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.”
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.
I think it’s more the plane could have gone into a built up area.
Yea. They can do finish blowing it up
Seriously think a little bigger. Why are people commenting this?
Because lemmy is full of 15 year old kids with no experience in the real world
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.
So if a terrorist makes a private chat, they’re immune?
Wut?
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.
“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.
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.
Now if only we fined companies proportionally for saftey violations…
“The intention was never to cause public distress or cause public harm,” Verma told the court.
That moment, the kid realised some joke is off-limit and could have serious consequences.
a private joke?
Unfortunately, an app and justice will not differentiate between a joke and real, once it tripped either of this system then you pay the consequences. If you wanna joke about this, joke irl.
What was private about it?
private jokes made in public aren’t private. (this was sent from the check in counter of the airport.)
It was a private chat group message, what’s public about it?
If your in a public place, other people can see your screen. Also, snaps are frequently video, so he may have been over heard.
If your in public (like that), you have no expectation of privacy.
edit: also do you really think Snapchat won’t be screening messages? They probably have his geolocation data, know he’s an airport and just sent something about “planes” and “bombs” and “taliban”. nobody in the world is going to review that and think, “oh, it’s just a joke. move along.”
As per the article, security saw the message, it was not reported by another traveller. So he presumably was, or thought he was, in private when he made the joke.
Security services saw the message and flagged it to Spanish authorities, who sent two F-18 jets to follow the airliner until it landed, per the BBC.
The Security Service is MI5. I doubt very much the agent was ever out at Gatwick that day. Either they scooped up the message via some form of mass surveillance or Snapchat reported it.
My assumption is he thought that the Snapchat group itself was private and didn’t realize that Snapchat absolutely will nark on you if you threaten to get them wrapped up in something Iike terrorism. Another article says he was at the check in counter.
If airport security saw the message/overheard it, they would never have let him through the security check point to board in the first place.
No I absolutely agree that he was probably auto reported by Snapchat. Nevertheless, my point holds that that would be very much considered a private conversation.
One 18-year-old is about to find out the very harsh consequences of being an adult.
The harsh consequences of being in a police state
What should happen if there is an explicit threat by a passenger to blow up a plane? Just hope it’s a joke because it seems like one?
EDIT: As usual, lots of downvotes, but no actual answer to the question.
How is it a threat if said privately?
The same way it’s a threat if you tell someone privately that you’re going to blow up a building. But it’s not clear that this was truly private.
Holy shit dude it’s only been a few minutes calm the fuck down
If 4 people are going to downvote me within that time and not respond, I’m going to say something about it. I notice you took the time to respond to me without answering the question. Do you have an answer?
I was gonna write out a response (which is why I was back here anyways) but your demeanor is just “I wanna be angry” and there really is no amount of logic you apply to people like you.
Ok… but I’m not angry.
It’s just edgy teenagers who think they know everything about how the world works, don’t sweat it.
I guess. It just annoys me when people downvote me a whole bunch when I ask a question but don’t explain their downvotes. I don’t care if I say something and everyone on Lemmy thinks it’s worth downvoting and I get 2500 downvotes or whatever, but I just think people should have the basic courtesy to explain why.
I know they won’t, but it still annoys me.
EDIT: See, in this response (I’m editing just because I saw it already had a few downvotes) I don’t care if I get dozens of downvotes to this comment and no one responds. It’s when I ask a question. I don’t downvote people for asking questions unless I also respond. If I don’t like their question, I’ll explain why. I think that’s just courteous. But maybe I’m in a minority. Courtesy is mostly dead on the internet anyway.
Typing is hard, voting is easy. Reddit was the same way. Just accept it and move on, frequently things shift the other way and you get comments if you’re just patient.
I feel like people downvote like that when they don’t like how the comment makes them feel, but can’t be bothered to think about why that’s the case.
And I have no interest in what those people
thinkfeel.Alternatively, it can make me do a double take, and reconsider my own reasoning, just to make sure I haven’t made an error, in fact or in judgment. I don’t think you need to do that here; what the adult said was most definitely a potential threat.
He shouldn’t have been allowed boarding in the first place. The security services saw that message, but let him board the plane. They’re fully responsible for the bill of two jet fighters used to trail the plane, and would be in way more deep trouble if this was an actual terrorist.
Did they see it before he boarded the plane though? The article didn’t make that clear.
deleted by creator
Is it a threat when a high school kid says in a private chat that they’re going to bring a gun to school tomorrow? It’s exactly the same thing.
Yes. Saying you are going to blow up an airplane is a threat. If I tell you I’m going to kill my mother, that’s a threat whether or not my mother hears about it.
Yep fair. I rescind my point.
This comment said:
Is it a threat if it’s inside a private chat with friends?
For you to make a threat, you need to say it to the people you’re threatening. It’s not like he posted it publicly or dm’ed the airline and government.
Granted it isn’t the US, so our customs and laws don’t apply. That being said, it really depends on how they got the evidence I think.
If it was a public post(intentionally or accidentally public), or someone reported it, or snapchat’s TOS authorizes scanning and reporting “private” messages, then yeah, seems like this teenager’s actions should have consequences.
If it’s a result of an illegal police state that has access to people’s private communications, the evidence should be fully inadmissible. And the response is a result of information that should not have been in their hands to begin with, making this 100% on them.
I think the former is a lot more likely. But the article is too short on details.
I truly hope that’s the case, though I think we’re all a little more accustomed to seeing police state overstepping in this day in age. And the article is meant to be ragebait for that anyway I think.
I’d say wait for the details to surface, and if it truly ends up being police state overstep, I hope their citizens hold them accountable in whatever way will bring about change. I like the French methods personally.
