Student arrested after sending private joke over snapchat before boarding a plane, message was viewed by security as he was connected to public Wi-Fi

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

I understand that but like I said nobody has said encryption is not used, only that E2EE is not. That is the point and clarification I am making because you have actually said people here are saying encryption is not being used on the context of E2EE rather than outright zero encryption being used.

Irrelevant to my point.

 

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

Most people don't know or have even heard of E2EE. Point is stop saying and using that as a point to back your position/point because here on this from it actually is important to not incorrectly state or imply encryption is not being used because people here do care and do understand so if you are saying encryption is not being used  then they are going to think "wiretapping" is possible when it's not which will just lead to another round of blaming and talking about the wrong thing.

Again you missing my point.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

People were already mislead in this topic from the start that "security services" could intercept this private chat when they absolutely cannot. The whole situation is worse because the person sending the message wasn't connected to public wifi at all yet look at the news report headline. Notice any false or misleading information there?

Which is what seems to be the problem for many people to get their head around.  If you read the entirety of my discussion with wanderingfool you will see that that same confusing and misleading in this topic is why you cannot claim that any reasonable person would have considered their private message to be intercepted.   There are simply too many different understandings of how tech works to be able to claim any one person should have known it would be read by someone other than the recipient.   The basic fact of the matter is there are just as many people out there who think a private message is private (funnily enough) as there are who think every message is being screened.

 

 

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

I know but you keep throwing in the technical point about things not being encrypted, there is no better point for you to make than "it was a private chat".

No I don't, you've misinterpreted my point.

 

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm not missing your point I just don't think you are understand the clarification I have been making and why. Your quotes at the top of your post are literally exactly what I have been saying. Look at the url link and look at what those two people are saying and talking about, E2EE vs Encryption aka the specific implementation of encryption. None of them have actually said Snapchat communication protocols are not encrypted "at all" aka clear text.

Your "clarification" does not address what I said or why I said it.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

I did not say it is negligence, I said that thinking is flawed. If people actually stopped and thought about it, "I am using a service I do not have control over and everything I do goes through their service while I use it" with a little common sense would figure out that this service likely can see everything. People just don't do this.

No you didn't, but that was the argument I was making when you tried to clarify.  The problem is you obviously don't understand the discussion I was having or the point I was making because you keep talking about technicalities that don't actually change anything.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

E2EE is the minority, this is not how "the internet operates". There are some services that offer or claim this implementation of encryption but I would put it to everyone that verifying this is not always possible or easy and there is no better operating rule than "the service owner can see it if they want to".

 

Which again for the record saying exactly what he did where he did etc even on a E2EE messaging service is still stupid. "Welcome to Australia, unlock your phone".... "you are under arrest".

 

Again How the internet actually operates is moot to my argument.  What snap chat does is also irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is the question: "would a reasonable person assume a private message was actually private and would not be read by anyone else"?   I say the answer to that is no, because this thread and the debates in it prove that there are too many different opinions on how the message system actually works to be able then claim that the average person should have known better.

 

16 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

nah, that makes the person unreasonable by definition,  on the internet nothing is private, everyone knows this (should at least) and that this kind of "joke" likely triggers some automated detection systems should also be clear to anyone, which is why you don't make "jokes" like this especially *while actually boarding a real life plane*... but i guess this "reasonable" chap found out the hard way. 

 

So basically you think every facebopok user is unreasonable?  That's not how laws work when they rely on "what a reasonable person would believe/do".   Given half the population believe a private message is just that it is reasonable to believe that this guy also thought the same.

 

7 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

but nowadays people don't know this stuff, they think everything is "encrypted"

 

I don't get it, how can you believe this to be the case but also hold that everybody should "know better"?

 

What people believe does not have to be true for it to be a reasonable belief.

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So basically you think every facebopok user is unreasonable? 

yes, of course, by definition yes! 

