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

511–520 of 986 posts

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#511

Post by Balgair »

eruditely wrote: post #124
Balgair wrote: post #50

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ Call your representative today and talk to them about this story if you are disturbed by it. Please, you have to speak to have a voice.

They have to be listening for you to be heard.

Not true at all! My rep. is very kind and does actually listen to her constituents. I won't say the same for my senators but my rep is pretty level headed and listens to her constituents.

Also, your apathy is what is causing the problem! Get out there! VOTE! Talk to your elected officials. Absent you, the lobbyists and mountebanks out there sure will. Monopolize your rep.'s time. You matter! You count! Act like it!

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#512

Post by dsrguru »

jonahx wrote: post #463
rquantz wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is that oppressive. He went through security and set off an explosives detector. The cops showed up and asked some questions. Then he left. This is a vast mischaracterization of what happened. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government can't hamfistedly accuse you of a crime. All it says is that they have to charge you or let you go in 24 hours, give you a trial, and punish you in a con…

> He was detained without arrest, based on minimal suspicions. Yes, he should have shut the hell up and not answered questions. Minimal suspicions? A young male flying alone who refuses the scanner and sets of the explosives detector? Yes, he absolutely should have been cooperative and answered their questions after that. I always refuse the scanner, but I don't complain afterward that I have to answer questions and…

> And if I ever set off the explosive detector, my first reaction wouldn't be how unfair it was that "harried" employees were "rudely" explaining that my options were leaving or a private pat down. That would seem utterly reasonable to me.

He was told that leaving was not one of his choices. Even after pointing out the illegality of that to the security official, he was told that if he left, he would forfeit his luggage, including any electronics. So essentially, leaving was not one of his choices. Also, having his house broken into and possibly bugged does not seem utterly reasonable to me.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#513

Post by pbhjpbhj »

darklajid wrote: post #492
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once they've determined he isn't carrying actual explosives he shouldn't be considered a threat anymore. // Because people who handle explosives and cover it up when questioned, and aren't involved in handling explosives in their day job, are completely to be trusted? Surely once they've determined he isn't carrying explosives they need to be sure as possible, if he claims not to have been around any explosives, th…

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 confirmed that there were no other indications of explosives manufacture [or you can plump for the slightly less cynical - 'the questioning confirmed he was not a threat'].

There's likely always going to be some false-positives: the needs of the many, yadda, yadda.

>IFF we had a reliable, working test with little to no false positive due to fing everyday stuff* //

Can you post your source and the pertinent stats for the number of false-positives for explosives detection at airports in the USA please.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#514

Post by jlgreco »

schiffern wrote: post #496
jlgreco wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is plausible that it was the TSA's "VIPR". https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/10/vipr-a10.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/us/tsa-expands-duties-beyo... (Side note, who the hell comes up with these names, and why hasn't somebody with some experience with marketing and PR talked to them?)

> marketing and PR Oh, they have it. You're just not the TSA's customer.

Are they trying to pitch a new line of action figures for the G.I. Joes to fight to Hasbro? "VIPR" is just plain silly.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#515

Post by justin66 »

Tloewald wrote: post #206
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…

If you set off a gas chromatograph for nitroglycerine and then say you have heart tablets then you'll be fine. He obviously set off a specific trigger AND couldn't account for it (although they clearly tried to get him to). Back in the 70s or 80s a group of friends in Britain were sentenced for participating in a terrorist act because they set off an explosive test. They spent years in prison before it was determined…

> If you set off a gas chromatograph for nitroglycerine and then say you have heart tablets then you'll be fine. He obviously set off a specific trigger AND couldn't account for it (although they clearly tried to get him to).

That isn't what that line of interrogation was for. The TSA goons probably don't know anything about chemistry or how their machine works, they were simply trying to rattle him and get him to say something incriminating.

Specifically: when somebody says, several different ways, "why are you setting off my explosive detector?" what you do not want to say is "I don't know! I don't have any explosives!" Because it will elicit a response indicating that nobody was accusing you have of having explosives, why are you being so defensive, etc. etc.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#516

Post by swalkergibson »

geoka9 wrote: post #402
swalkergibson wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like the best course of action is to just have an attorney present if a situation like this happens again. You knew you were being detained, no matter what the authorities said. As far as I know, there are no provisions anywhere that forbid you from having a lawyer present when and wherever you want.

