5 ms·

> "[...]done at the discretion of airport security personnel and not part of an aiport-wide mandate." Turbo get fucked. Yeah, I'll even take the downvotes for

> "[...]done at the discretion of airport security personnel and not part of an aiport-wide mandate." Turbo get fucked. Yeah, I'll even take the downvotes for vulgarity on this one. This is a bald-faced statement: "We encourage selective enforcement by individuals instead of sticking to a defined policy." Sure, if he hadn't mouthed off, this probably wouldn't have happened; play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Whatever. The fact that the law is designed in such a way to allow someone's emotional state (Waaahh, he smart assed me about this thing!) to determine if they enforce it is unacceptable. The fact that they're confident enough to state that in public is abhorrent.

dghlsakjg 3y ago
He didn't just mouth off, he claimed that he could use the device to circumvent their access badge control system through cloning. It seems like there is a pretty legitimate case to confiscating a device from a person who says he could use said device to compromise security. Even in the case that there isn't an explicit policy against that specific device. I sometimes travel with VHF/UHF ham radios. These, if used improperly, could interfere with airport and operations, as well as aircraft band radios. I occasionally get asked what the radio is for, and I explain what it is. If I mouthed off and said I can use it for all sorts of stuff, like jamming security frequencies, I would expect to lose cus If I casually mention to the cabin crew that my mealtime knife could, technically, be used to stab them, should they also let that slide since I'm just stating the capabilities of the knife?
- thefurdrake 3y ago
  > He didn't just mouth off, he claimed that he could use the device to circumvent their access badge control system through cloning. It doesn't matter. What is allowed inside and what is not allowed inside of an airport should not be a matter of personal discretion. Either a thing is permitted or it is not permitted. There should be no room for interpretation. If the airport has a problem with these devices, they can damn well write a policy that is observable for anyone prior to visiting the airport. You can try mental gymnastics to justify this all you want, but the fact remains the device not being permitted is not policy, and the decision to confiscate it was made at a personal level. > If I casually mention to the cabin crew that my mealtime knife could, technically, be used to stab them, should they also let that slide since I'm just stating the capabilities of the knife? See, like this sort of mental gymnastics. You wouldn't have the knife confiscated, you would have yourself detained and possibly arrested for demonstrating signs of mental instability. The knife would remain on the aircraft and undergo its normal lifecycle. This really wasn't a difficult situation to theorycraft out, so I'm not sure why you thought it'd support your position. > If I mouthed off and said I can use it for all sorts of stuff, like jamming security frequencies, I would expect to lose cus See, that's what's so dim about this logic; you've been so programmed to accept the dick that you think it's totally normal that discussing the capabilities of legal objects is valid grounds for intervention that you honestly think this shouldn't be allowed. You are part of the problem.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    Please refrain from insults and crude sexist personal attacks. It violates the site rules, and weakens the effectiveness of your argument. I didn’t defend the airport security rules, I simply pointed out that this is a pretty rational reaction to the existing rules, and not at all an unpredictable outcome of that persons actions. I would love to see airport security reformed. I would love to live in a world where we can acknowledge that traditional hijacking is not really a risk anymore. However, I don’t see a possible and likely reform where you can go to a secure area and talk about your ability to bypass security with a device, and expect to keep that device. If you want a list of things that are and aren’t allowed, you end up with a list that defaults to anything not explicitly allowed is banned.
