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

551–560 of 986 posts

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#551

Post by foobarbazqux »

a-priori wrote: post #495
foobarbazqux wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traumatic events can leave much stronger memories, almost like they're burned in.

Yes, they're called flashbulb memories and they feel 'stronger' and more detailed than other memories. People assume that they're therefore accurate, but really, they're no more accurate than other memories. In fact, the repeated recall can cause them to become distorted over time. If you want to preserve a memory, write it down immediately while it is fresh. Don't trust that an old memory is accurate.

Wikipedia says the difference between flashbulb memories and traumatic memories is stress, and that there is "a shortage on studies regarding personal events such as accidents or trauma".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory#Flashbulb_mem...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory#Critique_of_f...

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#552

Post by bjourne »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #513
darklajid wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er.. No. The problem with your line of thought is that you trust that machine to be somewhat reliable. We don't _really_ learn what set off the machine, but the author's guess is an over the counter spray.. If that's the high tech "You need to endure this process for the greater good, since the machine claims you're a threat" world you like to live in, I .. opt out. That thing is obviously next to useless and probabl…

> your line of thought is that you trust that machine to be somewhat reliable // And your problem is you assume the machine isn't reliable. So then if it's set off, you just say "ah well, it's probably a false reading". At that point you just obviated the purpose of the machine. Yes we don't learn whether it was the permethrin (? can't certainly recall the name) but the people who did the sweep of his apartment confi…

Our friend Bayes and his theorem can help us here. Suppose you have an HIV test which is 95% accurate in detecting if you are HIV positive or not. The HIV rate in the US is about 0.3%.

If you subject a random American to this HIV test and the test result is positive, what is the probability that that person has HIV? I wont do the math, but the right answer is about 2%. Since the prevalence of HIV is so low it doesn't matter how accurate the test it, it will still generate many times more false positives than true ones.

Same thing with bombs. The number of American air passengers/year is about 800 million/year and of them, at most 5 are carrying explosives. Even if the bomb detector is 99.9% accurate it will generate thousands of false positives for each real bomb it catches.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#553

Post by ripter »

pessimizer wrote: post #304
chimeracoder wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That thought is terrifying. I was afraid I was going to be put on the no-fly list afterwards and would have to travel back to NYC by train (a four-day trip). Even before this experience I used to avoid flying in favor of taking the train. I don't know what I'd do if the TSA became commonplace at train stations.

I haven't flown since shortly after you had to take off your shoes to get through security, taking Amtrak instead, and I've only ever even seen two people searched by TSA. You barely even see them, and if you do, they're usually sitting around looking bored. I suspect that they only bother to do the random searches if they've gotten some specific alert or warning. Many, many trips between Chicago and SF, Portland, an…

I have a few friends/coworkers that almost always get searched. They all share some things in common, like their skin color.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#554

Post by jessaustin »

jrockway wrote: post #510
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop. Your comments here are glib, contemptuous and entirely unhelpful.

Just because I'm not hysterical about the TSA doesn't mean I can't comment here. When you travel by air, you are cramming yourself into a small metal tube with 300 other people. The other 299 people want everyone there to be checked for weapons, so the government does this. If you want to be able to travel without being screened, there are tons of options available to you. But the reality is, you have no right in the…

news.ycombinator.com/leaders may prove enlightening. [EDIT: he really did make this argument, but it seems to have disappeared.]

What happened? Did you have a stroke? Are you actually jrockway's brother-in-law, "borrowing" his handle?

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#555

Post by cobrausn »

rmxt wrote: post #527
cobrausn wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife set off an explosives detector once. They asked her if she had used any lotions, she said yes, hand lotion, and they let her go. This was about a year ago.

I'm sorry, but this is relevant to the original article in what way? No such courtesies were afforded to the author until long into the ordeal. (By my count of the author's timeline, ~2.5 hours after he stepped into the security lines.) The author mentioned explicitly that he cleaned his apartment and the TSA agent refused to give any indication that that might be cause for the flagging for explosives. Regardless, co…

I think you are misinterpreting what I'm saying (aside from stating an experience). If hand lotion can (supposedly) flag the machine, setting off the detector shouldn't be handled in this fashion.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#556

Post by ufmace »

serf wrote: post #393
ctdonath wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference in reaction between someone nervous of cops vs. someone about to die in the willful act of mass murder.

> There's a difference in reaction between someone nervous of cops vs. someone about to die in the willful act of mass murder. That's a pretty nuanced decision for the inspector to make. Polygraph machines and their operators routinely mess that one up. I doubt that they themselves claim they can make that differentiation, and if they do so make that claim, I'd bet cash on it that it has been untested as far as accur…

True, but that's why they reportedly pay lots more than minimum wage, recruit carefully, and train heavily. And also profile the hell out of people.