 

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What people believe does not have to be true for it to be a reasonable belief.

this by itself is correct,  but what i said about common knowledge , since decades,  is also correct and more relevant here. most of these services, or however you want to name them, including this forum, even tell you this when you sign up "private messages are not private"...

 

i agree the name of course can be misleading,  but only if someone has no prior knowledge how this stuff works,  since their inception private messages never have been truly private, its more like a person to person message and of course the service provider can, and probably will, read them.  

 

again, i think its a sad truth,  but younger generations don't really understand the internet,  it's just a thing that's been always there for them, and they probably don't learn enough about it in school either. they can use it, they know "it works" , but not how.

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

46 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yes, of course, by definition yes! 

 

this by itself is correct,  but what i said about common knowledge , since decades,  is also correct and more relevant here. most of these services, or however you want to name them, including this forum, even tell you this when you sign up "private messages are not private"...

 

i agree the name of course can be misleading,  but only if someone has no prior knowledge how this stuff works,  since their inception private messages never have been truly private, its more like a person to person message and of course the service provider can, and probably will, read them.  

 

again, i think its a sad truth,  but younger generations don't really understand the internet,  it's just a thing that's been always there for them, and they probably don't learn enough about it in school either. they can use it, they know "it works" , but not how.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but your post seems to contradict itself.

 

You start by saying they should know because of the fine print (which no one reads BTW), but then you say these younger users are ignorant of it all.

[Mark Kaine]

42 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm sorry but your post seems to contradict itself.

 

You start by saying they should know because of the fine print (which no one reads BTW), but then you say these younger users are ignorant of it all.

its not contradicting - im indeed saying 2 things:

 

A) if you've been around long enough you know that these messages can be read by whoever, and that the services obviously also tell you about it.

 

and B) that younger people haven't been around when these things were invented and thus neither have the experience nor the knowledge, and of course they're not reading the "fine print" because who does this right. /s

 

 

so i don't see a contradiction here?

 

really late 90s is when this stuff emerged and that's when you learned about the dos and donts... without being judgemental, i think this stuff is much harder to learn nowadays, simply because there's so much more stuff - incidentally we *knew* back then that stuff like facebook is the devil, ironically our parents did not... (and became the users of this crap, and now its apparently younger generations too, who, again, just like our parents don't really understand the internet and its dangers... imho... ) 

[PDifolco]

On 1/24/2024 at 3:08 PM, Monkey Dust said:

I thought we all knew, by now, 2 things not to do.

 

1. Joke about blowing stuff up in and around airports and government buildings

2. Use public Wi-Fi

 

This muppet failed on both.

And

3. use Snapchat  

[Sauron]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Again How the internet actually operates is moot to my argument.  What snap chat does is also irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is the question: "would a reasonable person assume a private message was actually private and would not be read by anyone else"?   I say the answer to that is no, because this thread and the debates in it prove that there are too many different opinions on how the message system actually works to be able then claim that the average person should have known better.

Further, knowing or suspecting that your messages could theoretically be accessed by snapchat is not the same as knowing for a fact that they will be, or that there are automatic filters that will alert international police based on keywords like "taliban". We're not even sure that's what happened considering it could also have been reported by someone in the chat (in which case, I'd say the person to be charged with causing a false alarm would be the one who reported it, knowing perfectly well it was a joke) - this may even be more likely considering they knew not just the name of the person but also which plane they would have been boarding, although I'm sure snapchat also collects location data.

 

I also question the legitimacy of just mass screening people's private conversation without a warrant or prior suspicion, if that's what actually happened, and using it as evidence in a trial. I'm almost certain this is illegal where I live (we even had a big case about the police not being allowed to use intercepted phone calls as evidence, and that was with significant evidence of wrongdoing). You can't even be certain that the person using a given account or phone number is who they claim to be.

[leadeater]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Again How the internet actually operates is moot to my argument. 

No it really wasn't because you brought up encryption which is talking about how the internet works, so if doing that then it's actually important to talk about that aspect correctly and with the correct information.

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Again you missing my point.

