8 ms·
TSA loudspeakers threaten travelers with arrest for joking about security
- jes 13y agoI find this constant indoctrination concerning. Where does it end? If two people wanted to have a serious discussion about individual rights while waiting in a checkpoint line at the airport, would they also be subject to arrest? Whatever happened to the idea that we would not let terrorists change our way of life?
- girvo 13y ago> If two people wanted to have a serious discussion about individual rights while waiting in a checkpoint line at the airport, would they also be subject to arrest? I'd go based on the working assumption of "Yes" for that one. So much for free speech.
- cstross 13y agoProblem: queues are boring. Consequently, people in queues talk to one another and make jokes about the queues. If it's a security queue, some bored people joke about security. Unfortunately, TSA checkers have no discretion: they're supposed to behave like robots[1]. They're not allowed to write off a wisecrack as a joke, but are required to take it at face value. (Even though no sane terrorist would joke about smuggling a bomb through a TSA checkpoint while in the queue at said checkpoint.) TSA response: warn people that they can be arrested for joking. Possible solution #1: figure out why people are making jokes (boredom, long queues) and do something to fix it, reducing the incidence of false positives. (Hire more bodies, shorten the queues.) Possible solution #2: recruit higher quality security guards and train them to use their initiative, then give them some discretion. (The El Al/Israeli response.) Possible solution #3: reform US foreign policy to reduce the inflammation that causes terrorist activity against US targets; focus on intelligence-driven police tactics to prevent terrorist attacks before they get anywhere near an airport or other target: abolish the TSA. (The utopian solution. This won't happen because, politics.) [1] A large subset of the American population believe that government can do no good. Therefore government agencies are not allowed to operate as if they're staffed by competent, intelligent human beings with discretion. This is why we can't have nice things.
- AmVess 13y agoSolution #4: Shut down the entire DHS and fire all the TSA dirtbags.
- smoyer 13y agoI'd like solution #4 as part of solution #3 please ... now we just need someone in DC to listen to what we want.
- ruttiger 13y agoBut then, people will bring shampoo on flights.
- schtev 13y agoSolution #5: The retards in charge of current policy accept that no sane terrorist would joke about smuggling a bomb through a TSA checkpoint while in the queue at said checkpoint, and thus stop arresting people for jokes.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- smky80 13y agoAlso, throw the head DHS and TSA officials in Guantanamo for terrorizing the American public.
- Sagat 13y ago
- threeseed 13y agoMakes sense to me. People who think it is funny to waste people's time, cause needless panic and generally be disruptive are nothing but selfish assholes. And worst of all it induces a boomerang effect where people rally against you and dismiss the legitimate privacy concerns. If you actually cared about what the TSA was doing you would be an adult and lobby your local representative.
- nwh 13y agoUnfortunately many of the people the TSA impact aren't American at all. We have nothing to do with your democratic system, no matter how disfunctional it is.
- ceejayoz 13y agoThe only reason a joke wastes time and causes panic & disruption is the idiotic overreaction to something harmless.
- UnoriginalGuy 13y agoSociety as a whole is really trying to please the lowest common denominator. In the past if someone made an obvious joke and then someone else got "offended" or "afraid" from it they would have been instantly scolded for being a bit dim and to be on their merry way. But these days it seems like we're in "offense wars" where we must protect everyone's delicate sensibilities because offending or scaring a stupid person is almost a crime in its own right (see parents who run around attacking photographers who steal their kid's souls with cameras). When has someone overhearing a joke at the airport ever prevented a terrorist attack? Never is the answer. Just stupid people complaining and stupid people "following orders" and conducting a completely disproportionate investigation into something everyone knows for a fact won't lead anywhere. "See something report something" is just a moronic as "stranger danger" and all of those sayings. Use common sense. Think about things. Stop being sheep.
- Sagat 13y agoWake up, sheeple!
