
Did The TSA and JetBlue Deny Travel For Looking Muslim During Ramadan? No - mlm
http://boardingarea.com/flyingwithfish/2013/08/26/did-the-tsa-jetblue-deny-travel-for-looking-muslim-during-ramadan-nope/
======
ck2
Sorry I am still taking his side.

This writeup is not only just nit-picking his story - it's using the TSA as
witness against itself.

I am most certainly not going to the take TSA's word for what happened. That
would be like taking the NSA's word to congress for example. What do you think
happens by lesser agencies on non-sworn testimony when they see what their
big-brother can get away with?

And the "behavior detection" has already been outed multiple times as a huge
pile of poo. It's identical to the signals cops can give their dogs for false
positives to search someone anyway just because they want to.

By the way, if he was so dangerous and already being watched YOU LET HIM GET
INTO A CROWDED TERMINAL WITH LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE WITH HIS LUGGAGE AND
BACKPACK.

Morons. So someone is only dangerous if they get on the plane, not in the
crowed terminal eh?

I feel so safe now at your crowded checkpoints.

Prove to me they didn't search his home without serving him a warrant and then
we'll talk about the accuracy of this story.

~~~
neotek
>Prove to me they didn't search his home without serving him a warrant and
then we'll talk about the accuracy of this story.

Can't really prove a negative - what would the evidence look like? The
reasonable question to ask is "prove to me they _did_ search his home without
serving him a warrant."

~~~
InclinedPlane
Did you read the original article? If so re-read the very end of it to
acquaint yourself with the evidence that his apartment was searched without a
warrant.

Edit: P.S. note that I said _evidence_ not proof.

P.P.S. I find it somewhat weird how people are so eager to jump to the defense
of law enforcement with shouts of "that evidence proves nothing!" while at the
same time supporting the idea that a now known to be false positive explosives
test is more than sufficient to justify someone's ill-treatment for hours at
the hands of law enforcement.

I'm not saying that Mukerjee's story of missing and tampered items in his
apartment is sufficient to convict any law enforcement agent of wrong doing
but maybe it's enough to justify an investigation (which could easily be
rolled into the investigation into LEO behavior around the entire incident).

~~~
jlgaddis
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 vacating.

~~~
InclinedPlane
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 would they bother if it is so easy to simply break through the door?

Second, this seems like exceptionally odd timing for a random act of thievery.

Third, why would anyone except law enforcement bother to put everything back
almost exactly where it was before?

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. It's
certainly not a very high degree of proof that such a thing happened but I
think it's the most likely possibility, though it's mostly just a side-show
compared to the other more troubling issues in this case.

~~~
lambda
> 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 before his trip). If the landlord had
found a poster that had fallen off the wall, he may have thought it was trash
left by the other tenants and thrown it away. His landlord would not have had
to break in.

I don't think it's impossible that law enforcement searched his apartment; but
if they had, wouldn't his bags have been unpacked, rather than just one of
them a little out of place?

But really, why doesn't he just ask his landlord or super? If the police came,
they probably would have asked the landlord to let them in. I mentioned the
landlord idea on the previous thread, but he never responded.

~~~
vidarh
> 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

If that's legal in the US, or something one might expect, that's almost more
shocking to me than the original story. If any of my past landlords had
entered my flat without permission, I would have called the police on them,
with good cause.

~~~
lambda
The laws in the US vary by state (and sometimes by city within the state).

He was living in NYC, so I'll quote their rules. From
[http://pubadvocate.nyc.gov/landlord-watchlist/tenant-
rights](http://pubadvocate.nyc.gov/landlord-watchlist/tenant-rights):

> In general in New York City, a landlord may only enter a tenant’s apartment
> for three reasons: emergency repairs, non-emergency repairs or improvements,
> and apartment inspections. Emergency repair requires no advance notice to
> the tenant. However, access for non-emergency repairs and improvements
> requires a minimum of one week’s advance written notice, and access for
> inspection requires a minimum of 24 hours advance written notice.

If he was on vacation, then 24 hours written notice for inspection could
consist of putting the notice on or under his door, waiting 24 hours, then
going in for the inspection and removing the notice.

I've had my landlady enter my apartment without permission or notice before,
and it was a little bit creepy, but I let it slide since she was such a nice
lady. She wasn't some owner of a big apartment complex or anything, just had a
second house down the street that she rented out, I think mostly so she could
store all of the extra furniture she picked up at flea markets and couldn't
fit into her own house. In fact, the reason she had entered our house was to
stash a few lamps that she did't want her sister to sell at a yard sale, so we
came back one day and there were extra lamps sitting around.

------
cup
This reeks of the most cowardly pandering to proto fascist mission creep I've
read in a long time. I mean take these key quotes for instance:

>Mr. Mukerjee appears to have been flagged by the Behaviour Detection Officer
(BDO)

>Mr. Mukerjee became verbally aggressive

>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.

I know a lot of you HNs live in America and probably arnt familiar with
dictatorial or cold war communist institutions but these kind of articles are
classic examples of the publics refusal to acknowledge injustice perpetraded
by a power hungry government institution. The sooner people realise that their
government is not all good the better. In the meantime articles like these and
those who write them continue to facilitate the decline of public freedoms and
personal liberties.

Flying Fish should feel ashamed.

~~~
iopq
I agree, it's easy to say that someone became verbally aggressive and agitated
after the fact. It doesn't excuse poor treatment, and it's probably not even
true, since it's a judgement call and impossible to disprove.

