5 ms·

>and no one here knows what would happen if John Smith Anglosaxon set off the same detector in the same situation. We don't have to have direct knowledge of th

>and no one here knows what would happen if John Smith Anglosaxon set off the same detector in the same situation. We don't have to have direct knowledge of the impossibly specific situation you've constructed. The FBI agent flat out said that it was about his race when he said "a person of your… background". And explosive detectors are not really there to find bombs. They are there to reduce manual searches. If they just wanted to find bombs, they could just search everyone. Since that is impractical on multiple counts, the explosive detector is valuable because it narrows down the space. Once you have taken the person aside, searched them, searched their stuff, and come up with no additional evidence ("brown" isn't evidence), it's time to let them go. Finally, this isn't just about racism, but is also about the TSA and the cops being dangerously incompetent bullies. Instead of being polite and decent, they were rude and intimidating. Someone being reluctant and apprehensive under those circumstances is not strong evidence of wrongdoing. And when they questioned him about the chemicals he had handled, they wouldn't even tell him what they had found. That's the kind of "withholding information" tactic you would use if you were playing the role of a detective without actually having any idea how to investigate. What purpose does it serve? If he were a terrorist, he'd know what chemicals were in his explosives. The only situation where that information is actually a secret is the one where the suspect is innocent. In other words, they repeatedly created situations that either made guilt indistinguishable from innocence, or where they'd distinguish them inversely. This is, to put it mildly, "poor form".

corresation 13y ago
We don't have to have direct knowledge of the impossibly specific situation you've constructed. Instead we have people saying "I am white and I set one off in 2003 in Australia and they let me through, therefore that demonstrates that this is racism" (ignore every case where non-whites got a couple of quick questions and went through). And how utterly provincial are so many people on here? What backwaters do they live in? Go to JFK or Newark and tell me that they pick on non-whites, and I'll tell you that they must have hundreds of thousands of employees working around the clock to manage that. Further what an FBI agent purportedly said during the conversational stage is utterly irrelevant. We don't know what explosive material the sensor detected, but by the response it seems likely that it was rare. Finally, this isn't just about racism Indeed, it isn't, even though the overwhelming majority of comments, and the title itself, portends racism. In another comment someone criticizes me for apparently claiming that their treatment is reasonable. Yet never did I say their treatment was reasonable. Who would? they wouldn't even tell him what they had found Because they believe in the flawed concept of security through obscurity. They likely imagine that giving that information away shows their hand.
- mistercow 13y ago
  >Instead we have people saying "I am white and I set one off in 2003 in Australia and they let me through, therefore that demonstrates that this is racism" (ignore every case where non-whites got a couple of quick questions and went through). You are correct that anecdotal reports of white people not being harassed after setting off the detectors is not particularly strong evidence. > Go to JFK or Newark and tell me that they pick on non-whites, and I'll tell you that they must have hundreds of thousands of employees working around the clock to manage that. Racism is not a matter of "white or non-white". The "blows up planes" stereotype is specific to people who look "Arab". And of course they're not harassing everyone who fits their stereotype; the explosive detector surely did play a role (and people suggesting that it was intentionally triggered are being silly). It's just that your estimate of that being "95% of this story" is grotesquely optimistic. >Further what an FBI agent purportedly said during the conversational stage is utterly irrelevant. Perhaps the FBI agent didn't have a sense of the situation before he arrived. I would guess, given his position and the fact that he seemed to be the most competent and perceptive person the author dealt with, that his assessment is as reliable as we can expect to get. It certainly isn't irrelevant. That it was said in conversation is not very relevant. Are you suggesting that he made that comment inaccurately to reassure the author? "You have to understand, we're just very racist"? As for various things that other commenters have said, I'm not sure what response you want from me. I didn't say them. I'm sorry people can't read?
- wfunction 13y ago
  >> they wouldn't even tell him what they had found > Because they believe in the flawed concept of security through obscurity No, it's rather common sense actually. If a suspect wanted to blow something up, he would never admit he has the chemicals he has with him (because he wouldn't be sure that the cops have actually detected that chemical, and not made some other mistake that will let him go through). But if the cops tell him what they've found, then he'll know he's screwed, and will try to make up an excuse. On the other hand, if he admits what the chemical is himself (probably with a proper excuse), chances are that he's probably innocent, and they'd let him go. So, telling him what he's being accused of having actually makes it harder for him to get himself out of the mess plausibly.
mapt 13y ago
As much problem as I have with the TSA and this event... Offering hints as to how a person they do not trust would dissuade their suspicions is a way to guarantee that everyone dissuades their suspicions. It is an information-theoretically invalid way of pursuing an investigation of anything.
- mistercow 13y ago
  The line of questioning is almost entirely useless in the first place, and the way that they will interpret the evidence is likely the opposite of the way it should be interpreted. Ordinary people know basically nothing about explosives, or what everyday compounds might be explosives. At best they might say "Oh, I did some gardening, so I handled some fertilizer", or "I was at a shooting range yesterday". They might remember a chemical they had read off the label of something they used recently, if it's common enough, so if you told them what you found, they could tell you where they saw it. Terrorists, on the other hand, are likely to know all about common chemicals that can be used in explosives. If you tell them what you found, you aren't giving them any new information, and they can just tell you it came from whatever they got it from (and claim they were using it innocently). So giving a satisfactory answer should actually be evidence of the person being a terrorist. Of course, if a TSA agent were smart enough to realize that, a smart terrorist might pick up on that, and say "I don't know, I used some bug spray this morning?" Most terrorists don't actually seem to be smart, but in the case that you were evaluating the evidence correctly, you'd have to downgrade its strength on that basis (even more so once you factor in the non-terrorist chemistry geeks, who are probably orders of magnitude more common than terrorists, and less likely to consider that you might take a plausible answer as evidence against them). In short "what have you handled recently that might have lead to you having explosive residue on you?" is a pointless question, whether you tell them what you found or not. As a side note, it's overly simplistic to say that "giving hints" is invalid in general, because the definition of "giving hints" is vague. Should they just ask "Why did our screen flash red?" instead of telling you it was the explosive detector? Should they be even more vague and ask "Why are we interrogating you?" Getting useful information from someone requires that you communicate specifically. So if the line of inquiry were useful at all (and if it is even meaningful to reason about such a hypothetical), it would be more useful to ask about the specific substance.

