Ginza Apple Store calls off promotional event in wake of bomb threat

AppleInsider

The Ginza Apple Store in Tokyo was forced to cancel an event on Sunday following the delivery of an anonymous letter, which threatened a bombing unless the event was called off.

The event was due to start at 2 in the afternoon and feature guests such as director Isao Yukisada, the Japan Times said on Monday. The store received the letter around 11 a.m. however, after which Apple not only cancelled the event but shuttered the store for an hour and called police. A search of the outlet didn't find any explosives. Local police are continuing their investigation under the assumption it was a deliberate obstruction of business. The Ginza store held another event today as part of Apple's Hour of Code series. The speaker was LoiLo CEO Koji Sugiyama, who spoke about his company's educational apps for kids. Threats are a fairly rare occurrence at Apple Stores, despite the size and international reach of the chain. The company is usually quick to close shops at the first hint of danger to shoppers.

lkrupp

Samsung must be getting desperate.

quadra 610

which threatened a bombing unless the event was called off.

The event was due to start at 2 in the afternoon and feature guests such as director Isao Yukisada

And...

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

Might it be that the real problem here is for Mr. Yukisada and some of these other guests, rather than (directly) for Apple? Does someone have a beef with these guests? What was the actual nature of this "event" at Apple?

Or it could have just been nonsense. But then why bother to demand that the event be called off? Just make a general bomb threat without all the specificity. 

bloggerblog

lkrupp said:

Samsung must be getting desperate.

LOL, my thoughts exactly

jbdragon

Fandroids, Taking it to the next level!

linkman

Has there ever been a bomb threat by mail or phone that was legitimate? Those that threaten with such means are not out to take anyone's life but rather disrupt or destroy our way of life. It appears that they have succeeded. Bomb threats should be categorically ignored without corroborating evidence. If the perpetrator wanted to really harm anyone then they wouldn't have given notice like this.

anome

linkman said:

Has there ever been a bomb threat by mail or phone that was legitimate? Those that threaten with such means are not out to take anyone's life but rather disrupt or destroy our way of life. It appears that they have succeeded. Bomb threats should be categorically ignored without corroborating evidence. If the perpetrator wanted to really harm anyone then they wouldn't have given notice like this.

Well, during the Troubles in Northern Ireland a protocol was established where the IRA would call in their bomb threats, with specific code words, so that the police could evacuate the area before the bomb went off. So, yes, there have been many bomb threats made by phone that have been legitimate. No-one wants to be the guy who ignored a bomb threat the one time it was genuine. Your argument seems to be that if they warn us about it in advance, we should let people die to prove some point.

tallest skil

anome said:

Your argument seems to be that if they warn us about it in advance, we should let people die to prove some point.

No, the point is that any terrorist organization could completely shut down all US air traffic just by calling in a fake bomb threat to every airport, since they would be forced to take it seriously.

pacificfilm

tallest skil said:

anome said:

Your argument seems to be that if they warn us about it in advance, we should let people die to prove some point.

No, the point is that any terrorist organization could completely shut down all US air traffic just by calling in a fake bomb threat to every airport, since they would be forced to take it seriously.

They could do that. Airlines and most entities react to threats unless there is credible or a preponderance of evidence/lack of evidence, that a threat exists. You can't run airlines by some guy sitting in a room and saying...meh, let em fly.

tenly

linkman said:

Has there ever been a bomb threat by mail or phone that was legitimate? Those that threaten with such means are not out to take anyone's life but rather disrupt or destroy our way of life. It appears that they have succeeded. Bomb threats should be categorically ignored without corroborating evidence. If the perpetrator wanted to really harm anyone then they wouldn't have given notice like this.

That's irresponsible and doesn't hold up to logic anyhow.  You're assuming that every bombers goal is to hurt people.  In this case, the goal was to cancel the event.  The bomb was to be a penalty/punishment for NOT taking them seriously.  If the event hadn't been cancelled, then they would have/could have/might have detonated the bomb to show that future threats should be taken more seriously.  It means very little that no bomb was found on site.  They could have been sending in a suicide bomber, delivered explosives by drone or by any number of other means.  It amazes me how narrow minded some people can be.  They assume it was a hoax because they searched the premises and didn find anything.  That doesn't at all mean that it was a hoax.

I hope they're doing forensic analysis on the envelope, letter, etc and that they can track down the person and lock them up. I tend to agree with the person who speculated this probably had nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with one of the people scheduled to be at the event.

anome

pacificfilm said:

tallest skil said:

anome said:

Your argument seems to be that if they warn us about it in advance, we should let people die to prove some point.

No, the point is that any terrorist organization could completely shut down all US air traffic just by calling in a fake bomb threat to every airport, since they would be forced to take it seriously.

They could do that. Airlines and most entities react to threats unless there is credible or a preponderance of evidence/lack of evidence, that a threat exists. You can't run airlines by some guy sitting in a room and saying...meh, let em fly.

