5 ms·

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 addition

by 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_...
pbhjpbhj 13y ago
>Once they've determined he isn't carrying actual explosives he shouldn't be considered a threat anymore. // Because people who handle explosives and cover it up when questioned, and aren't involved in handling explosives in their day job, are completely to be trusted? Surely once they've determined he isn't carrying explosives they need to be sure as possible, if he claims not to have been around any explosives, that he's telling the truth; in order to reduce the risk that he's going to use explosives in an illegal way and/or manner dangerous to life. Don't people who're manufacturing explosives in secret deserve at least a passing glance to see what they're doing with them. It looks here like they checked his apartment to corroborate his statements. Now if they've established there are no traces of explosive present - for example they confirm the cause of a false-positive - that's different.
- darklajid 13y ago
  Er.. No. The problem with your line of thought is that you trust that machine to be somewhat reliable. We don't _really_ learn what set off the machine, but the author's guess is an over the counter spray.. If that's the high tech "You need to endure this process for the greater good, since the machine claims you're a threat" world you like to live in, I .. opt out. That thing is obviously next to useless and probably as effective as a look in the eyes of the stranger, with your gut deciding if he's going to stay put for the rest of the day or if he's allowed to move on. IFF we had a reliable, working test with little to no false positive due to f*ing everyday stuff (or .. bad luck, being a 'random' match), THEN you might have a point. Right now, you don't.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    >your line of thought is that you trust that machine to be somewhat reliable // And your problem is you assume the machine isn't reliable. So then if it's set off, you just say "ah well, it's probably a false reading". At that point you just obviated the purpose of the machine. Yes we don't learn whether it was the permethrin (? can't certainly recall the name) but the people who did the sweep of his apartment confirmed that there were no other indications of explosives manufacture [or you can plump for the slightly less cynical - 'the questioning confirmed he was not a threat']. There's likely always going to be some false-positives: the needs of the many, yadda, yadda. >IFF we had a reliable, working test with little to no false positive due to fing everyday stuff* // Can you post your source and the pertinent stats for the number of false-positives for explosives detection at airports in the USA please.

by mark-r 13y ago

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_...

pbhjpbhj 13y ago

>Once they've determined he isn't carrying actual explosives he shouldn't be considered a threat anymore. // Because people who handle explosives and cover it up when questioned, and aren't involved in handling explosives in their day job, are completely to be trusted? Surely once they've determined he isn't carrying explosives they need to be sure as possible, if he claims not to have been around any explosives, that he's telling the truth; in order to reduce the risk that he's going to use explosives in an illegal way and/or manner dangerous to life. Don't people who're manufacturing explosives in secret deserve at least a passing glance to see what they're doing with them. It looks here like they checked his apartment to corroborate his statements. Now if they've established there are no traces of explosive present - for example they confirm the cause of a false-positive - that's different.

darklajid 13y ago
Er.. No. The problem with your line of thought is that you trust that machine to be somewhat reliable. We don't _really_ learn what set off the machine, but the author's guess is an over the counter spray.. If that's the high tech "You need to endure this process for the greater good, since the machine claims you're a threat" world you like to live in, I .. opt out. That thing is obviously next to useless and probably as effective as a look in the eyes of the stranger, with your gut deciding if he's going to stay put for the rest of the day or if he's allowed to move on. IFF we had a reliable, working test with little to no false positive due to f*ing everyday stuff (or .. bad luck, being a 'random' match), THEN you might have a point. Right now, you don't.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >your line of thought is that you trust that machine to be somewhat reliable // And your problem is you assume the machine isn't reliable. So then if it's set off, you just say "ah well, it's probably a false reading". At that point you just obviated the purpose of the machine. Yes we don't learn whether it was the permethrin (? can't certainly recall the name) but the people who did the sweep of his apartment confirmed that there were no other indications of explosives manufacture [or you can plump for the slightly less cynical - 'the questioning confirmed he was not a threat']. There's likely always going to be some false-positives: the needs of the many, yadda, yadda. >IFF we had a reliable, working test with little to no false positive due to fing everyday stuff* // Can you post your source and the pertinent stats for the number of false-positives for explosives detection at airports in the USA please.