I often see "have an attorney present" arguments, but they make me wonder - can you really afford to have an attorney on retainer if you're not independently wealthy? Or is it as simple as calling a plumber and asking them to come over? Should I shop for an attorney and keep their contact information with me just in case I might need one? Will the attorney be willing to come over at a moment's notice if I've never us…

I suspect it is like any market. Some will be there within the hour, some will need ramp-up time. However, regardless of the attorney, I would suspect that any criminal defense lawyer would be able to effectively navigate the particular situation at hand. If it were me, I would tell them they can arrest me and charge me, or let me on my way. I would be shocked if the results of this finicky machine are admissible in court (given that polygraph results are not). Does anyone know whether or not that is the case?

Come get me, coppers!

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#517

Post by laureny »

616c wrote: post #397
jrockway wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is that oppressive. He went through security and set off an explosives detector. The cops showed up and asked some questions. Then he left. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government can't hamfistedly accuse you of a crime. All it says is that they have to charge you or let you go in 24 hours, give you a trial, and punish you in a consistent way. They did that here; they asked some ques…

As someone who was in a fraternity in college that practiced a waterboarding procedure as part of the initiation process, around our time in Iraq, I have come to never accept torture as someone who experienced one of the basic methods. So, go ahead, try it. Call me a troll but you should check your moral compass. Do not argue for the torture, psychological or physical, of others if you cannot hack or attempt to at le…

> Call me a troll but you should check your moral compass. Do not argue for the torture, psychological or physical, of others if you cannot hack or attempt to at least once.

That's a weird line of reasoning. For example, according to you, I shouldn't have an opinion on death penalty unless I'm willing to see what it does?

Besides, the debate is not whether torture hurts the victim or not: everybody on either side of that fence knows that it does.

The question is: is torture ever justified?

Surely I can have an opinion on this without having to lie down and have gallons of water poured into my mouth through a cloth?

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#518

Post by darklajid »

amirmc wrote: post #396
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…

We should be more precise. > "... because he repeatedly set off the bomb detector." No, the initial pat-down set off a chemical detector. He set it off once before being pulled into the private room. From that point on, it doesn't matter how many more times it was set off. It shouldn't increase the level of suspicion each time. Would they have let him go if one time it suddenly stopped giving a positive signal? I dou…

I .. don't want to offend and all (Amir? Sounds Israeli to me, but I don't claim to be an expert).

But this 'It works so well at Ben Gurion' statements get old, really quick. It doesn't.

Traveling to TLV is fine and no problem. Getting out just sucks. I feel treated like shit every single time, it's just borderline acceptable half the time (the other half it's really, really annoying, causing delays and trouble, stupid, braindead, unnecessary, idiotic, etc. etc.).

This coming from a German that lived for one year in TLV and works for a company that sits in IL, so I've been there before my relocation and afterwards. Currently I'm at 14 or 15 visits only, so .. my data points are obviously too few and I just managed to pick the wrong time? Right?

Previous: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5866764

Short version: No, the Israeli version doesn't make you feel like a human being either, most of the time.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#519

Post by laureny »

mindcrime wrote: post #223
jrockway wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is that oppressive. He went through security and set off an explosives detector. The cops showed up and asked some questions. Then he left. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government can't hamfistedly accuse you of a crime. All it says is that they have to charge you or let you go in 24 hours, give you a trial, and punish you in a consistent way. They did that here; they asked some ques…

I don't think this is that oppressive. Yeah, well, it didn't happen to you, did it? He went through security and set off an explosives detector. The cops showed up and asked some questions. Then he left. "We gave him free room and board for 17 years, then laid him on a comfortable bed and gave him some medicine to make him fall asleep for a while". vs. "We kept him caged in a tiny, windowless cell and gave him just e…

> > I don't think this is that oppressive. > > Yeah, well, it didn't happen to you, did it?

Correct, and that's exactly what makes it not oppressive: the fact that it doesn't happen to random people pulled on the street. When this starts happening, then you are justified in claiming that your country is turning into a police state.

Re: Don't Fly During Ramadan

#520

Post by drhodes »

jwr wrote: post #73

The land of the free. As I read more and more of those stories I can't help but wonder at how things changed. I am from a formerly-eastern-europe-soviet-bloc country (Poland) and these kinds of oppressive techniques sound very familiar. The haziness of procedures, lack of basic rights, intimidation, no accountability of state officials -- we've seen all that until 1989. At the time, while the communist regime was imp…

For those who haven't read it, Book 8 of The Republic by Plato details a possible transformation from democracy to tyranny. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.9.viii.html
Post reply on HN