Live data from Hacker News

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

boardingarea.com

161–170 of 228 posts

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

#161
The "Fishiest" part of this response is how many people he was able to interview about exactly what happened, and the speed at which he was able to get source interviews.

I mean he's a blogger, so just like you and me, he'd have to put in requests to all those agencies for information, and then have to re apply when they lost his paperwork. Then they'd say no in a hundred different ways. And about five years later everyone would have lost interest.

It didn't happen.

There's only two possibilities: 1. He made it all up, or 2. They gave him the story

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

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an extraordinarily shitty excuse.

Oh come on . > These events include Mr. Mukerjee becoming further agitated and aggressive after testing positive for explosives, as well as him repeatedly reaching for his not-yet-manually-searched bag. > However,multiple statements by TSA personnel reference Mr. Mukerjee repeatedly grabbing for his bag after he was told not to touch it. > While false positives are not unusual for ETD, it is unusual a person and thei…

One of the things you get when you have a horde of untrained, uptight civilians dressed in uniforms is an incredibly unprofessional behaviour from someone who is supposed to do law enforcement.

The agents did several things that escalated the whole deal, things which a cadet would have immediately understood. To quote just a few:

> These events include Mr. Mukerjee becoming further agitated and aggressive after testing positive for explosives, as well as him repeatedly reaching for his not-yet-manually-searched bag.

> However,multiple statements by TSA personnel reference Mr. Mukerjee repeatedly grabbing for his bag after he was told not to touch it.

This is wrong on the following levels:

1. The first fucking thing you do when you detain someone is explain them why they are detained, how long they will be detained and -- if they have not actually broken any law and are there for preventive action, what you are doing in order to prevent it. If you exceed this period by the most infinitely small amount of time, you immediately tell them why it is taking longer (in some civilized countries not doing this is reason enough for the state to start selling politicians' kidneys to pay damages). Basically, what the dudes should have done was say: "Hello Mr. Mukerjee, we have to detain you on the basis of because we have suspicions that you might try to harm the passengers on board. We need to check a few things up, this will take . I understand this may sound outrageous to you, but we need to make sure." It's particularly important that you use normal-sounding words and sentences in an active voice. Someone who isn't a regular jail offender will most likely be panicked enough to to understand a word you're saying if you start throwing shit like "we believe you might be a threat to the safety of the crew and the passengers of the vessel".

2. If you don't want people to get agitated, you don't offer them external triggers. If you want to conduct a search, you immediately remove all the bags after conducting a thorough inventory of it in the presence of the guy you're searching. "Mr. Murkjee, we need to search your bag . Can you please tell me what's inside? We will have to remove all items in another room, we need to make a list of the items inside to make sure you get them all back". Of course people are going to get nervous if they are in danger of losing their work. They kind of depend on it to eat. If you don't remove these belongings, people will naturally keep peeking at them and grabbing them and insisting on touching them because they're afraid. It's a natural reaction.

3. If you detain someone for longer than half an hour, you provide for their needs period. You ask if they need water or a snack. If they're guilty, they'll have a long time to be thirsty and hungry in prison, but there's a long way before that. You do this for two reasons that you hear about in the first six hours of training (if your instructor is slow, it can probably take as little as four...). First, basic sensations of thirst and hunger amplify the sensation of fear. Second, dehydration and low blood sugar levels heighten the symptoms of fear and panic, like anxiety and shaking.

4. When someone tested positive for something, you either don't tell him and get on with it on your own, or you tell him and ask for an explanation. Maybe the dude visited a friend whose kid got a chemistry kit as a present and splashed it all over the table in the living room. Either tell him "Mr. Murkjee, you tested positive for di-hidrogen oxide, a substance we believe may be explosive. We need to conduct a further search through your items -- we have people working on that right away so that you can be back on your trip as soon as possible, but in the meantime, do you know of any way in which you could have come into contact with this substance?". Either do that, or just tell him that their preliminary tests showed traces of an explosive substance, we need to search your items to know for sure if it can be dangerous. In both cases, tell the dude how long it takes. People can have a panic attack just because of missing a flight, can you imagine how awesome it has to be to have someone who carries a gun drag things along when you have a plane to catch?

Bonus things the TSA folks fucked up:

5. If someone wishes to go but you haven't finished your procedure, you fucking tell them why and explicitly mention what you need to do before clearing them. People who fly have no way of knowing, and particularly no reason of knowing the whole procedure. Telling him he can go, but the bag stays was a major fuck-up that is usually reason enough for disciplinary action in a normal police force. You don't just tell people they can go without their items. The correct thing to do is say something along the lines of "Before clearing you for leaving, we need to check your bag, in case it may contain items that could be harmful for the passengers in the terminal. This will take , once we're done you're free to leave if you wish".

6. There is no such thing as a "limbo", not in any sane security procedure. Someone is always in one of three possible states, and if he goes from one to another you immediately mention it: he's either detained (for a definite or indefinite period of time), free to go after a procedure is finished (all suspicions are off, but there's some compulsory stuff that needs to be done -- e.g. you're sent home from the station, but you still need to get the receipt that confirms you received all your items from storage before they clear you to leave) or you're free to go. "There is nothing wrong with you but you can't leave" is a form of abuse period. It does not matter if things aren't that way: what the man sees is what you're telling him. There's no way a boarding passenger knows the whole procedure, so that he can go like "Oh, there's no need for me to worry... I'm ok but they can't let me leave while my bag hasn't been searched. I can't just go and mingle with the people who have been cleared to fly while I haven't, since I might stealthily hand them a knife or a pack of explosives after they've gone through the security check."

