'Bomb on Board' Wi-Fi Network Causes Turkish Airlines Flight To Be Diverted (reuters.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Bomb on Board' Wi-Fi Network Causes Turkish Airlines Flight To Be Diverted (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday November 30, 2017 @05:50AM from the dispatch dept.

A Turkish Airlines flight from Nairobi to Istanbul was diverted after the detection of a wi-fi network called "bomb on board" that alarmed the passengers, the airline said on Thursday. From a report: In a statement, Turkish Airlines said the flight made an emergency landing at the Khartoum airport in Sudan, but the flight was safely resumed after security inspections on all passengers and the aircraft. Individuals can create personal wi-fi networks on devices such as mobile phones and name them what they want.

177 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by SensitiveMale · 2017-11-30 05:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

First of all "Individuals can create personal wi-fi networks on devices such as mobile phones and name them what they want." Well, no shit.
Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted. Idiots starting fights & generally being morons need to start paying for these infractions else it's a badge of honor. "Remember that flight a few years ago that had to land in Colorado? Yeah, that was me. Woooo-hoooooo."
1. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by BabyAndTheButterfly · 2017-11-30 05:59 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
2. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Drethon · 2017-11-30 06:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
  Why would you want to criminalize someone for yelling fire in a crowded theater, leading to a stampede that kills people? There are limits to most anything.
3. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Jason1729 · 2017-11-30 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted. Idiots starting fights & generally being morons need to start paying for these infractions else it's a badge of honor. "Remember that flight a few years ago that had to land in Colorado? Yeah, that was me. Woooo-hoooooo."
  You want people to be held accountable for their actions? Heretic. :)
4. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by v1 · 2017-11-30 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The minor action isn't what needs to be stopped, it's the extreme over-reaction that needs to be addressed.
  If I'm driving down the road and forgot to turn off my turn signal, and suddenly I've got road blocks and swat teams and snipers ahead trying to stop my car, we don't say "!ow guess he shouldn't have left his turn signal on, look at that huge commotion he caused, we gotta do something about those turn signals!" Yes the signal was a problem and you might want to do something about it, but it's the extreme over-reaction that really demands some examination, because there's no reasonable justification my turn signal should lead to an evacuation of two city blocks.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
5. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by meerling · 2017-11-30 06:15 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Yes, and that includes over reactions by ignorant and paranoid S.O.B.s like them.
  
  Every city I've been in since wifi became common there are several networks named "FBI surveillance van". It's a childish joke, and nobody has ever been arrested for impersonating a federal officer because of it. And before anyone says the obvious joke, no, they are not the FBI either. (Out of curiosity as to who set up some of those I've tracked them down, most are university students.)
6. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  ... it's the extreme over-reaction that needs to be addressed.
  If I'm driving down the road and forgot to turn off my turn signal, and suddenly I've got road blocks and swat teams and snipers ahead trying to stop my car, we don't say ...
  You've obviously never driven in Virginia.
7. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  If we could count on the government(s) to properly determine what is a threat and what isn't I might agree, but history has proven that to not be the case. Wasn't a flight diverted a few years ago because of a phone someone dropped in the toilet? Then there is of course the Boston incident where the Boston police went nuts because of some LED advertisement signs that had been up for weeks. The list goes on.
8. Re: They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  In any civilized place in the world a theater will be built out of concrete. There is no reason to run, unless the fire is actually in sight
9. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by SensitiveMale · 2017-11-30 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
  You're ignoring what happened and are asking that question as if I'm advocating prison for someone naming their access point "iPhone WAN."
10. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  Same reason it's illegal to yell out "Fire" in a movie theater or crowded area. It causes panic. Yes, it should be illegal and this person should be tossed in jail or face a large fine, which ever will teach the lesson.
11. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by SensitiveMale · 2017-11-30 06:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's a childish joke, and nobody has ever been arrested for impersonating a federal officer because of it. And before anyone says the obvious joke, no, they are not the FBI either
  You're 100% correct. Now, the next time you're in a TSA interview make a few childish jokes about bombs and how you're carrying a package someone outside gave you.
  Time and place my man. Time and place.
12. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
  Thank you for confirming why we should continue to look to criminalize sheer stupidity.
13. Re: They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Drethon · 2017-11-30 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because reactions to possible emergencies are always carefully and cautiously thought out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
14. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by SensitiveMale · 2017-11-30 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes the signal was a problem and you might want to do something about it, but it's the extreme over-reaction that really demands some examination, because there's no reasonable justification my turn signal should lead to an evacuation of two city blocks.
  Your example doesn't quite match, but you know what? I agree with you 100%.
  In a perfect world.
  In the world we live in, imagine the lawsuits if there was a bomb. Yes, there wasn't. Yes, they over-reacted. But living in the litigious society we are, companies have to take every little thing seriously because if they don't that would be the end of them. Common sense is always beaten out in a court of law.
15. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted. Idiots starting fights & generally being morons need to start paying for these infractions else it's a badge of honor. "Remember that flight a few years ago that had to land in Colorado? Yeah, that was me. Woooo-hoooooo."
  Naming a wi-fi network isn't necessarily something that happens on a plane, and lots of people give them joke names. Maybe someone accidentally took a phone out of airplane mode or turned on their phone and the hotspot started. Are you going to criminalize the parent who thinks "bomb on board" is a funny name for their wireless access point because their baby seems to explode a lot?
16. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  i hope you're really suggesting they are the same thing. If so, fuck off dummy.
17. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by roc97007 · 2017-11-30 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
  Not just for naming an access point. For naming an access point "bomb on board". For the same reason that you can say pretty much anything you want in the TSA line, as long as it's not a variation of "I'm going to blow up this plane". Of course, this wouldn't stop at least some people from saying "He was just talking. Is talking criminalized now?"
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
18. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by barc0001 · 2017-11-30 06:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There's a huge difference between calling something "surveillance van" and "bomb on board". Since you don't seem to get it, I'll break it down for you. The first implies someone is watching. Ooo scary. The second implies that you might die in a fiery explosion, or as you fall from the sky when the plane is crippled. See the difference?
  If you still don't get it, do the following for a real-world education: Go to the bank and deposit two different deposits. On the first deposit slip's back write "FBI surveillance van", and on the second write "I'm carrying a bomb". The police will be happy to give you some percussive education.
19. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by magarity · 2017-11-30 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  In the world we live in, imagine the lawsuits if there was a bomb. Yes, there wasn't.
  If there had been one, no one would ever know about witty the wifi name.
20. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by pr0t0 · 2017-11-30 06:39 · Score: 2
  
  diverted after the detection of a wi-fi network called "bomb on board"
  Spotted the dumb-ass teenager.
  Listen up children. As totally unfair as it may seem, we don't always get to say (or print) what we want when we want. Most of the time, people will look at you as the annoying little prick that you are being at that moment. And that's fine I suppose. Who wants the world to be a better place anyway? But one of the areas that you absolutely DO NOT FUCK AROUND is commercial aviation.
  If you feel like pushing a boundary, do it somewhere else. Seriously. You and your parents may find out just how unfair the world really is at the cost of prison time or fines that will force you or your parents into a lifetime of servitude. And honestly, it can even be worse than that, like an air marshal whose wife just left him and decides to take it out on you by stepping on your neck to control you...killing you in the process. There would be no public outcry or lawsuit. No one would give one shit about your death if you "joked" about a bomb on a plane. The only possible outcome would be yet another ban on cell phones on airplanes.
  
