in this context is a dick move. If I'm a traveling passenger I don't want to be subject to your political ideas/religious sentiments/music preferences/sporting affiliation or whatever else. Besides the irritation it may or may not inflict on other passengers, it's an unnecessary burden for the flight crew, who are going to have to field any complaints about it.
In short, please stow your rights in the overhead container or in your checked baggage and respect other peoples' right to be left alone.
That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI."
You're talking about should or shouldn't. The issue here is past that point: whether it's then right to involve people who are empowered to take away your physical liberty, and worse.
Yes, but on an aircraft the captain is the dictator. They can do basically whatever they want within the confines of law and company policy - and honestly with enough seniority, which the captain on a transatlantic flight has a lot of - they can probably ignore company policy once or twice and get away with it and keep their job.
As far as I'm aware there is no law preventing the captain from deciding to go back because they don't like one of the passengers blasting their opinions to the entire aircraft. What the opinion is, its levels of subjectivity or objectivity, and whether or not it's popular is completely irrelevant.
The wifi name probably should have been ignored. But the incidents of people airdropping profane pictures to randos on planes...
I think the reason for the captain not liking you is secondary and could get him fired but it’s still: mess around in federal airspace, deal with the feds. Follow all instructions of all flight crew or you’re a criminal, regardless (I think).
Not actually the FBI though is it? Captain probably wanted to sound serious (mission accomplished).
What does a Bluetooth device's nickname have to do with leaving people alone?
Not only do the people have no way to leave, the owner of the place also has no practical way to make people leave, like they would for example in a restaurant. At least once the plane is in the air.
And the captain has to ensure the safety not only of the flying machine but also of the cabin. So I can absolutely understand the move here and the need to forbid everything that could incite violence in the cabin.
Can we just recognize how crazy of a scenario this is?
That would make me uncomfortable on the flight, and it's also one-hundred percent a political statement. One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans, and many more people outside of it.
If you are in any way harassing people by shouting through the plane for example, I agree. But the SSID of a WiFi network isn't that. No one is forced to continually read the list of available hotspots over and over again. There is nothing special about the fact that it's on a plane here.
"not trying to make a political statement", but... Can we say, that Palestine is an enclosed space, considering its total land and sea blockade?
Oh, the irony
> The convention [...] recognises certain powers and immunities of the aircraft commander who on international flights may restrain any person(s) he has reasonable cause to believe is committing or is about to commit an offence liable to interfere with the safety of persons or property on board or who is jeopardising good order and discipline.
Is there some reasonable test? Could he do this for a band t shirt
> he has reasonable cause to believe is committing or is about to commit an offence
You're being unreasonable. Think about what you're saying. It's the equivalent of "You can't wear that shirt, someone might get offended and punch you in the face." We don't act like this in society. You arrest the person who throws the punch, not the person wearing the shirt. Just the same way you don't arrest a woman for wearing something slutty, you arrest the person who sexually assaulted them. This is the definition of victim blaming. It doesn't matter if the victim is increasing their odds of being victim (unless they are actively seeking out and attempting to become a victim).
Be reasonable. Punish the person who is actually committing the offense. Don't punish someone because of some imaginary offense.
If I can ignore seeing your neglected toenails tangled haphazardly around the sandiest pair of adidas flip-flops you possess, you can kindly ignore the SSID "Electronic Frontier Foundation", Karen.
Its not private space. Its public because they sell tickets. Its like going to any other event, and I don’t think there’s a constitutional exception to free speech on airplanes where you can’t express your opinions.
Ah yes, the classic "your politics," but of course the person having this opinion's politics are perfectly fine, because they're the "normal" person with the "normal" politics, not like that crazy person who thinks some randos shouldn't be the subject of genocide. How dare they!
To you, who made up the scenario and specified that it's not a threat, sure, it seems that way.
To the pilot of an airplane full of people whose safety he is responsible for, even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention to. In real life you don't get to specify what "clearly" is or is not the case. People have to make judgment calls, and in certain contexts they are going to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry.
> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech
This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue. The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects that saying certain things is going to have in certain contexts. We're all supposed to be responsible adults who understand that we can't push our pet issues everywhere we go.
> We've just grown accustomed to security theater.
