5 ms·

My bags have set off the explosives detector before, twice. (In both cases, due a heart medication that apparently triggers false positives). I was not taken

My bags have set off the explosives detector before, twice. (In both cases, due a heart medication that apparently triggers false positives). I was not taken into a back room or interrogated for hours. They searched me and my bags in more detail, asked some questions, and concluded it must have been a false positive. The experience took about 15 minutes each time. This was a few years back, but I don't recall if it was post-9/11 or not. It seems like even setting off a detector doesn't, alone, justify the extreme reaction the authorities took in the author's case.

walls 13y ago
I don't think any airports had 'explosive detectors' before 9/11.
- swombat 13y ago
  Most European airports have had those as long as I can remember (definitely since the mid 90s).
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    Maybe bomb detectors but the explosive detectors ('puffers') are relatively new as far as I know.
    - dhimes 13y ago
      It was a huge political budget fight in the 90s. Clinton/Gore published a white paper detailing the threat of terrorism as the biggest threat to national security. They called for the fancy new detectors and what-not at airports. The Republicans, who controlled Congress, said that the big threat was from nukes from unfriendly states (later dubbed 'the axis of evil') didn't permit the funding and instead increased 'Star Wars' funding (anti-missile tech).
- justin66 13y ago
  I was searched with one around the year 2000, IIRC, at the San Francisco airport. I think it was pretty experimental. edit: there might have been a similar setup at Orly in France in 1997, come to think of it. The striking thing there was the soldiers with rifles (just 3 of them, but walking around) and the way they searched one of my grandmother's bags when the x-ray showed something that looked like a grenade. (it was glass in a weird shape) They were friendly and had a sense of humor about it, and it didn't slow us down, which all made a big difference.
waqf 13y ago
> (In both cases, due a heart medication that apparently triggers false positives). Presuming that this was nitroglycerin, then in some sense it's not a false positive at all. It's a dessert wax and a floor topping! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin
- unimpressive 13y ago
  >dessert wax What happens if you put a candle in one of these desserts and let it burn down to the food? (Or it tips over)
corresation 13y ago
Extended explosion swabbing -- and improved and more discrete equipment -- came about after the failed attempt to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to Detroit in 2009 (an almost tragedy that many quickly forget). In earlier iterations of spam filters, it would simply prefix the subject with [SPAM], just as explosion detectors caught lots of things and they quickly dismissed them. As it got better it started moving them to a spam folder. Now it simply moves them directly to deleted. Of course the same thing happens with explosion detectors, where initially it picked up many similar compounds, and eventually started getting much more discrete, and the probability that it actually caught something of significance went from "not really" to "might actually be something real". Traveling in 2013 is not the same as traveling in 2002. Traveling in New York City is not the same as traveling in Austrlia. All of these are factors that influence the probability that technology is a viable input, and the corresponding risk factors.
- justin66 13y ago
  > Of course the same thing happens with explosion detectors, where initially it picked up many similar compounds, and eventually started getting much more discrete, and the probability that it actually caught something of significance went from "not really" to "might actually be something real". Unless you've got some hard data on false positives, I don't believe it for a minute. As far as I can tell the equipment's warning value has gone from "almost certainly not explosives" to "almost certainly not explosives." That doesn't make the equipment useless (well, it might) but it'd be nifty if the people operating it understood its pretty obvious limitations. Remember why we're even having this conversation.
  - corresation 13y ago
    I don't have hard data (the actual details are often considered confidential), but for the marketing claims of the various makers who all trumpet greater selectivity and the rejection of false positives. Which makes sense, as security is a huge, incredibly competitive industry, and these people are all competing for the world's paranoia dollars. Because the TSA gained nothing wasting their time on this. There are the normal conspiratorial claims among the comments that someone triggered the "brown guy" button just to harass him (again, only someone who has never been near a large North American city could say such a thing), for what? What did the TSA, NYPD, FBI, and whoever else gain from this giant waste of time? Something triggered on a molecule or taggant that they couldn't easily exclude, so they tried to help him assist them in excluding it. He couldn't, so they had to exhaust all avenues. Unless they have countless agents and countless rooms, this isn't something they do with any regularity at all.
Tloewald 13y ago
If you set off a gas chromatograph for nitroglycerine and then say you have heart tablets then you'll be fine. He obviously set off a specific trigger AND couldn't account for it (although they clearly tried to get him to). Back in the 70s or 80s a group of friends in Britain were sentenced for participating in a terrorist act because they set off an explosive test. They spent years in prison before it was determined that it was a false positive caused by the coating of a popular brand of playing card.
- cdonnellytx 13y ago
  Too bad they couldn't even tell him what set it off, since he clearly did not remember: "I can’t think of anything. What does it say is triggering the alarm?" I asked. "I’m not going to tell you! It’s right here on my sheet, but I don’t have to tell you what it is!" he exclaimed, pointing at his clipboard. ''EDIT: formatting''
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    Not letting him drink water or whatever is simply inhumane. Not giving him information is simply a judgment call or policy decision. Perhaps it is against policy to reveal which exact molecules their machines react to.
- justin66 13y ago
  > If you set off a gas chromatograph for nitroglycerine and then say you have heart tablets then you'll be fine. He obviously set off a specific trigger AND couldn't account for it (although they clearly tried to get him to). That isn't what that line of interrogation was for. The TSA goons probably don't know anything about chemistry or how their machine works, they were simply trying to rattle him and get him to say something incriminating. Specifically: when somebody says, several different ways, "why are you setting off my explosive detector?" what you do not want to say is "I don't know! I don't have any explosives!" Because it will elicit a response indicating that nobody was accusing you have of having explosives, why are you being so defensive, etc. etc.
- aspensmonster 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
AUmrysh 13y ago
One time I brought peanut butter in my luggage. It looks like plastic explosive on the scanner so they have to open it and test it. Our teacher actually advocated that we bring it and those 36 packs of AA batteries because they look like plastic explosives and bullets, respectively. He really liked to mess with the TSA. This was post 9-11, I don't know how we didn't all get arrested.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Hmmm Peanut butter doesn't even seem like a liquid, aerosol, or gel, though the TSA would probably put it in that category these days.