No again I understand your point. You however do not. I keep going on about this specifically because correctness of information is actually important.

 

If you are going to mention people are talking about encryption then you need to do so with the proper facts of discussion that was being done. If you are going to talk about how any such messages could have been seen outside the chat group members then it needs to be done with the correct information.

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

No I don't, you've misinterpreted my point.

 

On 1/28/2024 at 12:08 AM, mr moose said:

And yet even in this thread amongst people who believe they are well informed there are two distinct opposing statements regarding whether snapchat is encrypted or not.  I don't even care whether it is or not, the point is if tech enthusiasts think it is then it is reasonable for a lay person to think that also.

 

Then why did you do it? Because this start by me reading this comment section of yours and addressing it. Because again the actual discussion was about E2EE not whether or not Snapchat is encrypted. Snapchat is encrypted. If you don't really care about how and it's unimportant or not even relevant to your point then there is no further need to talk about it.

 

I'm not saying it was wrong of you to say what you did that first time but what I am saying it was necessary for it to be pointed out to you what was actually being talked about because you didn't seem to properly understand that discussion point you were refencing.

 

Basically if you "don't care" (about that as you said) then stop caring about it. For those that are looking through the topic and actually want to understand or what to make sure people can understand by seeing the correct information then let those people care about that.

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

No you didn't, but that was the argument I was making when you tried to clarify.  The problem is you obviously don't understand the discussion I was having or the point I was making because you keep talking about technicalities that don't actually change anything.

As above, doesn't' change anything for you. For me and potentially others yes it does.

 

I am talking about the technicalities because they were in your post and you demonstrated that you did not understand what was actually said

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

The basic fact of the matter is there are just as many people out there who think a private message is private (funnily enough) as there are who think every message is being screened.

This is still an undisputed fact and I have never said otherwise. Everyone who thinks this is operating under flawed thinking/assumption.

 

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Your "clarification" does not address what I said or why I said it.

I am not looking in any way to address your actual point with this, you simply didn't seem to properly understand the discussion you were referencing so I was pointing that out so you and others did not go around thinking or saying that Snapchat is "not encrypted" 

 

Which is why I have said and am saying you don't understand my point I was making.

[leadeater]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

I say the answer to that is no, because this thread and the debates in it prove that there are too many different opinions on how the message system actually works to be able then claim that the average person should have known better.

Literally yet again, to my point, no there is not much confusion. Some people asked is Snapchat messages (text) are EE2E or not, and the answer is no. This is easily found information on the internet and Snapchat itself doesn't claim anything other than video & audio Snaps are E2EE. But like I keep saying nobody is actually looking at this out in the public, most don't know what E2EE even is.

 

What is actually the situation is that Snapchat themselves literally says law enforcement can get access to messages.

 

https://help.snapchat.com/hc/en-us/articles/7012325772308-My-Privacy-at-Snapchat-Explained

 

Quote

Snaps and Chats, including Voice and Video Chats, between you and your friends are private — we don’t scan their content to create profiles or show you ads. This means we typically don’t know what you’re saying or Snapping unless you ask us to (for example, if you opt-in to Voice Chat transcripts). In addition, we keep some metadata on the Snaps and Chats you send and receive.

https://values.snap.com/privacy/privacy-by-product

 

Quote

Enhance the Safety & Security of Our Services
We use your information to enhance the safety and security of our Services, verify Snapchatter identity, and prevent fraud or other unauthorized or illegal activity. For example, we provide two-factor authentication to help protect your account and can send you email or text messages if we notice any suspicious activity. We also scan URLs sent on Snapchat to see if that webpage is potentially harmful, and can give you a warning about it.

 

Quote

• Legal, Safety, and Security Partners. We share information about your activity as necessary for the following legal, safety, and security reasons:

  • comply with any valid legal process, governmental request, or applicable law, rule, or regulation.
  • investigate, remedy, or enforce potential Terms of Service and Community Guidelines violations.
  • protect the rights, property, or safety of us, our users, or others.
  • detect and resolve any fraud or security concerns.

https://values.snap.com/privacy/privacy-policy

 

People would know better if they actually sat down and had a think about these things logically and also actually bothered to read Snapchat's privacy documentation.

