171
submitted 6 months ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] toast@retrolemmy.com 185 points 6 months ago

So, wait a minute. This kid makes a private joke among friends, and his message is intercepted by security services and obviously taken out of context (in that they failed to realize he was privately joking among friends).

Seems to me that the security forces should eat the cost of this. This is the price you pay for spying on everyone and overreacting.

The kid didn't say this publicly

[-] CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml 104 points 6 months ago

Even if this was a real terrorist, this is the worst move security services could've done.

They could bar a suspected terrorist from entering the plane via a temporary arrest. If they're wrong, just reimburse the travel costs. If correct, you didn't let a terrorist possibly hijack a plane.

They could use the "randomly selected for a search" card as an excuse for detailed screening. A terrorist can't blow up a plane without some sort of smuggled troublesome equipment anyway. If they're wrong, you spent like 10 minutes searching a random dude. At least you didn't gave a terrorist chance to hijack a plane.

They instead let a suspected terrorist enter the plane as usual; then tailed him with fighter jets. What the actual fuck was the plan if the suspected person was a terrorist? Blow up the fucking plane so all the civilians inside die?

Imagine the call done to the authorities

"This is airport, we've detected a suspicious individual that could be affiliated with a terrorist organization"

"Since you detected him, I assume you've detained him? We'll be sending units"

"Umm... no? Just let him board the plane"

"YOU WHAT?"

[-] Altofaltception@lemmy.world 53 points 6 months ago

Yeah why the fuck were they spying on some 18 year old kid's snapchat?

[-] Chozo@kbin.social 51 points 6 months ago

He wrote:

"On my way to blow up the plane (I'm a member of the Taliban)."

There's no way that text doesn't get automatically flagged for review by Snapchat.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

Who's reading these private messages?

[-] otp@sh.itjust.works 31 points 6 months ago

I imagine Snapchat read it.

Then checked his location (since Snapchat likely asks users to turn on that permission, or it could've been found through photo/video metadata).

Then they informed the airport nearest to his GPS location.

And that's probably why it got blown out of proportion.

Snapchat says "Hey airport, we found someone at your location who said they're going to blow up a plane. Here's a cropped picture of the guy's face."

Then the airport staff are looking through everyone who's checked in, trying to match the Snapchat picture to the passport photos. By the time they found a match, the plan had already departed. (Let's be real, they probably have some facial recognition, but it was likely double-checked by humans, plus all the communication back and forth, etc.)

So now the airport knows that the guy who said he's going to blow up the plane is already on the plane, and the plane is in flight. What are your options at that point?

[-] Caaaaarrrrlll@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago

Probably doesn't need facial recognition even. Snapchat has people's phone numbers. Which are also used when booking tickets for most airlines. The airport could cross check phone record from Snapchat with their airlines' passenger info.

[-] rImITywR@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

Snapchat is not private.

[-] Marcbmann@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

That's exactly how the Taliban talks. The highly cryptic methods used by this terror organization have been cracked.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Lmaydev@programming.dev 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Because if a terrorist sent that then blew up a plane and they didn't act the public backlash would be insane.

While it's super invasive there are terrorists stupid enough to use services like this to communicate.

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 32 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Also what's the goal of scrambling jets when the threat is a passenger inside said jet? Are they gonna ask the pilot to pipe the radio to the PA and say "you better not blow up that plane because we're in charge and we said so?" Do they have a sniper on the wing ready to take out just one guy meanwhile depressurizing the whole fuselage, potentially explosively? Maybe Top Gun Tom Cruise can hit the guy with a burst of the 20mm? Seems like there's no point whatsoever. Best case they can say "yep it blew up" or "nope it didn't blow up."

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 31 points 6 months ago

I mean, were there actually a terrorist onboard the plane, I imagine the logic would be "If they hijack it and decide to try to crash it into something 9/11 style, a fighter can at least blow it up in time to prevent more casualties on the ground"

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

This would make sense. Fighters were scrambled to take out Flight 93. The assumed target was the White House, so they were scrambled so fast they didn’t have time to arm them. Their plan was to literally crash into the hijacked plane. One into the tail, one into the cockpit.

By the time they arrived the plane had already been brought down by the passengers.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The jets are to shoot down the airliner if it aims towards a dense area, sensitive location, etc.

[-] Chozo@kbin.social 10 points 6 months ago

They'd shoot the plane down if they can't get the pilot to land safely. They'd rather one plane full of innocent passengers gets killed than a plane full of innocent passengers and a building full of even more innocents.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] supamanc@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Because if a guy with a bomb manages to persuad the pilot to change course.....

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 474D@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Is anyone stupid enough to think that Snapchat is private? Honest question. It's still a social media platform.

