5 ms·

Well, considering that red teams are routinely able to smuggle weapons and simulated explosive devices on aircraft fairly routinely, the current procedures are

by greedo 13y ago

Well, considering that red teams are routinely able to smuggle weapons and simulated explosive devices on aircraft fairly routinely, the current procedures are shit. Security theater at its finest. And you can't detain someone without reasonable suspicion which gives you the authority to investigate whether a crime has occurred. This detention can't be indefinite, and can't even come close to lasting 24 hours. Once your investigation exceeds around 30 minutes, you have to either arrest the person (assuming probable cause) or release them.

csallen 13y ago
Can you cite sources for either of the two claims you made here? I'm genuinely curious.
- michael_h 13y ago
  "Most fake bombs missed by screeners" http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-10-17-airport-security_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-10-17-airpor... It's usatoday, I know, but the reporting seems straightforward. Missed loaded guns: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-screeners/story?id=12412458 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-scre... http://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-lets-loaded-guns-past-security-planes/story?id=17358872 http://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-lets-loaded-guns-past-security-...
  - laureny 13y ago
    > "Most fake bombs missed by screeners" Seems like the screening is working, then. > Missed loaded guns: This statistic is meaningless without the number of times where they caught loaded guns. And once we have these numbers, make a suggestion to improve that percentage.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      Hey, would you like to buy this rock?
- greedo 13y ago
  Here's a link to the legal stuff. I'll find the best link for the red team statement. http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/arrest-detention.htm http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_... EDIT: Here's an example of a red team "success:" http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=67166&catid=222 http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=67166&catid=222
rayiner 13y ago
Setting off an explosives detector isn't reasonable suspicion?
- greedo 13y ago
  Yes, it's reasonable suspicion for further questioning; meaning he can be detained for a short period. When nothing else came of it, he should have been released, or arrested. Obviously, they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him. They just abused their authority.
- cobrausn 13y ago
  My wife set off an explosives detector once. They asked her if she had used any lotions, she said yes, hand lotion, and they let her go. This was about a year ago.
  - rmxt 13y ago
    I'm sorry, but this is relevant to the original article in what way? No such courtesies were afforded to the author until long into the ordeal. (By my count of the author's timeline, ~2.5 hours after he stepped into the security lines.) The author mentioned explicitly that he cleaned his apartment and the TSA agent refused to give any indication that that might be cause for the flagging for explosives. Regardless, contrarian anecdotal evidence does nothing to diminish the questionable approach to how airport security is, and in the author's case was, handled.
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      I think you are misinterpreting what I'm saying (aside from stating an experience). If hand lotion can (supposedly) flag the machine, setting off the detector shouldn't be handled in this fashion.
- eksith 13y ago
  Been there done that. They also asked my religion. I said I'm Buddhist (sort of true, though I'm not a very good one) and after a brief chat, I was sent off with my beans. No pat down, no detention. FYI, If you want to avoid this, handle as few volatile compounds as you can (E.G. Alcohol based products). Better yet, stop using that artificial malarkey altogether. You'll smell less offensive and it would probably be healthier for you anyway. Of course, this is just a stop-gap measure to avoid getting inconvenienced. The real solution is to move from security theater to true security and that takes policy changes.

by greedo 13y ago

csallen 13y ago

Can you cite sources for either of the two claims you made here? I'm genuinely curious.

michael_h 13y ago
"Most fake bombs missed by screeners" http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-10-17-airport-security_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-10-17-airpor... It's usatoday, I know, but the reporting seems straightforward. Missed loaded guns: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-screeners/story?id=12412458 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-scre... http://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-lets-loaded-guns-past-security-planes/story?id=17358872 http://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-lets-loaded-guns-past-security-...
- laureny 13y ago
  > "Most fake bombs missed by screeners" Seems like the screening is working, then. > Missed loaded guns: This statistic is meaningless without the number of times where they caught loaded guns. And once we have these numbers, make a suggestion to improve that percentage.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Hey, would you like to buy this rock?
greedo 13y ago
Here's a link to the legal stuff. I'll find the best link for the red team statement. http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/arrest-detention.htm http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_... EDIT: Here's an example of a red team "success:" http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=67166&catid=222 http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=67166&catid=222

rayiner 13y ago

Setting off an explosives detector isn't reasonable suspicion?

greedo 13y ago
Yes, it's reasonable suspicion for further questioning; meaning he can be detained for a short period. When nothing else came of it, he should have been released, or arrested. Obviously, they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him. They just abused their authority.
cobrausn 13y ago
My wife set off an explosives detector once. They asked her if she had used any lotions, she said yes, hand lotion, and they let her go. This was about a year ago.
- rmxt 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but this is relevant to the original article in what way? No such courtesies were afforded to the author until long into the ordeal. (By my count of the author's timeline, ~2.5 hours after he stepped into the security lines.) The author mentioned explicitly that he cleaned his apartment and the TSA agent refused to give any indication that that might be cause for the flagging for explosives. Regardless, contrarian anecdotal evidence does nothing to diminish the questionable approach to how airport security is, and in the author's case was, handled.
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    I think you are misinterpreting what I'm saying (aside from stating an experience). If hand lotion can (supposedly) flag the machine, setting off the detector shouldn't be handled in this fashion.
eksith 13y ago
Been there done that. They also asked my religion. I said I'm Buddhist (sort of true, though I'm not a very good one) and after a brief chat, I was sent off with my beans. No pat down, no detention. FYI, If you want to avoid this, handle as few volatile compounds as you can (E.G. Alcohol based products). Better yet, stop using that artificial malarkey altogether. You'll smell less offensive and it would probably be healthier for you anyway. Of course, this is just a stop-gap measure to avoid getting inconvenienced. The real solution is to move from security theater to true security and that takes policy changes.