[Uttamattamakin]

I am thinking this. 

On 1/24/2024 at 12:32 PM, LAwLz said:

I call bullshit on the message being intercepted and read because he was on a public WiFi.

Even if it was an open and public network, you still can't read Snapchat messages because they are encrypted. Something else happened.

 

 

Anyway, the moral of the story is that it is a bad idea to joke about how you're a terrorist and planning on blowing planes up.

Could security have seen what was on his phone well enough to read the screen  OR did someone he was traveling with think it would be a laugh to report him? Maybe one of them had a nice laugh and were like look our friend joked this ha ha.  Some busy body overhears it and reports it. 

That said sure it could've been a real threat and could've lead to real harm if not reported. 

Then as pointed out on WAN show why send a fighter jet to ... do what exactly?  

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Could security have seen what was on his phone well enough to read the screen  OR did someone he was traveling with think it would be a laugh to report him? Maybe one of them had a nice laugh and were like look our friend joked this ha ha.  Some busy body overhears it and reports it. 

yeah its unclear as of now how it "got out"... but one of these two things are likely:  snapchat algorithm caught it (assuming they have one) or one of his buddies got cold feet and called the police, the airport or whatever.

 

2 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Then as pointed out on WAN show why send a fighter jet to ... do what exactly?  

also good question... i think its just international aviation law that requires this in such cases... so the fighter jet pilots can check if the pilots are ok, if there's a hijacking ongoing,  etc.

 

in this case they probably assessed that the pilots are ok and no immediate danger and therefore the plane could just land at the destination airport. 

 

otherwise they would have tried making the airliner land at the nearest military airport.

[Uttamattamakin]

33 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

otherwise they would have tried making the airliner land at the nearest military airport.

... or else.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

... or else.

The reason is actually fairly straight forward, shoot it down by choice where they determine is going to be the least impact rather than letting it continue on to it's intended destination/target.

 

That is the true reason they dispatch fighter jets, situational awareness and readiness.

[thewelshbrummie]

On 1/24/2024 at 9:23 PM, Spotty said:

He was 18 years old at the time. That makes him a military aged male; a high risk group for terrorism related offences.

More to the point that makes him an adult, so age arguments are pretty academic however you may want to interpret them (in terms of whether the police are being too harsh or not harsh enough, excuses like this aren't an option vs if he was 10). European countries rarely try minors as adults but that's irrelevant here - as an adult, he'll be charged as one.

 

On 1/24/2024 at 8:31 PM, Spotty said:

A flight from Gatwick England to Spain is around 4-6 hours. He apparently took the photo and posted the message while at check-in. I'm extremely surprised that within a few hours they were able to identify a risk, alert authorities, identify the person, identify what flight they were on, communicate with Spanish authorities, and launch fighter jets to intercept before the plane even made it to its destination. When you think about all the things that have to happen in that chain of events and all the people it would have to go through that is a fast response time and honestly impressive. 

 

Edit: Correction, flight time between Gatwick, England to Minorca, Spain seem to be 4-6 hours, not 2-4 hours.

@SpottyThat's wrong, it's the original ~3 hours you posted. Which makes the response more impressive but also more important as it would have been a direct flight.

 

You're looking at currently available flights in the Northern Hemisphere winter to get the 4-6 hour timeframe which all include a change of plane somewhere in Spain (or maybe Paris) and total 3 hours of flight time, i.e. not including layovers. I see only 6 flights yesterday  for Menorca airport (Sunday) and none today or tomorrow, so I assume flights only operate at weekends in the European winter. I noticed that you're from Down Under, so that might make this less obvious if you don't travel regularly in the northern hemisphere on short-haul flights to tourist destinations - I guess the equivalent would be there being extra flights to Bali or Fiji from Australia at this time of year before the schools start again.