  --
  I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
21. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Drethon · 2017-11-30 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  The minor action isn't what needs to be stopped, it's the extreme over-reaction that needs to be addressed.
  Putting the aircraft down on a possible bomb thread doesn't seem like an extreme over reaction. And the cost of the diversion isn't cheap.
22. Re: They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I work for the FBI, we do have these vans, and we do name them this. How little you know, child.
23. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by roc97007 · 2017-11-30 06:47 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, and that includes over reactions by ignorant and paranoid S.O.B.s like them.
  Every city I've been in since wifi became common there are several networks named "FBI surveillance van". It's a childish joke, and nobody has ever been arrested for impersonating a federal officer because of it. And before anyone says the obvious joke, no, they are not the FBI either. (Out of curiosity as to who set up some of those I've tracked them down, most are university students.)
  This is true. But seeing "FBI surveillance van", (I've seen similar things myself in wifi scans) which poses no immediate threat, is different from being on a plane and seeing a SID that says "bomb on board". Planes are small, fragile, enclosed spaces that take significant time to get safely back on the ground. These things must be taken seriously. The cost of not taking them seriously is too high.
  A better example might be the sid "ImGoingToShootMyNeighbor". If I saw that pop up in my neighborhood, I'd notify the authorities. Sure, it might be a joke, but it might not be. And different from "FBI surveillance van", the phrase makes a direct threat, just as "bomb on board" makes a direct threat.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
24. Re: They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  Only when it pertains to him. If he wasn't on that flight, he wouldn't have given two shits. But because this happen to him before, it hit close to home, so he had to go on a little mini rant.
25. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
  Because they may name it "Armenian genocide" or "Kurdistan".
  So, my good neighbors, the Turks -i am a Greek...!-, have laws to prosecute (/persecute) anyone mentioning such (and much more) "anti-Turkish things". One great example is that women can not wear cloths colored in a way that if combined may resemble the flag of Kurdistan! And please remember: you may not be a Turk, not ever being in Turkey, but, if you publicize something about the Armenian genocide, you may end up with an international arrest warrant...
26. Re: They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Oh shit meerling you just got serveddddddddddd!!!!
27. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Drethon · 2017-11-30 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  i hope you're really suggesting they are the same thing. If so, fuck off dummy.
  Nope. Yelling fire can lead to deaths which is prosecuted one way. A bomb threat leads to the authorities making sure there isn't a bomb there, which shouldn't lead to any deaths but costs government money. Just like murder and graffiti are two different crimes, both of these situations should be handled appropriately for the situation.
28. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  The action in question here is making a portable wifi SSID named "bomb on board". In meatspace, it would be equivalent to carrying a piece of paper with that information, and when someone asked "hey, what's that paper you've got there?", you quietly show them the paper on the plane. Reacting as if you have a bomb on board is not an overreaction. It's the proper reaction.
29. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by chispito · 2017-11-30 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted.
  What leads you to believe they will not be prosecuting?
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
30. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by SensitiveMale · 2017-11-30 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  In the world we live in, imagine the lawsuits if there was a bomb. Yes, there wasn't.
  If there had been one, no one would ever know about witty the wifi name.
  If there had been a bomb, you best believe whoever set off the bomb would make sure everyone knew. One doesn't explode a bomb on a plane for anonymity.
31. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Fly+Swatter · 2017-11-30 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree, in your bank example you are handing a note to someone which is a direct action. This is more like wearing a T-shirt that says 'I'm carrying a bomb.' The difference is subtle but very different IMHO.
32. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  It might not even have been someone on the plane. Could have been a wifi network on the ground. Especially a lot of buildings like large businesses or apartments have wifi hotspots that are very high up and could easily reach a plane.
33. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  If your turn signal was saying through a megaphone: bomb bomb bomb bomb!
  Then yes I would expect the bomb squad and swat teams to show up.
34. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by eddeye · 2017-11-30 07:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  The minor action isn't what needs to be stopped, it's the extreme over-reaction that needs to be addressed. If I'm driving down the road and forgot to turn off my turn signal, and suddenly I've got road blocks and swat teams and snipers ahead trying to stop my car, we don't say "!ow guess he shouldn't have left his turn signal on, look at that huge commotion he caused, we gotta do something about those turn signals!" Yes the signal was a problem and you might want to do something about it, but it's the extreme over-reaction that really demands some examination, because there's no reasonable justification my turn signal should lead to an evacuation of two city blocks.
  
  Your turn signal isn't a potential threat to human life. If you can't see the difference then you shouldn't be allowed to fly.
  What's the difference in these scenarios?
  
  passenger tells crew "There's a bomb on board"
  
  passenger hands crew a note that says "bomb on board"
  
  passenger scrawls "bomb on board" in lavatory
  
  passenger advertises "bomb on board" wifi network
  
  95 times out of 100 these are all nothing. But you have to check them out. When human lives are potentially at stake, you can't ignore such statements. Do you want your pilot / cabin crew to make the decision "Well it says there's a bomb, but it's probably just a joke. Let's ignore it."? No. It's their professional obligation to take all possible threats seriously.
  Now there's a 99.99% chance this was some idiot who forgot to change their default network name, or who was trying to be funny. Even so, you can't ignore it. If there's .01% chance the bomb is real - some deranged attention seekers advertise their intentions, hoping to get caught - you have to treat every potential threat as legitimate. Is getting to your destination a few hours later really worth risking hundreds of lives?
  There's a lot of bad security and overreaction in the world. This is not one of those times.
  --
  Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
35. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Chris+Mattern · 2017-11-30 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  First of all "Individuals can create personal wi-fi networks on devices such as mobile phones and name them what they want." Well, no shit.
  Exactly. This is like holding up a sign that says "I've got a bomb!" You can easily do this when there is in fact no bomb, but it's still gonna get a drastic reaction.
36. Re: They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  If there was a bomb on board, I bet you trying to ground the flight would set it off a lot sooner than not. Assuming it was remote detonated. People who actually follow through on these sorts of things rarely warn others of it.
37. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Chris+Mattern · 2017-11-30 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  This wasn't a turn-signal. This was being overtly threatening. This was the equivalent of driving down the road while holding up a sign that says, "I've got a bomb!" That gets, yes, SWAT teams and snipers, until they've proved that you are in fact not a threat.
38. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Hognoxious · 2017-11-30 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  what happen
  Main screen turn on.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
39. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Chris+Mattern · 2017-11-30 07:21 · Score: 2
  