    - thefurdrake 3y ago
      > Please refrain from insults and crude sexist personal attacks. It violates the site rules, and weakens the effectiveness of your argument. Fair enough. (Edit: What I said isn't sexist and it won't ever be, but this guy seems intent on driving that narrative) > I simply pointed out that this is a pretty rational reaction to the existing rules It's not, though. Not even remotely. I know how to commit a crime with every object on my body, including the actual parts of my body. I know that, you know that, the airport security staff knows that, a child knows that. He didn't say, "I'm going to punch people at this airport," he said, "I know kung fu," and this scared the individual, so he was detained and the scary object confiscated. Further: I can use the wifi radio in my laptop to commit a crime in the UK, according to an adjacent comment. Is it sane that possessing that knowledge should mean I have my laptop taken away? Is my laptop, which was just fine moments prior to me saying, "I can listen to wifi with a laptop", suddenly no longer alright? That's any wireless NIC with promisc mode... > If you want a list of things that are and aren’t allowed, you end up with a list that defaults to anything not explicitly allowed is banned. No. You end up with a set of predictable restrictions that people can rely upon to know what they are and are not permitted to bring into a facility-- this shouldn't be /guesswork/. There are some /serious ramifications/ to your entire life if someone decides something you have is dangerous at an airport, so there should be some pretty serious requirements for making clear what is and is not permitted.
- moralestapia 3y ago
  >he claimed that he could use the device to circumvent their access badge control system through cloning He probably couldn't have done that. Lost a Flipper (and some time) on a nerd flex. I would've done the same, tho :D.
  - dizhn 3y ago
    It must be nice to live in a functioning Western democracy. :)
    - blooalien 3y ago
      You would think so, but like many places, it's all "luck of the draw". For some it can be great, for others it's a life-long hellishly miserable death actively enforced by all those around you.
- petre 3y ago
  He could just shut up about it, instead of acting smart, because the device looks like a retro game. If he did that in a Russian airport ten years ago he'd probably be thrown in prison for at least six months.
  - thefurdrake 3y ago
    Shutting up is always the optimal path. Edit: Not that Russia 10 years ago was a country known for its respect for rule of law...
    - petre 3y ago
      They have all kinds of discretionary laws that are quite prone to interpretation, which could easily land you in prison.
  - NullPrefix 3y ago
    Does UK have the right to remain silent?
    - tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
      This kid wouldn’t have remained silent if they paid him to.
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      IANAL: not in the same way that the US does. From my understanding, certain failures to speak CAN be used against you in court.
      - NGRhodes 3y ago
        https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/adverse-inferences https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/adverse-inferences
  - ProllyInfamous 3y ago
    "The default mode of "clever" is "asshole." —John Scalzi
ls612 3y ago
And people wonder why many westerners don’t value the rule of law as a concept anymore. It’s almost like they’re figuring out it was a sham all along.