7. If the reason you are detaining someone is a subjective one (i.e. the dubious-guy-spotter said he looks dubious), you still need to provide a reason for detaining him. If you don't, the dude will naturally think you just picked him at random, which he will -- again -- perceive as a form of abuse.

tl;dr There are some basic things you need to in order to tell if the person you're talking to is being aggressive or giving inconsistent answers because he's preparing to carry out a criminal offense. If you don't do them, you fuck up your screening process.

Being under pressure is not an excuse for not doing a job you're supposed to do under pressure.

Full disclosure/source: I wanted to spend an year in a computer security-related position for a state institution in my country of origin, and had to take a course on this. My memory of the details is fairly dim, I hope I haven't trashed anything significant.

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

#163
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's total bullshit. If they found bomb residue on the guy and thought he had a bomb, or like say was checking a fucking bomb through security, they would search the bag ASAP with their dozens of TSA people, instead of just letting a potential bomb chillax in the airport terminal while they try for hours to get some guy to trip up on his answers to questions after he's tested positive for BOMBS. They had obviously searched the bag of course and were just making up some shit to trick him into agreeing to stay.

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

#164

Well, I can understand why he'd become "agitated" after being told his options were to leave without his bag or be subjected to an "obscene" screening. Also, regarding: "There are no independent sources within the TSA or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) who can find any record of NYPD involvement – let alone a search of his apartment by federal authorities – and there is no incident report referencing any furthe…

Or that this random guy was able to conduct such a comprehensive search as to be able to conclude that no such documents exist.

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

#165
post #12

Somebody got aggressive after being detained for hours on end and having their flight cancelled, at expense? Holy shit! Pack your bags, men: we found ourselves a terrorist.

When you say aggressive, make sure to specify that you mean some blogger paraphrased an anonymous unsourced person claiming a month after the fact that the guy was aggressive with no supporting evidence.

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

#166

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.

He also had to surrender his bags.

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

#167
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who ever grabs an EXPLOSIVE bag in the first place?

A suicide bomber with nothing to lose.

Who leaves an explosive bag within arms reach of the guy who set off the bomb detector? Man this is just too easy.

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

#168
post #34

"After he was grilled for three hours by a dozen different officials, he got the time wrong by 20 minutes! He's definitely unreliable!"

Reminds me of a scene from a West Wing episode in which the lesson is that good press control means not over-reacting to small points like this.

(One of my favourite scenes for their acting, though I can't find a video.)

  SAM
  Yes, I hired the guy, but that's not... Legitimate news organizations are going to cover 
  this to say nothing of the people who hate us who are going to run it over, over, over, 
  over, over...This guy was here for three minutes and he was fired. He is not credible. 
  I'm a lawyer, I'm telling you. That has to be made clear. Every time he makes a factual 
  mistake we got to come out with a press release. Every time he misquotes or misidentifies 
  anyone we need to have an affidavit swearing to the truth. If there's a comma in the 
  wrong place he needs to be killed until he is dead and he needs to be killed again or 
  he is going to keep biting at our ankles and I mean all through the campaign. He needs 
  to be a joke, or we're going to be. 
  
  C.J.
  [snapping fingers rhythmically] Boy, boy, crazy boy. Keep cool, boy... 
  
  SAM
  I'm not screwing around. 
  
  C.J.
  Me neither. Sit down. 
  
  SAM
  I'm not going to be a victim of this. 
  
  C.J.
  Let me tell you something I've learned in my years. There are victims of fires. There 
  are victims of car accidents. This kind of thing, there are no victims--just volunteers. 
  Of course we'll get in the game. I'll talk to the editors of the major papers but we're 
  not going to publicly refute every bogus charge. First of all, there are too many of them. 
  Second of all, I'm not going to give this guy and his book the weight of the White House. 
  As far as the press is concerned I've read the book because I had to. You have a vague 
  recollection of the guy but he wasn't here long enough to make a lasting impression. 
  Have you read the book? Of course not. You're too busy doing a job.
At the end of the day, nit-picking down to this level just makes you seem desperate to discredit, regardless of how true (or otherwise) your main arguments might be.

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

#169
post #82

Very often, on social networking sites, we hear the pieces of contradictory advice "don't talk to the police", "be polite and considerate to the police", and "assert your rights". These are pair-wise contradictory: 1. Don't talk to the police: You are being impolite, and you will be unable to assert your rights. 2. Be polite: Obviously violates "don't talk..." but also if you say, even politely, that you refuse certa…

One can be respectful and still refuse, "Officer, I know you are just doing your job, but I don't consent to searches." Or even to the TSA, "I believe my person is seized and detained. You may search me and let me fly, but just be aware I am not consenting to it."

The latter is not asserting any rights since you cannot permit them with 'you may search me' while simultaneously claim you are not consenting. 'You may search me' is consent.

The former exchange may be followed by:

1. The officer reaching for your vehicle, you instinctively reacting to block him, and we have our aggression.

2. The officer asking why not, telling you he is now going to have to throw the book at you and every minor violation that everyone does will now come up (the easiest? Speeding violation for 5 over).

3. The officer coaxes you. You stand your ground in the same manner. You are being bullheaded. Try to convince your fellow man after an encounter like this. Almost certainly you'll be told that you should 'pick your battles'. This will certainly be followed by #2.

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

#170
This is the entirety of the response to the incidents mentioned in the Blog post. Even though this is being routed via some semi-anonymous blogger, this is the Official TSA speaking.

This blog post is their way of saying "Fuck you..we will not change anything"

Figures.

Post reply on HN