  "Very different", huh? Okay, do that in an actual airport. The nice policman will explain to you in great detail how different it is.
40. Re: They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Drethon · 2017-11-30 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  If there was a bomb on board, I bet you trying to ground the flight would set it off a lot sooner than not. Assuming it was remote detonated. People who actually follow through on these sorts of things rarely warn others of it.
  Or it could be a faulty bomb and getting the aircraft on the ground gives emergency crews enough time to disarm it. If I handed you a bag and told you it was a bomb and would blow up if you let go of it, would you just laugh about it?
41. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Chris+Mattern · 2017-11-30 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  How are you gentlemen !!
42. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  yelling fire in a crowded room is substantially different than naming a wifi ssid "holocaust never happened".
43. Re: They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  Theaters are almost never built out of concrete. Concrete has terrible acoustics and the movies would sound horrible. Stadium seating in theaters is often nothing but giant blocks of Styrofoam, there's noise dampening material all over the place and carpets. A fire actually breaking out in a theater would most probably be horrific.
44. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Drethon · 2017-11-30 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  And naming a wifi ssid "holocaust never happened" is drastically different from naming a wifi ssid "bomb on board". One offends people, the other suggests a life threatening event is possible.
45. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by barc0001 · 2017-11-30 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree with your disagreement. Naming your WAP "bomb on board" is something the person on the plane chose to do so consciously with the intent it would be seen by other passengers. It's open for debate as to whether they thought it would be a dumb joke or whether they were looking to cause a panic, but the outcome in this case was definitely a panic.
  Naming it "bomb on board" when not ON BOARD a plane is a much less meaningful context as in most cases, like out in the park, at home, in a restaurant etc you are not "on board" something. Therefore it is likely that the person in this case deliberately chose to name his/her access point that before or during the flight, with the intent that others would see it on the plane. Just like the intent that a note is to be read.
46. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-11-30 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
  Because they may name it "Armenian genocide" or "Kurdistan".
  So, my good neighbors, the Turks -i am a Greek...!-, have laws to prosecute (/persecute) anyone mentioning such (and much more) "anti-Turkish things". One great example is that women can not wear cloths colored in a way that if combined may resemble the flag of Kurdistan! And please remember: you may not be a Turk, not ever being in Turkey, but, if you publicize something about the Armenian genocide, you may end up with an international arrest warrant...
  The situation in Turkey is a real shame. At one point they were a democratic nation, knocking on the door to the EU, access to which would have ended up in being a firm democratic step into the middle east. Now they're held hostage by a tyrant and a one party state with more journalists in jail than any other country.
  Turkey is a real craphole at the moment (and I say this as someone who is a little bit Turk myself).
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
47. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  I am from the UK and I have several wifi access points running in my house, one is FBI surveillance van, the other is police surveillance van, TV detector van and my itchy arse
48. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that naming your wifi network "bomb on board" while on a plane might reasonably be interpreted as "help I'm stuck next to a guy with a bomb and this is the only way I could think of to tell anyone withut letting him know".
49. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by gx5000 · 2017-11-30 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  It has NEVER been illegal to yell "Fire" in a Crowded theater, it's an old and incorrect quote.
  
  --
  End of Line.
50. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Drethon · 2017-11-30 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  It has NEVER been illegal to yell "Fire" in a Crowded theater, it's an old and incorrect quote.
  https://definitions.uslegal.co...
51. Re: They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Obfuscant · 2017-11-30 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  If there was a bomb on board, I bet you trying to ground the flight would set it off a lot sooner than not.
  If the bomb was triggered by descent to landing, then it would go off on approach to the intended destination, too. Unless you think they're going to find and disarm the thing while aloft, you lose nothing by getting on the ground sooner.
  On the other hand, if it is timed, then the sooner you land the better.
  So, one kind of bomb makes no difference when you land, the other means people don't die. Do you land early or not?
  
  People who actually follow through on these sorts of things rarely warn others of it.
  People who do these kinds of things are trying to create fear and terror. Slipping a device into someone's carry-on with an open WiFi SID of "bomb on board" would do just that. A small tin can of people, a couple of whom have discovered this as a warning when they turn on their WiFi to connect to the in-flight entertainment system, who spread this to others, would result in a win even if there were no bomb.
  Was this over-reaction? The airline had no other choice. If they keep flying and it goes off, they get sued and lose. If they land and there is nothing there, they may get sued by morons but they'll win.
52. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by wonkey_monkey · 2017-11-30 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Pfft, you and your "facts."
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
53. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Obfuscant · 2017-11-30 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Are you going to criminalize the parent who thinks "bomb on board" is a funny name for their wireless access point because their baby seems to explode a lot?
  Yes. You aren't supposed to be running a WiFi hotspot on board an aircraft (at least not in US airspace) at all, according to federal law. Second, it is a deliberate act to turn on the hotspot function of a phone, since it is not normally on. At least, it is on any phone or device I've had that has hotspot functionality. It's a waste of battery and a security issue otherwise. "I accidentally turned on the beacon, which I just now remember is grail shaped" is a poor excuse.
54. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Obfuscant · 2017-11-30 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  A bomb threat leads to the authorities making sure there isn't a bomb there, which shouldn't lead to any deaths
  
  And yelling "fire" in a crowded theater should result in an orderly evacuation in a calm and reasonable manner through the nearest sufficient and adequately marked emergency exits, and will not result in an emergency response by fire services that would endanger any of them or put them in an unavailable status for any other actual fire.
  Here on Earth, we understand things don't always work out so simply. We understand the effects of panic and costs of deploying emergency services when they are not needed.
  We also understand that the desired effect of terrorism is terror, and getting a tin can filled with trapped passengers to panic is a great way to achieve that, even if there is no actual explosion. And when you do it enough so that the system becomes desensitized to the threat, that becomes the best time to actually carry it out. "Athens Control, Turkish 84, we've got just another one of those joke bomb threats, we're going to continue as if nothing was abnorm *&^%$%^* NO CARRIER"
55. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  holocoast denial is punishable offense in Europe
56. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  OK. Then try walking in to a bank, shouting (ie: broadcasting) "I'm carrying a bomb" and see how long before you are tackled or shot.
57. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 08:43 · Score: 0
  What's the difference in these scenarios?
  