[-] Infernal_pizza@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago

Private enough to use as the primary communication method for my multi-million dollar drug empire? No. Private enough to make a dumb joke to a friend and not expect to become a terrorist? It should be but clearly not

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 9 points 6 months ago

Yeah I would personally tell them to eat shit.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 8 points 6 months ago

This tends to be ineffective in court.

[-] Chozo@kbin.social 9 points 6 months ago

The kid didn’t say this publicly

I'm not sure what this changes. Do actual terrorists make their plans public? IANAT, but I'm pretty sure they discuss and plan their actions privately most of the time.

Besides, look at what he wrote:

"On my way to blow up the plane (I'm a member of the Taliban)."

If he somehow didn't expect that line of text to get his Snapchat auto-watchlisted, then he's even dumber than originally thought.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 20 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Do actual terrorists go around saying “lol I’m a terrorist”? Maybe a little business card with some finely embossed “Taliban Suicide Bomber” printed under their name to hand out to everyone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

I mean yeah most people kinda assume that their private conversations are private, hopefully this will help more people aware that corporations and governments are spying on us all

[-] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago

My first thought is what is the point of sending fighter jets to deal with a bomb threat?

"Don't you blow up this plane, or else........ we'll blow up this plane."

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

Bomb threats can be used to get control of the plane and then fly it into stuff. The fighter jet is there to bring down the plane if it seems like they’re trying to 9/11 it.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

I think it's more the plane could have gone into a built up area.

[-] june@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Yea. They can do finish blowing it up

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

Seriously think a little bigger. Why are people commenting this?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JoBo@feddit.uk 27 points 6 months ago

Reminiscent of the Twitter joke trial. Except this obvious joke was made in private, so there's even less excuse for the over-reaction. Useless timewasters.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 6 months ago

It would have been nice if they could have stopped him before he got on the plane. If he was serious, things likely wouldn't have ended well.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

“Before departing”- I think he was on the plane when he made the Snapchat comment, but the article is not clear.

It’s possible he was overheard and some stranger who didn’t- and couldn’t- know it was a joke reported him.

edit, from another article:

He admitted to sending a picture with his 'bomb joke' and Taliban comment from a check-in desk at Gatwick Airport, which experts who analysed his phone told the court was shared in a Snapchat group with six other users at 9.47am the day of his arrest and showed him wearing a hat and sunglasses.

so he was at the airport. making terrorist threats. brilliant.

Edit2: Looking into snapchat's content policy, it seems very probably snapchat was the one that reported him to the authorities. From their Community Guidelines:

These Guidelines apply to all content (which includes all forms of communication, like text, images, generative AI, links or attachments, emojis, Lenses and other creative tools) or behavior on Snapchat — and to all Snapchatters. We are particularly sensitive to content or behavior that poses a risk of severe harm to Snapchatters, and reserve the right to take immediate, permanent action against users engaging in such behavior. Additional guidance about what we consider to be severe harm and how we take action against it is available here.

Taking the link hop to the 'additional guidance':

The safety of Snapchatters is our top priority. We take behavior that threatens the safety of our community very seriously, particularly when the threat of harm is severe. We consider severe harm to include both (1) harms that risk significant damage to the physical or emotional well-being of Snapchatters, and (2) the imminent, credible risk of severe harm, including threats to human life, safety, and well-being. We collaborate with experts, safety groups, and law enforcement on these topics in order to better educate ourselves and our community, and to take appropriate action where these threats may arise on our platform. We consider these types of harms to merit a heightened level of scrutiny, as well as swift, strict, and permanent consequences for violators.

When we identify Snapchatters engaging in any of the following activities, we immediately disable their accounts and, in some instances, refer the conduct to law enforcement:

  • Activity that involves sexual exploitation or abuse, including sharing child sexual exploitation or abuse imagery, grooming, child or adult sex trafficking, or sexual extortion (sextortion)
  • Attempted selling, exchanging, or facilitating sales of dangerous and illicit drugs
  • Credible, imminent threats to human life, safety, or well-being, which may include violent extremism or terrorism-related activities, human trafficking, specific threats of violence (such as a bomb threat), or other serious criminal activities

In addition to enforcing stricter consequences for these violations, our internal teams are continually working with experts to better understand how we can detect and limit threats, prevent harm, and stay informed of potentially harmful trends. Our work on this topic is never finished and it will continue to evolve with the needs of our community. We invite you to report a safety concern, visit our Safety Center, or learn more about our efforts to address harmful content and promote wellness.

Emphasis is mine.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 months ago

When you're in a group chat in Snapchat, Snap always has an ear on the group.

Suggesting anything illegal at an airport or border crossing is off-limits for me, no jokes, even with family/friends. I thought people knew better.

[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Now if only we fined companies proportionally for saftey violations...

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
171 points (97.8% liked)

News

22488 readers
5093 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS