
TSA loudspeakers threaten travelers with arrest for joking about security - jes
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/tsa-loudspeakers-threaten-travelers-arrest-joking-security/
======
UnoriginalGuy
It is strange how far things have come. Many years (1980-90s) ago when people
would start these long rants about how "the US is a police state" etc everyone
would just look at them like they were a little unhinged, then after 9/11
everyone started joking about how it was "true," now everyone has stopped
laughing and when the topic comes up the tone is what I would call "genuine
concern" mixed with nervous laughter.

The US police have become extremely militarised. The TSA and CBP have turned
damn right hostile. And it seems like nobody in any kind of authority position
has any common sense left, I still remember when that chick from MIT entered
the airport with a bunch of LED in a t-shirt and how instead of everyone
laughing about the "funny misunderstanding" everyone was condemning _her_ and
she got charged with some nonsense "crime."

Seriously has the whole world gone insane? I feel like I am the only one left
with any concept of proportionality and understanding of the difference
between a legitimate threat and a misunderstanding.

On a related note: Why are SWAT now being used in no-knock arrests when there
is no knowledge of weapons on the property and they often aren't even
collecting time critical evidence? Why can cops not just knock on the door
politely and arrest a suspect?

~~~
sandstrom
I agree with you that things are worse now. I wouldn't say that the world has
gone insane though, rather that the US attitudes have shifted over time. There
are countries that does things differently though. For example, the worlds
fourth and eight largest economies:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-l...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-
without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/)

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398)

~~~
notahacker
If the US government followed the example of the Japan or the UK in banning
virtually all domestic firearm ownership, the cries of "police state" would be
even more deafening...

~~~
elemeno
It's not strictly accurate to say that "virtually all domestic firearm
ownership" is banned in the UK - it's just highly controlled and restricted.
There's roughly 800,000 people in Great Britain (Northern Ireland has it's
own, separate, firearms laws) with firearms licences about 80% of which are
for shotguns.

In practical terms, firearm ownership is restricted to shotguns and rifles and
you've got to be able to demonstrate why you wish to own a firearm - i.e. pest
control, sports shooting, etc - and you've got to have a clean criminal record
and pass a background check by the police. It's also at the discretion of your
local police force to grant you the licence or not, which is likely to depend
on things like how suitable the choice of firearm is to it's stated purpose -
you'd be unlikely to get a licence for .50 calibre rifle if your stated
purpose is hunting rabbits for example.

While the UK doesn't have a huge gun-culture, they're far from banned - as
evidenced by there being roughly 1 legally held gun for every 70 people in
Great Britain (GB - The UK less Northern Ireland, as noted above NI has
different licensing laws).

\- [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firearms-law-
guid...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firearms-law-guidance-to-
the-police-2012)

------
cstross
Problem: queues are boring. Consequently, people in queues talk to one another
and make jokes about the queues. If it's a security queue, some bored people
joke about security.

Unfortunately, TSA checkers have no discretion: they're supposed to behave
like robots[1]. They're not allowed to write off a wisecrack as a joke, but
are required to take it at face value. (Even though no sane terrorist would
joke about smuggling a bomb through a TSA checkpoint while in the queue at
said checkpoint.)

TSA response: warn people that they can be arrested for joking.

Possible solution #1: figure out why people are making jokes (boredom, long
queues) and do something to fix it, reducing the incidence of false positives.
(Hire more bodies, shorten the queues.)

Possible solution #2: recruit higher quality security guards and train them to
use their initiative, then give them some discretion. (The El Al/Israeli
response.)

Possible solution #3: reform US foreign policy to reduce the inflammation that
causes terrorist activity against US targets; focus on intelligence-driven
police tactics to prevent terrorist attacks before they get anywhere near an
airport or other target: abolish the TSA. (The utopian solution. This won't
happen because, politics.)

[1] A large subset of the American population believe that government can do
no good. Therefore government agencies _are not allowed_ to operate as if
they're staffed by competent, intelligent human beings with discretion. This
is why we can't have nice things.

~~~
AmVess
Solution #4: Shut down the entire DHS and fire all the TSA dirtbags.

~~~
ruttiger
But then, people will bring shampoo on flights.

