8 ms·

The explosives detection machinery doesn't care what you look like or believe. I don't know about you, but I want the TSA / FBI / NYPD to look into it so that

by kareemm 13y ago

The explosives detection machinery doesn't care what you look like or believe. I don't know about you, but I want the TSA / FBI / NYPD to look into it so that they're sufficiently convinced the individual is not a threat.

Karunamon 13y ago
Did you and I even read the same story?! The guy was clearly being profiled on race and religious background, not just the false positive of the explosives machine.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I'm not sure if you understand what "profiled" means. He was pulled into questioning because he repeatedly set off the bomb detector. The questions about race/religion weren't profiling, because they weren't used to select him for additional scrutiny. They are part of a psychological battery designed to evaluate him without a harsh interrogation. These sorts of batteries were pioneered by the Israelis and are very effective.
  - amirmc 13y ago
    We should be more precise. > "... because he repeatedly set off the bomb detector." No, the initial pat-down set off a chemical detector. He set it off once before being pulled into the private room. From that point on, it doesn't matter how many more times it was set off. It shouldn't increase the level of suspicion each time. Would they have let him go if one time it suddenly stopped giving a positive signal? I doubt it. > "These sorts of batteries were pioneered by the Israelis and are very effective." But this is not how the Israelis run their security procedures, so the comparison isn't fair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_Airport#Security_procedures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_Airport#Security_pro...
    - vxNsr 13y ago
      The Israeli procedures are kinda interesting, the second you enter the airport you are put in a line, you'll probably end up waiting in that line for about 15 min before you get to the "questioners" but once you're through everything else is really quick, especially the formal security check, you don't have to take off your shoes, remove your wallet, keys, etc or even take your laptop out of it's bag, just drop your bags on the belt, and walk through metal detector. Easily my favorite airport.
      - tmslnz 13y ago
        I wish I were wealthy enough to buy you a return ticket to Rome Ciampino airport, or Pisa for that matter and let you experience some of the easiest airports I've ever been to. Not like taking the train, but close… Anywhere else I've been including UK, US, Ukraine Odessa, etc, there's intimidation in the air, ready to hit. And that's really unpleasant.
    - darklajid 13y ago
      I .. don't want to offend and all (Amir? Sounds Israeli to me, but I don't claim to be an expert). But this 'It works so well at Ben Gurion' statements get old, really quick. It doesn't. Traveling to TLV is fine and no problem. Getting out just sucks. I feel treated like shit every single time, it's just borderline acceptable half the time (the other half it's really, really annoying, causing delays and trouble, stupid, braindead, unnecessary, idiotic, etc. etc.). This coming from a German that lived for one year in TLV and works for a company that sits in IL, so I've been there before my relocation and afterwards. Currently I'm at 14 or 15 visits only, so .. my data points are obviously too few and I just managed to pick the wrong time? Right? Previous: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5866764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5866764 Short version: No, the Israeli version doesn't make you feel like a human being either, most of the time.
      - amirmc 13y ago
        I wasn't clear enough in my comment. My point was that the entire process is different, so to single out the piece regarding questioning and suggesting that it works in this other context is not a fair comparison (regardless of how good/bad the Ben Gurion approach is overall). Also, I'm not in the slightest bit offended. I'm not Israeli and although my name is Persian in origin (I think?), I'm British. When I travel to the US, I usually get sent to 'secondary', so I've hsd a little experience with this type of questioning. It's just tedious.
  - icambron 13y ago
    An FBI agent in the article: "You’ll have to understand, when a person of your… background walks into here, traveling alone, and sets off our alarms, people start to get a bit nervous. I’m sure you’ve been following what’s been going on in the news recently. You’ve got people from five different branches of government all in here - we don’t do this just for fun." That's profiling. Edit to add: in other words "The questions about race/religion weren't profiling, because they weren't used to select him for additional scrutiny" is false. They even admitted to subjecting him to additional security because of his "background".