  passenger tells crew "There's a bomb on board"
  passenger hands crew a note that says "bomb on board"
  passenger scrawls "bomb on board" in lavatory
  passenger advertises "bomb on board" wifi network
  There is an important distinction between the first two and the last two. The last two are done anonymously, which changes the credibility of those statements significantly. More so with the wifi.
58. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Gavagai80 · 2017-11-30 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  And when you do it enough so that the system becomes desensitized to the threat, that becomes the best time to actually carry it out. "Athens Control, Turkish 84, we've got just another one of those joke bomb threats, we're going to continue as if nothing was abnorm *&^%$%^* NO CARRIER"
  Actually, bomb threats are made by terrorists in the hope that they will be heeded. The IRA used to call in threats to minimize unwanted casualties, for example. Sometimes you want to blow up the building/plane but not the people. The kind of terrorist who sends a threat doesn't want people to become so desensitized that they ignore the threat.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
59. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by gatfirls · 2017-11-30 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Also, it's not impossible someone one of these days could try to signal flight crew without bringing attention to themselves by doing any of the above if they were trying to back out or something like that.
60. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Gavagai80 · 2017-11-30 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  If you yell it in the context of "that actor is so bad they should fire him!" then sure, perfectly legal if highly annoying.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
61. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Obfuscant · 2017-11-30 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  The kind of terrorist who sends a threat doesn't want people to become so desensitized that they ignore the threat.
  Thanks, I missed hearing about the manager's meeting that coordinated that new policy. Maybe the announcement got stuck in my spam-kablam filter?
62. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by sexconker · 2017-11-30 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
  Why would you want to criminalize someone for yelling fire in a crowded theater, leading to a stampede that kills people? There are limits to most anything.
  I wouldn't. And it's not criminalized. You are absolutely allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Even in this fucked up version of the U S of A, it's still protected speech. Don't think so? Go look it up.
63. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  I can't determine if you honestly can't tell the difference between your analogy and the reality, or if you are being purposely obtuse to troll people.
  I mean, it IS a "bad car analogy" so I guess it's supposed to be a slashdot joke, but your delivery makes me feel like you were serious.
  If you ARE serious, I would suggest you think long and hard about the idea of context, and the difference in context between your example and the original story.
64. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by sexconker · 2017-11-30 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Same reason it's illegal to yell out "Fire" in a movie theater or crowded area.
  That isn't illegal.
65. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  " If you can't see the difference then you shouldn't be allowed to fly. "
  They never caught anyone, dipshit. And good fucking luck enforcing that.
  " But you have to check them out. "
  Says fucking who? You? Some retard?
  "When human lives are potentially at stake,"
  Lives are always at stake. This was a fucking wifi name. What's next? Demand no personal appliances on planes, no clothes on planes, you cannot be brown on board, and violators will be shot at the gate, along with their families, their neighbors, and anyone with that disagrees?
  "Even so, you can't ignore it. "
  I can. You can't, because you're a scared shittard.
  "If there's .01% chance the bomb is real"
  Check under your seat, check your car, check your house, your mall, your kids, your workplace. There are .01% chances that anywhere has a bomb, in your fantastical world.
  "some deranged attention seekers"
  I dunno, the US has a president that does this all the goddamn time with North Korea, and he's still allowed to fly.
  "is getting to your destination a few hours later really worth risking hundreds of lives? "
  Oh man, there's this thing called law enforcement, where they get to shoot anyone they want if they fear for their lives. They risk lives every time they're out in public, those damn scaredy cats.
  And war! Oh man, war. War's great. Lots of lives to be risked. Surprisingly, almost no Americans care about any of it!
  "There's a lot of bad security and overreaction in the world."
  Thanks for contributing.
  "This is not one of those times."
  Oh, right, but when an unarmed black kid gets shot for reaching into their pocket, fear for your life, amirite?
66. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  Absolutely not.
  I would say, well done.
  They should prosecute the idiots who ordered the flight diverted. *They* should lose their job.
67. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by thegarbz · 2017-11-30 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted
  You mean the pilots, crew, and panicing stupid passengers?
68. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  The second implies that you might die in a fiery explosion, or as you fall from the sky when the plane is crippled.
  It doesn't imply it credibly. Whoever made the panicked decision to divert the plane, made a bad call and I would hold them somewhat responsible. They shouldn't have done that and were wrong to do that. It didn't help, and it just made things worse. It became way more about them than the prankster, once they made that decision and acted upon it. And they should have known it was the wrong thing to do.
  An access point name is a joke, period. Even if you think it's a joke in bad taste, it's still just a joke.
  (Yes, I'm sure the cops, and probably the courts, would say otherwise. They'd be wrong.)
  If it were a serious message from someone, they would prove their seriousness by announcing the bomb some other way. How many people are going to see that AP name compared to if you just shouted "I have a bomb and I'm going to kill you all"? It doesn't make sense. It's not a rational way to maximize the passengers' fear before you kill them. It's not a rational way to communicate to the pilot that he better do whatever you say or else. It's just stupid. Purely stupid. If you're a murderer, you're not going to do it. If you're a hijacker, you're not going to do it. If you're a prankster, you might do it.
  
  [At bank on deposit slip] write "I'm carrying a bomb".
  Yes, something bad will happen. That's because writing on a deposit slip is the (for lack of a better word) correct way to threaten a teller. It's a credible message because that happens to be the best way to communicate the threat. (You want the teller to know you're threatening them, and you want everyone else to be oblivious.)
  Go to the bank and broadcast an AP named "I have a bomb." Not only are you going to fail to credibly threaten anyone (it probably won't even occur to anyone to put some money in your bag, because they won't notice) but the cops probably won't be called, either. You're going to have to communicate better than that.
  Here's a good test. Let's say you're on a plane and notice an AP named "I have a bomb." Are you scared? Do you tell anyone? Or do you blow it off? I think most people would blow it off. I sure would.
69. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Afty0r · 2017-11-30 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  95 times out of 100 these are all nothing. But you have to check them out.
  No, no you really don't. *THAT* is the problem. If someone is bombing your plane with an intent to kill everyone, they aren't going to advertise it by changing their wifi SSID. It's totally preposterous. We don't need to overreact to terrorists, fuck them, react appropriately.
70. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by CohibaVancouver · 2017-11-30 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't imply it credibly. Whoever made the panicked decision to divert the plane, made a bad call
  I'm a frequent flier (65K miles last year) and I disagree, Anonymous Coward.
  
  I think a lot of security measures are stupid, e.g I have no issue with sharps on board - And what exactly does confiscating granny's jar of homemade spaghetti sauce accomplish?
  
  However in this situation you really don't know if this was a 21st century 'note.' What if I found out there was a bomb on board and I was trying to silently and anonymously notify the crew? You just don't know.
71. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 11:59 · Score: 0
  
  If you are "a little bit Turk yourself" you may be a little bit (crypto-)Greek/Armenian actually... ask your (grand-)parent(s) about their supervised everyday morning "how happy to be called a Turk" chant and you may be surprised!
  Greetings -even if you are of a pure Turkish descent- from a Greek neighbor that his Greek grand-parents were Turkish citizens, originally from... Greece! (Konstantinople and Smyrna - before the violent Turkish ethnic-cleansing(s) of 1920 and 1950.)
  * please, don't consider this reply as too hostile - you and me... arkadas! O.K.?
72. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  I completely agree, someone who does have a bomb on board a plane is not going to advertise it by setting there Wifi name to "bomb on board", and with all the security at the airport how the fuck did they manage to get a bomb onto the place in the first place.
73. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  You're mistaking an act of terrorism for a robbery, if you wanted to rob the plane/passengers of their cargo you might threaten them with a bomb, if you are there to blow up a plane you are not going to advertise it, there is no purpose or reason to, why would you.
74. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 12:44 · Score: 0
  
  "IateCabbageAndBudLightAndAmGonnaFart!GET_OXYGEN!"
75. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 13:11 · Score: 0
  
  Yet strangely the airlines can provide 802.11 service themselves and that's okay and we don't see planes becoming lawn darts because of supposed "interference."
76. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Obfuscant · 2017-11-30 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yet strangely the airlines can provide 802.11 service themselves
  The FAR allows the aircraft operator to authorize use of PED, including WiFi. The passenger does not get to authorize use of anything. If the aircraft operator has not authorized it, it is against the law.
  
  and we don't see planes becoming lawn darts because of supposed "interference."
  When you see the claim that every PED causes interference on every aircraft, y'all come back and make this statement. Until then, see if you can figure out how the claim that such things can cause interference, not that they must, is different. Also see if you can figure out the difference between an aircraft having a WiFi access point under the direct control of the flight crew and an aircraft having 80 access points under the control of arbitrary passengers.
77. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Scarletdown · 2017-11-30 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  Looking at the available APs showing on my laptop here at home, I am seeing right now:
  Ravenplume
  Crow's Fan
  Private
  Lily
  NETGEAR23-5G
  CenturyLink5285
  Body Parts
  CenturyLink4457
  MySpectrumWiFi00-2G
  Drew Plicity
  MySpectrumWiFi76-2G
  PS4-C04B1ED2B3D1
  MySpectrumWiFie0-2G
  MySpectrumWiFi16-2G
  TheGEO.net44
  MySpectrumWiFif0-2G
  TP-LINK_FD7E
  DIRECT-B2-HP ENVY 5540 Series
  Other Network
  No one in this neighborhood calling themselves FBI Surveillance Van, though I have seen one elsewhere in town. And only amusingly named one in range is Body Parts.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
78. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Scarletdown · 2017-11-30 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  So why did Constantinople get the works?
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
79. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Scarletdown · 2017-11-30 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Although the Bomb On Board SSID was rather tasteless, I could now see passengers starting a tradition of seeing how many of their fellow WiFi using passengers they can get laughing out loud with funny AP names. I would start the game with TSAnalProbe.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
80. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Scarletdown · 2017-11-30 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  They would have to identify and locate the culprit first; probably a very tricky task to pull off in this case.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
81. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 16:38 · Score: 0
  
  Ah bollocks to the lot of it!
  Stepping outside will get you killed.
  If you are that paranoid about an SSID then maybe you shouldn't look at all the bSSID's and eSSID's you don't "normally" see for a good laugh when war driving.
  Passively advertising "fuck you" is not the same as me actively handing a note to you that says "you're a cunt".
82. Re: They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 18:21 · Score: 0
  
  Reckless endangerment, pretty sure it's illegal.
83. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 19:49 · Score: 0
  
  There is an important distinction between the first two and the last two.
  Correct.
  
  The last two are done anonymously, which changes the credibility of those statements significantly.
  Exactly. The last two are a lot smarter than the first, since the last two will not give a would-be-attacker away immediately.
  
  More so with the wifi.
  Precisely. The wifi method is the best, since it allows for updating the message over time.
  What? Not what you expected?
  Well, of course not. Then again, you're not very smart.
84. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 20:11 · Score: 0
  
  Unless you're the person in the seat next to them being threatened somehow into cooperating, and you use the SSID as a clever way to alert people to the problem.
85. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 20:37 · Score: 0
  
  I am from the UK and I have several wifi access points running in my house, one... my itchy arse
  I bet you run it in promiscuous mode
86. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Patent+Lover · 2017-12-01 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  I will never be in a TSA interview. I prefer to work at a job that doesn't involve groping male genitals.
87. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a quote by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his justification for criminalizing protest against the U.S.'s eventual involvement in World War I. Congratulations on using the worst (or best?) possible historical parallel to illustrate your personal case for when censorship is okay.
88. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by mjwx · 2017-12-01 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  First of all "Individuals can create personal wi-fi networks on devices such as mobile phones and name them what they want." Well, no shit.
  Second, they need to start prosecuting these morons that cause flights to be diverted. Idiots starting fights & generally being morons need to start paying for these infractions else it's a badge of honor. "Remember that flight a few years ago that had to land in Colorado? Yeah, that was me. Woooo-hoooooo."
  In many countries its already a crime to do something that you know you shouldn't do that causes a flight to be diverted or return to an airport. The penalty is trifling... but it means you have no defence when the airline takes you to court for their losses. The airlines plan is to ruin you, they do so that you say "remember that flight they diverted to Colorado? That was me, I now cant get a loan, have no car and am renting in a roach motel because I still own half a million dollars to the airline."
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
89. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  So why did Constantinople get the works?
  It did not!
  If by "get the works" you referring to this (my English is not good) then learn that "istanbul" is the phonetic equivalent (with Turkish accent) of the Greek phrase "is tin poli" (translated "in the city") which was the way Turks were referring to "Konstantinoupoli" (Greek orthography - translated "Konstantin's city") - and actually, we Greeks still refer to Konstantinoupoli as just "THE CITY"
90. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  I've actually seen this happen.
  I was passing by the the United Service desk at O'Hare and a man, who seemed drunk in his slurred speech, was evidently was saying something quite loudly about the inspection process.
  I heard,'well what if I do have a bomb in my briefcase'.
  Very quickly, a bunch of guys descended on him, grabbed his arms and legs and her was on floor.
  I was shooed away by more secuirty and had to leave in any case.
  My guess was he didn't make his plane.
91. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by lactose99 · 2017-12-01 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, if you create a WAP on a plane named "Bomb on Board" you deserve every bit of negative attention headed your way.
  
  --
  Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
92. Re: They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by lactose99 · 2017-12-01 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  So long as the plane doesn't drop below 50 MPH everything's fine.
  
  --
  Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
93. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by lactose99 · 2017-12-01 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize the IRA phoned ahead on many of their bombing locations right?
  
  --
  Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
94. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by lactose99 · 2017-12-01 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  They should have to re-enter the ticket queue line each time and buy a ticket for each and every passenger they inconvenienced.
  
  --
  Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
95. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by Scarletdown · 2017-12-01 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
96. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by chispito · 2017-12-01 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  If they didn't take steps at the time to investigate, I would say it's impossible now. You need a record of the SSID and what mac address was sending it, and then you need to know if it matches the mac address of a known device on the plane, and then also be willing to accept the possibility that it could be somebody spoofing somebody else's mac address on the flight. It's really no different than leaving a note somewhere that says the same thing, in such a way that it would not be immediately noticed and so be traceable back to you. You'd have to look for paper, pens/pencils, ask who was doing what when, etc. It's possible in some cases you would get a positive ID, but probably not worth the effort. Just like searching everybody's devices for the right kind of software if you couldn't quickly locate the source, it's intrusive and probably not worth the effort.
  
  Essentially, what I'm saying is that if there is a reasonable way for them to identify the culprit, I'm pretty sure they would be prosecuted. The OP seemed to be suggesting that they would not normally prosecute, when the reality is more likely that they would if they could.
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
97. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by david_thornley · 2017-12-01 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Thing is, this wasn't a minor thing like forgetting your turn signal. This was a deliberate choice of words that indicates that there is a bomb on board. If you're monitoring the situation, you don't know if it's a joke. You don't know that this wasn't the best way for whoever to communicate this, for whatever reasons. Somebody is saying there's a bomb on board. You need to take this seriously.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
98. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by RockDoctor · 2017-12-02 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. You aren't supposed to be running a WiFi hotspot on board an aircraft (at least not in US airspace) at all, according to federal law.
  
  Do you have a statute, chapter and verse (or however the Americans phrase it) for that law?
  Actually, I've more than a few times taken my domestic access point on board a plane forgetting that it's in the rucksac. It's not as if it needs to be plugged into the wall for more than about 30% of the time, is it?
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
99. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by herbierobinson · 2017-12-03 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Nah. Just tell all the other passengers who they were and ask if they still want to get on the plane :-)
  
  --
  An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
100. Re:They need to start prosecuting these fuckers by herbierobinson · 2017-12-03 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  But what if the guy didn't change the name himself. It could have been one of his friends pranking him.
  
  --
  An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
MAC Addr ? by thygate · 2017-11-30 05:58 · Score: 1

So did anyone make a note of the MAC address ? Or do you need to be authenticated before you can see the AP's MAC ? Or is there any other way to link the SSID to a static hardware address ? Then again, most chipsets nowadays easily allow spoofing of the MAC addr ..
1. Re:MAC Addr ? by grub · 2017-11-30 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need to authenticate to see the MAC address. Run Kismet and you'll get MACs of all the open and closed access points in your area.
  
  --
  Trolling is a art,
2. Re:MAC Addr ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  you can spoof a mac
3. Re:MAC Addr ? by grub · 2017-11-30 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, but the parent was asking if the MAC was visible. Spoofed or not, you can see it. Most cretins that would do that sort of nonsense on a plane aren't smart enough to think of that.
  
  --
  Trolling is a art,
4. Re:MAC Addr ? by rot16 · 2017-11-30 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  iwlist wlp3s0 s
5. Re:MAC Addr ? by SuperKendall · 2017-11-30 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  You could but they probably did not. Would be really interesting to tell police boating place "I have the MAC address of who did it" and have them confiscate devices to check.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
6. Re:MAC Addr ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No Kismet necessary
  Win32
  netsh wlan show networks mode=bssid
  OSX /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/Apple80211.framework/Versions/Current/Resources/airport -s
  Linux
  sudo iwlist scanning
7. Re:MAC Addr ? by grub · 2017-11-30 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks! That's good info.
  
  --
  Trolling is a art,
8. Re:MAC Addr ? by mysidia · 2017-11-30 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Most cretins that would do that sort of nonsense on a plane aren't smart enough to think of that.
  Assuming the cretin was even on the plane.... the cretin might have been on the ground or up in a broadcast tower with a strong WiFi signal,
  and people on the plane started picking up the remote AP as they went by.
9. Re:MAC Addr ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  This is a dumb first question. Should have been: didn't anyone install a wifi locating app and figure out who it was right then and there?
10. Re:MAC Addr ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  There are smart, angry people who would definitely clone MAC addresses in order to frame an enemy for a crime.
11. Re:MAC Addr ? by herbierobinson · 2017-12-03 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  The Chinese definitely have the tech to do that. My wife used the WiFi in a Chinese airport on the way home and related this story:
  Everyone with a cell phone was rounded up before getting on the plane. She said most of them were not Chinese. Security held a device near each phone looking for something and then let everyone board the plane. She's not tech savvy, but this is what I suspect:
  1. Somebody used the WiFi in the airport to access something they weren't supposed to with a non-Chinese phone. They Chinese security captured the MAC address.
  2. Then they wen't looking to see if they had legal authority to arrest that person.
  Another possibility is that they track the usage for all non-Chinese cell phones everywhere in the country and have flagged certain MAC addresses for special attention.
  At any rate, I would definitely turn my phone of in the airport when leaving China...
  
  --
  An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
YCFS by cellocgw · 2017-11-30 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

And I'm talking about everyone who thought the name of a network means doodley-squat.
What's next, I name my network 'you need to take a dump' and everyone on the plane rushes to the toilets?

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
1. Re:YCFS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  No, you name your network "Yell PENIS for password" and enjoy the rest of the flight.
2. Re:YCFS by meerling · 2017-11-30 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  That would be hilarious!
  
  My main mindgame on flights is when we takeoff and are climbing, look out the window at the wing, and act like someone who's completely awestruck and innocent and loudly proclaim, "WoW! Look at those wings move! It's almost like they're flapping!"
  Lot's of other people will look, see the perfectly normal movement of the wings, turn pale as a ghost, and slam the window shade!
  I know, I can be evil that way.
3. Re:YCFS by iggymanz · 2017-11-30 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  expected full service load deflection (for heavy turbulence for example) is over five meters on the big jets, and they test to 150% of that.....wonder if most people know that
4. Re:YCFS by MillionthMonkey · 2017-11-30 06:46 · Score: 2
  
  I used to prank the neighbors by using "methlab" as the SSID. When I moved to Utah I changed it to "pornstudio". (There are too many meth labs around here.)
Very dangerous, despite the name bruhaha by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:01 · Score: -1, Flamebait

The use of a personal hotspot could have jammed the plane's computers and navigational controls and ended up bringing the plane down. Doesn't matter what it was named. The choice of such a poor name is yet another offence. The perp should be looking at jail time.
1. Re:Very dangerous, despite the name bruhaha by Train0987 · 2017-11-30 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Um, no it couldn't have.
2. Re:Very dangerous, despite the name bruhaha by meerling · 2017-11-30 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  If they were that sensitive, they wouldn't work in the first place with all the electronic noise their systems emit. They are shielded, and don't care about that frequency, which is why wifi is allowed on the planes.
3. Re: Very dangerous, despite the name bruhaha by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  If a wifi AP can take down a plane, we got bigger problems on our hands.
4. Re:Very dangerous, despite the name bruhaha by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's not dangerous at all. You drinking a beer before boarding the plane is more dangerous than 2000 people running a personal hotspot on a plane (if that was even possible). There is no proof or evidence at all that cell signals, wifi or anything else you can bring on a plane (other than yourself) have any impact on aircraft in any way shape or form. The FAA is just overly cautious and have done little to no (that's where my bet is) actual testing. An airline loaded with 300 passengers all actively on calls during take off or landing would fly just fine with ZERO problems.
5. Re:Very dangerous, despite the name bruhaha by EndlessNameless · 2017-11-30 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  The use of a personal hotspot could have jammed the plane's computers and navigational controls and ended up bringing the plane down.
  No, the FAA never tested the safety of in-flight cellular service because the FCC prohibited it.
  The problem is that cellular handover is a somewhat intensive process, and your hotspot is going to work like crap anyway. Big planes have a cruising speed of 500+ MPH, so it's going to be handing over frequently---if it will even work at all. Naming the hotspot something stupid is just icing on the cake.
  In addition, a horde of cellular handovers happening simultaneously could interfere with the cellular network. This could be especially burdensome on areas surrounding major airports, which also tend to be major population centers.
  Basically, no one is interested in doing a lot of expensive testing to make sure cell phones on planes won't cause telecommunication problems, so everyone has to live without their phones for a few hours.
  
  --
  
  ---
  According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
6. Re:Very dangerous, despite the name bruhaha by link-error · 2017-11-30 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Mobile phone interference with plane instruments: Myth or reality?
  https://www.edn.com/electronic...
  or
  http://www.discovery.com/tv-sh...
  Finding: BUSTED
  
  --
  -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
7. Re:Very dangerous, despite the name bruhaha by Obfuscant · 2017-11-30 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  If they were that sensitive, they wouldn't work in the first place with all the electronic noise their systems emit.
  You don't believe that a system can be sensitive to certain RF signal interference just because it might emit some on some other frequency? Hmmm. I have a GPS system that emits a birdie smack on top of a specific active local amateur frequency. The amateur radio is blocked despite it being able to "emit electronic noise" quite well, by an electronic system that works quite well despite emitting a significant noise signal.
  Simple analysis of complicated systems is often incorrect and misleading.
  
  They are shielded, and don't care about that frequency, which is why wifi is allowed on the planes.
  WiFi is allowed on planes after testing to determine that it is not going to cause interference, with the provision that the flight crew can turn it off, and demand that you turn off your clients, at any time they suspect interference.
8. Re:Very dangerous, despite the name bruhaha by Obfuscant · 2017-11-30 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Mobile phone interference with plane instruments: Myth or reality?
  Cool. You've found one stupid link that talks about "galvanometer instruments", and a pop-culture TV show, that can't show that the specific devices they tested interfered with the specific aircraft systems they tested against, and leap to the conclusion that this proves that PED cannot interfere.
  The issue is not that EVERY device WILL interfere. Proof that EVERY device does not interfere with EVERY system is irrelevant.
9. Re:Very dangerous, despite the name bruhaha by sexconker · 2017-11-30 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Mobile phone interference with plane instruments: Myth or reality?
  Cool. You've found one stupid link that talks about "galvanometer instruments", and a pop-culture TV show, that can't show that the specific devices they tested interfered with the specific aircraft systems they tested against, and leap to the conclusion that this proves that PED cannot interfere.
  The issue is not that EVERY device WILL interfere. Proof that EVERY device does not interfere with EVERY system is irrelevant.
  Hey, shitstain.
  Every consumer device with a radio is already tested and certified by the FCC and is guaranteed not to cause harmful interference and is guaranteed to not block interference the FCC and their goons throw at it.
10. Re:Very dangerous, despite the name bruhaha by Obfuscant · 2017-11-30 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Every consumer device with a radio is already tested and certified by the FCC and is guaranteed not to cause harmful interference
  You are pathetically and arrogantly ignorant. Look up what Part 15 says about "unintentional radiators", and then think about what intentional radiators are allowed to do.
  