walls 13y ago

I don't think any airports had 'explosive detectors' before 9/11.

swombat 13y ago
Most European airports have had those as long as I can remember (definitely since the mid 90s).
- jacquesm 13y ago
  Maybe bomb detectors but the explosive detectors ('puffers') are relatively new as far as I know.
  - dhimes 13y ago
    It was a huge political budget fight in the 90s. Clinton/Gore published a white paper detailing the threat of terrorism as the biggest threat to national security. They called for the fancy new detectors and what-not at airports. The Republicans, who controlled Congress, said that the big threat was from nukes from unfriendly states (later dubbed 'the axis of evil') didn't permit the funding and instead increased 'Star Wars' funding (anti-missile tech).
justin66 13y ago
I was searched with one around the year 2000, IIRC, at the San Francisco airport. I think it was pretty experimental. edit: there might have been a similar setup at Orly in France in 1997, come to think of it. The striking thing there was the soldiers with rifles (just 3 of them, but walking around) and the way they searched one of my grandmother's bags when the x-ray showed something that looked like a grenade. (it was glass in a weird shape) They were friendly and had a sense of humor about it, and it didn't slow us down, which all made a big difference.

waqf 13y ago

> (In both cases, due a heart medication that apparently triggers false positives). Presuming that this was nitroglycerin, then in some sense it's not a false positive at all. It's a dessert wax and a floor topping! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin

unimpressive 13y ago
>dessert wax What happens if you put a candle in one of these desserts and let it burn down to the food? (Or it tips over)

corresation 13y ago

Extended explosion swabbing -- and improved and more discrete equipment -- came about after the failed attempt to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to Detroit in 2009 (an almost tragedy that many quickly forget). In earlier iterations of spam filters, it would simply prefix the subject with [SPAM], just as explosion detectors caught lots of things and they quickly dismissed them. As it got better it started moving them to a spam folder. Now it simply moves them directly to deleted. Of course the same thing happens with explosion detectors, where initially it picked up many similar compounds, and eventually started getting much more discrete, and the probability that it actually caught something of significance went from "not really" to "might actually be something real". Traveling in 2013 is not the same as traveling in 2002. Traveling in New York City is not the same as traveling in Austrlia. All of these are factors that influence the probability that technology is a viable input, and the corresponding risk factors.

justin66 13y ago
> Of course the same thing happens with explosion detectors, where initially it picked up many similar compounds, and eventually started getting much more discrete, and the probability that it actually caught something of significance went from "not really" to "might actually be something real". Unless you've got some hard data on false positives, I don't believe it for a minute. As far as I can tell the equipment's warning value has gone from "almost certainly not explosives" to "almost certainly not explosives." That doesn't make the equipment useless (well, it might) but it'd be nifty if the people operating it understood its pretty obvious limitations. Remember why we're even having this conversation.
- corresation 13y ago
  I don't have hard data (the actual details are often considered confidential), but for the marketing claims of the various makers who all trumpet greater selectivity and the rejection of false positives. Which makes sense, as security is a huge, incredibly competitive industry, and these people are all competing for the world's paranoia dollars. Because the TSA gained nothing wasting their time on this. There are the normal conspiratorial claims among the comments that someone triggered the "brown guy" button just to harass him (again, only someone who has never been near a large North American city could say such a thing), for what? What did the TSA, NYPD, FBI, and whoever else gain from this giant waste of time? Something triggered on a molecule or taggant that they couldn't easily exclude, so they tried to help him assist them in excluding it. He couldn't, so they had to exhaust all avenues. Unless they have countless agents and countless rooms, this isn't something they do with any regularity at all.

Tloewald 13y ago

If you set off a gas chromatograph for nitroglycerine and then say you have heart tablets then you'll be fine. He obviously set off a specific trigger AND couldn't account for it (although they clearly tried to get him to). Back in the 70s or 80s a group of friends in Britain were sentenced for participating in a terrorist act because they set off an explosive test. They spent years in prison before it was determined that it was a false positive caused by the coating of a popular brand of playing card.

cdonnellytx 13y ago
Too bad they couldn't even tell him what set it off, since he clearly did not remember: "I can’t think of anything. What does it say is triggering the alarm?" I asked. "I’m not going to tell you! It’s right here on my sheet, but I don’t have to tell you what it is!" he exclaimed, pointing at his clipboard. ''EDIT: formatting''
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Not letting him drink water or whatever is simply inhumane. Not giving him information is simply a judgment call or policy decision. Perhaps it is against policy to reveal which exact molecules their machines react to.
justin66 13y ago
> If you set off a gas chromatograph for nitroglycerine and then say you have heart tablets then you'll be fine. He obviously set off a specific trigger AND couldn't account for it (although they clearly tried to get him to). That isn't what that line of interrogation was for. The TSA goons probably don't know anything about chemistry or how their machine works, they were simply trying to rattle him and get him to say something incriminating. Specifically: when somebody says, several different ways, "why are you setting off my explosive detector?" what you do not want to say is "I don't know! I don't have any explosives!" Because it will elicit a response indicating that nobody was accusing you have of having explosives, why are you being so defensive, etc. etc.
aspensmonster 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

AUmrysh 13y ago

One time I brought peanut butter in my luggage. It looks like plastic explosive on the scanner so they have to open it and test it. Our teacher actually advocated that we bring it and those 36 packs of AA batteries because they look like plastic explosives and bullets, respectively. He really liked to mess with the TSA. This was post 9-11, I don't know how we didn't all get arrested.

einhverfr 13y ago
Hmmm Peanut butter doesn't even seem like a liquid, aerosol, or gel, though the TSA would probably put it in that category these days.