- bad_alloc 13y agoTSA is rapidly approaching the level of creepiness of Half Life's Overwatch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y_3vMUOayyc#t=99 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y_3... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZX6oLEK5KQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZX6oLEK5KQ
- vanattab 13y agoThere are plenty of problems with the TSA but this is not one of them. I don't think it's too much to ask people not to make jokes about blowing up a plane.
- smoyer 13y agoYou also can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater ... but I think this article was talking about being arrested for discussing how ludicrous the whole process is.
- twoodfin 13y agoSorry, who was arrested for that?
- smoyer 13y agoI'm not sure whether anyone was ... it represents cases where free-speech can be limited (and there are many others). You can't call your boss offensive names and expect to have a job right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- twoodfin 13y agoNot the "fire", the "discussing how ludicrous the whole process is."
- michaelfeathers 13y agoMaking jokes about blowing up a plane has always been illegal. Now it's all jokes about security. Example: "Hey, can you see my underwear with that thing?" Their sign says that you are subject to arrest for any joke. That's the problem.
- appleflaxen 13y agoThere are lots of things we ask people not to say. But to threaten them with arrest if we say them anyway is antithetical to free speech. It makes me so god damn depressed to see opinions like this on HN.
- UnoriginalGuy 13y agoIt is strange how far things have come. Many years (1980-90s) ago when people would start these long rants about how "the US is a police state" etc everyone would just look at them like they were a little unhinged, then after 9/11 everyone started joking about how it was "true," now everyone has stopped laughing and when the topic comes up the tone is what I would call "genuine concern" mixed with nervous laughter. The US police have become extremely militarised. The TSA and CBP have turned damn right hostile. And it seems like nobody in any kind of authority position has any common sense left, I still remember when that chick from MIT entered the airport with a bunch of LED in a t-shirt and how instead of everyone laughing about the "funny misunderstanding" everyone was condemning her and she got charged with some nonsense "crime." Seriously has the whole world gone insane? I feel like I am the only one left with any concept of proportionality and understanding of the difference between a legitimate threat and a misunderstanding. On a related note: Why are SWAT now being used in no-knock arrests when there is no knowledge of weapons on the property and they often aren't even collecting time critical evidence? Why can cops not just knock on the door politely and arrest a suspect?
- sandstrom 13y agoI agree with you that things are worse now. I wouldn't say that the world has gone insane though, rather that the US attitudes have shifted over time. There are countries that does things differently though. For example, the worlds fourth and eight largest economies: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-l... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398
- notahacker 13y agoIf the US government followed the example of the Japan or the UK in banning virtually all domestic firearm ownership, the cries of "police state" would be even more deafening...
- elemeno 13y ago
- smoyer 13y ago"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" When your job is (mostly) a sham, you'd better make it seem important if you want to keep it. I've met people (in big corporations and universities) who are masters of seeming important while doing very little, but those people tend to really stand out when they're inserted in small companies (i.e. start-ups).
- norswap 13y agoGolly, real life is starting to look like Half Life 2.
- triplesec 13y agoPeople have often and for decades got into trouble for "joking" about having a bomb in their bags at check-in, and we've always lamented the institutionalised stupidity of the drones behind the counter (and their dull bosses) for not realising that humans are mostly not very good at comedy. However, this is another thing entirely, and reminds me of the practice in Nazi occupied terriroties of having loudspeakers in the street to control, order and relay propaganda to the restless occupied. I don't think Godwin's Law counts here either. This is a legitimate comparison.
- dasil003 13y agoGodwin's Law states nothing about the legitimacy of said comparison—it applies to literally every online discussion.
- triplesec 13y agoI do know this. Perhaps I should have used George Orwell's 1984 as the example instead, but I was still sleepy. I tried to find a film recording of these speakers, but the internets failed my quick search. The effect is extremely chilling, a disembodied voice ordering you in curt, menacing terms to follow orders. It is archetypically dystopian.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- notahacker 13y agoOh come off it. This is an addition to an existing, very familiar category of loudspeaker announcements advising people that doing X might get them into trouble, where X has long been acknowledged to be a bad idea. You hear similar announcements in airports all over the world. Would you genuinely prefer they left the last line off the announcement and had more people being "not very good at comedy" as a result?