------
beloch
"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 airside but have not satisfactorily completed
screening. Once a person has passed through security, but is not cleared to
fly and then chooses to leave, such as Mr. Mukerjee, s/he must be escorted out
of the secure area (and usually the terminal)."

\----------------

Deciding if I am detained: a rule of thumb.

If I receive word about an urgent emergency, such as my wife being hit by a
bus or about to give birth, can I immediately go to the hospital? If yes, I am
free. If not, I am detained.

This rule breaks down a bit on amusement park rides, but one would assume the
ride operators would immediately let you off if you could communicate with
them and, in any case, you're only going to be stuck there for a couple of
minutes at the most.

Mukerjee was not in "limbo". He was detained. When someone chooses to redefine
words White-House-style I tend to view whatever else they say as though they
are serving an agenda.

~~~
Svip
But that's like saying, every time you are going through security in any
airport, you are detained, because - you could not - if you so wanted, simply
go back through security again. But you sort of opt-in for this when you fly;
you know you are going to go through security and they won't let you leave
unless you are cleared.

Edit: etchalon said it better.

~~~
pseudonym
It's not a question of "going back through security", re-entrance has nothing
to do with it. Going to a concert where they don't stamp your hand when you go
through the door doesn't make you "detained".

------
wpietri
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. I guess
he was just too gosh-darned busy writing down what people with nice uniforms
told him.

This just in: guy with hand in pocket of airlines believes airlines did just
the right thing. What innovative reporting!

~~~
jlgaddis
> 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/assumptions/whatever and allowed him to respond to or
rebut it prior to publishing it.

~~~
jaggederest
> Unless you mean that he should have shared with Aditya Mukerjee his
> article/accusations/assumptions/whatever and allowed him to respond to or
> rebut it prior to publishing it.

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.

------
vowelless
In January of 2010, I was coming back from the Middle East and landed in JFK
airport after a 20 hour flight. This was weeks after the underwear bombing
incident and I was expecting heightened security. I went through the cotton
swab test which came out to be positive and was detained for an hour at the
airport. I complied with the TSA for any searches they wanted to do on me (I
was tired and was frankly a little alarmed by the positive cotton swab test).

After an hour and a thorough search of my belonging, I was rescheduled on a
different flight (for free) and I got back home.

Something about the original story did seem a little strange to me. I am a
text book "random search" person - born in the middle east, Arabic sounding
name, frequent trips to the middle east, etc. But I always tend to comply and
be honest about what I have been doing. Besides that one detention and
"random" screens, I've not been too bothered by the security personal
(remember, they are people too). I guess I am just used to more intrusive
searches in other countries.

Edit: For the record, I am _not_ a citizen or permanent resident of the US
(work visa).

~~~
coffeemug
With respect, I think you're accepting an unreasonably low standard of conduct
on behalf of the TSA. Why _should_ you just accept "random" searches because
of dark skin or arabic sounding name? (Even if 90% of terrorists are arabs,
which isn't true, but even if it were, that still means that only 0.0001% of
arabs are terrorists, which makes the whole racial profiling strategy not only
bad morals, but also but operations). More importantly, what would happen if
you asserted your rights, even to the smallest degree? What if you asked for
an explanation of procedures before they're being performed, would the agents
then qualify you as "aggressive"? What if you refused some procedures and
asked to leave? What if you asked to call your lawyer?

I also have an arabic-sounding last name (though I'm white as a snowflake, and
ironically jewish), and I also have to go through "random" searches on
occasion (I had four incidents like this in the airport in Israel). Yes, the
agents are polite to me, but I don't do very much to assert my rights, mostly
because I feel like it would be picking the wrong battle. However, I don't
have the confidence that they'd remain polite and professional if I _did_
assert my rights, and many, many people have the same trepidations when they
go through border security.

When a U.S. citizen has to feel trepidation upon entering his country when
he's done absolutely nothing wrong, there's something very wrong with our
system. (At the very least, I'd expect them to post procedures for public
scrutiny and allow going through the regular court system when something goes
wrong; as of now the whole thing of "being in limbo" just seems completely
backwards)

~~~
vowelless
I forgot to mention (now added), I am _not_ a US citizen or resident. I was
pretty aware of the situation in the US before I consciously decided to come
here for university and then remain for a job.

The main point of my post was that I think the original poster could have
cooperated a little better with the TSA. But, I take that view because I
_know_ I am a 'guest' in this country. I guess being an American would give
you different expectations. The US border agent can refuse entry to me. But
not to you under any circumstance. In that case, I think it is worth asserting
your rights, like Mukherjee.

~~~
Amadou
While I acknowledge that in practical terms you are sure to get more hassle
for asserting your rights, they are still your rights.

Under the law you are subject to the same laws and privileges as any citizen -
you are expected to obey our criminal laws while on US soil and you are also
expected to have the same civil rights while here too.

------
nikcub
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 area if they haven't been
arrested, then the law is wrong.

If the TSA can't do their job without threatening the rights and freedom of
movement of a large part of the population then they shouldn't be doing it at
all. All this inconvenience for an organization that in its 12 years has yet
to even catch a real terrorist.

~~~
etchalon
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.).

~~~
etchalon
Ah, yes, the downvote.

For pointing out the actual, you know, law.

~~~
Amadou
You'll note that the government is inserted here, that Jetblue's determination
that he couldn't fly was the result of government action. The government has a
lot more rules about what it can't do to people than private business does.

~~~
etchalon
As was noted in the article, JetBlue made that determination on their own. You
can chose to believe the government told him no, but you'd be ignoring the
stated facts in and just making shit up.