~~~
nealabq
Or worse, joke about bringing shampoo on flights.

------
bad_alloc
TSA is rapidly approaching the level of creepiness of Half Life's Overwatch:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y_3...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y_3vMUOayyc#t=99)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZX6oLEK5KQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZX6oLEK5KQ)

------
oellegaard
Yeah, so I don't think i'll be going to any more US conferences. I invite any
American to come to Scandinavia and make jokes. Here you will not be arrested,
though the TSA equivalent reserve their rights to laugh of your jokes.

~~~
atlanticus
If you're more concerned about your right to joke about bombing civilian
aircraft rather than attend a serious conference then the conference is better
off without you.

~~~
oellegaard
I'm not concerned for my own person. I can easily restrict my use of jokes,
but I can't support a country that disallows some of the most basic human
rights, namely the freedom of speech (which I consider country-wide, not like
the American version where you have to stand in a free speech zone to exercise
the right). I hope the good people from the developer community in USA will
attend the European conferences, so we can still meet and share experiences.

Also, this isn't just jokes as to what you are referring, it's jokes that any
way involves security at airports, as I understand it. E.g. "Careful, it might
smell" when they pick up your shoe.

~~~
ams6110
So you're claiming that in a European airport I can joke about having a bomb
or smuggling heroin and I won't attract any additional attention from the
security staff?

~~~
oellegaard
Read through my post. It's not about bomb jokes, but innocent jokes about the
security procedures, such as them touching you strange places or taking off
yor shoes.

------
lost_my_pwd
Many years ago but post-9/11 ('02 or '03?) I was waiting on the security
checkpoint line. The line was moving very slowly and I was bored out of my
mind until I noticed a poster informing people of things that were banned from
the plane. It included illustrations of things such as WWII pineapple
grenades, a scythe, machete, chainssaw, etc. and I pointed and laughed at the
absurdity. The thought of someone trying to stuff some of these items into a
duffel bag was hilarious as well as the idea that someone felt it necessary to
warn people about these prohibited items.

Right away I saw a blue-shirted supervisor whisper to one of the checkpoint
gropers and when it was my turn, I was pulled aside for 'additional' screening
with more than one groper participating and more whispering between the
gropers and the supervisor. One thing I did make out was, "...was laughing at
the sign...,' which solidified my fears about the direction of our country
post-9/11.

Besides feeling violated, what bothered me the most was not the idea that
these people could be bullying someone who would dare to question their
actions and authority but that these people really believed that my actions
were worthy of suspicion. That our rights and safety was in the hands of
people lacking any imagination, independent thought, discretion, or sense of
reason.

~~~
DanBC
> The thought of someone trying to stuff some of these items into a duffel bag
> was hilarious as well as the idea that someone felt it necessary to warn
> people about these prohibited items.

Did you say "oh wow, I was laughing at that poster because who needs to be
told not to bring a machete onto a plane?"

Because people try to take loaded handguns onto planes. (30 this week, 13 with
chambered rounds) ([http://blog.tsa.gov/](http://blog.tsa.gov/)) See also the
meat cleaver.

~~~
glenra
A loaded handgun is a fine thing to take on a plane. I imagine the hilarious
part was more on the "chainsaw" end of the scale.

~~~
DanBC
Loaded hand guns are not allowed in hand luggage, only checked.

Cultural note: sentences like "A loaded handgun is a fine thing to take on a
plane" are the reason many people in many countries think that Americans are
batshit insane.

~~~
glenra
I realize guns aren't _allowed_ in hand luggage, but they should be - there's
nothing actually _wrong_ with them. It's no more inherently dangerous than
having them in the luggage one takes on a bus or a train or a ship or a
private car.

I can't speak to "people in many countries", but if _you_ think having a gun
on a plane is "batshit insane", my guess is that you've been fooled by
Hollywood into believing a few false things. (Perhaps you saw Goldfinger but
never saw the Mythbusters episode debunking it?)

A gun fired on a plane can't cause "explosive decompression". No, not even if
fired through a window. The pressure difference isn't large enough to be
"explosive" and the air pressure is continuously maintained - planes are
constantly leaking quite a lot of air by design so leaking a little more
wouldn't hurt anything.

The 9/11 gambit could work ONCE but can't work today - the front doors are
locked and the passengers and crew know to resist. Committing any sort of
deliberate crime on a plane is infinitely stupider in terms of likelihood of
getting caught and ability to get away than committing one on the ground.

The TSA "protects" us from "movie plot threats", not actual threats. We would
be on-net safer if airport security were entirely eliminated - far fewer
people would die than do today as a result of it.

(TSA kills people today by making travel by air more expensive in money and
time. This causes people to drive on long trips instead of fly, leading to
extra deaths in auto accidents.)

------
jes
I find this constant indoctrination concerning. Where does it end? If two
people wanted to have a serious discussion about individual rights while
waiting in a checkpoint line at the airport, would they also be subject to
arrest?

Whatever happened to the idea that we would not let terrorists change our way
of life?

~~~
girvo
> If two people wanted to have a serious discussion about individual rights
> while waiting in a checkpoint line at the airport, would they also be
> subject to arrest?

I'd go based on the working assumption of "Yes" for that one. So much for free
speech.

------
triplesec
People have often and for decades got into trouble for "joking" about having a
bomb in their bags at check-in, and we've always lamented the
institutionalised stupidity of the drones behind the counter (and their dull
bosses) for not realising that humans are mostly not very good at comedy.

However, this is another thing entirely, and reminds me of the practice in
Nazi occupied terriroties of having loudspeakers in the street to control,
order and relay propaganda to the restless occupied. I don't think Godwin's
Law counts here either. This is a legitimate comparison.

~~~
notahacker
Oh come off it. This is an addition to an existing, very familiar category of
loudspeaker announcements advising people that doing X might get them into
trouble, where X has long been acknowledged to be a bad idea. You hear similar
announcements in airports all over the world. Would you genuinely prefer they
left the last line off the announcement and had more people being "not very
good at comedy" as a result?

~~~
DominikR
All over the world? Really?

I've never been directly threatened via loudspeaker announcement anywhere -
other than in Half Life

------
haberman
Chances are, when you hear something like this from some kind of authority
figure, it's because they deal with people who don't get the message.

It's never been ok to play like you're smuggling something through a
checkpoint. "Keep your eyes out for the bomb I have in there, ha ha." I'm
pretty sure this would get you in trouble even pre-9/11\. Probably because
there's not that much room between this and an actual bomb threat: "I have a
bomb."

But people who haven't fully thought through the implications of this think of
their words as innocent joking, and I bet some people do actually end up
getting arrested who meant nothing by it. No one wins when this happens.

So they react by adding an intercom announcement reinforcing what has always
been true, which is that you can't say you have a bomb, even if you're just
joking.

\--

When I see stuff like this, I often think of the proverb "Even a broken clock
is right twice a day."

For people who think that the US is tending towards a police state (as the URL
of this piece implies), by far the most compelling evidence of that are the
Snowden leaks. Those are a totally different magnitude that stuff like this
airport security announcement.

If everything you see, including stuff like this, makes you say "OMG the USA
is a a police state," then you're not an insightful privacy advocate, you are
a broken clock. Insight requires discernment; knowing the difference between
what is big and serious and what is small and even reasonable.

~~~
alextingle
Your comment boils down to, "it's always been like this". Well, sorry but we
haven't always been at war with Eurasia, and check-in security has not always
been so customer-unfriendly.

Source: I'm old enough to remember better times.

~~~
haberman
So you made jokes about carrying bombs in the past and it was cool?

I said something specific, not something general.

------
downandout
This is being way overblown. This warning is ominous and far too broadly
worded. However, if the TSA brings in law enforcement and requests that you be
arrested, that officer (not an agent of the TSA) must determine that there is
probable cause to believe that you have violated a specific state or federal
statute in order to arrest you. There are statutes concerning making
statements about bombs, terror threats, etc. in a secure area, but your
innocent jokes are fine.

This is not to say that TSA can't detain you and ruin your day for essentially
any reason, but any joke or comment that doesn't actually violate a state or
federal statute will not result in your arrest.

