Comment by f33d5173
21 hours ago
No they wouldn't. A fundamental part of a threat is to make it very clear that there's a threat. The reason you threaten is to get some concession, otherwise you wouldn't bother threatening.
21 hours ago
No they wouldn't. A fundamental part of a threat is to make it very clear that there's a threat. The reason you threaten is to get some concession, otherwise you wouldn't bother threatening.
This is at odds with basically every major security incident postmortem in recent history.
Most security failures happen when people wait to take something seriously until it is “very clear” that something is wrong.
We have the luxury of hindsight while reading this article but listen to the tapes of any security failures and you’ll find it painfully obvious that the most common issue is that people don’t do anything until it’s too late.
That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're discussing threats. Serious threats are made seriously.
The definition of threat that the rest of us are using, and the one that is relevant to airline security is:
"An indication of impending danger or harm."
Not "An expression of an intention to inflict pain, harm, or punishment."
Using the second definition in this context is absolutely bonkers -- a threat actor doesn't have to make a first-person expression of threat to be a threat.
A "security threat" refers to the former -- the situation.
It's also important to note that the situation was not taken seriously just because of the bluetooth device name -- but because it was not turned off even after all of the passengers were instructed to turn off all of their bluetooth devices. They were well aware that people are just stupid sometimes, but didn't take it seriously until it was done in defiance of crew commands.