6 ms·

Contrarian perspective: He fits a certain profile. Triggered a bunch of attributes (address move, chemicals on him, etc.). The 9/11 attackers walked through th

Contrarian perspective: He fits a certain profile. Triggered a bunch of attributes (address move, chemicals on him, etc.). The 9/11 attackers walked through the scanners with knifes. The Boston bombers were flagged, but still traveled freely. After both attacks people were laughing at the stupidity of the enforcement agencies, uselessness of the TSA, etc. Here, the process worked. His account is subjective, everyone else is an idiot, he's way smarter than them, gets offended by simple questions about religion, etc. OK, good for him. The more you push back, the more self righteous and arrogant you are during security checks, the deeper you're digging yourself in. Those people are doing their jobs. Same with how you should be treating waiters, etc. JetBlue has the right to deny you a flight. ElAl does this all the time, incl. racial profiling. Good security track record.

gruseom 13y ago
You were doing ok with the contrarian perspective until the part when you personally attacked the OP. That's not contrarian, just mean.
hyperbovine 13y ago
I'd rather live in a country where the process occasionally fails and we don't have to put up with / subject others to this shit. And yes, I am American and I experienced all the pain and horror of 9/11.
- nrivadeneira 13y ago
  Did you really experience it (as in, you were in NYC at the time) or were you just a casual observer?
  - hyperbovine 13y ago
    I don't think it was necessary to be in NYC at the time to have been deeply affected by 9/11, but no matter: I, the guy who wrote this article, and 310m other non-NYC Americans still have to live under the draconian post-9/11 regime, regardless of where we were on that day. Also, "casual observer"? Really?
    - enneff 13y ago
      > Also, "casual observer"? Really? Yes, really. Shit happens around the world all the time. Just because your media and government tried to make all Americans feel like they were under attack, these were isolated incidents that affected few Americans. (In fact, the people most affected are the countless innocent civilians murdered by reactionary war in the middle east.)
    - nrivadeneira 13y ago
      I don't think going through more stringent checks when you fly qualify for "pain and horror". I mainly ask because you're using "the pain and horror" experienced by actual 9/11 victims and their families as leverage to add validity to your statement, and I don't really agree with it.
      - hyperbovine 13y ago
        I see--so only the victims and families were emotionally traumatized by this incident? That does not even merit refutation.
        nrivadeneira 13y ago
        Truthfully, I don't see why you'd be significantly more traumatized by this event than any other act of terrorism that happens across the globe unless you lost loved ones. To that end, I don't see why anyone else on this globe should have been any less affected, thus making the point that you happened to be an American at the same time that 9/11 occurred more or less moot. If the pain is simply an empathy to the innocents who were harmed, I don't see why it should be unique to you as an American and worthy of pointing out and using as leverage. I'm not in a position to tell you or anyone else how they should feel...I just don't really understand the rationale.
        hyperbovine 13y ago
        I am not going to sit here and explain to you the concept of (emotional, geographic) proximity. If I am correct in surmising that you are trying to pick a fight about Americans feeling "special" compared to the rest of the world (which I sure don't), you'll need to find some other sparring partner. Cheers.
evan_ 13y ago
What was the purpose of denying him water? Of taking the picture?
- Robin_Message 13y ago
  Cynically? That sounds like a standard interrogation technique. Keep them off balance, upset them, try and force them to stop lying so as to get the drink they need (not that the OP was lying).
  - marvin 13y ago
    Now for the next question: Is this a suitable way to interrogate someone who is not under arrest and is presumed innocent? Is the false negative rate of TSA checks low enough to start assuming that someone is guilty?
    - warfangle 13y ago
      The false negative rate of the TSA is nonzero, ergo it is not low enough to start assuming someone is guilty.
      - Amadou 13y ago
        On the other hand, the true positive rate of the TSA is zero. Not one single person detained by the TSA has been charged, much less convicted, on terrorism charges.
  - swalkergibson 13y ago
    When do standard techniques start to move into the territory of enhanced interrogation techniques? 8 hours without water? 12? 18? 48?
- Hannan 13y ago
  >> Of taking the picture? Zersetzung?
oh_teh_meows 13y ago
Though for the most part you have a point, I'm not sure if denying him water counts as 'doing their jobs'.
jlgreco 13y ago
> Here, the process worked. So a false negative is it "not working" but a false positive is it working? How about no.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- pinaceae 13y ago
  at the end they let him go. he triggered alarms, they checked, determined him not a threat, let him go. false positive would be him charged with terrorism.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    That is an absurd redefinition of failure that serves no purpose but to make the TSA look better. If he were charged you'd undoubtedly just redefine "false positive" to be falsely convicted, not 'merely' charged.
    - alexwright 13y ago
      And if convicted it would move onto "at least he wasn't summarily executed, he can appeal" "The system working" here in the UK unfortunately can mean serving only 16 years in prsion before a conviction is overturned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six Relevent bit is under the Trail section: "On 12 May 1975 the six men were charged with murder and conspiracy to cause explosions." "Forensic scientist Dr Frank Skuse used positive Griess test results to claim that Hill and Power had handled explosives"
maxmcd 13y ago
No. There are far more efficient ways to flag people that fit a certain profile. They should have checked all of his belongings and let him go, and not focused at all on his "attitude". That allows for more checks of other suspicious people with the available time they wasted questioning this one person. The Boston bombers should also have been allowed to fly freely. Their actions had nothing to do with air travel. Either way the situation described is unacceptable, either as "racist", or "Xenophobic", or, to your point, as an incredibly inefficient way to carry out profiling.
- tty 13y ago
  >There are far more efficient ways to flag people that fit a certain profile. They should have checked all of his belongings and let him go, and not focused at all on his "attitude". Did you miss the part where the machines gave him a positive for explosives?
  - ferdo 13y ago
    > Did you miss the part where the machines gave him a positive for explosives? Since there's no proof of this "positive", this claim sits in doubt. If he was already targeted, they'd claim the machine would say anything.
    - tty 13y ago
      >Since there's no proof of this "positive", this claim sits in doubt. ...and since there's no proof of his story, his story sits in doubt. Right? Is that the modus operandi? I was commenting under the assumption that his experiences were conveyed truthfully and that the explosive alert actually happened and wasn't bogus. Is there reason for me to automatically doubt the sincerity of those who tested him? Is there reason to believe that they didn't want to tell him what exactly the machine told them because they were lying to him? Or is it a more reasonable explanation that they're not allowed to? Racial profiling is bad. They acted differently towards him than they'd do to other people, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore everything and assume that every single person there was out to get him and put an innocent person through hell.
spindritf 13y ago
> gets offended by simple questions about religion, etc. OK, good for him. The more you push back, the more self righteous and arrogant you are during security checks I agree with the other parts of your post. Here though I think he wasn't assertive enough. No need to get snarky but a request for a cup of water is not something you just let the cop/whoever shake off with a wink. >> "You also said a lot of things, kid," he said with a wink. You say "yes, like that I want something to drink, repeatedly." Another thing is to always ask people for their official identification, a badge, a name, a number... They're not supposed to be anonymous.
- AznHisoka 13y ago
  He also didn't do himself a favor by saying "We’ll be visiting some temples." Is that the best lie he could come up with? >> "You also said a lot of things, kid," he said with a wink. "Well DUH! YOU GUYS were the ones that made me come here! I'm a quiet guy, minding my own business. I don't want to say anything to anyone"
  - emiliobumachar 13y ago
    Once you lie to the government, it has something real to charge you with, for a change.
pslam 13y ago
"Here, the process worked." In what way is falsely detaining an innocent person the process working?
waxjar 13y ago
Because numbers™ are all that count.