 

Referring to the source link, this incident happened in July 2022 when there obviously were direct flights to Menorca from Gatwick with Easyjet, the airline who carried the passenger in question. Wikipedia's article on the airport implies that Easyjet flights from Gatwick continue to operate on a seasonal basis - so no flights as of typing this in late January.

[Spotty]

12 minutes ago, thewelshbrummie said:

@SpottyThat's wrong, it's the original ~3 hours you posted. Which makes the response more impressive but also more important as it would have been a direct flight.

 

You're looking at currently available flights in the Northern Hemisphere winter to get the 4-6 hour timeframe which all include a change of plane somewhere in Spain (or maybe Paris) and total 3 hours of flight time, i.e. not including layovers. I see only 6 flights yesterday  for Menorca airport (Sunday) and none today or tomorrow, so I assume flights only operate at weekends in the European winter. I noticed that you're from Down Under, so that might make this less obvious if you don't travel regularly in the northern hemisphere on short-haul flights to tourist destinations - I guess the equivalent would be there being extra flights to Bali or Fiji from Australia at this time of year before the schools start again.

 

Referring to the source link, this incident happened in July 2022 when there obviously were direct flights to Menorca from Gatwick with Easyjet, the airline who carried the passenger in question. Wikipedia's article on the airport implies that Easyjet flights from Gatwick continue to operate on a seasonal basis - so no flights as of typing this in late January.

Gotcha. I just looked at what flights were showing in Google just to get a quick idea. Makes sense if there's less direct flights this time of year. I appreciate the explanation.

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

its not contradicting - im indeed saying 2 things:

 

A) if you've been around long enough you know that these messages can be read by whoever, and that the services obviously also tell you about it.

 

and B) that younger people haven't been around when these things were invented and thus neither have the experience nor the knowledge, and of course they're not reading the "fine print" because who does this right. /s

 

 

so i don't see a contradiction here?

 

really late 90s is when this stuff emerged and that's when you learned about the dos and donts... without being judgemental, i think this stuff is much harder to learn nowadays, simply because there's so much more stuff - incidentally we *knew* back then that stuff like facebook is the devil, ironically our parents did not... (and became the users of this crap, and now its apparently younger generations too, who, again, just like our parents don't really understand the internet and its dangers... imho... ) 

 

Correct, but you cannot claim the existence of people in group A makes the understanding that people from group B have unreasonable.  If you have no idea how any of this works but have been told your messages are private, then your conclusion that any message you send will only be read by the recipient is a very reasonable position to have.

 

@leadeater  you are confusing me pointing to a discussion regarding encryption with an argument that hinges on encryption.

 

[Mark Kaine]

46 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Correct, but you cannot claim the existence of people in group A makes the understanding that people from group B have unreasonable.  If you have no idea how any of this works but have been told your messages are private, then your conclusion that any message you send will only be read by the recipient is a very reasonable position to have.

yeah, ideally people would learn this is school and would not be allowed to use the internet until they have proven they understood everything.  that would solve half of all our problems, just like that, but nah, can't have this... gotta learn "algebra" and all that stuff you'll surely need later in life instead ~

 

46 minutes ago, mr moose said:

makes the understanding that people from group B have unreasonable. 

well it is based on unreasonable information, that doesn't make this group unreasonable, but their understanding of the matter (since its based on false or unreasonable assumptions)  

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

@leadeater  you are confusing me pointing to a discussion regarding encryption with an argument that hinges on encryption.

I'm not saying your argument hinges on encryption, you honestly do not understand the point.

 

You quoted a discussion about E2EE encryption and referred to is as being about whether or not Snapchat is encrypted in a way that implies that Snapchat communication many not at all in any way be encrypted.

 

Now you may ask why this is important? Because if you are talking about aspects around expectations of who can view a Snapchat message then it is important to ensure that people do not mistakenly believe that it were possible for Airport security or British Security Services to intercept Snapchat communication and read the message which they cannot.

