this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024

52 points (93.3% liked)

World News

39021 readers

2792 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

Spanish defence ministry demands €94,782.47 from Briton who said he would blow up plane (www.euronews.com)

submitted 9 months ago by 01011@monero.town to c/world@lemmy.world

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The young man accused of public disorder defended himself in Spain's National Court saying it was a joke.

In the summer of 2022, Aditya V. was about to board a flight to the Spanish island of Menorca at London's Gatwick Airport.

Just before boarding, the young British man decided to send photos of the check-in area to seven of his friends via the social network Snapchat. The pictures included a phrase he had written himself: "On my way to blow up the plane, I'm a member of the Taliban".

British intelligence discovered the message when the plane was already over France and decided to alert Spain, as the flight was due to land on the Spanish island.

The Ministry of Defence sent a Eurofighter to escort the plane, believing the passenger to be a terrorist.

On Monday, the young man defended himself in Spain's National Court, accused of public disorder and facing a lawsuit from the Spanish Ministry of Defence demanding that he pay the €94,782.47 it cost to send the Eurofighter.

"It was a joke", he defended himself before the judge, explaining that he did it because his friends "always made fun of him because of his Pakistani features".

According to El Español, the young man explained that he could see the Eurofighter from the window of the plane, but that he never thought it was there because of the message he sent, thinking it was a training exercise for the war in Ukraine.

With the help of an interpreter, the young man was able to tell his side of the story. He insisted that he never thought the prank would go so far, and that he had only shared the picture with his group of friends.

The problem was that one of his friends was connected to the airport's public Wi-Fi, so the photo ended up with British intelligence.

"The prosecutor asked the young man: "Did you never think that you could cause fear?"

The Spanish Penal Code states that a person who "falsely simulates a situation of danger to the community" that requires assistance from the police or emergency services "shall be punished".

After Monday's testimonies, the trial was scheduled for sentencing.

top 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] breakingcups@lemmy.world 37 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The problem was that one of his friends was connected to the airport's public Wi-Fi, so the photo ended up with British intelligence.

This doesn't make sense at all, it all goes over encrypted connections, the airport's wifi doesn't act as a hoover for data, they can't decrypt it without the private keys. Muuuuch more likely is that Snapchat cooperates with Five Eye's intelligence, apparently screening private chats for key phrases and forwarding them on to governments.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

While it's possible, it also would mean Snapchat is sending updates every few hours. I can almost guarantee the wifi is being intercepted at airports and that DRTboxes are deployed instead of full cell towers to also sniff traffic.

Or it could be both. Regardless, making poorly timed terrorist jokes at an airport is generally bad form.

[–] fernlike@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

This article states that they do not encrypt their group chats with E2E encryption. So they might be able to.

But it is 2,5 years old, so I am not sure about the accuracy.

https://stealthoptional.com/news/is-snapchat-encrypted-how-secure-is-snapchat-messaging/

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

No E2E encryption means that Snapchat can read the messages. They still have standard, non-E2E encryption, meaning they cannot be read by the Wi-Fi network.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"The prosecutor asked the young man: “Did you never think that you could cause fear?”

I'd imagine my answer would be: "Not for a second did I think it would cause fear. It was a private message to my 7 close friends that know that I am not a terrorist. Mr Prosecutor, did you not think for a second that people would call you a pervert because of the pictures you search for on the internet at night? I wouldn't think so because you're not broadcasting that in any public conversation. I wasn't either."

[+] Buffalox@lemmy.world -9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So you believed until you saw this story, that it's safe to plan terror attacks on social platforms as long as you only use personal messages?

[–] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Holy slippery slope, batman!

I believe a terrorist using only personal messages to plan an attack shouldn't be convicted of "disrupting public order" only based on private messages. Not only he wasn't a terrorist at all, private messages are incapable of disrupting public order.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

That is NOT a slippery slope, how do you imagine secret services should tell the difference between a joke, and real planning to do something?
Private messages are not entirely private. As per our rules that allow some forms of mass surveillance.