~~~
Amadou
No, according to the second article they made their decision based on his
state of mind after the government singled him out and messed with him. The
government is directly responsible for that chain of events.

~~~
etchalon
But not the decision not to let him fly.

That he was agitated after the his ordeal is understandable, but so was
JetBlue's decision not to let him board a plane.

------
Yver
> Mr. Mukerjee appears to have been flagged by the Behaviour Detection Officer
> (BDO) while in line for what appeared to be unusual behaviours.

Well I'm sold. Serves you right for looking suspicious in front of the
Looking-suspicious Detection Officer!

~~~
ars
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?

~~~
stephen
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.

~~~
Amadou
The US version of behavior detection isn't even in the same league. The
Israelis have guys on the other side of cameras who monitor people from the
point before they get out of their cars. Their system is so comprehensive that
it would be cost-infeasible to implement here. It also sucks to end up on the
wrong end of, over the years there have been a few reports by people who have
had that unpleasant experience too.

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)

------
tlrobinson
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 further action involving Mr. Mukerjee."_

Given what we know about NSLs and such, how could we possibly believe that the
lack of unclassified records is proof that no search took place?

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

------
interpol_p
> However,multiple statements by TSA personnel reference Mr. Mukerjee
> repeatedly grabbing for his bag after he was told not to touch it. When
> someone is acting unusual, alarms for explosives and then starts grabbing
> for their bag against instruction by security personnel, security and law
> enforcement pays attention.

Seriously? If my bag has my expensive laptop, iPad and other stuff in it I'm
gonna be likely to grab for it as well. I wouldn't want to leave it with the
TSA — especially when there have been reports of theft and unprofessional
behaviour.

How can they possibly classify his behaviour as "unusual"? It seems pretty
normal to me.

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

~~~
cbhl
A suicide bomber with nothing to lose.

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

------
arjie
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 certain police requests which you have a right to,
then "they're just trying to help you out" and you're rude to refuse.

3\. Assert your rights: "May I search your vehicle?" "No, officer." "Listen,
man, there's no reason to be suspicious, I'm just trying to make sure there's
no trouble. We're here to protect you. Why not just do it?" "I'm asserting my
right to refuse a search, officer." That last line is perceived as rude by
hundreds of people on social networking sites and is likely to be perceived as
'suspicious', 'rude', or 'aggressive' by the officers themselves.

The thing is, no matter what you do, if you catch a police officer on a bad
day you will be in trouble. This is because you are always violating the law
in America. For instance, I've noticed that driving the speed limit is
something no one does and doing so in some places will lead to your being
honked at at best and being cut off rudely to "teach you a lesson" at worst.
This means the authorities can always catch you on something because it is
socially unacceptable to follow the law.

Personally, I have the feeling that Aditya Mukherjee was just doing exactly
what any of us would have done if we had opted out and been treated as
disgracefully as that.

~~~
einhverfr
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."

~~~
arjie
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.

~~~
einhverfr
It is letting folks know you may be asserting it after the fact and you aren't
waiving your right. What you are doing is establishing that the search isn't
voluntary and that your cooperation is not consent.

I don't know how different circuits would look at it. My understanding is that
this would not be effective in the 5th and 11th circuits since they hold that
you consent to searches when you get in line and you can't revoke that
consent. But other circuits haven't gone that far. That means that if they
want to hold the search as lawful, they have to establish that it is a valid
administrative search, and that consent is not required.

It would be clearer if "you may" was replaced by "I am aware you may"
clarifying that this is not permission but a statement of possibilities.

------
ISL
If you cannot leave, are you not detained?

"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 airside but have not satisfactorily
completed screening. Once a person has passed through security, but is not
cleared to fly and then chooses to leave, such as Mr. Mukerjee, s/he must be
escorted out of the secure area (and usually the terminal)."

~~~
kyllo
This is complete bullshit. "Limbo" is not a thing. Either you are being
detained, or you are free to leave.

~~~
ars
No, there's a third option: You will be free to leave after some defined event
occurs.

~~~
simonster
Does this "defined event" actually have any legal status? How long can it take
until the defined event occurs? It's possible that this is an intentionally
murky area of the law (i.e., a judge can decide that preventing a person from
leaving for an hour in case X is okay but 1 minute in case Y is not). Even so,
it seems like if there's a person in front of you with legal authority to let
you out of a secured area and you are asking them to let you out, then either
they have to let you out or you are being detained.

------
Zaheer
"Mr. Mukerjee appears to have been flagged by the Behaviour Detection Officer
(BDO) while in line for what appeared to be unusual behaviours. [...] it is
impossible to assess what caught the Officer’s attention, but the TSA source
indicates Mr. Mukerjee was already on someone’s radar before he chose to opt-
out."

What 'unusual behaviors' led to him getting flagged? While maybe Mr. Mukerjee
had suspicious behavior I'm skeptical of saying that his looks did not
contribute to the heightened harsh treatment. Would a Caucasian male get the
same treatment?

~~~
dthunt
I call foul on behavioral detection.

I sincerely doubt there's a way to differentiate between someone who is ill
and someone who is pale and has the jitters because they're about to do
something bad. I moreover call foul on the notion that there are enough of the
latter set to build an effective training program to create effective BDOs.