 

This is important because it narrows in on who could possibly have seen the message, by eliminating those who could not.

 

I understand your argument does not hinge on encryption, I already said that. Because Snapchat calls it a private message and talks about how only those in the private chat group can see the messages obviously sets this type of expectation, the problem is their front end marketing material, their application itself and the UI wording they use does not match the actual specifics in their Privacy Policies which you must read to actually know how privacy is actually handled.

 

This is the flawed thinking so many people operate under, not just for Snapchat. Just because something has a feature called "Private Chat" doesn't mean it is in totality private and only accessible to the end users in the chat.

 

If you notice here on this forum the wordage used is "Message" and I think in the past "Direct Message". Private Message wording has not been used in a long time because while "Messages" between users cannot be seen by Moderators normally if a member reports a post/message within it then it becomes visible. Server administrators can also access them if really required to.

 

Your argument is not different to postal services. Most people assume the postal service does not open letters and for the most part they do not, and without a reasonable cause can be illegal to. However postal services do have the right to open letters under reasonable suspicion so a letter sent to another person that is assumed to only be read by the person receiving it may in fact be read by "postal services".

 

You could do something stupid like sending organic white powder to your friend as a joke only for postal service x-ray to spot it and cause undue alarm and for you to get charged with an offence.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

 

well it is based on unreasonable information, that doesn't make this group unreasonable, but their understanding of the matter (since its based on false or unreasonable assumptions)  

 

Ahh,  the problem here is that reasonable expectation is not defined as a hard objective fact.  it is the impression an individual has based on the information they have been given.  If you raise a child to think blue is green and green is red, then it is a reasonable expectation that they will call blue things green and green things red.  Truth of color names is irrelevant.  

 

 

 That is why the judicial system in many countries refers to "reasonable expectation" (sometimes referred to as "good faith") as a subjective expectation rather than an objective one (people cannot determine/question if the information they have been given is wrong without already knowing if it is or not). If the average person thinks a private message is private because it's in the name, because apple told them privacy was number one on iphone, because mozilla said they make you safer because ETC ETC ETC),  then that is what the courts accept as reasonable expectation. Whether that impression is based on unreasonable information or not is irrelevant.   In most legal situations it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that anyone else in the defendants position would have believed their message was not private and would be read by people empowered by law to enact on it.

 

The Australian law reform commission has a decent article on this topic as it is hotly debated,  one of the key issues raised (which is evident in this thread) is the fact that when someone says something really nasty that causes great offense, the people who are trying to decide if that person had a reasonable expectation of privacy become biased,  because they personally take offense at what was said.   In this situation the basic question is; did this bloke mean for anyone other than his friends to get his message?  If he sent it believing it was private and that no one was watching then he did not commit a crime in most jurisdictions.   And this is regardless what he said or the consequences because it was not him who made that message public.  

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I'm not saying your argument hinges on encryption, you honestly do not understand the point.

 

You quoted a discussion about E2EE encryption and referred to is as being about either or not Snapchat is encrypted in a way that implies that Snapchat communication many not at all in any way be encrypted.

 

Now you may ask why this is important? Because if you are talking about aspects around expectations of who can view a Snapchat message then it is important to ensure that people not not mistakenly believe that it were possible for Airport security or British Security Services to internet Snapchat communication and read the message which they cannot.

 

This is important because it narrows in on who could possibly have seen the message, by eliminating those who could not.

I only showed that is is reasonable for an average person to expect privacy in a snapchat group message.   I did that by pointing to tech enthusiast discussing it.  If tech enthusiasts thought is was encrypted (type of encryption is irrelevant) and thus was private then how do you propose to claim that an average person should believe different?

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I understand your argument does not hinge on encryption, I already said that. Because Snapchat calls it a private message and talks about how only those in the private chat group can see the messages obviously sets this type of expectation, the problem is their front end marketing material, their application itself and the UI wording the use does not match the actual specifics in their Privacy Policies which you must read to actually know how privacy is actually handled.