Easy for you to say since you're not the one responsible for the safety of a planeload of people. This is not a "security theater" issue either. You don't have the right to trumpet your pet issue everywhere you go.
> This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue.
The only issue I can see that causing is a fight. And anyone that is willing to start a fight because someone has s stupid device name should be committed because they're insane. That's crazy amounts of petty.
Freedom of speech for me not thee.
I get my lighter through in Brazil all the time and a friend of mine got giant scissors through in Buenos Aires. It’s entirely a choice to freak out over nothing.
In most of the world you’re allowed to do outlandish things like have a beer at the mall. Or walk outside with one.
What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"?
Should he react to all messages as if they are threats, because no matter how small the risk is, more than zero is too much?
If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat. Anything else leads to absurd outcomes that make it harder to protect from real threats.
>The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question? Please enlighten us, because most of us are apparently unable to predict those ourselves.
I'm unable to find any connection between Teddy Ruxpin and sarin gas online, so I don't see why a pilot would make such a connection. Am I missing something?
> If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat.
Have you ever been in a position where you were responsible for the safety of several hundred people?
> What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question?
That not turning that Bluetooth device off when told to was going to end up delaying the flight.
To someone whose primary consideration is safety, like the captain of an aeroplane, your logic is entirely nonsensical.
No. But he should treat messages that are blatantly intended to provoke others as such. If someone on the flight is going out of their way to cause trouble, kicking them off is the smart move.
Flying is already a stressful experience - between security checks, waiting for flights, unruly passengers, super cramped seats etc. Why add more stress? Either protest seriously at an appropriate time/place or just use the airport for what it is, to go to your destination. Why get cute with ineffective methods of protest like changing WiFi name? In the end, all it achieved was hours of delay and even more stress to passengers, right?
For example I don't leave my house often, so a walking protest in the middle of a city has zero chance to reach me. HN post does.
> Does naming WiFi hotspot to reflect one’s political views achieve anything?
Does action-less speech achieve anything? Advertising, PSAs, political campaigning, etc. all indicate its value in attaining mindshare. Moreover, freedom of expression is liberating for people.
I really don’t think this is an uncommon opinion.
Currently signalling support for Palestine is common online. In videogames in my country (Spain) every third player has some such signal (flag or phrase). It's not a serious protest, it's a sign of belonging to group x (whatever group x is), something teens in particular are big in signalling. It's not a big deal and reacting operationally as if it were is a huge security error.
Would you say the same if it praised Israels bravery? Honoured Charlie Kirk? Said anything you don't agree with?
Still doesn't make it OK, though.
They do not, it is all woke signaling to others.
They can put a pic up on Reddit, Insta and get updoots for it from all the genz maniacs.
If you wear a PLO shal you are basically a terrorist in my eyes.
The First Amendment only prevents the government from penalizing your speech. It doesn't stop a private company (airline) kicking you off an airplane for something you said or did.
The PIC (Pilot In Command, aka Captain) is the final authority for the safe operation of the flight (14 CFR Part 91.3). If the Captain determines that a threat exists, they are empowered to do pretty much anything reasonable to deal with the threat. Turning the plane around and landing is certainly in the realm of "reasonable".
Whether you or somebody else who is clearly not an airline captain feel the original actions constituted a threat is pretty much irrelevant.
Signed, airline captain.
> It doesn't stop a private company
> they are empowered to do pretty much anything reasonable to deal with the threat
I don't care what your politics are, that is not a reasonable nor credible threat. If there was a credible threat the conversation would be different, but it is a tacky political statement.
The bluetooth device's name was BOMB. We're trained to treat even vague threats seriously.
The captain in this case is in a terrible situation. Do nothing, get pilloried for not taking action. Turn around, get pilloried for that.
I hope I'm never in this position because there are really no good options. All of you making comments have not been in this position, and were not there at the time with the information the captain had access to, and so are not in a position to judge the decision.
> Turning the plane around and landing is certainly in the realm of "reasonable".
Agreed. But doing it without the FBI threat would also be in the realm of reasonable. Which, it could be argued, means that making the FBI threat was unreasonable, or at least very close to it.
Beyond a certain point, even a PIC can cry wolf.
It really does break both ways. Over-reacting to perceived threats has a cost too.