On my way to blow up the plane, I’m a member of the Taliban

That's what he wrote! together with pictures. How are they supposed to tell that is a joke?

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

On my way to blow up the plane, I’m a member of the Taliban

That’s what he wrote! together with pictures. How are they supposed to tell that is a joke?

Well, according to your logic I've got some bad news. YOU just wrote that now with your name as the poster. Worse, you did it in public!

Are you expecting to be brought into court and charged with terrorist threats? By your logic you should. After all, how can they tell you were just parroting something someone else said? Your logic argues that there's zero effort the secret services should have to do to qualify typed words into an actual threat. Imagine right now the bill in security analysts you're racking up RIGHT NOW as your post goes through expensive servers.

Your logic argues when you receive a bill for thousands of dollars, you should pay it blindly as secret services have no way of knowing you're not an actual threat.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm not just now boarding a plane, nor sending pictures of me boarding a plane, and It's very easy to see from context that debating a point.
It's very different from sending pictures from an airport while boarding with a terrorist message, without any indication that it's not meant seriously.
You are making an extremely distorted and false comparison.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

I’m not just now boarding a plane, nor sending pictures of me boarding a plane, and It’s very easy to see from context that debating a point. It’s very different from sending pictures from an airport while boarding with a terrorist message, without any indication that it’s not meant seriously.

Context? So you're admitting that security services need to do SOME work to qualify the threat and not just take it at face value before reacting and billing the innocent person?

What if you're in a thread where you posted the same terrorist threat words and with a picture of an airport....like you are now:

You are making an extremely distorted and false comparison.

I'm asking you to explain your position testing and the limits of your argument. The elements of your argument are evolving even now with your last post.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That is NOT a slippery slope, how do you imagine secret services should tell the difference between a joke, and real planning to do something?

The burden of proof is on secret services. Here it looks like secret services did a half-assed job, which in itself isn't a problem, but they're laying the blame (and cost!) of the shoddy work of secret services at the feet of a private citizen.

Private messages are not entirely private. As per our rules that allow some forms of mass surveillance.

I can't speak to all nations but in the USA we have the 4th Amendment to our Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I can’t speak to all nations but in the USA we have the 4th Amendment to our Constitution:

Oh boy, USA is even worse in this regard, on terrorism you could go to secret trial at secret court being judged on secret laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_law

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yet the burden of proof would STILL be on the prosecution.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I have no idea what you mean, there is zero doubt in this case about the evidence. Now the court decides whether this was an over reaction or not.
From the sheer stupidity of sending these messages, my guess is that the court will side with authorities. But I may be mistaken.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Now the court decides whether this was an over reaction or not.

Exactly. The court will decide if a private citizen communicating in private is responsible for over reaction by government officers.

From the sheer stupidity of sending these messages, my guess is that the court will side with authorities.

I certainly hope not. Imagine the consequences on society if you can get a bill for something you said privately that someone misinterpreted. Worse, criminal charges for legal statements that other uninvited parties to the conversation misunderstand. Satire and sarcasm would be come criminal acts.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There will always be borderline situations. Here a politician lost his career as a politician because he said some racist things while he was together with close friends. Except one of the "friends" turned out to be an investigative journalist who disclosed it.
It would not be impossible that this case could have one of the friends report him, because he didn't get the joke, and thought it was serious. Would you still maintain that it would be shoddy police work to react on that? If so, I'm sure I can find examples of police being alerted to very serious crimes and not reacting, and then those crimes were executed unhindered.
When police has the info, it's their duty to react.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There will always be borderline situations. Here a politician lost his career as a politician because he said some racist things while he was together with close friends. Except one of the “friends” turned out to be an investigative journalist who disclosed it.

Those are social consequences devoid of government surveillance. That has nothing to do with this young man and his plane joke.