What's actually happening here is probably that BDOs are being used to justify
retroactively special treatment given to people for invented reasons. It's
sort of like a false alert from a drug dog - it's a claim that you can't
really cross-examine, since the supposed microexpressions someone exhibits are
too fast or too small to be picked up by a camera.

~~~
res0nat0r
Israel has been doing behavior profiling beginning at the moment you get out
of your car at the airport, and run one of the most secure airports in the
world. Even though the word profiling has a bad connotation in the USA, it
works.

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/01/whats_so_great_about_israeli_security.html)

~~~
dthunt
Supposedly the Patriot Missile was protecting Israel during the first Gulf
War, but there are as far as I know zero confirmed hits (IIRC the Pentagon
generously thinks that a few scuds were deflected, but Israel thinks
otherwise).

The point is that just because a program is thought of as 'famously effective'
doesn't mean it actually is.

------
unalone
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.

~~~
vehementi
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.

------
rdtsc
> I know many people want to believe in TSA and national security
> conspiracies. The idea of a government collective creating a single story to
> keep one person down is intriguing. People will believe what they want,

The fact that they need to build a straw man argument basically dismissing all
those who might disagree as conspiracy nuts (a well known PR tactic) should
make one scared and worried. This is a pretty good PR technique used by those
that know what they are doing.

> Fish, is globe hopping professional photographer, airline emerging media
> consultant working with large global airlines and founder of The Travel
> Strategist.

"airline emerging media consultant" does it mean airlines are basically paying
him to PR on their behalf? What does that soup of words even mean.

~~~
wpietri
I'm pretty sure I know what "airline emerging media consultant" means:
[http://socialmediadouchebag.net/](http://socialmediadouchebag.net/)

------
mabhatter
The biggest problem with the story is the INSTITUTIONALIZED FEAR. From the
account, you could tell just about every agent after the first was wondering
who was wasting their time. That's why they kept going back to the test that
failed (he didn't leave the room, so why would they get a different result...
Institutional insanity)

Ts not enough for the agent to recognize his time was clearly wasted.. There
it 0.0001% this guy might really be a terrorist because somebody else said so.
They kept pouring resources into trying to prove him "wrong" rather than
verifying a threat existed or not.

It's Kaffkaesque at its best... I'm scared of you because of my training, so
it's your fault what you did to me that makes me scared. If it wasn't FOR
REAL, it's so absurd to be a comedy skit.

------
codezero
"I know many people want to believe in TSA and national security
conspiracies."

No, I think most people just believe the TSA to be completely inept and
operated without much oversight or coherence. Complaining about (repeated) bad
treatment doesn't make it a conspiracy.

~~~
wpietri
Absolutely. Conspiracy is unnecessary. I hear nothing about the TSA that can't
be explained through bureaucracy, politics, and the Stanford prison
experiment:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)

------
InclinedPlane
Flagged due to behavioral traits, seen to exhibit assertive behavior, ratted
out by a robotic terrorist detector, etc. These are not good reasons to detain
someone for an extended period and to deny them the ability to travel. These
are the hallmarks of a society slipping into statism and subjugation.

Where is the presumption of innocence? Where is the protection of the
liberties and rights of the individual? Where is the responsibility and
accountability of the agents of government and the officers of the law?

Nowhere to be seen here.

These are not the sorts of trends and behaviors on behalf of the state we
should be defending.

------
slg
I know it won't happen, but I wish this blog post would go as viral as the
original. Not that I accept this post as the complete truth, but because
people deserve to hear two sides of the story. Often times all people will
hear is the accusations of something like this and accept it as fact and the
eventual acquittals (or explanations) never get as much publicity. Like Mark
Twain said "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is
putting on its shoes."

~~~
sanderjd
I agree, but perhaps for different reasons. The authoritarian-apologist
doublespeak it's full of is even more damning than the original story.

~~~
sker
Agreed. I'm upvoting because everyone is calling out the author on his bias
and BS.

Funny how if a stranger on the street infringes on your rights, you're allowed
to get agitated and aggressive, but if the government does it, you're supposed
to be submissive and cooperative.

------
Anechoic
Release the gate security video and we can make our own determinations.

------
molecule
whether it was blogged about or not, it seems like this author obtaining and
reporting so much internal detail about this incident is an incident unto
itself.

also, his shilling herein for TSA and Jet Blue smells like a conflict of
interest:

 _Steven Frischling, aka: Fish, is... airline emerging media consultant
working with large global airlines..._

~~~
moocowduckquack
I popped his name into google to see what else he did. Judging from the
autocomplete he appears to have pissed off some people previously.

~~~
wpietri
Holy crap! There is even a blog where somebody disgruntled chronicles all his
alleged misdeeds:
[http://fishfraud.blogspot.com/](http://fishfraud.blogspot.com/)

Some articles that caught my eye: [http://fishfraud.blogspot.com/p/about-
fishfraud.html](http://fishfraud.blogspot.com/p/about-fishfraud.html)
[http://fishfraud.blogspot.com/2010/11/projectweddingcom-
revi...](http://fishfraud.blogspot.com/2010/11/projectweddingcom-reviews.html)
[http://fishfraud.blogspot.com/2010/11/warning-to-national-
me...](http://fishfraud.blogspot.com/2010/11/warning-to-national-media-
regarding.html) [http://fishfraud.blogspot.com/2010/11/steven-frischling-
in-c...](http://fishfraud.blogspot.com/2010/11/steven-frischling-in-ct-small-
claims.html) [http://fishfraud.blogspot.com/2010/11/yelpcom-reviews-in-
all...](http://fishfraud.blogspot.com/2010/11/yelpcom-reviews-in-all-their-
glory.htmlhttp://fishfraud.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-article-on-frischlings-
arrest.html)

I've checked the news articles, and it seems like the guy was indeed arrested
for forgery and fraud, and ended up in a pre-trial diversion program for
first-time offenders.

I had just assumed that this guy was just writing down what officials told
him, but if 1/10th of the allegations on the blog are true, then maybe he just
made up all of his supposed statements.