- DominikR 13y ago
- downandout 13y agoThis is being way overblown. This warning is ominous and far too broadly worded. However, if the TSA brings in law enforcement and requests that you be arrested, that officer (not an agent of the TSA) must determine that there is probable cause to believe that you have violated a specific state or federal statute in order to arrest you. There are statutes concerning making statements about bombs, terror threats, etc. in a secure area, but your innocent jokes are fine. This is not to say that TSA can't detain you and ruin your day for essentially any reason, but any joke or comment that doesn't actually violate a state or federal statute will not result in your arrest.
- michaelfeathers 13y agoThat's the way it goes. Originally, the prohibition was about making jokes about bombs. Once there's that leg in, it can be escalated. It's very much like the acronym IED. For years it meant "improvised explosive device." I was floor when I heard a newscaster use it to mean "improvised electronic device" in reference to something someone brought into an airport.
- Lost_BiomedE 13y ago" but any joke or comment that doesn't actually violate a state or federal statute will not result in your arrest." How would I know? We have secret laws that are enforced but the offender is not allowed to know what they are beforehand.
- TheZenPsycho 13y agoErr. I'm confused. This sort of message has been there for years in Denver's airport. Is this news because they just added it to texas now, and we didn't expect a haven of freedom and left wing ideology like texas have this sort of thing?
- ams6110 13y agoI mostly agree. I think they could have left out the threat of arrest, and simply announced "do not make jokes about security or terrorism in the secure area" as has been posted on signage already for years. This would make the announcements more like the "do not leave your bags unattended" and "do not park in the loading zone" etc. that drone on in the background of every airport already.
- thetwiceler 13y agoThis should not be causing indignation. I think most of you agree with Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes that: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. (whether or not you agree with the decision in the Schenck case.) I assume that the inappropriate jokes that are being referred to are related to people claiming that they have a dangerous item. We arrest people for making bomb threats (and we shut down schools in response to them), and I wouldn't expect any different at an airport.
- drjesusphd 13y ago> people claiming that they have a dangerous item I imagine it's far more broad than that. How about jokes that involve mentioning said dangerous item in any respect. By all means, take seriously any claim of posessing these items, for exactly the reason you describe; you don't want to cause a panic. Words mean something. Just because someone said the word "bomb" doesn't mean they're claiming to be carrying one.
- betterunix 13y ago"(whether or not you agree with the decision in the Schenck case.)" The problem is that the statement was used not only to support the decision in that case, but could be used to support any restriction on free speech rights -- which you yourself have done. You can always claim that allowing some particular form of speech would create a panic or disrupt public order, which it is joking about airport security, handing out anti-draft literature, or voicing disapproval of the president.
- thetwiceler 13y agoI agree; it is up to us to decide what constitutes a "clear and present danger." You can always claim anything you want, but you'll have a difficult time convincing me that voicing disapproval of the president constitutes a "clear and present danger."
- skylan_q 13y agoYes we can!
- oellegaard 13y agoYeah, so I don't think i'll be going to any more US conferences. I invite any American to come to Scandinavia and make jokes. Here you will not be arrested, though the TSA equivalent reserve their rights to laugh of your jokes.
- atlanticus 13y agoIf you're more concerned about your right to joke about bombing civilian aircraft rather than attend a serious conference then the conference is better off without you.
- nav1 13y agoThis is not about the right to make jokes. Comments about airport security should simply not be grounds for arrest. All this would cause is many innocent people being detained for saying what they think.
