An Air France flight from Paris to Algiers returned to Paris shortly after takeoff because a passenger realized their phone had fallen into a gap between the seats, potentially near flight control mechanisms. Unable to retrieve the phone, the crew, prioritizing safety, decided to turn back as a precaution. The plane landed safely, the phone was retrieved, and passengers eventually continued their journey to Algiers on a later flight. The incident highlights the potential risks posed by small items getting lodged in sensitive aircraft areas.
An Oregon woman discovered her private nude photos had been widely shared in her small town, tracing the source back to the local district attorney, Marco Bocci, and a sheriff's deputy. The photos were taken from her phone while it was in police custody as evidence. Despite the woman's distress and the clear breach of privacy, both Bocci and the deputy are shielded from liability by qualified immunity (QI), preventing her from pursuing legal action against them. The woman, who had reported a stalking incident, now feels further victimized by law enforcement. An independent investigation confirmed the photo sharing but resulted in no disciplinary action.
HN commenters largely discuss qualified immunity (QI), expressing frustration with the legal doctrine that shields government officials from liability. Some argue that QI protects bad actors and prevents accountability for misconduct, particularly in cases like this where the alleged actions seem clearly inappropriate. A few commenters question the factual accuracy of the article or suggest alternative explanations for how the photos were disseminated, but the dominant sentiment is critical of QI and its potential to obstruct justice in this specific instance and more broadly. Several also highlight the power imbalance between citizens and law enforcement, noting the difficulty individuals face when challenging authority.
Summary of Comments ( 92 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43523765
The Hacker News comments discuss the cost-benefit analysis of turning a plane around for a lost phone, with many questioning the rationale. Some speculate about security concerns, suggesting the phone might have been intentionally planted or could be used for tracking, while others dismiss this as paranoia. A few commenters propose alternative solutions like searching upon landing or using tracking software. Several highlight the lack of information in the article, such as the phone's location in the plane (e.g., between seats, potentially causing a fire hazard) and whether it was confirmed to belong to the passenger in question. The overall sentiment is that turning the plane around seems like an overreaction unless there was a credible security threat, with the inconvenience to other passengers outweighing the benefit of retrieving the phone. Some users also point out the potential environmental impact of such a decision.
The Hacker News comments section for the Washington Post article "Why a plane turned around when a passenger lost a phone midflight" contains a robust discussion analyzing the incident and its implications.
Several commenters question the veracity of the passenger's claim that his phone slipped between the seats, speculating that it might have fallen into a more critical area of the plane, prompting the return. They point out the unlikelihood of a phone causing mechanical issues just by falling between seats and suggest the possibility of the phone entering a more sensitive area, perhaps near flight control cables or other vital components. This concern drives much of the discussion, with users exploring the potential risks of such a scenario. Some speculate the phone might have been a modified device or carried a concern beyond a simple loss.
The discussion also delves into the airline's procedures and the pilot's decision-making process. Commenters discuss the difficulty of assessing such situations mid-flight, particularly with the limited information available to the pilot. Some suggest the pilot erred on the side of caution, prioritizing passenger safety, while others criticize the decision as an overreaction. The potential cost of turning the plane around, both financially and in terms of passenger inconvenience, is also a significant point of discussion.
Another thread of conversation focuses on the passenger's responsibility and whether they should bear some of the costs associated with the return flight. Some argue that if the passenger's negligence caused the incident, they should be held accountable, while others defend the passenger, pointing out the difficulty of preventing such accidents.
Several commenters share anecdotes of similar experiences, either involving lost items or other unexpected events that caused flight disruptions. These personal accounts add a layer of realism to the discussion, highlighting the unpredictable nature of air travel.
Finally, the conversation touches on the broader implications of this incident for airline security and procedures. Some users suggest improvements to aircraft design to prevent similar incidents, while others call for clearer guidelines for handling lost items during flight. There's a noticeable lack of consensus on the best course of action, reflecting the complexity of balancing safety, efficiency, and passenger experience.