5 ms·

>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

by 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.
  - ferdo 13y ago
    > since there's no proof of his story, his story sits in doubt. Right? Not for me. The author has more credibility in my eyes than any employee of the TSA. > Is there reason for me to automatically doubt the sincerity of those who tested him? Since they lied to him through the entire ordeal ("We’ll just be a few minutes, and then you’ll be able to go."), the rest of their declarations are equally suspect.
sukuriant 13y ago
Did you miss the thread of conversation where false positives happen often and are explained away with lesser screening?
- tty 13y ago
  > where false positives happen often and are explained away with lesser screening Can you offer an alternative scenario of how you would have reacted if you were one of the officers?
  - jonah 13y ago
    Yes. Thoroughly re x-ray and hand inspect the contents of his bags. Thorough pat-down of his person. Interviewing him as they went. Upon finding nothing, send him on his way. 30 minutes tops.
maxmcd 13y ago
What the correlation between testing positive on one of those machines and bomb possession? How many common household chemicals test positive on one of those machines? Are we both fully informed enough on bomb detection to even have this conversation? I'm going to assume that if they let him go eventually they could have let him go immediately (or soon) after checking all of his belongings.

by tty 13y ago

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.
- ferdo 13y ago
  > since there's no proof of his story, his story sits in doubt. Right? Not for me. The author has more credibility in my eyes than any employee of the TSA. > Is there reason for me to automatically doubt the sincerity of those who tested him? Since they lied to him through the entire ordeal ("We’ll just be a few minutes, and then you’ll be able to go."), the rest of their declarations are equally suspect.

sukuriant 13y ago

Did you miss the thread of conversation where false positives happen often and are explained away with lesser screening?

tty 13y ago
> where false positives happen often and are explained away with lesser screening Can you offer an alternative scenario of how you would have reacted if you were one of the officers?
- jonah 13y ago
  Yes. Thoroughly re x-ray and hand inspect the contents of his bags. Thorough pat-down of his person. Interviewing him as they went. Upon finding nothing, send him on his way. 30 minutes tops.

maxmcd 13y ago

What the correlation between testing positive on one of those machines and bomb possession? How many common household chemicals test positive on one of those machines? Are we both fully informed enough on bomb detection to even have this conversation? I'm going to assume that if they let him go eventually they could have let him go immediately (or soon) after checking all of his belongings.