~~~
ballard
Good work.

Great claims require great evidence. It could be a jilted lover or frmr
business partner.... Who knows. Are there any public records which support
this counter-blogger's claims?

The other thought is: does the original blogger have any hard evidence beyond
nitpicking and counter-claims provided by JetBlue to trash our traveler?

~~~
wpietri
There are public records about how many times the guy has been sued that are
linked. And the news articles about the fraud case seem real enough.

~~~
ballard
Second link from the bottom. I looked around at the others but didn't see much
support material.

------
rjvir
As someone who has spent the Summer living on the same floor as Mr. Mukerjee
and interacting with him often, I find it very hard to believe that he was
overly aggressive at the security gate. This account seems wildly exaggerated.

~~~
chourobin
I don't know Mr. Mukerjee personally but I've attended a few meetups where he
gave a technical talk and he's always been very mild mannered and
approachable. I just can't take this article seriously.

Sounds like the TSA/DHS is just trying to cover their asses. Shameful, no
apology, no accountability.

------
jonah
What I want to know is how he got access to the reports from all these
agencies and interviews from many individuals involved with this incident.
Isn't that information privileged? Did he have to file a FOIA request like
morisy[0]? You want me to believe he tracked down all these documents and the
very people involved in this incident in four days? Government bureaucracy
works that efficiently? Who is this guy?

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6281604](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6281604)

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

~~~
corin_
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.

------
senthilnayagam
if the TSA want to screw you, you are screwed Period

please read yesterdays post Detained in the US for “Visiting Thailand Too
Much” [http://www.richardbarrow.com/2013/08/detained-in-the-us-
for-...](http://www.richardbarrow.com/2013/08/detained-in-the-us-for-visiting-
thailand-too-much/) discussion
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6276939](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6276939)

read the last couple of sentences

"Be careful about what you have on your laptop and memory card in your camera.
They could search everything. The pictures of your kids taking a bath maybe
interpreted in a different way by immigration officers. .... And certainly
don’t buy any porno DVDs here in Thailand to take home. You have been warned.
Don’t take this lightly."

edit: removed the context about pirated goods

~~~
ubernostrum
So... purchasing goods abroad which are illegal in the US, and then trying to
import them into the US, may result in those goods being confiscated and you
being made to pay a fine?

This is unprecedented in the history of everything!

~~~
senthilnayagam
hope you have read the article
[http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/59021412512/dont-
fly-...](http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/59021412512/dont-fly-during-
ramadan)

TSA Officer “You can leave, but I’m keeping your bag.”

Aditha was speechless. My bag had both my work computer and my personal
computer in it. The only way for me to get it back from him would be to snatch
it back, at which point he could simply claim that I had assaulted him. I was
trapped."

the issue faced by Adithya was not too different from what Miranda faced at UK
airport last week

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-
america-23750289](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23750289)

~~~
ubernostrum
Quoting your comment, to which I was replying:

 _" Be careful about what you have on your laptop and memory card in your
camera. They could search everything. The pictures of your kids taking a bath
maybe interpreted in a different way by immigration officers. The same goes
for buying fake goods or pirated DVDs while on holiday in Thailand. Many
people have said that in America and Europe these items have been confiscated
and they were given a big fine. It’s not worth it so don’t buy any fake goods
while on holiday in Thailand. And don’t copy any pirated movies onto your
laptop. And certainly don’t buy any porno DVDs here in Thailand to take home.
You have been warned. Don’t take this lightly."_

If your intent was to bait-and-switch from "trying to bring pirated DVDs from
Thailand gets you in trouble" (obvious) into this, perhaps you should have
been less obvious about it.

------
reso
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 race had nearly as much of an effect on his
experience as is believed.

~~~
ferdo
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.

~~~
late2part
There is ample evidence that local, county, and state law enforcement will
trigger false positives to provide justification for searches. This behaviour
by law enforcements makes me believe it plausible that the TSA and other
"Agents" And "Officers" (I thought TSA were still neither) orchestrated all
this to incite behavior they could use to justify further investigation.

------
morisy
I filed a FOIA request, as the author suggested:

[https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-
america-10/tsa...](https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-
america-10/tsa-incident-response-reports-regarding-aditya-mukerjee-6558/)

Given that involves a lot of personal information, I also asked for more
general information sans personal details:

[https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-
america-10/sec...](https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-
america-10/security-incident-reports-from-jfk-airport-august-5-6559/)

I'd be surprised if either are fulfilled with any actual information.

------
etchalon
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 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.

~~~
smsm42
The agents should be trained not only to look for something, but to handle
false positives - which given how few terrorists are out there would be the
vast majority of cases they will ever encounter. Moreover, for a random TSA
agent false positives are probably _all_ he'd ever encounter. Unlike the
police, TSA deals in vastly overwhelming majority with innocent people who
they are meant to _protect_ , not harass. They are trained to look for very
rare exceptions, but they must know these exceptions are very rare and most
their suspicions will be proven unfounded.

