"If he was going to harm the aircraft, he wouldn't have announced it in a tweet."
Many, Many bad actors have a pretty good trail/history of signals that made it clear that they were going to do something stupid. And a lot of them are stopped because authorities stepped in when those signals were reported.
Would you want to be the person who was notified that someone was communicating they were considering interfering with the proper operation of an aircraft, and ignored them, only to discovery they later on did do damage to the aircraft?
I think at the very least, people responsible for flight safety can engage with those making claims they are going to endanger airplanes, and subject them to a strenuous interview to determine what their actual intent is.
It's one thing to unobtrusively investigate a suspicious person, but actually interrupting their life just because your heuristics aren't good enough sound like a ding to free speech. If everyone joked about hacking planes, that would no longer be a risk factor.
I learned at the age of five or six to never make jokes about airplane safety - and that was 20 years prior to 9/11. Most adults in North America have enough common sense, particularly after 9/11, not to start mouthing off about endangering airplane security. It's like being humorous regarding the safety of the president - it's just one of those things that if you do it, you know are going to get a visit by the authorities, and, quite possibly, go to prison. There are certain topics around which you do not have absolute freedom to say whatever you want, particularly when you are in an airplane.
In this case, all the authorities did was interview him, and seize his electronics. My reading of the story is they didn't even charge him with a crime or put him in a cell. I don't find it surprising whatsoever that United Airlines does not want him flying on their planes.
I hate how often this line is used to defend bullies and blame victims. It's an attitude that ensures the overly aggressive can browbeat their way to getting whatever they want.
Bullies proactively seek to hurt others for their own amusement. For better or worse the Secret Service (in the case of the president) and the FBI (in the case of airplane safety), are reactively responding to potential threats.
So if you don't want them to react, don't threaten the president, don't make threats about messing around with aircraft EICAS systems.
Remember, the FBI isn't responsible for designing safe aviation comms systems, their job here is to investigate potential threats. I think most of us on HN would suspect that Roberts is not a threat, but from the perspective of the FBI, he's certainly a potential threat that needs to be investigated.
Bullies proactively seek to hurt others for their own amusement.
This is definition is too narrow, in my opinion. Workplace bullying, for example, isn't just for amusement, or even to hurt others deliberately.
I would define a bully as anyone or any group that uses coercion to get their way, rather than persuasion. Alternatively I would say a bully wantonly throws their weight around.
As such, using the power of the FBI to seize equipment as the first response to an unproven alert is bullying.
I've looked up the definition of "bully" - and I have to admit, they all define the word in pretty much the same way you just have, which surprised me, as it wasn't my sense of the word "bully." It seems to me, though, that by that definition, any police action in which the suspect doesn't just acquiesce and come meekly along, is an example of Bullying - which really stretches my sense of the word.
It should be noted though, that in the case of the FBI seizing the equipment, it turns out to be the case that Roberts actually was guilting of making the threat/joke about messing with the airplane's EICAS system, so it's not clear to me that we can claim it was an "unproven alert."
You can always seize the equipment, perform an investigation, and then return it. But if you fail to seize the equipment, then the suspect can wipe it/destroy it if you later determine you do need to review it.
I'm guessing the FBI (any police agency), in this situation will follow the "Better safe than sorry" approach.
And, as to how you can avoid having your shit seized by the cops - most of us were taught at the age of 5 not to use the B word in an airport - just extend that logic to not making jokes about messing with the aircraft safety and you should be fine.
If anything Chris Roberts would be the bully in this case, effectively saying "You are weaker than me (or at least your software is), should I give you a swirly?"
Someone tattled (Twitter) and he was taken to the principle's office to explain his comments. He was not suspended or kicked out of school (possibly because they decided he had not actually threatened the weaker student, etc).
> I don't find it surprising whatsoever that United Airlines does not want him flying on their planes.
This is more a function of the airlines just being stupid though. There was a case where an Arabic family was taken off of an airplane because on of the teenagers asked how safe it was to sit in a seat next to the wing. The FBI cleared them, but the airline refused to allow them back on a plane.
Robert's exact statement was, "Find myself on a 737/800, lets see Box-IFE-ICE-SATCOM, ? Shall we start playing with EICAS messages? "PASS OXYGEN ON" Anyone ? :)"
I.E. He was talking about directly interfering with the planes EICAS system. What if he'd joked about running a GPS, or VOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range) jammer during final approach? At what point do the authorities decide they need to have a conversation with such an individual?
The issue is that the authorities did have a talk with him, but the airlines have deemed that the authorities' assurances are inadequate. That was the portion of the example that I was referring to. The airlines have said "FBI says this guy is ok? Screw that, don't let him on anyways!"
Would you want to be the person who was notified that someone was communicating they were considering interfering with the proper operation of an aircraft, and ignored them, only to discovery they later on did do damage to the aircraft?
That's the problem with concentrating blame. It leads to net counterproductive behavior. One in such a position is thinking about their position, not just the people they are protecting.
Many, Many bad actors have a pretty good trail/history of signals that made it clear that they were going to do something stupid. And a lot of them are stopped because authorities stepped in when those signals were reported.
Would you want to be the person who was notified that someone was communicating they were considering interfering with the proper operation of an aircraft, and ignored them, only to discovery they later on did do damage to the aircraft?
I think at the very least, people responsible for flight safety can engage with those making claims they are going to endanger airplanes, and subject them to a strenuous interview to determine what their actual intent is.