corresation 13y ago

We don't have to have direct knowledge of the impossibly specific situation you've constructed. Instead we have people saying "I am white and I set one off in 2003 in Australia and they let me through, therefore that demonstrates that this is racism" (ignore every case where non-whites got a couple of quick questions and went through). And how utterly provincial are so many people on here? What backwaters do they live in? Go to JFK or Newark and tell me that they pick on non-whites, and I'll tell you that they must have hundreds of thousands of employees working around the clock to manage that. Further what an FBI agent purportedly said during the conversational stage is utterly irrelevant. We don't know what explosive material the sensor detected, but by the response it seems likely that it was rare. Finally, this isn't just about racism Indeed, it isn't, even though the overwhelming majority of comments, and the title itself, portends racism. In another comment someone criticizes me for apparently claiming that their treatment is reasonable. Yet never did I say their treatment was reasonable. Who would? they wouldn't even tell him what they had found Because they believe in the flawed concept of security through obscurity. They likely imagine that giving that information away shows their hand.

mistercow 13y ago
>Instead we have people saying "I am white and I set one off in 2003 in Australia and they let me through, therefore that demonstrates that this is racism" (ignore every case where non-whites got a couple of quick questions and went through). You are correct that anecdotal reports of white people not being harassed after setting off the detectors is not particularly strong evidence. > Go to JFK or Newark and tell me that they pick on non-whites, and I'll tell you that they must have hundreds of thousands of employees working around the clock to manage that. Racism is not a matter of "white or non-white". The "blows up planes" stereotype is specific to people who look "Arab". And of course they're not harassing everyone who fits their stereotype; the explosive detector surely did play a role (and people suggesting that it was intentionally triggered are being silly). It's just that your estimate of that being "95% of this story" is grotesquely optimistic. >Further what an FBI agent purportedly said during the conversational stage is utterly irrelevant. Perhaps the FBI agent didn't have a sense of the situation before he arrived. I would guess, given his position and the fact that he seemed to be the most competent and perceptive person the author dealt with, that his assessment is as reliable as we can expect to get. It certainly isn't irrelevant. That it was said in conversation is not very relevant. Are you suggesting that he made that comment inaccurately to reassure the author? "You have to understand, we're just very racist"? As for various things that other commenters have said, I'm not sure what response you want from me. I didn't say them. I'm sorry people can't read?
wfunction 13y ago
>> they wouldn't even tell him what they had found > Because they believe in the flawed concept of security through obscurity No, it's rather common sense actually. If a suspect wanted to blow something up, he would never admit he has the chemicals he has with him (because he wouldn't be sure that the cops have actually detected that chemical, and not made some other mistake that will let him go through). But if the cops tell him what they've found, then he'll know he's screwed, and will try to make up an excuse. On the other hand, if he admits what the chemical is himself (probably with a proper excuse), chances are that he's probably innocent, and they'd let him go. So, telling him what he's being accused of having actually makes it harder for him to get himself out of the mess plausibly.

mapt 13y ago

As much problem as I have with the TSA and this event... Offering hints as to how a person they do not trust would dissuade their suspicions is a way to guarantee that everyone dissuades their suspicions. It is an information-theoretically invalid way of pursuing an investigation of anything.

mistercow 13y ago
The line of questioning is almost entirely useless in the first place, and the way that they will interpret the evidence is likely the opposite of the way it should be interpreted. Ordinary people know basically nothing about explosives, or what everyday compounds might be explosives. At best they might say "Oh, I did some gardening, so I handled some fertilizer", or "I was at a shooting range yesterday". They might remember a chemical they had read off the label of something they used recently, if it's common enough, so if you told them what you found, they could tell you where they saw it. Terrorists, on the other hand, are likely to know all about common chemicals that can be used in explosives. If you tell them what you found, you aren't giving them any new information, and they can just tell you it came from whatever they got it from (and claim they were using it innocently). So giving a satisfactory answer should actually be evidence of the person being a terrorist. Of course, if a TSA agent were smart enough to realize that, a smart terrorist might pick up on that, and say "I don't know, I used some bug spray this morning?" Most terrorists don't actually seem to be smart, but in the case that you were evaluating the evidence correctly, you'd have to downgrade its strength on that basis (even more so once you factor in the non-terrorist chemistry geeks, who are probably orders of magnitude more common than terrorists, and less likely to consider that you might take a plausible answer as evidence against them). In short "what have you handled recently that might have lead to you having explosive residue on you?" is a pointless question, whether you tell them what you found or not. As a side note, it's overly simplistic to say that "giving hints" is invalid in general, because the definition of "giving hints" is vague. Should they just ask "Why did our screen flash red?" instead of telling you it was the explosive detector? Should they be even more vague and ask "Why are we interrogating you?" Getting useful information from someone requires that you communicate specifically. So if the line of inquiry were useful at all (and if it is even meaningful to reason about such a hypothetical), it would be more useful to ask about the specific substance.