Warning - semi-political (but hopefully non-partisan) political content ahead: This is the same thing the FDA does with drug approvals. They are overwhelmingly biased toward preventing bad drugs that they prevent access to a lot of things that could help. Studies show that the FDA's difference between up-side and down-side risk costs a lot of lives on net. For example, the FDA delayed the approval of beta-blockers (used to prevent second heart attacks) for several years after they were widely available and saving lives in Europe. Analysts estimate that this delay alone cost tens of thousands of American lives.
Sometimes, accepting a risk provides the greatest net benefit.
Our training is to treat even vague threats seriously.
Just greping for 'Israel' or 'Palestine' gives 13 incidents, the latest occurring in 2000.
It's a quite large share of the hijackings on the list, much more so that I'd have imagined de novo.
Reading through a few of them, most of the hijackers had a fair bit of mental instability (duh?). So, I could totally see them naming a bluetooth something crazy if they had them those days.
Also, most of the incidents ended up being fairly well handled and there weren't many casualties. But if I were a pilot and I were getting paid regardless of turning the plane around or dealing with a possibly fatal multi-day saga, I'd likely just turn the plane around too.
The pilot should be fired effective immediately.
Airline pilots are morally and physically responsibile for the lives on their aircraft. This necessitates respect for their authority.
Like other professionals, they must compartmentalize personal beliefs and professionalism.
Playful antics and silly BS, whether it be for the lulz, politics, or anything else, is a disrespectful act of defiance to the individuals you entrust to deliver you safely to your destination.
They are the final authority in flight, and have broad discretion they must exercise prudently with a bias for risk aversion.
I've known 2 airline pilots. They are the most even keeled people I've ever come across. Literally, the coolest and calmest people.
The system (should) weed out anyone who would act unprofessional, like letting their political beliefs cloud their judgment.
edit: oh you mean the "f z" guy
26 years ago. That is not a current thing and isn't relevant.
In fact, it's the other way around, it's because the right of free speech is recognized as a universal, natural right then the US Federal Government is not permitted to make a law suppressing speech. The First Amendment does not create the right. The right is there, naturally, whether or not the United States or its constitution or government exists. The First Amendment merely explicitly states that the government isn't permitted to impede that right.
Using the existence of the First Amendment to narrow free speech as a right to what the government is permitted to do and nothing else is a severe perversion of both the document and the beliefs of the framers.
In short, "it's a private entity doing it" is an incredibly poor defense of behavior that suppresses speech. It's like how young children will defend their rude or offensive behavior with "it's not illegal." The reason that's an unconvincing argument is that it's an incredibly low bar. The world is full of behaviors that may not be so universally offensive or outrageous that people have explicitly written down that nobody is every allowed to do that thing. It's actually a very small range of possible behaviors that that covers.
The only reason that there isn't a general law barring private parties from restricting the speech of others is (a) one's right to free speech does not necessarily negate another's rights in the same or a different area, (b) one's rights do not entitle one to the use of things owned by others against their desires, and (c) any such law could be used by the government to indirectly suppress other rights.
The narrow nature of the First Amendment is not to be taken as an implication that the right is narrow. It's an admission that the law cannot perfectly protect human rights.
And there are other human rights besides the right to free speech, which have to be balanced. One of them is the right to safe travel. That means people who are responsible for the safety of a planeload of people have to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry. And mature adults are suppposed to recognize that fact and not insist on exercising their free speech right everywhere they go, to the detriment of other rights.
The founders believed in private property rights as much as free speech. Property was even a requirement for voting in most states.
Anyway, airlines are hard because the basic problem is they’re public necessity still halfway regarded as private business. It’s also an unnatural situation that many people be forced to share such little space in “public”, and we’d likely have a different constitution were it always the case.
I don’t think this one will be addressed by principle from on high.
And Great Leader recently asked social media sites to provide details of critics.
The ship has sailed. The plane has crashed. The party is over.
There may be survivors, but right now it's too early to tell.
And by the way, a terrorist is (by definition) someone who wants to incite terror in others. So any person knowingly broadcasting "we will all die” is a terrorist already.
In short, a Pascal's wager and a demonstration that it is not easy to have good things.
While I agree with you that this was obviously a ridiculous overreaction, an air plane is not a public space. It's more akin to being in someones living room in that the pilot has absolute authority over whom to kick out for whatever reason. If they don't like your hair, they can have you escorted out by police if you don't comply. They won't do it normally because it's bad PR and their employer wouldn't like it, but they could. Not free speech amendment violated.