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      What an investigator says during an investigation isn't testimonial. There isn't even any obligation that it be truthful; it's OK for investigators to lie in the hope that it'll lead the suspect to incriminate themselves. Simple example: Cop tells Joe Blow that they have a witness to the crime, and Joe Blow may as well confess. Joe Blow makes a full confession. Turns out there was no witness. Perfectly legit; what Joe Blow should have said (if anything) was 'there couldn't be, because I didn't commit that crime.' Yes, that means that agents of the state (LEOs, prosecutors etc.) have an incentive to misbehave, but in the common law system the adversarial nature of the legal process allows the defense to challenge that. In a civil law system the investigating officer is supposed to be compelled to search for truth above all else, but if the investigating officer is corrupt or inefficient it is much harder to challenge in court, and defense attorneys are much less aggressive on behalf of their clients.
      - Karunamon 13y ago
        >What an investigator says during an investigation isn't testimonial. There isn't even any obligation that it be truthful; it's OK for investigators to lie in the hope that it'll lead the suspect to incriminate themselves. Who cares if it's legal testimony? It's still racial profiling, which is still uncool for any reason.
        lem72 13y ago
        Exactly. TO quote the dude, You're not wrong, you're just an asshole
mvzink 13y ago
If the explosives machinery did indeed detect permethrin, then they still have a lot to account for. Excuse me if I doubt that a white Christian would have faced the same ordeal and found their home burglarized over insect repellant.
mark-r 13y ago
Once they've determined he isn't carrying actual explosives he shouldn't be considered a threat anymore. The detection machine might single you out for additional searching, but once the search is complete you should be free to go.
- icambron 13y ago
  This. The craziness of "he set of the detection machine but it's clearly a false-positive, but now that he's on our radar let's grill him in case he just happens to be a terrorist" should be obvious to anyone.
  - jeremycole 13y ago
    Yes, IMHO it comes from this: What would be on the news if he was a terrorist and they find out that he actually set off the explosives detector before doing his deed? So basically their response is more about fear of embarrassment (to an extreme) than actual effectiveness.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      It is also about a lack of accountability. There is no penalty for going to town on the guy - for them its just a more exciting day on the job - for him it's a humiliating loss of personal autonomy.
      - rdtsc 13y ago
        > for them its just a more exciting day on the job Yes. Get into their mentality. The lower ranks are underpaid would be burger flippers and In-and-Out. The go through their boring day pushing prodding people. If they get to "interrogate" someone or humiliate him or show off their power just like a bully would in the cafeteria you betcha they'll take advantage of that.
    - gizzlon 13y ago
      "What would be on the news if he was a terrorist and they find out that he actually set off the explosives detector before doing his deed?" Yeah, Schneier calls it Cover Your Ass Security. It's not super effective .. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/cya_security_1.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/cya_security_...
sfall 13y ago
the problem is that as a Caucasian male even if i were to test positive for the same chemical and didn't realize the source I highly doubt I would have been detained for more than an hour or two
lotyrin 13y ago
Chemical detection doesn't even get used except under "random" search. There are so many chemicals to test for, and so many of them have other common uses that using chemical tests as a proxy for malicious intent has poor accuracy. Even assuming tests are extremely accurate, false positive rates would still massively exceed the incidence of threats. What you look like will greatly increase your odds of being "randomly" searched and thereby odds of false positive chemical detection, at which point what you believe may become a liability during your interrogation. Having an objective mechanism in the mix doesn't really put a dent how culturally and racially biased the present solution is. Whether you feel a need for there to be such a system in place only changes whether such a bias is a matter of xenophobic overreach or a technical weakness against threats that resemble the majority.
- kareemm 13y ago
  It wasn't a "random" search. Any time you opt out of the millimeter wave scanner, you get a hand pat-down and your baggage is swabbed for explosives.
  - marvin 13y ago
    Even the "random" searches (the ones that start with "you have been selected for a random search") are rarely random.

