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

Did The TSA and JetBlue Deny Travel For Looking Muslim During Ramadan? No

boardingarea.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 228 posts

Re: Did The TSA and JetBlue Deny Travel For Looking Muslim During Ramadan? No

#151

Post by etchalon »

vidarh wrote: post #141
etchalon wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is completely reasonable. But the fact their guidelines require his bag to be cleared before he could have it back does not mean he was "detained". There are some pretty goddamn good reasons why the bag of a dude who tests positive for explosives has to be cleared before he's given it and allowed to run around an airport full of people.

> There are some pretty goddamn good reasons why the bag of a dude who tests positive for explosives has to be cleared before he's given it and allowed to run around an airport full of people. If so, there are some pretty good reason why, if they consider that threat even remotely real, they should clear the area. A good indication that the actual terrorist threat is absolutely vanishingly small: If there were lots o…

I don't know how much faith I'd put into your hypothetical.

I'm not implying the terrorist threat is large – it's really, super small. But just because they haven't done THAT yet, doesn't mean they won't. So far, in the US, what they've done is sneak explosives onto planes.

Re: Did The TSA and JetBlue Deny Travel For Looking Muslim During Ramadan? No

#152

Post by gnoway »

etchalon wrote: post #116
prawn wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't want to let his laptop out of his sight. I'd behave the same way given how important my work/data is to me.

Which is completely reasonable. But the fact their guidelines require his bag to be cleared before he could have it back does not mean he was "detained". There are some pretty goddamn good reasons why the bag of a dude who tests positive for explosives has to be cleared before he's given it and allowed to run around an airport full of people.

I guess what I don't understand is why someone didn't just clear the bag then. After reading the original blog post and then this rebuttal, it's not clear why the guy was delayed for a full day. His situation was important enough to warrant repeated interviews by about 12 different people from 3-4 different groups, but not important enough to have someone else clear the bag? Are we supposed to believe that a major NY international airport doesn't have multiple instances of the necessary tools on standby to process this kind of thing quickly and efficiently?

This rebuttal also ignores the allegations of numerous instances of snide, provocative remarks by the various security and administrative officials. I'm sure Mr. Mukerjee was not helping himself with his own behavior, but does that give the TSA and related authorities license to be unprofessional in return? Does it help the situation to take a suspicious person who hasn't actually done anything and agitate them?

I'm sorry, but this rebuttal doesn't restore any confidence in the TSA, DHS, Port Authorities, airports or any other related group. I am so glad I have no cause to travel by air.

Re: Did The TSA and JetBlue Deny Travel For Looking Muslim During Ramadan? No

#153

Post by etchalon »

gnoway wrote: post #152
etchalon wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is completely reasonable. But the fact their guidelines require his bag to be cleared before he could have it back does not mean he was "detained". There are some pretty goddamn good reasons why the bag of a dude who tests positive for explosives has to be cleared before he's given it and allowed to run around an airport full of people.

I guess what I don't understand is why someone didn't just clear the bag then. After reading the original blog post and then this rebuttal, it's not clear why the guy was delayed for a full day. His situation was important enough to warrant repeated interviews by about 12 different people from 3-4 different groups, but not important enough to have someone else clear the bag? Are we supposed to believe that a major NY…

It doesn't sound like he actually tried to pursue that. He was told, "You can leave, but the bag stays." He chose to stay. They decided to keep questioning him.

Re: Did The TSA and JetBlue Deny Travel For Looking Muslim During Ramadan? No

#154

Post by etchalon »

einhverfr wrote: post #139
etchalon wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you'd read the rest of the article, you'd see the procedures are designed to ensure that, if he's going to do that, he's doing it without any implement of harm on him, or least not one the TSA can find. Also, pointing out that it's impossible to deter a truly convicted person from a heinous act does not mean all deterrents are pointless. Yes, MUCH of what the TSA does is theater, and doesn't do much to keep…

That does not mean he wasn't detained. If you aren't free to go, you are detained. If you are pulled over for speeding, until the officer lets you go, you are detained. So not only was he detained but his bag was seized. Now arguably everyone is briefly detained by the TSA on condition of travel, and arguably all bags are seized briefly. However, that is why there needs to be scrutiny on these practices.

As was stated, he wasn't detained. He was told he could leave the airport, escorted by personnel, but that his bag had to remain.

So he chose to stay.