~~~
Lost_BiomedE
" but any joke or comment that doesn't actually violate a state or federal
statute will not result in your arrest."

How would I know? We have secret laws that are enforced but the offender is
not allowed to know what they are beforehand.

~~~
twoodfin
Name one.

~~~
angersock
The security letters and whatnot kind of undermine your comment, you know?

~~~
twoodfin
Those are a consequence of a very public law that could be repealed tomorrow
if the votes were there.

Try again.

------
smoyer
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

When your job is (mostly) a sham, you'd better make it seem important if you
want to keep it. I've met people (in big corporations and universities) who
are masters of seeming important while doing very little, but those people
tend to really stand out when they're inserted in small companies (i.e. start-
ups).

------
TheZenPsycho
Err. I'm confused. This sort of message has been there for years in Denver's
airport. Is this news because they just added it to texas now, and we didn't
expect a haven of freedom and left wing ideology like texas have this sort of
thing?

~~~
ams6110
I mostly agree. I think they could have left out the threat of arrest, and
simply announced "do not make jokes about security or terrorism in the secure
area" as has been posted on signage already for years.

This would make the announcements more like the "do not leave your bags
unattended" and "do not park in the loading zone" etc. that drone on in the
background of every airport already.

------
catenate
Laughter and joking is a coping mechanism for dealing with uncomfortable and
hostile situations. It's a way to blow off steam and accept things without
reacting as aggressively as the humiliation you feel. Take out that release
valve, and people are going to start reacting more badly than a simple joke,
which will escalate security's perceived need to be there in the first place.
I'm very glad I don't fly any more for my job twice a week, because I never
bothered to restrain my comments in the face of such misdirected, useless, and
intrusive delay and obviously unconstitutional search. I will continue to take
500-mile road trips rather than fly with my family, because there's no way
I'll teach children that being either irradiated or caressed by a uniform
agent is acceptable.

------
norswap
Golly, real life is starting to look like Half Life 2.

~~~
cronin101
"Pick up that can"

~~~
dbond
At least they can't hit me with a stun baton if I throw the can at them,
right?... Right?

~~~
deletes
They can probably shoot you.

------
derrida
Why did the TSA agent not allow jokes at the airport? The last joke bombed.

------
Dogamondo
This is an ironic piece to be discussed on HN, especially for the commenters
who express any disagreement with the TSA policy referenced in this article.

As someone who has been down-voted quite harshly for making offhanded humorous
comments on a few threads, it seems it would be hypocritical if the TSA's
stance in this article was not lauded with praise by the HN community at
large.

In an airport situation, joking about any matters of security is seen as
undesirable and quite intentionally punishable.

From my experience over a few accounts on this website, the same philosophy
holds right here on HN - Make a joke or humorous response to any story
(whether it be a super-serious matter of international security or light-
hearted comparison between Ikea furniture and death metal bands) and you'll be
punished duly by the community at large by means of trouncing your reputation
here into the ground for your attempts at humour.

So here's where I'd like to pose the question - Why the massive hypocritical
disconnect HN? Just because PG referenced it in an essay of on-topic
commenting etiquette? I find we discuss important issues on this site with a
certain amount of passion and opposition when it comes to anything threatening
censorship and freedom, and very quickly turn around and (blindly) adhere to
the same policies when they're suggested as the right way to moderate each
other in our own online community.

I've been downvoted a few times recently for attempting to make a few jokes of
my own this board and it annoys me that we're all encouraged to punish that,
the same way the TSA is.

I realise I'll probably lose my account over this comment. But as parting
words I'd like to say:

To those who've ever upvoted a well intentioned humorous comment that gave a
slight chuckle or reprieve from the (amazingly thought provoking and
informative) super on-topic and serious comments that are encouraged on this
site. - I absolutely and unequivocally salute you.

~~~
noonespecial
As someone who has been both upvoted and downvoted much for humor on HN, I'd
say this isn't quite accurate.

HN polices itself diligently to keep comments from filling up with one-liners
like many other forums. Its a point of pride. No "First", or "welcoming
overlords" and all that non-sense here. HN does appreciate sophisticated wit
when applied appropriately and moderately.