dghlsakjg 3y ago

He didn't just mouth off, he claimed that he could use the device to circumvent their access badge control system through cloning. It seems like there is a pretty legitimate case to confiscating a device from a person who says he could use said device to compromise security. Even in the case that there isn't an explicit policy against that specific device. I sometimes travel with VHF/UHF ham radios. These, if used improperly, could interfere with airport and operations, as well as aircraft band radios. I occasionally get asked what the radio is for, and I explain what it is. If I mouthed off and said I can use it for all sorts of stuff, like jamming security frequencies, I would expect to lose cus If I casually mention to the cabin crew that my mealtime knife could, technically, be used to stab them, should they also let that slide since I'm just stating the capabilities of the knife?

thefurdrake 3y ago
> He didn't just mouth off, he claimed that he could use the device to circumvent their access badge control system through cloning. It doesn't matter. What is allowed inside and what is not allowed inside of an airport should not be a matter of personal discretion. Either a thing is permitted or it is not permitted. There should be no room for interpretation. If the airport has a problem with these devices, they can damn well write a policy that is observable for anyone prior to visiting the airport. You can try mental gymnastics to justify this all you want, but the fact remains the device not being permitted is not policy, and the decision to confiscate it was made at a personal level. > If I casually mention to the cabin crew that my mealtime knife could, technically, be used to stab them, should they also let that slide since I'm just stating the capabilities of the knife? See, like this sort of mental gymnastics. You wouldn't have the knife confiscated, you would have yourself detained and possibly arrested for demonstrating signs of mental instability. The knife would remain on the aircraft and undergo its normal lifecycle. This really wasn't a difficult situation to theorycraft out, so I'm not sure why you thought it'd support your position. > If I mouthed off and said I can use it for all sorts of stuff, like jamming security frequencies, I would expect to lose cus See, that's what's so dim about this logic; you've been so programmed to accept the dick that you think it's totally normal that discussing the capabilities of legal objects is valid grounds for intervention that you honestly think this shouldn't be allowed. You are part of the problem.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  Please refrain from insults and crude sexist personal attacks. It violates the site rules, and weakens the effectiveness of your argument. I didn’t defend the airport security rules, I simply pointed out that this is a pretty rational reaction to the existing rules, and not at all an unpredictable outcome of that persons actions. I would love to see airport security reformed. I would love to live in a world where we can acknowledge that traditional hijacking is not really a risk anymore. However, I don’t see a possible and likely reform where you can go to a secure area and talk about your ability to bypass security with a device, and expect to keep that device. If you want a list of things that are and aren’t allowed, you end up with a list that defaults to anything not explicitly allowed is banned.
  - thefurdrake 3y ago
    > Please refrain from insults and crude sexist personal attacks. It violates the site rules, and weakens the effectiveness of your argument. Fair enough. (Edit: What I said isn't sexist and it won't ever be, but this guy seems intent on driving that narrative) > I simply pointed out that this is a pretty rational reaction to the existing rules It's not, though. Not even remotely. I know how to commit a crime with every object on my body, including the actual parts of my body. I know that, you know that, the airport security staff knows that, a child knows that. He didn't say, "I'm going to punch people at this airport," he said, "I know kung fu," and this scared the individual, so he was detained and the scary object confiscated. Further: I can use the wifi radio in my laptop to commit a crime in the UK, according to an adjacent comment. Is it sane that possessing that knowledge should mean I have my laptop taken away? Is my laptop, which was just fine moments prior to me saying, "I can listen to wifi with a laptop", suddenly no longer alright? That's any wireless NIC with promisc mode... > If you want a list of things that are and aren’t allowed, you end up with a list that defaults to anything not explicitly allowed is banned. No. You end up with a set of predictable restrictions that people can rely upon to know what they are and are not permitted to bring into a facility-- this shouldn't be /guesswork/. There are some /serious ramifications/ to your entire life if someone decides something you have is dangerous at an airport, so there should be some pretty serious requirements for making clear what is and is not permitted.
moralestapia 3y ago
>he claimed that he could use the device to circumvent their access badge control system through cloning He probably couldn't have done that. Lost a Flipper (and some time) on a nerd flex. I would've done the same, tho :D.
- dizhn 3y ago
  It must be nice to live in a functioning Western democracy. :)
  - blooalien 3y ago
    You would think so, but like many places, it's all "luck of the draw". For some it can be great, for others it's a life-long hellishly miserable death actively enforced by all those around you.
petre 3y ago
He could just shut up about it, instead of acting smart, because the device looks like a retro game. If he did that in a Russian airport ten years ago he'd probably be thrown in prison for at least six months.
- thefurdrake 3y ago
  Shutting up is always the optimal path. Edit: Not that Russia 10 years ago was a country known for its respect for rule of law...
  - petre 3y ago
    They have all kinds of discretionary laws that are quite prone to interpretation, which could easily land you in prison.
- NullPrefix 3y ago
  Does UK have the right to remain silent?
  - tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
    This kid wouldn’t have remained silent if they paid him to.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    IANAL: not in the same way that the US does. From my understanding, certain failures to speak CAN be used against you in court.
    - NGRhodes 3y ago
      https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/adverse-inferences https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/adverse-inferences
- ProllyInfamous 3y ago
  "The default mode of "clever" is "asshole." —John Scalzi

ls612 3y ago

And people wonder why many westerners don’t value the rule of law as a concept anymore. It’s almost like they’re figuring out it was a sham all along.