They have completely and miserably failed at that. They wasted a lot of time
on abusing clearly innocent man, whose innocence could be established much
faster with much less inconvenience and much less waste of time.

>>> not because Mukerjee is even remotely worth being up in arms about

Tell me please, why abuse of a citizen is not worth being up in arms about?
What makes one worth the concern about being abused?

~~~
etchalon
Because the "abuse" in this case was utterly reasonable given the
circumstances and the person's behavior.

This is pretty rare for the TSA (the number of stories where they had no cause
to be idiots is much MUCH higher than cases where they did).

~~~
smsm42
How is it reasonable? They knew or should have known he's not a terrorist in
first 15 minutes. What were they doing for three and a half hours? Why did
they ask him about praying and problems with female attendants and such?

------
joelrunyon
> The Department of Homeland Security simply is not organized enough to create
> one collaborative story.

Not withstanding the original article, the above statement alone should be
enough for us to question the pervasive use of the TSA.

------
tokenadult
This is gripping reading for me, because "Mr. Mukerjee" is someone I know by
first name, indeed nickname, even though I have never met him. (He was my
son's roommate for most of the last year, and was the crucial connection for
my son getting his job in New York City.)

I appreciate seeing someone else's perspective on the incident that has
appalled all my Facebook friends who have seen Mr. Mukerjee's own account

[http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/59021412512/dont-
fly-...](http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/59021412512/dont-fly-during-
ramadan)

of his experience at the airport (which was a top post on Hacker News for
about a full day). We can all learn something about any incident by hearing a
second opinion on it.

That said, if Mr. Mukerjee’s behavior that day was "aggressive," my
interpretation of that, never having met him, but knowing his roommate very
well indeed, is that he was assertive about claiming the civil rights of an
American. (I imagine he was also hungry, tired, and eager to travel to see his
family.) It's too bad that people who assert their rights are taken to be
acting suspiciously, but let's examine the incident and modify the system in a
way that makes it easier, not harder, for a tired and hungry traveler to get
straight answers and have factual misimpressions resolved, rather than
assuming that every loyal American[1] is a terrorist.

After formal study of the law and work as a judicial clerk in a state supreme
court, I find that my bottom line is that I still have to remind myself to be
very deferential in the presence of law enforcement officers--especially armed
law enforcement officers. Asserting my rights is not something the system
makes easy to do, EVEN FOR A LAWYER, once the situational triggers of law-
enforcement occur. But this is all the more reason to let the great majority
of travelers who are neither terrorists nor lawyers, but just people trying to
make a living and spend time with their families, enjoy efficient, friendly
travel. Something went awry here, and being just one remove away from directly
knowing the victim, I'm inclined not to blame the victim.

[1] I am sure that Mr. Mukerjee has a strong sense of being an American
because he met my son in Ireland, where both were as part of a summer program.
The Irish kids teased all the Americans in the program for their horrific
accents in spoken English [smile]. My son and Mr. Mukerjee forged their
friendship through their shared Americanness in a foreign land, and I think
the United States ought to treat all its own citizens and all the foreigners
who visit America better than current TSA procedures treat air travelers.

AFTER EDIT: Another comment in this thread reminded me to check the background
of the author of the blog post kindly submitted here. Wired reported in 2009

[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/dhs-threatens-
blogg...](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/dhs-threatens-blogger/)

that the blogger was questioned by TSA agents after releasing a TSA document
on his blog. It seems that at least some of the time he has been most
interested in posting an interesting read for frequent travelers, and not
necessarily trying to curry favor with TSA. I think he succeeded here, too,
agree or disagree, in writing an interesting blog post (as did Mr. Mukerjee in
his blog post).

~~~
mindslight
> _Asserting my rights is not something the system makes easy to do, EVEN FOR
> A LAWYER, once the situational triggers of law-enforcement occur_

Since it's apparently impossible to prevent the abuse of our rights, it seems
the simplest remedy is easy-to-claim compensation after the fact, right out of
the department's budget. Unjustly detained for 3 hours? That's a payment of
say $500 (professional hourly rate plus extra for emotional distress). Denied
your usual food/water/bathroom/medication? Physical distress add-on. Laptop
stolen by goons at the border? Replacement value of laptop plus several
hundred dollars for setting it up. Court acquittal verdict? Reimbursement of
all lawyer fees + payment for your time spent in court and/or jail.

Until these agencies are no longer able to externalize their damages onto the
public, they have little reason to lower their false positive rate.

~~~
icelancer
>Until these agencies stop externalizing their damages to the public, they
have no reason to lower their false positive rate.

Completely agree. This seems like a completely reasonable course of action
(compensation for lost time) but instead they just aggressively search and
detain people and the only punishment they get is if someone gets "uppity" and
asserts their rights, at which point some low-level nobody will be suspended
with pay. Wonderful.

------
mindslight
Well of course the ordeal seems perfectly justified when one repeats the
useless bureaucratic procedure at every turn. There was clearly _some_ reasons
that these events happened, and that is the whole fucking problem.

And please do tell, why is it wrong for one to be agitated or aggressive when
being hassled by goons? Any pretense of civilized interaction vanishes the
minute they threaten you into complying with their theatre.

