the article seems to suggest it wasnt even shared publicly, so I suspect that they hadn’t even considered the possibility that anyone who might think of it as a threat might see it. Posting that on a public forum, I can see the reaction, and I can definitely see an argument that the joke was in bad taste, but to be perfectly honest, unless one of their friends thought the message was sincere and reported it (which the article doesnt mention and sounds dubious) a private message like that really shouldnt have been visible to the authorities in the first place.
The lawyer claims the joke was made with friends in private, but we don’t know what ‘in private’ means. Does Spain have the authority to automatically flag private Snapchat conversations for terrorist threats? Because I’m dubious. I think it’s much more likely that someone didn’t have their account set private.
Snapchat collects the contents of every message you send, including the pictures, including the text. 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.
so snapchat’s content filters picked up on the threat, there may have been an actual human involved, and they sent it to the relevant authorities, complete with all of his details. It’s likely that the relevant authorities puttered around with things for a bit, sending it through the “proper channels” by which time he was on the plane and in the air.
Even if snapchat didn’t automatically snoop the message, he could have been reported by one of his friends.
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.
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.
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 think feel.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
the article seems to suggest it wasnt even shared publicly, so I suspect that they hadn’t even considered the possibility that anyone who might think of it as a threat might see it. Posting that on a public forum, I can see the reaction, and I can definitely see an argument that the joke was in bad taste, but to be perfectly honest, unless one of their friends thought the message was sincere and reported it (which the article doesnt mention and sounds dubious) a private message like that really shouldnt have been visible to the authorities in the first place.
The lawyer claims the joke was made with friends in private, but we don’t know what ‘in private’ means. Does Spain have the authority to automatically flag private Snapchat conversations for terrorist threats? Because I’m dubious. I think it’s much more likely that someone didn’t have their account set private.
Snapchat collects the contents of every message you send, including the pictures, including the text. from their Community Guidelines:
Taking the link hop to the ‘additional guidance’:
Emphasis is mine.
so snapchat’s content filters picked up on the threat, there may have been an actual human involved, and they sent it to the relevant authorities, complete with all of his details. It’s likely that the relevant authorities puttered around with things for a bit, sending it through the “proper channels” by which time he was on the plane and in the air.
Even if snapchat didn’t automatically snoop the message, he could have been reported by one of his friends.
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.
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.
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 agree. Sometimes I just can’t help myself.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.