A United Airlines passenger flying Newark – Miami on May 16 was threatened with law enforcement over their wifi hotspot name: “Free Palestine, F Zionists.” The captain reportedly made an announcement that suggested it was a security issue, and that the plane would be “sequestered” after landing and that passenger phones could be inspected.
They gave the responsible person 30 seconds to remove or disable it or they’d be met on arrival. The cabin went silent, and the hotspot disappeared quickly.
- Controverial, threatening measures in a metal tube at altitude will elicit a reaction. And the reason to title your network that way is so that other people see it.
- When a passenger says they want to “F-” any group, who may be on the plane, that gets taken as a threat not merely an opinion or preference (even though it didn’t say “bomb,” “hijack,” “kill,” “attack”).
- Though someone who is going to do one of these things probably isn’t announcing it in advance via their wifi hotspot. That would make it less likely they could accomplish the goal. It’s like a villain in a movie declaring to the victim that ‘since they have no chance of being stopped, they might as well reveal their entire evil plan.’ And then the plan is miraculously foiled and they’ve confessed.
Moreover if the hotspot was a security threat, why would turning it off make it not a threat? Actually this one is simple. It was never a belief that the signal owner was going to do something bad to the plane. But the signal owner was creating conflict in the cabin that could end badly. It could have led to a verbal or physical confrontation. And that could be a security threat, or a risk of diversion.
The hotspot naming was antisemitic, and saying ‘Zionists’ (people who support the existence of the Jewish state, and don’t want it ethnically cleansed ‘from the river to the sea’) rather than ‘Jews’ does not change this. It is a hostile slogan directed at an identity heavily overlapping with Jews and Israelis.
And the captain is generally within his authority to refuse transportation of a passenger that in their sole judgment (provided that judgmnet is not based on impermissible factors) might be inimical to safety. There’s very little scope for review of that decision.
And here there wasn’t even a threat to refuse transport, just to call law enforcement and what law enforcement did with the call is generally going to be at their discretion (without liability to the airline as long as the call is made in good faith and the captain doesn’t lie to law enforcement). Specific predictions of what could happen following the call, like phone searches, are really beside the point as they aren’t up to the pilot.
I’d also add that there’s no first amendment issue with an airline objecting to a political message as the first amendment covers government restrictions on speech and though United is a ‘common carrier’ they are not a state actor.
We’ve seen many incidents where airlines react to wifi network names from passengers like an Austin – Charlotte flight delayed 4.5 hours last year after a passenger named their wifi network “I have a bomb.” Police boarded, passengers were deplaned and held, bags were offloaded, and everything was re-screened.
One year on 9/11 a passenger named their device “Southwest – Bomb on Board” and then changed it to “the bomb is on this seat.” Things got sorted, and everyone realized it was a joke, when it was later changed to ‘something about the flight attendant being hot.’
Another passenger caused chaos when naming their hotspot ‘Samsung Galaxy Note 7’ when those devices were catching fire and airlines were explicitly aksing passengers whether they were carrying one onboard.
If you live in an apartment or condo building, odds on you see several names meant to be clever. Most of them aren’t. If you’re going to choose condogirl you might as well leave the default set to ATT2sXj6Fk-5g. And I guess it’s fine to name your home wifi Al Qaeda Sleeper Cell or Russian FSB Surveillance Van but using that name on a plane causes problems.
(HT: Paddle Your Own Kanoo)
I cannot afford to fly private, but I would like a first class only plane. Yes, I know, there are plenty of first class jerks as well documented here, but I’ll take the better odds.
the captain shouldn’t have said that he would have the police inspect eveyone’s phone. Police cannot inspect someone’s belongings without a warrant. even if the wifi hotspot name was offensive, it’s considered the first amendment right.
Good for the pilot.
“Funny” thing is – you can’t know with any degree of certainty if the person involved is a radical leftist, extreme right-winger white type or an islamist….
They all have a very deep passionate hatred towards jews. Each from their own angle supposedly, but they do have common issue – it’s a war on God actually as it has been for thousands of years by many groups towards the nation of Israel that God chose for a mission, to be a “light unto the nations”. They want to erase that light, bring in each their own niche type of darkness, and each of them demands you obey or else.
They should learn from history (but they don’t of course), or just from reading many past sources, not only jewish ones – you can’t defeat the nation of Israel. You can kill a lot of them, and during that many others as well, but you can’t eliminate this nation.
It’s a waste of time and energy and most importantly – life.
So sick of being puppeted by Israel. We’re no longer allowed to criticize the Israeli government in America? This is ridiculous. It should be acceptable to support the Palestinian people and also to criticize the Israeli government. But no, we’ve been told that any criticism of their government is anti-Semitic. Which is untrue.