gruseom 13y ago

You were doing ok with the contrarian perspective until the part when you personally attacked the OP. That's not contrarian, just mean.

hyperbovine 13y ago

I'd rather live in a country where the process occasionally fails and we don't have to put up with / subject others to this shit. And yes, I am American and I experienced all the pain and horror of 9/11.

nrivadeneira 13y ago
Did you really experience it (as in, you were in NYC at the time) or were you just a casual observer?
- hyperbovine 13y ago
  I don't think it was necessary to be in NYC at the time to have been deeply affected by 9/11, but no matter: I, the guy who wrote this article, and 310m other non-NYC Americans still have to live under the draconian post-9/11 regime, regardless of where we were on that day. Also, "casual observer"? Really?
  - enneff 13y ago
    > Also, "casual observer"? Really? Yes, really. Shit happens around the world all the time. Just because your media and government tried to make all Americans feel like they were under attack, these were isolated incidents that affected few Americans. (In fact, the people most affected are the countless innocent civilians murdered by reactionary war in the middle east.)
  - nrivadeneira 13y ago
    I don't think going through more stringent checks when you fly qualify for "pain and horror". I mainly ask because you're using "the pain and horror" experienced by actual 9/11 victims and their families as leverage to add validity to your statement, and I don't really agree with it.
    - hyperbovine 13y ago
      I see--so only the victims and families were emotionally traumatized by this incident? That does not even merit refutation.
      - nrivadeneira 13y ago
        Truthfully, I don't see why you'd be significantly more traumatized by this event than any other act of terrorism that happens across the globe unless you lost loved ones. To that end, I don't see why anyone else on this globe should have been any less affected, thus making the point that you happened to be an American at the same time that 9/11 occurred more or less moot. If the pain is simply an empathy to the innocents who were harmed, I don't see why it should be unique to you as an American and worthy of pointing out and using as leverage. I'm not in a position to tell you or anyone else how they should feel...I just don't really understand the rationale.
        hyperbovine 13y ago
        I am not going to sit here and explain to you the concept of (emotional, geographic) proximity. If I am correct in surmising that you are trying to pick a fight about Americans feeling "special" compared to the rest of the world (which I sure don't), you'll need to find some other sparring partner. Cheers.

evan_ 13y ago

What was the purpose of denying him water? Of taking the picture?

