Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't Fly During Ramadan

varnull.adityamukerjee.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 986 posts

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#451

Post by unhappyhippie »

javert wrote: post #299
magikarp wrote: post #118

Everything about this story, right down to the questions, agents involved, luggage inspections and the man's apartment being broken into and searched, fits very well with my own experiences in 2012 with entering the United States. I'm a recent Lebanese immigrant to Canada, male, in my early twenties, and to top it off I work on encryption software. I imagine the only worse thing I could be is an Iranian nuclear scien…

> I imagine the only worse thing I could be is an Iranian nuclear scientist. I would like to think such a person would have no problem coming, but just wouldn't be allowed to go back.

This is what I find surprising about security checks, don't quite understand. When I entered Israel I was out hailing a cab within minutes of debarking my flight. When I was leaving, they had me detained and searched thoroughly. I couldn't understand why they let me enter in the first place if I was such a suspect personality.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#452

Post by exhilaration »

toddmorey wrote: post #173
corresation wrote: post #72

It is a terrible ordeal, but for all of the other factors brought up the critical factor is that he set off an explosion detector (and clearly it doesn't get false positives often given the response they showed). Everything else (about Ramadan, being Hindi, the color of one's skin, etc) may be nothing more than decorations, and no one here knows what would happen if John Smith Anglosaxon set off the same detector in…

If events like Oklahoma City, Boston, and Sandy Hook have taught us anything, it's that terrorism doesn't have an ethnic profile. It's not only insulting, but also extremely unsafe to assume otherwise. I'm surprised and embarrassed by how representatives of my country treated him. I'm embarrassed by their cultural ignorance. There should at least be some better training. However, this should be a technology discussio…

Is that definitely true? Permethrin sets off the explosive detectors?

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#453

Post by liquidise »

tokenizer wrote: post #18

The United States (Government) are a bunch of unenlightened, racist, xenophobic people bent on oppressing people by treating every non english/anglo-saxon as a terrorist. Please, someone tell me this isn't the case in an absolute sense.

Overly generic and condemning criticism about a group of people whom you are angry at for making overly generic and condemning criticisms about groups of people!!

9.5 / 10

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#454

Post by clebio »

JackFr wrote: post #161
fsckin wrote: post #14

>In all my life, I have only felt that same chilling terror once before - on one cold night in September twelve years ago, when I huddled in bed and tried to forget the terrible events in the news that day, wondering why they they had happened, wondering whether everything would be okay ever again. Wow... just wow.

"Wow" can only refer to how bad the writing was. I found that sentence to be a non sequitur, illogically and gratuitously tacked on as an appeal to sentiment over rationality, and absolute bit of overwritten purple prose. "Oh! The irony!"

I'm so sorry... that I can't yet downvote your comment. What an incredibly derisive and pointless appeal to grammar you're trying to make. Having read the entire blog post, that line sounds like a very accurate description of the end feeling.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#455

Post by GVIrish »

notahacker wrote: post #381
mindcrime wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, the pertinent detail is the fact the man set of explosive detectors. I'd argue that the pertinent detail is that he wasn't actually carrying any explosives. The other details, far from suggesting oppressive state apparatus, suggested an assortment of rent-a-cops and airline staff that really weren't particularly well-prepared for the guy that couldn't account for the explosives and flagged other profili…

I'm not sure whether you're arguing the state was "oppressive" because it had the temerity to put in place a policy of investigating people that set off explosive detectors, or because they weren't competent enough to establish his innocence within minutes, but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on both counts Minimal security theatre isn't oppression, and neither is bungling for five hours. Let's put things…

Just because things are not as bad as they are in Syria or Egypt, doesn't mean we should not be seriously troubled by the conduct of our government. We should not have to wait until citizens are getting murdered in the streets by our government before we get concerned.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#456

Post by mindcrime »

Tloewald wrote: post #360
mindcrime wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a load of shit. "Security guys" should be fucking competent or they shouldn't be "security guys" at all. And who cares about some "keep the sheep fearful and in line" propoganda shit the US government puts out about supposed threats to embassies or whatever? The "opt-out" he elected is explicitly defined as a valid procedure by the TSA, so citing that as "suspicious" is bullshit. And "behavioural red flag?" Are…

