101–110 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is complete bullshit. "Limbo" is not a thing. Either you are being detained, or you are free to leave.
No, there's a third option: You will be free to leave after some defined event occurs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time people complain about the TSA and are asked how they should do security people say they should evaluate the person - look for signs of nervousness and things like that. And now they do and you complain anyway. So - what's your preferred method of screening people?
Not sure why you're getting down voted--I remember seeing at least 2 articles go by in the last few years about the Israeli airport security. Both times it was portrayed as super amazing (low hassle plus high security) precisely because they used behavioral detection techniques.
The TSA version is a guy walking around the terminal engaging people in conversation and looking for things like "micro-expressions." (which are themselves a farce)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not seem unreasonable to me to believe that someone (other than law enforcement) broke into his apartment and, finding it nearly empty, rifled through his suitcase, and took the picture simply out of anger. None of us on here know exactly what happened but the above seems (to me) just as likely as law enforcement breaking into his apartment. I would think they would also visit the apartment/residence he was v…
It's certainly far from proof, but it is very disconcerting. Let's go through the lines of evidence here. First off, there were apparently no visible signs that anyone had broken into his apartment. If the FBI or the police had picked the lock or if they had gotten the super to let them in and told him or her to remain silent about it then that would explain such an absence. A thief could also pick the lock but why w…
And if this seems implausible, consider -- how many times have you found yourself saying things like "I could have sworn I left the keys right there", and then finding them somewhere else? Is it more likely that you misremembered, or that they were moved by ninja-like FBI agents?
How I hate these stenographer-to-the-powerful articles. The guy makes his money as a consultant to airlines; he here gives the official side of things under cover of perfect anonymity and official deniability. He does it while pretending to be a neutral arbiter of fact, showing no skepticism at all about official claims. And, naturally, he doesn't bother to follow up with the author of the blog post he responded to.…
> And, naturally, he doesn't bother to follow up with the author of the blog post he responded to. FTA (the first paragraph, actually): I was initially approached by his supporters, and put in touch with him, to help spread his story … however … once I began researching the story, his detailed blog post began to unravel. Unless you mean that he should have shared with Aditya Mukerjee his article/accusations/assumptio…
That's typically how journalists try to do things, and it's a reasonable thing to do - that's why you almost always see "We attempted to reach X but received no response" or "X was contacted, but had no comment".
The standard is relaxed somewhat for blog posts, I suppose, but at the very least the thing to do would be to send the original author a link to the post as soon as it was posted, asking for comment, and include a note to that effect in the post.
What's most interesting to me is this line: "However on any given day, the TSA and Port Authority Police at JFK interact with passengers departing on non-stop flights to and from Dubai, Doha, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait City, Lagos, Istanbul, Jeddah, Riyadh, Casablanca, Amman, Riga and Tashkent."
Mukerjee’s entire account, and virality, is predicated upon implied racism. And yet, the numbers stack against him pretty heavily. He was not the only "muslim-looking" person to go through the airport that day. Not even close.
He was not singled out just because he was Muslim-looking. He was singled out because, if for no other reason, the dude tested positive for explosives, and, according to both accounts, was clearly agitated about it.
Now, yes, there's a completely logical reason for that. Yes, he has every right to be agitated when falsely accused. But no, it is not unreasonable for any security personal anywhere to throw up massive red flags about a guy who TESTED POSITIVE FOR EXPLOSIVES and was acted incredibly suspicious. Mukerjee is literally case example of what agents are trained to look for.
Everyone is up in arms about this, not because Mukerjee is even remotely worth being up in arms about, but because people just like bashing the TSA, regardless of the facts.
This story is told from a perspective that rather than being a right, flying and travel is a privilege awarded to those who satisfy the TSA Who cares what the Behavior Detection Officer thought, he was wrong Who cares what the screening machine thought he was carrying, it was wrong Who cares what behavior the TSA officers and supervisors 'noted', they were also wrong If a person cannot simply get up and leave the TSA…
Flying is not even remotely a right. Any airline, any airpot, any business period can refuse to provide you service for any non-protected reason (race, gender, etc.).
For pointing out the actual, you know, law.
Airport security is frequently humiliating. I myself have been nearly reduced to tears just by customs agents when crossing the border on business. However, this man set off a bomb detector. He set of the machine that detects bombs, repeatedly. After that event, nothing Mr. Mukerjee reported is particularly surprising, and I would expect to have a similar experience if I set off the same detector. I don't believe his…
The problem here is that he was pre-selected by the Behaviour Detection Officer (BDO) while in line and then the TSA claimed he rang their bell for explosives. We can't assume that government agents are on the up and up. Their word is open to question if they have no proof of their claims. Since they don't deny the story, I tend to lean to Mr. Mukerjee's perceptions as a more accurate account of the day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the same feeling I was getting from this article. It was completely disingenuous (or better put, an outright lie) to say that he was not detained. The police were keeping him against his will to determine if he was guilty of a crime. That pretty well fits the definition of detainment.
The article makes it very clear what "detained" vs. "not detained" means, in this context. Mukerjee wasn't being detained, or kept, beyond the basic protocol of "unscreened passengers have to be escorted out of the terminal." Mukerjee was free to leave, he simple had to leave the building entirely. He could not just leave and then step back into line, as was his intention, for numerous utterly sane reasons.
Let's assume the threat is real, someone with nefarious intent is not-detained, escorted to outside the building and left to his own devices. What is to stop him from simply turning around, re-entering the building and going through a different screening station?
I'm pretty sure the answer is "security theater."
Airport security is frequently humiliating. I myself have been nearly reduced to tears just by customs agents when crossing the border on business. However, this man set off a bomb detector. He set of the machine that detects bombs, repeatedly. After that event, nothing Mr. Mukerjee reported is particularly surprising, and I would expect to have a similar experience if I set off the same detector. I don't believe his…
> However, this man set off a bomb detector. He set of the machine that detects bombs, repeatedly. It detects a lot more than bombs. Over the machine's lifetime it will detect hundreds of thousands of things but almost certainly not any bombs.
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/225047/estimate-conf...