So you understand that the average person would reasonably expect their message to be private because that is what snapchat tells them?

 

That's all I am arguing, most reasonable people with an average understanding of their devices and services would believe the message was not able to be read by anyone other than the recipient. 

 

The damage caused by his message was (without making assumptions) not intentional and not an expected outcome.  

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

(type of encryption is irrelevant)

No it is not, that is literally my whole point.

 

Edit:

@mr moose If you quote a discussion talking about dogs and say or imply it was a discussion about cats is it really so wrong and unimportant to point out it was about dogs?

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

No it is not, that is literally my whole point.

yes, but your point seems irrelevant too.   Reasonable expectation doesn't rely on anything being factual, just the reasonable outcome given the information you have.

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

yes, but your point seems irrelevant too. 

It's relevant to the issue of not giving people the impression or reinforcing the misleading reporting that Snapchat communication can be intercepted and read by those that cannot. That is relevant to me and it is relevant to the issue of correcting the misinformation created by this news article which you may have noticed was the very first thing in this topic I addressed and corrected.

 

And just to really reinforce my assessment here is the Airport itself:

Quote

One theory raised in the trial was that it could have been intercepted via Gatwick's Wi-Fi network. But a spokesperson for the airport told BBC News that its network "does not have that capability".

https://www.ndtv.com/indians-abroad/british-indian-man-aditya-verma-on-trial-in-spain-for-in-flight-taliban-joke-acquitted-4941716

 

And since we can eliminate those who actually did not read it then timeline and time frame of events matter. Because if the only other entity not in the private chat that could have read the Message is Snapchat they would of had to pick this message up in an automated system, it get reviewed by a person, determined it needed reporting, contacted relevant authorities and then that entity respond.

 

The above is all possible just as it is someone in the chat didn't take it as a joke or had an unknown grievance with and directly reported it to authorities out of concern or malice significantly reducing the required timeline of events to get a fighter jet in the air and intercepting the aircraft while it was actually still in the air.

 

This is all in the context of a 3 hour flight time btw. If you want to focus on reasonable then how about considering what is the most reasonable chain of events in the given time frame?

 

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Reasonable expectation doesn't rely on anything being factual, just the reasonable outcome given the information you have.

Just because it is reasonable doesn't actually make it any less flawed. Widescale misunderstanding still results in misunderstanding, reasonability around it doesn't change that.

[Mark Kaine]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

So you understand that the average person would reasonably expect their message to be private because that is what snapchat tells them?

re: the whole jurisdictional "reasonable" thing... that only works if its also plausible, at least here in Germany, and apparently also in spain!

 

everything you write down is per definition not actually "private" (has never been throughout all of history) 

 

especially in social media it would be "reasonable" to expect that someone *will* leak it lol.

 

there's no such thing as a "private joke"

 

 

so i dont doubt that you can get away with this kind of argumentation in certain jurisdictions,  but not in others, and since this is in europe, this kind of argumentation is almost irrelevant,  worst case, it will make the punishment worse actually cause the judge will think you're trolling them with the pie in the sky excuses... 

 

"torheit schützt nicht vor strafe"

 

"folly doesn't protect from punishment"

 

 

(im pretty sure, worded differently of course,  this is an actual law around here lol)

 

[Elijah Kamski]

This video is sponsored by Signal.

 

Encrypted and secure. Now you can make a joke and not become the joke.

 

Signal. Your best friend.

[Elijah Kamski]

On 1/30/2024 at 6:38 AM, Uttamattamakin said:

I am thinking this. 

Could security have seen what was on his phone well enough to read the screen  OR did someone he was traveling with think it would be a laugh to report him? Maybe one of them had a nice laugh and were like look our friend joked this ha ha.  Some busy body overhears it and reports it. 

That said sure it could've been a real threat and could've lead to real harm if not reported. 

Then as pointed out on WAN show why send a fighter jet to ... do what exactly?  

Fight the plane

 

Unless someone on the civilian plane played war thunder XD