- cross-posted to:
- pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
- cross-posted to:
- pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/47299437
United flight 236 from Newark to Palma de Mallorca on Saturday night was forced to turn around just an hour after takeoff due to security concerns around a Bluetooth signal. Multiple Redditors claimed to be on the flight and reported that the crew repeatedly requested passengers to turn off their Bluetooth. According to one poster, […]
Honestly, I don’t see any way this could result in criminal charges. It’s a Bluetooth name, not someone actually threatening with a weapon. It’s like walking around with a fake gun. You can’t be charged with anything without actual intent to deceive people, and good luck proving that.
At most, this is a civil charge. The airline might try to get some money out of this person.
I think it depends on the color of your skin.
Many kids with fake guns have been executed for this, because their skin is black
Poor chap. Chances are the person was flying economy. No way that person can give enough to recoup even the lawyer fees for the airline
Yep. They might still try it to punish them/set an example. They’re not getting enough out of it to be worth it though, so odds are nothing happens.
It could absolutely result in a criminal charge. If it results in a criminal conviction or not is another question.
But any prosecutor could make the argument that it’s a terroristic threat.
It’d be a waste of time, but yeah.
You can still be prosecuted for things you didn’t intend, the laws are usually less harsh. Manslaughter vs Murder for instance. I have no idea if a speaker whose name auto sets to bomb is illegal though. Seems dumb if it were
IIRC, all the laws about terrorism require intent.
Naming a Bluetooth device “bomb” could absolutely be intentionally disruptive or threatening.
Im not saying thats provable beyond reasonable doubt in this case.