The real difference is that it's only one airport. It would be very expensive and time-consuming to scale that up to secure every airport in the US.

Not much news about false positives for them makes it out, at least not in English-language media, but the worst I've heard of them doing is grilling suspicious people for a few hours.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#557

Post by cwkoss »

corresation wrote: post #193
steven777400 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bags have set off the explosives detector before, twice. (In both cases, due a heart medication that apparently triggers false positives). I was not taken into a back room or interrogated for hours. They searched me and my bags in more detail, asked some questions, and concluded it must have been a false positive. The experience took about 15 minutes each time. This was a few years back, but I don't recall if it w…

Extended explosion swabbing -- and improved and more discrete equipment -- came about after the failed attempt to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to Detroit in 2009 (an almost tragedy that many quickly forget). In earlier iterations of spam filters, it would simply prefix the subject with [SPAM], just as explosion detectors caught lots of things and they quickly dismissed them. As it got better it started movin…

I don't think explosion swabbing detectors are operating in a free market: they are built off funds from government contracts. There isn't much reason to expect a similar pace of innovation as for email servers.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#558

Post by darklajid »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #513
darklajid wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er.. No. The problem with your line of thought is that you trust that machine to be somewhat reliable. We don't _really_ learn what set off the machine, but the author's guess is an over the counter spray.. If that's the high tech "You need to endure this process for the greater good, since the machine claims you're a threat" world you like to live in, I .. opt out. That thing is obviously next to useless and probabl…

> your line of thought is that you trust that machine to be somewhat reliable // And your problem is you assume the machine isn't reliable. So then if it's set off, you just say "ah well, it's probably a false reading". At that point you just obviated the purpose of the machine. Yes we don't learn whether it was the permethrin (? can't certainly recall the name) but the people who did the sweep of his apartment confi…

That's weird. You're turning the argument on its head.

YOU started supporting the process and said something like Don't people who're manufacturing explosives in secret..

Well, based on what evidence? The machine that detects chemicals here? It seems that this supports my claim, you think that machine is 'working' and somewhat reliable. Without having provided any kind of proof or source, by the way.

The article, the author, proceeds to talk about potential chemicals to set off the detector (and we had more posts like this over the years, for example from people working with plants, farmers etc). Chemicals you're able to get everywhere.

If that is a known issue and this machine can beep if

a) you've built a bomb

b) you've moved your plants from inside the house to your garden

then you should reevaluate the idea of this particular test in the first place. The author writes that one participant in that theater claimed to know the exact substance that triggered the detector. Really? In that case it should be possible to

- dismiss the idea, it's stupid. That stuff? Everyone can buy it

- ask disguised/hidden questions to reveal if he used one of the gazillion things that might trigger this warning and leave the man alone

The option

- keep him, make him feel like a criminal, treat him in an inhuman (no water..? Really?) way for as long as it takes to break into his appartment

is really not on the list of things you can rationally describe as necessary. That's insane.

Ah, well. I come up empty handed at the end and cannot provide a source for the reliability of the detectors used in the US of A. I guess that makes my whole post moot. Obviously you don't need to provide the same thing, since "It's used at the airports, certainly it works!"?

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#559

Post by icambron »

laureny wrote: post #502
icambron wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It's profiling. No, it's not. He was picked because he set off explosive detectors. Repeatedly. The racial opinions of the person asking the questions doesn't change the fact that this is not racial profiling.

The question is not why he was "picked" to be investigated. The question is why he was kept so long even after it was determined that he did not, in fact, have explosives, and why he was questioned at such length and aggressiveness. The opinions of the people interrogating him are precisely what determine that, as explained by the actual person interrogating him. It really couldn't be any more straightforward.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#560

Post by cwkoss »

omegaham wrote: post #419
ganeumann wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we had thousands of people violating the 4th Amendment willy-nilly looking at our email and phone data and it's taken years for that to credibly leak out. Bucking authority like that is not only unusual, it's downright rare. Don't count on it. Not that I believe that there's a secret button.

However, keep in mind that the NSA doesn't employ that many people. Furthermore, these people mostly work in the same area, have been vetted repeatedly, and are watched. The TSA, on the other hand, works everywhere, has many more people, and do not have the same scrutiny applied to their employees. Interestingly enough, most classified information doesn't get leaked the same way that Snowden leaked his documents. It'…

If you include contractors whose primary income is from providing services to the NSA, the number of people who had some knowledge of their surveillance is probably approaching half of a million.
Post reply on HN