Robin_Message 13y ago
Cynically? That sounds like a standard interrogation technique. Keep them off balance, upset them, try and force them to stop lying so as to get the drink they need (not that the OP was lying).
- marvin 13y ago
  Now for the next question: Is this a suitable way to interrogate someone who is not under arrest and is presumed innocent? Is the false negative rate of TSA checks low enough to start assuming that someone is guilty?
  - warfangle 13y ago
    The false negative rate of the TSA is nonzero, ergo it is not low enough to start assuming someone is guilty.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      On the other hand, the true positive rate of the TSA is zero. Not one single person detained by the TSA has been charged, much less convicted, on terrorism charges.
- swalkergibson 13y ago
  When do standard techniques start to move into the territory of enhanced interrogation techniques? 8 hours without water? 12? 18? 48?
Hannan 13y ago
>> Of taking the picture? Zersetzung?

oh_teh_meows 13y ago

Though for the most part you have a point, I'm not sure if denying him water counts as 'doing their jobs'.

jlgreco 13y ago

> Here, the process worked. So a false negative is it "not working" but a false positive is it working? How about no.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pinaceae 13y ago
at the end they let him go. he triggered alarms, they checked, determined him not a threat, let him go. false positive would be him charged with terrorism.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  That is an absurd redefinition of failure that serves no purpose but to make the TSA look better. If he were charged you'd undoubtedly just redefine "false positive" to be falsely convicted, not 'merely' charged.
  - alexwright 13y ago
    And if convicted it would move onto "at least he wasn't summarily executed, he can appeal" "The system working" here in the UK unfortunately can mean serving only 16 years in prsion before a conviction is overturned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six Relevent bit is under the Trail section: "On 12 May 1975 the six men were charged with murder and conspiracy to cause explosions." "Forensic scientist Dr Frank Skuse used positive Griess test results to claim that Hill and Power had handled explosives"

maxmcd 13y ago

No. There are far more efficient ways to flag people that fit a certain profile. They should have checked all of his belongings and let him go, and not focused at all on his "attitude". That allows for more checks of other suspicious people with the available time they wasted questioning this one person. The Boston bombers should also have been allowed to fly freely. Their actions had nothing to do with air travel. Either way the situation described is unacceptable, either as "racist", or "Xenophobic", or, to your point, as an incredibly inefficient way to carry out profiling.

tty 13y ago
>There are far more efficient ways to flag people that fit a certain profile. They should have checked all of his belongings and let him go, and not focused at all on his "attitude". Did you miss the part where the machines gave him a positive for explosives?
- ferdo 13y ago
  > Did you miss the part where the machines gave him a positive for explosives? Since there's no proof of this "positive", this claim sits in doubt. If he was already targeted, they'd claim the machine would say anything.
  - tty 13y ago
    >Since there's no proof of this "positive", this claim sits in doubt. ...and since there's no proof of his story, his story sits in doubt. Right? Is that the modus operandi? I was commenting under the assumption that his experiences were conveyed truthfully and that the explosive alert actually happened and wasn't bogus. Is there reason for me to automatically doubt the sincerity of those who tested him? Is there reason to believe that they didn't want to tell him what exactly the machine told them because they were lying to him? Or is it a more reasonable explanation that they're not allowed to? Racial profiling is bad. They acted differently towards him than they'd do to other people, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore everything and assume that every single person there was out to get him and put an innocent person through hell.

spindritf 13y ago

> gets offended by simple questions about religion, etc. OK, good for him. The more you push back, the more self righteous and arrogant you are during security checks I agree with the other parts of your post. Here though I think he wasn't assertive enough. No need to get snarky but a request for a cup of water is not something you just let the cop/whoever shake off with a wink. >> "You also said a lot of things, kid," he said with a wink. You say "yes, like that I want something to drink, repeatedly." Another thing is to always ask people for their official identification, a badge, a name, a number... They're not supposed to be anonymous.

AznHisoka 13y ago
He also didn't do himself a favor by saying "We’ll be visiting some temples." Is that the best lie he could come up with? >> "You also said a lot of things, kid," he said with a wink. "Well DUH! YOU GUYS were the ones that made me come here! I'm a quiet guy, minding my own business. I don't want to say anything to anyone"
- emiliobumachar 13y ago
  Once you lie to the government, it has something real to charge you with, for a change.

pslam 13y ago

"Here, the process worked." In what way is falsely detaining an innocent person the process working?

waxjar 13y ago

Because numbers™ are all that count.