> "Security guys" should be fucking competent or they shouldn't be "security guys" at all. I'd say the same of Java programmers, but we know that's not true, and Java coders get much better salaries. > And "behavioural red flag?" Are you shitting me? In Britain for many years the main security measure at Heathrow was for security people to simply interview passengers on check in and ask them about their bags, where t…

In Britain for many years the main security measure at Heathrow was for security people to simply interview passengers on check in and ask them about their bags, where they were traveling, etc. -- the main purpose was to look for behavioral cues and not so much obtain answers to the questions. I believe this is one of the things TSA officers are supposed to receive training in.

I took the earlier post as referring to the events that happened after he was detained. I'm not arguing against the idea of "behavioural indicators", I meant to say that someone becoming upset at being detained, grilled, denied water, etc., isn't such an indicator.

As for TSA officers in particular - these are people who would be asking "Would you like a hot apple pie with that?" if it weren't for the existence of the TSA. Not exactly America's "best and brightest". I have serious questions about their qualification to make any kind of valid assessment based on subtle psychological / behavioural clues.

You've led a sheltered life.

Not so much.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#457

Post by shanselman »

I'm a random American white guy with an insulin pump. I (my pump) set off the explosives detector once. They took me into a back room, closed the door, patted me down twice, took all my bags apart and swabbed EVERY single item (like 60+ things) and ran them through the detector. After none of them set it off, the guy say "That was weird, go ahead" and I left.

Given my anecdote and the OP's anecdote the racial and religious profiling aspect of things is clear. Also, the TSA's willful ignorance of just a few basic religious details that I (and presumably any other educated person) learned by simply paying attention and reading, is chilling.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#459

Post by jeremycole »

icambron wrote: post #416
mark-r wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once they've determined he isn't carrying actual explosives he shouldn't be considered a threat anymore. The detection machine might single you out for additional searching, but once the search is complete you should be free to go.

This. The craziness of "he set of the detection machine but it's clearly a false-positive, but now that he's on our radar let's grill him in case he just happens to be a terrorist" should be obvious to anyone.

Yes, IMHO it comes from this: What would be on the news if he was a terrorist and they find out that he actually set off the explosives detector before doing his deed? So basically their response is more about fear of embarrassment (to an extreme) than actual effectiveness.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#460

Post by anigbrowl »

icambron wrote: post #411
rayiner wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you understand what "profiled" means. He was pulled into questioning because he repeatedly set off the bomb detector. The questions about race/religion weren't profiling, because they weren't used to select him for additional scrutiny. They are part of a psychological battery designed to evaluate him without a harsh interrogation. These sorts of batteries were pioneered by the Israelis and are very ef…

An FBI agent in the article: "You’ll have to understand, when a person of your… background walks into here, traveling alone, and sets off our alarms, people start to get a bit nervous. I’m sure you’ve been following what’s been going on in the news recently. You’ve got people from five different branches of government all in here - we don’t do this just for fun." That's profiling. Edit to add: in other words "The que…

What an investigator says during an investigation isn't testimonial. There isn't even any obligation that it be truthful; it's OK for investigators to lie in the hope that it'll lead the suspect to incriminate themselves.

Simple example: Cop tells Joe Blow that they have a witness to the crime, and Joe Blow may as well confess. Joe Blow makes a full confession. Turns out there was no witness. Perfectly legit; what Joe Blow should have said (if anything) was 'there couldn't be, because I didn't commit that crime.'

Yes, that means that agents of the state (LEOs, prosecutors etc.) have an incentive to misbehave, but in the common law system the adversarial nature of the legal process allows the defense to challenge that. In a civil law system the investigating officer is supposed to be compelled to search for truth above all else, but if the investigating officer is corrupt or inefficient it is much harder to challenge in court, and defense attorneys are much less aggressive on behalf of their clients.

Post reply on HN