  and is guaranteed to not block interference the FCC and their goons throw at it.
  Very little of modern electronics is actually tested by the FCC directly. Most of it is based on manufacturer certifications -- and for a lot of Chinese electronics that certification is fudged or based on version 0.1 prototype of a device and not the current, shipping product.
  ARRL did an amazing test of common amateur handhelds by setting up test gear at hamfests and examining the handhelds that attendees were carrying. They found that some models passed FCC standards only marginally. I've duplicated these tests with my own gear and found the same thing. These are the things that are "guaranteed not to cause harmful interference" or "not block interference" (whatever that means).
  In fact, any device, even a certificated, legal transmitter, can cause harmful interference to another device. Ask anyone who works with radio systems in a close environment, like on a mountaintop repeater/communications site. I've already talked about a legal, unintentional radiator (GPS receiver) that causes harmful interference to a nearby radio system. That's just one example. Here's a second one: a receiver system in an aircraft generated a birdie that blanked out a New York Center ATC frequency. The pilot and co-pilot heard nothing from ATC, and only knew the channel was blocked and not just silent because the RX light with on saying something was being received. No audio at all.
Autocorrect by darkain · 2017-11-30 06:07 · Score: 1

Maybe they were trying to name their network "Baby On Board", and the phone auto-corrected it?
1. Re:Autocorrect by Anonymous+Cashews · 2017-11-30 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  "Baby on Board" should really be "WMD on Board," especially if the little diaper stain is screaming its head off.
2. Re:Autocorrect by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe they were trying to name their network "Baby On Board"
  Apropos to nothing to do with this article ... but I've been cut off so often and/or seen some of the most aggressive driving from cars with "Baby on Board" that I now interpret it is "Fucking Asshole Driving Car".
  Don't slap a sticker on your car that suggests I should be careful around your precious cargo and then drive like a total peckerwood. Because it means I don't give a damn whether your baby is in board if you're going to cut me off.
3. Re:Autocorrect by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  This user is a Pedobear Troll! Hide your chikdren and goats!
4. Re:Autocorrect by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  OK! What's a "chikdren"?
5. Re:Autocorrect by TexasDiaz · 2017-11-30 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Damn I wish I had mod points right now!
6. Re:Autocorrect by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  A deliberate misspelling. Pedobear Trolls are often failed literary critics.
7. Re:Autocorrect by Rockoon · 2017-11-30 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  â(TM)I.T. Just Works.â(TM)
  
  - Apple Quality Control
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
8. Re:Autocorrect by Cro+Magnon · 2017-11-30 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe they meant to name it after the father. "Bum On Board".
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
9. Re:Autocorrect by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  When Chris was in high school, his parents had to paint him green to reduce the bullying!
  Here he is trying to learn grammar.
  As we can see, Chris' problems with grammar go way back.
  (With deep apologies to Fishka Rais.)
10. Re:Autocorrect by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  There you are, spamming amazon affiliate links with yet another fake account, you revenue stream hogging disgusting fat sexist tube of lard, Christopher Dale Reimer!
  You can be sure I will be watching this fake account too. I know this is you because you told me you were working on your freepass 11 file server and you are so dumb that you can't even masquerade yourself properly.
  Now, I told you I was out of meds last week and you didn't even care to contact me you lazy fucker.
  How many times do I have to express the emergency of the situation??????
  The python click script you wrote for my pheromone revenue stream web site suddenly stopped to work!!!!!!
  You fucking incompetent python script writer!!!
  When it works, I get 4000+ clicks a day on my pheromone revenue stream web site but only 5 or 6 without it!!!!
  Now, it seems like you dont care and that you have abandoned me you heartless fucking pig!
  Bonus:
  Here is a story that creimer told me when convincing me what a hard life he had:
  The tree was him and the tree knot was his butt hole!
  So, his uncle packed his fat ass with lard and with his cock! Not that it makes much of a difference but anyway, there it is!
  Signed:
  The girl that used to love you and now hates you, burn in hell where you belong you sexist pig!
Terry Wrist says Hi Jack! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:08 · Score: 0

why would you want to criminalize someone for naming an access point?
I know right! What's wrong with an access point named "bomb on board" while on a plane. It's not like they scared anyone or wasted any huge amounts of fuel or people's time or caused any kind of distress among the passengers and crew. I mean if all went round the person should have just yelled out loud, "bomb on board", and it would have been OK with you because there's free speech, right? I mean it's OK to yell fire in a theatre because of free speech, right? Don't be daft!
1. Re:Terry Wrist says Hi Jack! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:21 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Yes, definitely, we should have the death penalty for scaring people... You're a fucking idiot.
2. Re:Terry Wrist says Hi Jack! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, definitely, we should have the death penalty for scaring people... You're a fucking idiot.
  Who said anything about death penalty? Just you only.
3. Re:Terry Wrist says Hi Jack! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:05 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Yeah, sure, and it should be illegal to scare people, and of course everyone should know what frightens everyone else so they can avoid scaring each other, ever. What a bunch of damn snowflakes. Toughen up buttercup.
4. Re:Terry Wrist says Hi Jack! by rogoshen1 · 2017-11-30 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're missing the point, in a way.
  In elden times, we had this thing called "shame" and it was used to subtly coerce people to act in socially acceptable ways. This was accomplished without layers of legislation and oppresive law enforcement. Society was better off, people tended to act 'better'.
  In comes social media, and suddenly everyone's a beautiful unique butterfly -- being shunned and/or shamed by society is now almost a mark of individualistic pride, and there we have it.
  Having your community consider you to be a giant bag of dicks does wonders for culling shitty behavior, without having to codify it directly into law.
  (regardless; not sure if you're trolling or serious; but if you do not see anything wrong with A) an airline disregarding a potential bomb threat or B) inconveniencing 300 odd people just to wave around your free-speech dick -- then something is probably defective upstairs.)
5. Re: Terry Wrist says Hi Jack! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 18:13 · Score: 0
  
  It is illegal at a certain point. Try waving a replica gun around at a presidential rally, and see how far your right to scare people stretches.
Even better SSID... Snakes On Board! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:12 · Score: 0

I've had it with these mothafuckin' snakes, on this mothafuckin' plane!
Because my pet dog is "da bomb" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:12 · Score: 0

and he's traveling with me you insolent clod.
It could have been much, much worse by fahrbot-bot · 2017-11-30 06:21 · Score: 1

It could have been "baby-on-board".