Re: Did The TSA and JetBlue Deny Travel For Looking Muslim During Ramadan? No

#155

Post by v1tyaz »

LordHumungous wrote: post #60

"Passenger was acting aggressively" sounds like something the TSA would say to justify holding him for three hours.

Maybe it was the fact that he repeatedly tested positive for explosive residue? But lets ignore that little piece of information because it doesn't conform to the anti-TSA circle jerk that is this thread.

Re: Did The TSA and JetBlue Deny Travel For Looking Muslim During Ramadan? No

#156

Post by lessnonymous »

lambda wrote: post #99
InclinedPlane wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The most logical conclusion that I can come to is that a law enforcement agent searched Mukerjee's apartment and probably took the photo so that it could be scanned or for some other reason but accidentally forgot to put it back. Have you ever considered that his landlord could have come into the apartment to make sure it had been cleaned up properly by the outgoing tenants (remember, he had moved in the night befo…

Off topic, but here in Australia if the landlord entered a the apartment without sufficient notice or permission from the tenant, then he DID break in (well, not 'break' in, but certainly entered illegally)

Re: Did The TSA and JetBlue Deny Travel For Looking Muslim During Ramadan? No

#157

Post by vehementi »

cpayne wrote: post #122
sseveran wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all the other places they have jurisdiction over...It turns out there are more "ports" than just airports.

Yes, but not his apartment.

I think the implication was that the alleged search was obviously illegal, regardless of whether it was the port authority or NYPD.

Re: Did The TSA and JetBlue Deny Travel For Looking Muslim During Ramadan? No

#158

Post by etchalon »

vidarh wrote: post #132
etchalon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, clearly it's impossible for the actual event to have transpired differently than what the person said. No one ever exaggerates things or misrepresents them on the internet.

It's possible, likely even, but the extremely antagonistic way the article was written gives it pretty much zero credibility. Especially with nitpicking like pointing out it was Port Authority police rather than NYPD - it was an irrelevant correction, as the point is he likely saw shields, and most people would have no clue about that kind of distinction and would simply assume NYPD, given that it is one of the best…

The Port Authority vs. the NYPD is not an irrelevant correction.

It's two completely different government enforcement agencies, with two completely different jobs, one of which is to actually care about what goes down at the airport.

The PA's presence isn't weird. The NYPD's would have been.

Re: Did The TSA and JetBlue Deny Travel For Looking Muslim During Ramadan? No

#159

Post by wavesounds »

slg wrote: post #94
beloch wrote: post #76

"Mr. Mukerjee contends he asked to leave the screening area and return to the pre-security section of the terminal, with the intention of simply stepping back in line and going through screening again, but was not allowed. This is absolutely correct, at this time he was in limbo, he was not being detained, but he could not leave. A person cannot simply leave the security area of any airport once they are on the airsi…

Right at the end of the section you quoted states he would have been able to leave in such a case. He would have been allowed to leave the airport if he was willing to "be escorted out of the secure area (and usually the terminal)." The problem is that Mukerjee wanted to leave the interrogation area and immediately reenter the security line. Don't you think it would have been a little pointless for the TSA (ok, more…

I was told by a TSA agent you have a right to go through the scanner again to check for false positives. So yes you are simply allowed to restart the process.

Re: Did The TSA and JetBlue Deny Travel For Looking Muslim During Ramadan? No

#160

Post by gnoway »

etchalon wrote: post #105

I'm glad to see this posted, if only to provide another perspective. 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 imp…

Do you know what the explosives tests are looking for? It occurs to me that people make explosives out of fertilizer, which I think means that almost anything with an ammonia component could cause a positive result.

I also wonder how the tests are typically interpreted. Several 'test strip' type chemical tests require the tester to evaluate a color against a sample spectrum, where different intensity or hue identifies the strength of the result. Is this the kind of testing performed or do they have some sort of machine on site or what?

Edit: there is a link to a sample machine in the rebuttal post. It's this:

http://www.sds.l-3com.com/etd/opt-ex.htm

I don't know anything about these, but my first reaction is skepticism. It has reusable wipes for lower TCO, but the test involves using a wipe and then testing the wipe. Unless the test self-sterilizes or something then it seems like it would be easy to have false positives due to contaminated wipes. Hopefully this machine, if it's the one being used, is just for indicating whether further followup by the "Transportation Security Specialist - Explosives (TSS-E)" is required.

Post reply on HN