- oellegaard 13y agoI'm not concerned for my own person. I can easily restrict my use of jokes, but I can't support a country that disallows some of the most basic human rights, namely the freedom of speech (which I consider country-wide, not like the American version where you have to stand in a free speech zone to exercise the right). I hope the good people from the developer community in USA will attend the European conferences, so we can still meet and share experiences. Also, this isn't just jokes as to what you are referring, it's jokes that any way involves security at airports, as I understand it. E.g. "Careful, it might smell" when they pick up your shoe.
- ams6110 13y agoSo you're claiming that in a European airport I can joke about having a bomb or smuggling heroin and I won't attract any additional attention from the security staff?
- oellegaard 13y ago
- lost_my_pwd 13y agoMany years ago but post-9/11 ('02 or '03?) I was waiting on the security checkpoint line. The line was moving very slowly and I was bored out of my mind until I noticed a poster informing people of things that were banned from the plane. It included illustrations of things such as WWII pineapple grenades, a scythe, machete, chainssaw, etc. and I pointed and laughed at the absurdity. The thought of someone trying to stuff some of these items into a duffel bag was hilarious as well as the idea that someone felt it necessary to warn people about these prohibited items. Right away I saw a blue-shirted supervisor whisper to one of the checkpoint gropers and when it was my turn, I was pulled aside for 'additional' screening with more than one groper participating and more whispering between the gropers and the supervisor. One thing I did make out was, "...was laughing at the sign...,' which solidified my fears about the direction of our country post-9/11. Besides feeling violated, what bothered me the most was not the idea that these people could be bullying someone who would dare to question their actions and authority but that these people really believed that my actions were worthy of suspicion. That our rights and safety was in the hands of people lacking any imagination, independent thought, discretion, or sense of reason.
- DanBC 13y ago> The thought of someone trying to stuff some of these items into a duffel bag was hilarious as well as the idea that someone felt it necessary to warn people about these prohibited items. Did you say "oh wow, I was laughing at that poster because who needs to be told not to bring a machete onto a plane?" Because people try to take loaded handguns onto planes. (30 this week, 13 with chambered rounds) (http://blog.tsa.gov/ http://blog.tsa.gov/) See also the meat cleaver.
- glenra 13y agoA loaded handgun is a fine thing to take on a plane. I imagine the hilarious part was more on the "chainsaw" end of the scale.
- DanBC 13y agoLoaded hand guns are not allowed in hand luggage, only checked. Cultural note: sentences like "A loaded handgun is a fine thing to take on a plane" are the reason many people in many countries think that Americans are batshit insane.
- derrida 13y agoWhy did the TSA agent not allow jokes at the airport? The last joke bombed.
- coldcode 13y agoBe interesting if one could play the loudspeaker messages from Airplane (or maybe a sequel I forget) through the airport system nearby to a security line. At least it would give the people in line something to laugh about.
- bane 13y agoBut the problem is that Security is a joke.
- dickbasedregex 13y agoAs a veteran in a long line of veterans I grow increasingly disgusted by my country. I'm angry that I feel like I wasted time "defending" something I don't believe in.
- Dogamondo 13y agoThis is an ironic piece to be discussed on HN, especially for the commenters who express any disagreement with the TSA policy referenced in this article. As someone who has been down-voted quite harshly for making offhanded humorous comments on a few threads, it seems it would be hypocritical if the TSA's stance in this article was not lauded with praise by the HN community at large. In an airport situation, joking about any matters of security is seen as undesirable and quite intentionally punishable. From my experience over a few accounts on this website, the same philosophy holds right here on HN - Make a joke or humorous response to any story (whether it be a super-serious matter of international security or light-hearted comparison between Ikea furniture and death metal bands) and you'll be punished duly by the community at large by means of trouncing your reputation here into the ground for your attempts at humour. So here's where I'd like to pose the question - Why the massive hypocritical disconnect HN? Just because PG referenced it in an essay of on-topic commenting etiquette? I find we discuss important issues on this site with a certain amount of passion and opposition when it comes to anything threatening censorship and freedom, and very quickly turn around and (blindly) adhere to the same policies when they're suggested as the right way to moderate each other in our own online community. I've been downvoted a few times recently for attempting to make a few jokes of my own this board and it annoys me that we're all encouraged to punish that, the same way the TSA is. I realise I'll probably lose my account over this comment. But as parting words I'd like to say: To those who've ever upvoted a well intentioned humorous comment that gave a slight chuckle or reprieve from the (amazingly thought provoking and informative) super on-topic and serious comments that are encouraged on this site. - I absolutely and unequivocally salute you.