------
lessnonymous
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

------
artellectual
Your not making your case at all. It's like saying "yeah we violated his
rights, but we had our reasons" if the whole world ran on the reasoning of one
person or organization it's usually considered authoritarian. Which is exactly
what's happening in the US

------
jMyles
How did this get voted to the top of HackerNews? It's shoddy journalism and
less credible than the blog post it critiques.

~~~
manojlds
Upvotes are not just "likes", but it is about bringing this discussion to the
top.

------
dnautics
"Mr. Mukerjee refused additional screening"

No. Mr. Mukherjee refused screening _in private_. It's unacceptable to be
unconsensually screened in private without a third party (I.E. not TSA
officer) witness. I've refused to be screened in private, the TSA makes it
VERY hard for you to do that, and I definitely got verbally agitated. How
would you feel if there you were exposed to a significant risk of being
sexually assaulted with no witnesses present?

"This is absolutely correct, at this time he was in limbo, he was not being
detained, but he could not leave."

That is completely unacceptable.

Once you are threatened with sexual assault, it is unreasonable to expect to
be anything besides "aggressive evasive".

------
pcl
I have a hard time taking this article seriously. All the references to
anonymous sources with important-sounding titles just smacks of an argument
based on an appeal to authority.

------
tptacek
Chiming in late here:

My take is that this is a facile analysis that harms the credibility of its
source; I am less likely to take this person seriously in the future after
reading this.

I appreciate that they took the time to do actual "reporting" by contacting
officials involved with the story.

However, a couple things worth keeping in mind as you read it:

* _We can reasonably be convinced that Mukerjee wasn 't hiding anything_. The concern evinced by TSA, NY PAPD, and JetBlue was that Mukerjee was a danger to the flight he was trying to board. We know he wasn't! This article routinely supplies innuendo about Mukerjee's evasiveness during screening. But we know he had nothing to be evasive about, and thus that the signals TSA picked up on were false; the article's framing puts the onus for that on Mukerjee, incorrectly.

* _TSA 's rationale for detaining Mukerjee doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt_. The reasoning supplied by this article could be applied just as effectively to an 85 year old grandmother or a 10 year old boy. It's not falsifiable and not relevant to what happened.

* _The analysis glosses over the pivotal moment in the story_. The problem wasn't that Mukerjee was denied water or questioned by people that don't know anything about the world's third largest religion. _The problem happened when TSA refused to escort Mukerjee, with his carryon, out of the airport_ , as they are required to do when a passenger refuses screening. Mukerjee's own account has him trying to leave, but put in a position where doing so would cost him his bag and computer. _That 's_ the problem here.

There's a worthwhile case to be made for skepticism about some elements of
Mukerjee's story. I agree with the article that it seems unlikely for PAPD to
have searched his house. It's interesting that Mukerjee claims he was
interviewed by an FBI agent when no record seems to have existed of that. I
buy the analysis that says that a coherent rebuttal to Mukerjee's story could
not easily have self-assembled from 3 different security agencies in the span
of a couple days.

Unfortunately, it's hard to take skepticism seriously when it's framed in an
article that seems hellbent on taking TSA's claims at face value.

------
linuxhansl
As a testament to maybe how we've come already I find myself believing Mr.
Mukerjee story and that the TSA, PA, and various officials are just covering
their collective aXXes.

I'm not known to be a conspiracy terrorist, and I do not believe there is one
here. Just a bunch officers doing their (IMHO) misguided and useless jobs.

As a rational person I am not afraid of terrorist - the chances to be victim
of an attack are minuscule compared to the risk of dying in car accident. I am
afraid of getting into gear of law enforcement - for example by not simply
behaving right in the eyes of the BDO, as in this story.

Lastly what is this "limbo" state the article refers to? Either I am being
detained or I am free to go. There is nothing in between, if you are not
allowed to leave you're not "free to go" and thus you're being detained.

Edit: Spelling.

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

~~~
late2part
It's complete doublespeak horseshit.

Either he did something illegal, at which point they would love to arrest him.

Or else what he did was legal, and they're spouting shite.

This is like when the media says "The suspect refused to cooperate with the
law enforcement officer." Translation: The suspect asserted his rights.

------
eksith
Relevant (from his own bio):

    
    
      Steven Frischling, aka: Fish, is globe hopping professional 
      photographer, airline emerging media consultant working with large 
      global airlines and founder of The Travel Strategist.

------
glenra
A "highly agitated demeanor" is EXTREMELY APPROPRIATE when TSA goons have
denied you food and water and you're late to board a flight and these nitwits
are preventing you from traveling to meet your family for no reason other than
a hunch and a false-positive test reading on a test that's not worth doing.
(My bags also often generate a positive result on these tests - the chance of
a positive result being meaningful is so vanishingly small as to make the test
pointless - it's security theater.)

Near as I can tell, this post confirms the original account. The differences
between what he saw and what is being reported are trivial minutia. But if
anyone actually _cares_ to be able to find the truth in such cases, the thing
to do is _record_ all such searches. (And encourage the people being searched
to do the same, and make the official tapes available to the searchee on
request.)

It is REALLY HARD to defend one's rights against the morons of the TSA without
getting angry at them. Any interaction with them raises blood pressure. If
anything, it ought to be deemed "suspicious" if somebody _doesn 't_ get
"agitated" when their trip is pointlessly interrupted by TSA agents demanding
you bow and scrape before their authority.

------
suprgeek
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.

------
xdissent
Why does "keeping in mind that false positives with ETD are not uncommon"
sound unsettling to me?

~~~
DannyBee
If you've got a better way to distinguish trace amounts of explosive
chemicals, i'm sure they'd love to pay you millions for machines to test it :)
[http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_86v6.pdf](http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_86v6.pdf)
looks relavent here.

Completely skimming it, the test sites had false positive rates of 0.6 - 1.8%.

I'd classify that as "not uncommon".