I've found a simple way to determine if I'm about to collect downvotes is to
ask myself "is this joke more like 'that's what she said' than 'In the
morning, I shall be sober'?"

------
thetwiceler
This should not be causing indignation. I think most of you agree with Justice
Oliver Wendel Holmes that:

 _The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely
shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every
case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such
a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about
the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent._

(whether or not you agree with the decision in the _Schenck_ case.)

I assume that the inappropriate jokes that are being referred to are related
to people claiming that they have a dangerous item. We arrest people for
making bomb threats (and we shut down schools in response to them), and I
wouldn't expect any different at an airport.

~~~
betterunix
"(whether or not you agree with the decision in the Schenck case.)"

The problem is that the statement was used not only to support the decision in
that case, but could be used to support _any_ restriction on free speech
rights -- which you yourself have done. You can always claim that allowing
some particular form of speech would create a panic or disrupt public order,
which it is joking about airport security, handing out anti-draft literature,
or voicing disapproval of the president.

~~~
thetwiceler
I agree; it is up to us to decide what constitutes a "clear and present
danger." You can always _claim_ anything you want, but you'll have a difficult
time convincing me that voicing disapproval of the president constitutes a
"clear and present danger."

------
MichaelTieso
This is pretty normal in Australia. I remember seeing quite a few signs and
announcements that you were not allowed to joke about the security. Knowing
that I couldn't joke around made me actually want to say a joke.

------
dickbasedregex
As a veteran in a long line of veterans I grow increasingly disgusted by my
country.

I'm angry that I feel like I wasted time "defending" something I don't believe
in.

------
vanattab
There are plenty of problems with the TSA but this is not one of them. I don't
think it's too much to ask people not to make jokes about blowing up a plane.

~~~
smoyer
You also can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater ... but I think this article
was talking about being arrested for discussing how ludicrous the whole
process is.

~~~
twoodfin
Sorry, who was arrested for that?

~~~
smoyer
I'm not sure whether anyone was ... it represents cases where free-speech can
be limited (and there are many others). You can't call your boss offensive
names and expect to have a job right?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater)

~~~
twoodfin
Not the "fire", the "discussing how ludicrous the whole process is."

------
yason
Maybe they should keep looking for explosives and sharp items instead of
listening to people's jokes. The point of security is to ensure that nothing
physically harmful enters the secure side with the passengers regardless of
whether they have good jokes, bad jokes or no jokes.

------
coldcode
Be interesting if one could play the loudspeaker messages from Airplane (or
maybe a sequel I forget) through the airport system nearby to a security line.
At least it would give the people in line something to laugh about.

------
mark-ruwt
I'm confused by this article and their "exclusive recording". Hasn't this
exact sentence been in the standard loop for years? Or am I imagining things?

------
bane
But the problem is that Security _is_ a joke.

------
skylan_q
Yes we can!

------
threeseed
Makes sense to me. People who think it is funny to waste people's time, cause
needless panic and generally be disruptive are nothing but selfish assholes.
And worst of all it induces a boomerang effect where people rally against you
and dismiss the legitimate privacy concerns.

If you actually cared about what the TSA was doing you would be an adult and
lobby your local representative.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
Society as a whole is really trying to please the lowest common denominator.
In the past if someone made an obvious joke and then someone else got
"offended" or "afraid" from it they would have been instantly scolded for
being a bit dim and to be on their merry way.

But these days it seems like we're in "offense wars" where we must protect
everyone's delicate sensibilities because offending or scaring a stupid person
is almost a crime in its own right (see parents who run around attacking
photographers who steal their kid's souls with cameras).

When has someone overhearing a joke at the airport ever prevented a terrorist
attack? Never is the answer. Just stupid people complaining and stupid people
"following orders" and conducting a completely disproportionate investigation
into something everyone knows for a fact won't lead anywhere. "See something
report something" is just a moronic as "stranger danger" and all of those
sayings. Use common sense. Think about things. Stop being sheep.

~~~
Sagat
Wake up, sheeple!

~~~
vdaniuk
Go back to reddit.