- noonespecial 13y agoAs someone who has been both upvoted and downvoted much for humor on HN, I'd say this isn't quite accurate. HN polices itself diligently to keep comments from filling up with one-liners like many other forums. Its a point of pride. No "First", or "welcoming overlords" and all that non-sense here. HN does appreciate sophisticated wit when applied appropriately and moderately. I've found a simple way to determine if I'm about to collect downvotes is to ask myself "is this joke more like 'that's what she said' than 'In the morning, I shall be sober'?"
- 13y ago
- mark-ruwt 13y agoI'm confused by this article and their "exclusive recording". Hasn't this exact sentence been in the standard loop for years? Or am I imagining things?
- MichaelTieso 13y agoThis is pretty normal in Australia. I remember seeing quite a few signs and announcements that you were not allowed to joke about the security. Knowing that I couldn't joke around made me actually want to say a joke.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- haberman 13y agoChances are, when you hear something like this from some kind of authority figure, it's because they deal with people who don't get the message. It's never been ok to play like you're smuggling something through a checkpoint. "Keep your eyes out for the bomb I have in there, ha ha." I'm pretty sure this would get you in trouble even pre-9/11. Probably because there's not that much room between this and an actual bomb threat: "I have a bomb." But people who haven't fully thought through the implications of this think of their words as innocent joking, and I bet some people do actually end up getting arrested who meant nothing by it. No one wins when this happens. So they react by adding an intercom announcement reinforcing what has always been true, which is that you can't say you have a bomb, even if you're just joking. -- When I see stuff like this, I often think of the proverb "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." For people who think that the US is tending towards a police state (as the URL of this piece implies), by far the most compelling evidence of that are the Snowden leaks. Those are a totally different magnitude that stuff like this airport security announcement. If everything you see, including stuff like this, makes you say "OMG the USA is a a police state," then you're not an insightful privacy advocate, you are a broken clock. Insight requires discernment; knowing the difference between what is big and serious and what is small and even reasonable.
- alextingle 13y agoYour comment boils down to, "it's always been like this". Well, sorry but we haven't always been at war with Eurasia, and check-in security has not always been so customer-unfriendly. Source: I'm old enough to remember better times.
- haberman 13y agoSo you made jokes about carrying bombs in the past and it was cool? I said something specific, not something general.
- agilebyte 13y agoWhy would a terrorist announce he or she has a bomb? To test the reaction? A terrorist most likely tries to deal damage and get as far into transit as possible. I can only imagine a real terrorist saying that to make the official more lax with their security check. So, I would respond by checking them more properly, but I would not threaten people with an arrest.
- catenate 13y agoLaughter and joking is a coping mechanism for dealing with uncomfortable and hostile situations. It's a way to blow off steam and accept things without reacting as aggressively as the humiliation you feel. Take out that release valve, and people are going to start reacting more badly than a simple joke, which will escalate security's perceived need to be there in the first place. I'm very glad I don't fly any more for my job twice a week, because I never bothered to restrain my comments in the face of such misdirected, useless, and intrusive delay and obviously unconstitutional search. I will continue to take 500-mile road trips rather than fly with my family, because there's no way I'll teach children that being either irradiated or caressed by a uniform agent is acceptable.
- yason 13y agoMaybe they should keep looking for explosives and sharp items instead of listening to people's jokes. The point of security is to ensure that nothing physically harmful enters the secure side with the passengers regardless of whether they have good jokes, bad jokes or no jokes.