Consider the alternative. Suppose every phoned-in bomb threat was fake, and the authorities stopped taking notice of them. Then someone phones in a genuine bomb threat, no-one does anything, and people die. Surely a minor inconvenience while they deal with a potential threat is preferable?

tallest skil

anome said:

Surely a minor inconvenience while they deal with a potential threat is preferable?

No. Period.

linkman

Apparently I need to reiterate my statement: they were successful in disrupting the event to the fullest extent. The "bombers" have won with almost zero risk, expenditure, and effort. There is simply no credibility for these.

Want to cancel that college exam? Call in a bomb threat.

Want to cancel an NFL game? Do the same. I wouldn't be surprised that threats have occurred in the past only to be kept secret -- each game is worth over $10 million just in broadcast value. I can't imagine them canceling a game just because one crackpot makes a phone call.

Need to cause serious gridlock? Threaten the George Washington bridge in NYC.

Nobody takes North Korea and its many threats seriously but we heed the warnings of a single individual that remains anonymous and has almost zero backing.

linkman

tenly said:

 It amazes me how narrow minded some people can be.

We are all narrow minded, just in different ways.

bestkeptsecret

If there is a bomb threat to TSA we know it is @nhuges since they lost his Pencil nib!

tallest skil

I’d call in a bomb threat to every theater running Star Wars Episode VII, but that would be redundant.

tenly

linkman said:

tenly said:

 It amazes me how narrow minded some people can be.

We are all narrow minded, just in different ways.

I don't think that's true.  Care to elaborate? 

linkman

tenly said:

linkman said:

tenly said:

 It amazes me how narrow minded some people can be.

We are all narrow minded, just in different ways.

I don't think that's true.  Care to elaborate? 

I'm not sure if you are being serious or snarky. Just by stating that you don't think my statement is true you are being narrow minded. Some narrow mindedness goes down to the core values people have. One set of people believe that the best way to achieve economic prosperity is by taking money from the more wealthy and redistribute it to the less wealthy. Another group thinks that each person needs to learn and work hard to prosper.

If you are against murder, then you are narrow minded. I'm not saying that this is a bad set of morals/values, just that to have any sort of higher reasoning requires a distinct value set. ISIS has no problem with murder of innocents -- they would think we are narrow minded in dismissing their strategy and they are probably correct in that we think their methods are barbaric.

Heck, my dog likes all sorts of food but can't stand hot sauce -- he's narrow minded too.

SpamSandwich

quadra 610 said:

which threatened a bombing unless the event was called off.

The event was due to start at 2 in the afternoon and feature guests such as director Isao Yukisada

And...

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

Might it be that the real problem here is for Mr. Yukisada and some of these other guests, rather than (directly) for Apple? Does someone have a beef with these guests? What was the actual nature of this "event" at Apple?

Or it could have just been nonsense. But then why bother to demand that the event be called off? Just make a general bomb threat without all the specificity. 

Are you seriously expecting a person who calls in a bomb threat to be rational?

tenly

linkman said:

tenly said:

linkman said:

tenly said:

 It amazes me how narrow minded some people can be.

We are all narrow minded, just in different ways.

I don't think that's true.  Care to elaborate? 

I'm not sure if you are being serious or snarky. Just by stating that you don't think my statement is true you are being narrow minded. Some narrow mindedness goes down to the core values people have. One set of people believe that the best way to achieve economic prosperity is by taking money from the more wealthy and redistribute it to the less wealthy. Another group thinks that each person needs to learn and work hard to prosper.

If you are against murder, then you are narrow minded. I'm not saying that this is a bad set of morals/values, just that to have any sort of higher reasoning requires a distinct value set. ISIS has no problem with murder of innocents -- they would think we are narrow minded in dismissing their strategy and they are probably correct in that we think their methods are barbaric.

Heck, my dog likes all sorts of food but can't stand hot sauce -- he's narrow minded too.

I was being serious - not snarky - but your definition of "narrow minded" seems to be quite a bit off.  Disliking something or not believing something doesn't make a person narrow minded as you have suggested.

Being narrow minded is when you aren't able to consider any opinions other than your own.  How does being against murder make a person narrow-minded?

One actual definition of narrow minded is "not being able to listen to or tolerate other people's views".  You - as a person can have whatever views and beliefs you want without being narrow-minded.  As long as you listen and consider to views other than your own, you're not narrow minded.

linkman

Earlier this week the Los Angeles public school district (650,000 students) closed one day due to a terroristic threat that turned out to be non-credible. The almost exact same threat was received by Miami-Dade and Broward districts in Florida (700,000 students) but was deemed non-credible before school opening and those schools were open in spite of having less time to analyze the threat.

School districts in Houston, Dallas, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, San Francisco, and New York all received threats later in the week but continued operations as normal.

The Los Angeles school district could technically be subject to a loss of $29 million in per-pupil funding.

Should all of these schools have closed for every single threat? Obviously not. It was stupid for the LA district to close without investigating the threat.