PIC authority is strictly limited to in-scope items, this very obviously wasn’t in scope unless it was e.g. causing other passengers to behave in an unruly manner.
In case you missed it, it was a different incident than the one we're discussing.
>You can, and should be able to, name your WiFi hotspot anything. Even any "Free <X>, Fuck <Y>" forall X,Y
Edgy idea, bro.
Not like a certain terrorist organization[1] with Palestine Liberation in its name[1] literally pioneered armed airplane hijackings for its cause, successfully[2] performing[3] quite[4] a few[5] of[6] them[7] back in the day.
> whatever your side is you have the right to express it.
You seem to have confused an airplane for a public square.
The captain of the plane determines the extent of your rights in-flight, taking many factors into account. Including the comfort of passengers.
You ain't got no "free speech" right to blast music on your Bluetooth speaker, and the same applies to edgy Bluetooth device names which everyone on board can see.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberati...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_(1969)
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Airways_Flight_255
And? What's your point? You're implying that a pro-Palestine WiFi network name could even slightly plausibly be interpreted as a threat to hijack an airplane? You can't be serious.
Also, the whole idea of being over backwards trying to stretch things into being interpreted as threats is absurd on its face. A threat is pretty much definitionally intended to be understood as a threat.
As a side note, why is it that in these discussions some people are so quick to equate anything critical of Israel with antisemitism, but we never see much push back in the other direction? I find your insinuation that expressing support for Palestine means you want to hijack an airplane to be wildly racist.
If you actually read what it says, don't miss the "fuck Zionists" part of it, and know the history — it is something that can, at the very least, make some passengers extremely uncomfortable.
>I find your insinuation that expressing support for Palestine means you want to hijack an airplane to be wildly racist.
I find that you have no understanding of the words that you're using.
For example, a "Zionist" is any person who wants the existing state of Israel to continue existing — in any form — as a Jewish state, in exactly the same way that Ireland is existing as an Irish state.
This includes people who advocate for a two-state solution for Palestine, and, arguably, consider themselves to be pro-Palestinian.
Calling for a two-state solution is one way to express support for Palestine.
Saying "fuck Zionists" is another.
At the very least, it's an expression of hostility rather than support.
History towards a large group of people (nearly all Israelis, including 2M Israeli Arabs, pro-Palestinian supporters in favor of 2 state solution, and at least 9 out of 10 Jews worldwide), some of whom are likely to be on any large flight.
Now, an airplane is a place you share with a lot of people who can't get away from you during the flight, subject to basic rules of politeness, and you doing what the captain tells you to do.
You don't get to play your favorite music out loud on your Bluetooth speaker, even though that's your first amendment right.
The same applies to edgy Wi-Fi / Bluetooth names, which are visible to everyone on board.
It's up to the crew to decide what is, and what isn't OK to for you to do to protect the peace of other passengers for whom they are responsible. Everybody staying calm and attentive to the crew is a safety concern.
And it's your legal obligation to do what they say, which the person in question didn't do.
Disobeying captain's command is absolutely something that merits talking to the FBI.
On a ship and on a plane, the captain is the law.
Which part of this do you need help understanding?
A zionist is someone who thinks Israel has a right to exist.
Then I am a zionist and I am white as snow.
I can point you to threads here on HN where negative things are said about Jews and the term “Zionists” is used interchangeably with “Jews”.
Should Israel exist at all according to you?
If you say no, you basically are saying "Fuck Jews" to 99% of Jews.- Linking some fringe group wont change that. :)
Either leftie or nazi, they both have the same views on Israel it is crazy.
Maybe, maybe not. The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled that speech is not protected at all times and in all places. There are “time, place, and manner restrictions”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
I have a hard time believing courts wouldn’t side with the captain here. All they have to say is they are in charge, perceived a threat to their crew, provided a chance for resolution, and ultimately played it safe. All of which are true.
Being on a plane does 100% change the calculus of free speech. You can’t say something that threatens the life and safety of the people trapped on there with you. This is literally one of the canonical acceptable limits to free speech. It is typically presented as “shouting fire in a crowded theater”
Y'know, if America didn't treat intercity passenger rail like garbage, we wouldn't be having this problem...