~~~
glenra
> Completely skimming it, the test sites had false positive rates of 0.6 -
> 1.8%.

In other words, the test is almost completely useless. Given how low the _base
rate_ of terrorists sneaking through bombs is, a positive test result on one
of these machines is >99.9% likely to be a false positive.

Let's do the math. We'll assume there are never any false negatives and just
look at the positive results. Let's simplify "0.6-1.8%" and just call that
"1%". Out of 100,000 bags, let's assume that ONE contains a bomb being snuck
through by a terrorist. 1/100,000 is our postulated base rate of terrorism.
1/100 is our false positive rate on the test.

So let's put 100,000 bags through the machine. There will be 1,000 false
positives and one true positive. which means that if some bag "tests positive
for explosives" the odds are a-thousand-to-one against that being a valid
result.

"But," I hear you cry, "we RUN IT THROUGH AGAIN when we get a positive
result!"

Sure, that would work GREAT if false positive results were COMPLETELY RANDOM.
But they're not. More likely than not, the false positive is being triggered
by something that is or was actually in the bag. So when you run it again,
there's a good chance that it'll trigger again. The "false" part of "false
positive" is that the thing in the bag that it's triggering on...isn't an
explosive. It's just some other chemical.

~~~
tptacek
Just a nit: a high false positive rate makes the test _operationally
expensive_ , but not _useless_.

~~~
glenra
It's not just the high false positive rate, it's the _combination_ of a high
false positive rate with a really low base rate. (If there were a lot more
terrorists, the test might be worth doing!)

The _combination_ of those two facts means that getting a hit on explosives
gives you _almost no increase in information_. Any look at plausible numbers
makes the test nearly useless at _finding_ explosives, though it's still at
least theoretically possible the test could serve as a sort of _deterrent_ ,
albeit primarily a deterrent against movie-plot threats.

My guess is that the true purpose of this test is to make the people who sell
explosives-testing equipment comfortably well off. Any other purpose would be
served roughly as well with a box that triggered based on random number
selection.

~~~
tptacek
I am extremely, bitterly familiar with the base rate fallacy (I was an
intrusion detection researcher, and spend 4+ years working on statistical
anomaly detection the Internet backbone).

The fallacy doesn't make a value judgement. It points out something
counterintuitive about the accuracy of a filter or test. That thing is
important, but not dispositive. If the base rate is low and the false positive
rate is percentagewise high but the overall number of hits is manageable, low-
power statistical tests can have utility as pre-filters.

I have the same thought every time I go through airport security ("whoever
designed this probably doesn't know about the base rate fallacy"), but if the
system is only ejecting 1-2 candidates per station per hour for expensive
"offline" screening, it's not untenable.

~~~
glenra
It's not untenable in the sense that it's possible to get that amount of work
done, but that doesn't make it worth doing. TSA is fundamentally trying to
solve an unsolvable problem. No matter how many resources they throw at it,
there will always be ways to evade their checks. A _smart_ terrorist will find
a way to get through undetected, find a way to avoid the check entirely (say,
by bribing a TSA employee or airport employee), or will just bomb the next
available target of opportunity - perhaps the security line itself. There is
simply no plausible scenario in which the TSA's checks actually _prevent_
terrorism.

(Yes, one could postulate _really stupid_ terrorists who somehow don't realize
they'll get caught going through security, but terrorists who are _that_
stupid are likely to have their plans fail without the TSA's help. See also:
the shoe bomber.)

~~~
tptacek
Don't get me wrong: I think the whole enterprise of airport security is a
farce.

------
dendory
Most of this post seems to be semantic. Aggressive versus perhaps irritated. A
Homeland Security Special Agent versus what he may be recalling as an FBI
agent, or Port Police versus local Police. I think the only really divergent
point is the apartment search. Either he made that up, or it happened and it
was covered up.

------
sinkasapa
> Not just safe from terrorism, but safe from people who may be belligerent to
> staff, who may be loud and disruptive, someone who may not be fully in
> control of their emotions and their judgment call is the final word on
> whether or not a passenger boards a flight.

Why do they allow children to fly then? :-)

------
Zigurd
Tl;dr: Airline consultant writes long justification for bad air travel
experience.

Let's get those self-driving cars soon, so we can give the airlines what they
deserve for not pushing back on behalf of their customers.

------
mdasen
I don't mean to be too meta, but did anyone else notice this article dropping
from #1 to #19 in a matter of minutes? It feels like one of the powers that be
is trying to censor the article. I know that the ranking algorithm isn't
directly tied to points and time, but there's an article an hour older with
only 31 points (vs over 130) that's in position 5:
[http://i.imgur.com/RBLM2K7.png](http://i.imgur.com/RBLM2K7.png).

~~~
wpietri
There is also flagging, which allows people to artificially force articles
down.

It happens all the time on sexism-in-tech articles.

------
logn
Who cares? I thought his blog post was written as a realistic fiction short
story (he had way too many exact quotes and precise descriptions for it to be
believed as some accurate retelling). Can we just appreciate it on a literary
level? He's a great writer.

------
goggles99
They should require putting cameras/microphones on all TSA employees and in
all TSA inspection/interrogation rooms. I for one would pay an extra $5 per
flight to pay for this. Put the review of all of this footage in the hands of
an accountability/oversight agency to review whenever there is a complaint,
also make the footage available on request to the public.

------
rubiquity
Insert Michael Jackson eating popcorn gif here

