10 ms·
Honestly I don't think they were in the wrong for stopping the guy. Arrest was probably too much, but when you are wearing a watch that looks like a bomb detona
by readme 14y ago
Honestly I don't think they were in the wrong for stopping the guy. Arrest was probably too much, but when you are wearing a watch that looks like a bomb detonator, you should definitely be stopped and questioned.
Unfortunately every member of the TSA cannot be an expert in this man's artwork to understand what he actually had in his posession. Suspicious watches (and protruding wires!) are one of the things they are trained to look for as all of the 9/11 hijackers had digital casio wrist watches. So yeah, honestly I think confiscating the watch and stopping him was a good move. Maybe even denying him his flight would be sane.
What does it take for you guys to agree that someone shouldn't get on a plane, a backpack full of c4!? The idea is to stop the disaster before it happens, and at this point all we have are vague clues. Not to mention the fact that for economic reasons, each TSA officer is going to be a layman who probably isn't well versed in electronics.
Combine this with the fact that it looked like he "hid" it under his coat... This guy needs to use some discretion when flying, I'm sorry!
As much as I disagree with the erosion of our civil liberties, wearing a watch that looks like a bomb detonator onto a plane is not a smart move. Sure, us HNers would know the difference between art and a real device. The general public does not, and we cannot expect them all to gain our same level of competence with electronics.
Finally, the TSA stopped someone that was actually suspicious.
- ncallaway 14y agoI don't think many people complained that this guy received extra scrutiny. If something looks/seems suspicious it's acceptable to apply a higher level of scrutiny in determining the actual risk. The article acknowledges this, and says it's pretty reasonable that they stopped him, talked to him, and would have been reasonable if they had asked him to mail the device to himself. What's totally unreasonable in any context is the fact that this guy was CHARGED WITH A CRIME, and is now sitting in jail on $150,000 bail. He will have to go through a lengthy trial process and potentially serve jail-time. Unless the facts are contrary to what the article presents (which is possible), this is totally unreasonable.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 14y ago> What does it take for you guys to agree that someone shouldn't get on a plane, a backpack full of c4!? Are you seriously satirizing the idea that the line should be drawn at items that are actually dangerous?
- Saavedro 14y agoI don't see why not. That's the wrong place to draw the line. If there is no penalty for trying to board a plane while with lookalike dangerous items, then there is nothing to deter one from "probing" the screening for weaknesses, and the system is worthless.
- readme 14y agoYes! Mainly, because a terrorist would not walk by the TSA with a gun, bomb, knife, or whatever now. Unless they were just an idiot. Most terrorism is organized. So they would have a plan. They send people in advance to take pictures of the airport and find other entrances. There are ways into the secure areas of airports if you look. That's why at an airport every employee has the task of challenging people. Every single employee is always watching for suspicious behavior. So if it is a terrorist attack, the TSA is not going to see a bomb. They might see a tiny hint of something to come, but no one is going to walk by the TSA with a WMD. They are more sophisticated than this and have other ways of getting them in.