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Stupid is as Stupid does... by bobbied · 2017-11-30 06:34 · Score: 1

Yea, that wasn't a good idea was it.... Stupid is as Stupid does. Who ever did this was an idiot. Even joking about a "bomb" at the security check point will get you an all expense paid trip to the holding room and/or a brief jail stay.
Why not use something like "Free WiFi" if you insist on letting everybody on board share your service? It's bad enough you are cutting into the revenue stream of the airline by depriving them of the fees the other users of your connection would have paid, then you pile on by making a joke about having a bomb on board? Way to go....
Not only did you get your butt in trouble over the "bomb" thing, you made the airlines aware of your little sharing scheme. I'm guessing they will do something about both and send you the fuel bill for the diversion.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2017-11-30 06:39 · Score: 0

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:40 · Score: 0

Airlines have tough security, people are sensitive about any threat when it comes to riding in mass transportation, stupid shit happens all the time, we get it. I know we see "never forget" but this just isn't news.
News is when security slips up or new measures get implemented or someone gets away with something.
This is just the system doing its thing. Well, maybe that is news actually.
No Bomb On Board by hawguy · 2017-11-30 06:43 · Score: 1

This is exactly why I always set up an SSID named "No Bomb On Board" when I fly -- so no one will worry about a bomb on board.
Though now I see an easy way to disrupt global air travel -- hide an ESP8266 on board multiple airplanes that can broadcast a "Bomb On Board" SSD at a particular time on all of the airplanes, and watch global air travel come to a halt while they try to track them done. For bonus points, have them turn on and off randomly to make them harder to find.
1. Re:No Bomb On Board by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  For bonus points, have them turn on and off randomly to make them harder to find.
  You forgot to randomize the power transmit levels so it looks like a typical 1-bar AP, but is actually 4 foot away from you.
Yeah, we need to be scared by Kludge · 2017-11-30 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, this was definitely scary because if a terrorist did put a bomb on board, we all know that the second thing he would do would be to make a wifi network called, "Bomb on Board", alerting everyone to it.
Whew! Good thing they diverted the plane!
1. Re:Yeah, we need to be scared by AmiMoJo · 2017-11-30 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  Actually it wouldn't be the first time a terrorist had altered authorities to their bomb. Maybe they charged their mind at the last moment but didn't want to alert their partner, so passed a note to staff or wrote on the wall in the toilet.
  Other terrorists planned to phone in warnings, not wanting to actually kill anyone. The IRA did that.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:Yeah, we need to be scared by Drethon · 2017-11-30 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, terrorists never warn before hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Creater was a Terrorist by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:09 · Score: 0

Same procedure, same outcome. Send him to GITMO!
If I was going to put a bomb on board by Hognoxious · 2017-11-30 07:12 · Score: 1

If I actually was going to put a bomb on board I'd call the access point "TotallyNoBombsHereNoNoNo" or someth1Â¾,.m,.,
no carrier

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
A friend does this on Virgin Trains in the UK by swb · 2017-11-30 07:15 · Score: 2

Some of the trains/routes don't have wifi and he turns his hotspot on with "Virgin Trains Free Wifi" as the SSID. Then he tries very hard to suppress his own laughter when people start complaining about how the wifi doesn't work.
You can yell Fire in a theatre in the USA by FeelGood314 · 2017-11-30 07:19 · Score: 1

The US courts have specifically said you can't yell it if a reasonable person would believe you. If you are saying it as a joke and a reasonable person would expect it to be a joke then it is legal. Same with making a joke about a bomb. Fuck you TSA. Unfortunately defending yourself in the USA is now so time consuming and expensive it would be more of a punishment to prove you are innocent than plead guilty.
1. Re:You can yell Fire in a theatre in the USA by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-11-30 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Again, as I understand it, it isn't that you can't yell it. You just can't use it as a defense.
  If I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (while holding up my lighter and pointing at it) and everybody laughs and goes on watching the show, I have committed no crime, nothing bad has happened, and there's no problem. If everybody were to calmly stand up and leave the theater such that no one was injured and immediately head to the manager and demand their money back, the theater owner could then sue me for the money that he lost due to my prank. If I were to refuse to pay because, hey, "Free speech, man!", that wouldn't fly. The first amendment is not a "get out of jail free" card.
Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre by Rick+Schumann · 2017-11-30 07:25 · Score: 1

That's more or less the equivalent of this incident. Regardless of whether there was malicious intent, or whether the responsible person just has a poor sense of humor/poor sense of judgement, it's not right. At least here in the U.S., so far as I know, there are laws that cover things like this ('Malicious Mischief', maybe?). Don't know about other countries.
1. Re:Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 14:03 · Score: 0
  
  This yelling fire is a common old-wives tale. It is *not* unlawful to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre (or anywhere else). However, IF there is no fire AND one or more persons are injured, THEN (and only then) would the offense of Reckless Endangerment have been committed, and even then only if the act was carried out with intent to cause the outcome obtained or reckless as to the result of the action.
2. Re:Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre by Rick+Schumann · 2017-12-01 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Have I mentioned recently how much I hate overly pedantic, too-literal people? Ignore the intent behind the reference no, really, IT'S FINE. Jerk.
What did the muslim woman by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 07:33 · Score: 0

say to her husband?
"Honey, does this bomb make me look fat?"
1. Re:What did the muslim woman by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 08:38 · Score: -1
  
  Good one. Another good one is when you need to go take a crap, say "Excuse me, I must go visit my Arab friend, Musthavacrap."
Shoulda said... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 08:27 · Score: 0

"Bombed in Flight" then asked for as much alcohol as is available.
SSID: ISIS Safe House 17 by Major_Disorder · 2017-11-30 08:44 · Score: 1

I was going to name my WiFi as in the subject, but decided I really did not want an all expenses paid vacation to GitMo. So I named it "Free Virus downloads" instead.

--
First law of people: People are generally stupid.
New SSID ... by PPH · 2017-11-30 09:38 · Score: 1

... for this passenger: Bus Rider.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
As it should be by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 10:25 · Score: 0

WW2, librul conspiracy or actual event? Did the US really even fight in it? See, this shit is so stupid I wanted to punch my own face while writing it to troll your Nazi ass.
Buy a drink for the guy in 6C by rocket+rancher · 2017-11-30 10:44 · Score: 2

...got *a lot* of margaritas for me and nothing but laughs from the crew when I showed the perplexed stew delivering all those drinks my SSID. YMMV.
1. Re:Buy a drink for the guy in 6C by herbierobinson · 2017-12-03 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  How much data usage did all those people put on your phone bill :-)
  
  --
  An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Password by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 13:56 · Score: 0

This is why one should always use the password:
"If you get on your knees and blow me I will tell you my password"
for their phone and all "Social Media" accounts. Works especially well when entering the US.
A better comparison would be... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 21:07 · Score: 0

A parody version of the "Baby on board" rear-window placard saying "Bomb on board" and perhaps featuring a cartoon bomb. No, don't stick it to the window and make alarmed faces, but there's nothing wrong with having one in your carry-on.
The correct thing to do is to get on the PA and announce that "some joker is operating a wi-fi network with a name which is upsetting other passengers. We Are Not Amused. Please disable it immediately before we have to find you. If it doesn't disappear within three minutes, we'll take it literally and you wouldn't like that."
1. Re:A better comparison would be... by david_thornley · 2017-12-01 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  And the guy who brought the bomb grabs his neighbor's phone or whatever and smashes it. End of bomb warning, and now the terrorist knows his neighbor tried to tell on him. Like that improves the situation.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Some More Interesting WiFi Names by herbierobinson · 2017-12-03 07:05 · Score: 1

"Cockpit Override"
"Airplane Crash Scenarios"
"747 Maintenance Network"
"Airbus Control"

--
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us