by kareemm 13y ago

Karunamon 13y ago

Did you and I even read the same story?! The guy was clearly being profiled on race and religious background, not just the false positive of the explosives machine.

rayiner 13y ago
I'm not sure if you understand what "profiled" means. He was pulled into questioning because he repeatedly set off the bomb detector. The questions about race/religion weren't profiling, because they weren't used to select him for additional scrutiny. They are part of a psychological battery designed to evaluate him without a harsh interrogation. These sorts of batteries were pioneered by the Israelis and are very effective.
- amirmc 13y ago
  We should be more precise. > "... because he repeatedly set off the bomb detector." No, the initial pat-down set off a chemical detector. He set it off once before being pulled into the private room. From that point on, it doesn't matter how many more times it was set off. It shouldn't increase the level of suspicion each time. Would they have let him go if one time it suddenly stopped giving a positive signal? I doubt it. > "These sorts of batteries were pioneered by the Israelis and are very effective." But this is not how the Israelis run their security procedures, so the comparison isn't fair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_Airport#Security_procedures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_Airport#Security_pro...
  - vxNsr 13y ago
    The Israeli procedures are kinda interesting, the second you enter the airport you are put in a line, you'll probably end up waiting in that line for about 15 min before you get to the "questioners" but once you're through everything else is really quick, especially the formal security check, you don't have to take off your shoes, remove your wallet, keys, etc or even take your laptop out of it's bag, just drop your bags on the belt, and walk through metal detector. Easily my favorite airport.
    - tmslnz 13y ago
      I wish I were wealthy enough to buy you a return ticket to Rome Ciampino airport, or Pisa for that matter and let you experience some of the easiest airports I've ever been to. Not like taking the train, but close… Anywhere else I've been including UK, US, Ukraine Odessa, etc, there's intimidation in the air, ready to hit. And that's really unpleasant.
  - darklajid 13y ago
    I .. don't want to offend and all (Amir? Sounds Israeli to me, but I don't claim to be an expert). But this 'It works so well at Ben Gurion' statements get old, really quick. It doesn't. Traveling to TLV is fine and no problem. Getting out just sucks. I feel treated like shit every single time, it's just borderline acceptable half the time (the other half it's really, really annoying, causing delays and trouble, stupid, braindead, unnecessary, idiotic, etc. etc.). This coming from a German that lived for one year in TLV and works for a company that sits in IL, so I've been there before my relocation and afterwards. Currently I'm at 14 or 15 visits only, so .. my data points are obviously too few and I just managed to pick the wrong time? Right? Previous: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5866764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5866764 Short version: No, the Israeli version doesn't make you feel like a human being either, most of the time.
    - amirmc 13y ago
      I wasn't clear enough in my comment. My point was that the entire process is different, so to single out the piece regarding questioning and suggesting that it works in this other context is not a fair comparison (regardless of how good/bad the Ben Gurion approach is overall). Also, I'm not in the slightest bit offended. I'm not Israeli and although my name is Persian in origin (I think?), I'm British. When I travel to the US, I usually get sent to 'secondary', so I've hsd a little experience with this type of questioning. It's just tedious.
- icambron 13y ago
  An FBI agent in the article: "You’ll have to understand, when a person of your… background walks into here, traveling alone, and sets off our alarms, people start to get a bit nervous. I’m sure you’ve been following what’s been going on in the news recently. You’ve got people from five different branches of government all in here - we don’t do this just for fun." That's profiling. Edit to add: in other words "The questions about race/religion weren't profiling, because they weren't used to select him for additional scrutiny" is false. They even admitted to subjecting him to additional security because of his "background".
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    What an investigator says during an investigation isn't testimonial. There isn't even any obligation that it be truthful; it's OK for investigators to lie in the hope that it'll lead the suspect to incriminate themselves. Simple example: Cop tells Joe Blow that they have a witness to the crime, and Joe Blow may as well confess. Joe Blow makes a full confession. Turns out there was no witness. Perfectly legit; what Joe Blow should have said (if anything) was 'there couldn't be, because I didn't commit that crime.' Yes, that means that agents of the state (LEOs, prosecutors etc.) have an incentive to misbehave, but in the common law system the adversarial nature of the legal process allows the defense to challenge that. In a civil law system the investigating officer is supposed to be compelled to search for truth above all else, but if the investigating officer is corrupt or inefficient it is much harder to challenge in court, and defense attorneys are much less aggressive on behalf of their clients.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      >What an investigator says during an investigation isn't testimonial. There isn't even any obligation that it be truthful; it's OK for investigators to lie in the hope that it'll lead the suspect to incriminate themselves. Who cares if it's legal testimony? It's still racial profiling, which is still uncool for any reason.
      - lem72 13y ago
        Exactly. TO quote the dude, You're not wrong, you're just an asshole

mvzink 13y ago

If the explosives machinery did indeed detect permethrin, then they still have a lot to account for. Excuse me if I doubt that a white Christian would have faced the same ordeal and found their home burglarized over insect repellant.

mark-r 13y ago

Once they've determined he isn't carrying actual explosives he shouldn't be considered a threat anymore. The detection machine might single you out for additional searching, but once the search is complete you should be free to go.

icambron 13y ago
This. The craziness of "he set of the detection machine but it's clearly a false-positive, but now that he's on our radar let's grill him in case he just happens to be a terrorist" should be obvious to anyone.
- jeremycole 13y ago
  Yes, IMHO it comes from this: What would be on the news if he was a terrorist and they find out that he actually set off the explosives detector before doing his deed? So basically their response is more about fear of embarrassment (to an extreme) than actual effectiveness.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    It is also about a lack of accountability. There is no penalty for going to town on the guy - for them its just a more exciting day on the job - for him it's a humiliating loss of personal autonomy.
    - rdtsc 13y ago
      > for them its just a more exciting day on the job Yes. Get into their mentality. The lower ranks are underpaid would be burger flippers and In-and-Out. The go through their boring day pushing prodding people. If they get to "interrogate" someone or humiliate him or show off their power just like a bully would in the cafeteria you betcha they'll take advantage of that.
  - gizzlon 13y ago
    "What would be on the news if he was a terrorist and they find out that he actually set off the explosives detector before doing his deed?" Yeah, Schneier calls it Cover Your Ass Security. It's not super effective .. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/cya_security_1.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/cya_security_...

sfall 13y ago

the problem is that as a Caucasian male even if i were to test positive for the same chemical and didn't realize the source I highly doubt I would have been detained for more than an hour or two

lotyrin 13y ago

Chemical detection doesn't even get used except under "random" search. There are so many chemicals to test for, and so many of them have other common uses that using chemical tests as a proxy for malicious intent has poor accuracy. Even assuming tests are extremely accurate, false positive rates would still massively exceed the incidence of threats. What you look like will greatly increase your odds of being "randomly" searched and thereby odds of false positive chemical detection, at which point what you believe may become a liability during your interrogation. Having an objective mechanism in the mix doesn't really put a dent how culturally and racially biased the present solution is. Whether you feel a need for there to be such a system in place only changes whether such a bias is a matter of xenophobic overreach or a technical weakness against threats that resemble the majority.

kareemm 13y ago
It wasn't a "random" search. Any time you opt out of the millimeter wave scanner, you get a hand pat-down and your baggage is swabbed for explosives.
- marvin 13y ago
  Even the "random" searches (the ones that start with "you have been selected for a random search") are rarely random.