It would not be impossible that this case could have one of the friends report him, because he didn’t get the joke, and thought it was serious. Would you still maintain that it would be shoddy police work to react on that?

React? No problem here. Police going off half cocked and then handing the jokester a bill because of their mistake? Yes, thats a problem.

If so, I’m sure I can find examples of police being alerted to very serious crimes and not reacting, and then those crimes were executed unhindered. When police has the info, it’s their duty to react.

We're not talking about reaction. We're talking about police due diligence, and when they get it wrong expecting the innocent party to foot the bill.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Those are social consequences devoid of government surveillance

True.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I mean, I agree with him?

He didn't create an environment of fear - he sent a picture to his friend. No one but intelligence services even knew what was happening, including the person who sent it. Putting a Warplane up to escort a plane was an over reaction and pointless - whats it going to do?

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

The warfighter wouldn't be able to save the plane, but it would be able to scuttle it with missiles if the idiot was actually trying to hijack and crash the plane like 9/11.

Hindsight is 20/20, but if thousands died because someone in intelligence brushed off a social media post as joke, there would be a ton of justifiably angry people.

The dude is an idiot either way, though, lol.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Idiot - absolutely.

94k euro idiot - no.

And who the hell downvoted you for raising a reasonable point?

[–] Risk@feddit.uk 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No, the dude isn't an idiot. We have an assumption to a right to privacy in the UK. That privacy was invaded and worse still he's being laden with the charge for the invasion.

Either we need to accept that there is a cost to counter-terrorism operations including those of false positives, or we in essence let the terrorists win by allowing them to force us into a perpetual state of terror - i.e. where we live and act in a constant state of fear of the potential of a terror act.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yes, you do have a right to privacy in your own home.

You don't, however, have a right to privacy in public places, using public services (like wifi), or using a corporations program and applications that have legal responsibilities - bet if he was done sending kiddie porn over tik tok no one would be going on about it being a private conversation.

Person made a stupid mistake that was perfectly funny in their own friends group, and the environment of over reaction took it from there - because we would all be screaming at security forces if it was an actual threat that was ignored.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Hindsight is 20/20, but if thousands died because someone in intelligence brushed off a social media post as joke, there would be a ton of justifiably angry people.

I don't think anyone has a complaint with them scrambling the jet. The complaint is taking the young man to court and laying the bill for the jet flight at the feet of a young man to pay for their overreaction.

[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Well they'd shoot it down.

[–] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'd laugh, but there are numerous examples here in the US of cops shooting people who were threatening to commit suicide

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

Would it be out of the environment?

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Shooting down a plane threatening to blow itself up doesn't help anything.

Only thing it will change is if they decided to 9/11 themselves instead.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

he had only shared the picture with his group of friends.

via the social network Snapchat.

Oh boy, that's so insanely naive and stupid, I'm at loss for words. Social networks are monitored for very obvious reasons. We have so many laws passed for the past 2 decades, that are made specifically for this. Especially UK (compared to Europe) that were always a bit beyond what is legal in EU.
So contrary to most here, I'd say he fucked up badly. There are things you cannot joke about.

[–] Risk@feddit.uk 12 points 9 months ago

Or maybbbeeee we should expect more diligence from our state apparatus than one single message.

It's ridiculous to try and charge a person for what amounts to a police over reaction.

Should the Twitch streamer get the charge for being SWATed because they pissed off the troll in their channel?

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 0 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The young man accused of public disorder defended himself in Spain's National Court saying it was a joke.

Just before boarding, the young British man decided to send photos of the check-in area to seven of his friends via the social network Snapchat.

British intelligence discovered the message when the plane was already over France and decided to alert Spain, as the flight was due to land on the Spanish island.

The Spanish Penal Code states that a person who "falsely simulates a situation of danger to the community" that requires assistance from the police or emergency services "shall be punished".

The original article contains 365 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 50%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!