8 ms·

This isn't exactly a new phenomenon - even before 9/11, a careless joke at baggage check-in ("Did you pack your own luggage today, Sir?" - "No, my wife probably

This isn't exactly a new phenomenon - even before 9/11, a careless joke at baggage check-in ("Did you pack your own luggage today, Sir?" - "No, my wife probably put a bomb in there.") would often result in the joke not being recognised or treated as such. Said jokester gets taken to one side, scrutinised by the boys in blue, and eventually told that they "will not be flying today, sir." In the age of Twitter, such hijinks are amplified further due to their world-readable nature. The problem with innocent, uncomfortable-but-well-intentioned jokes is that you have to consider how it will play with someone whose job it is to flag up and respond to any and all threats, no matter how credible. Fundamentally it's your joke versus a member of staff who is not in a position to deviate from the procedure and brush it aside. Plus, who'd want to be the guy who gets their face on the news after an incident because they ignored a threat and thought it was a joke? They won't, and often CAN'T, take that risk - they are simply not in a position where they are allowed to do so. As you say, we live in shitty knee-jerk reactionary tines, but whatever the rights and wrongs, in this kind of situation it's prudent to moderate one's comedy appropriately.

tomp 12y ago
> whose job it is to flag up and respond to any and all threats, no matter how credible. That's exactly the problem, right there. Such jobs should not exist, because non-credible/joking threats are not threats, they are just jokes.
- jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
  Absolutely, but a credible security researcher, on a plane, talking about its configuration and asking "shall we start playing with EICAS messages?" is not a joke that can be disambiguated in real time. That is achieved through men with badges, confiscation of property, the disruption of travel, and the kind of inconvenience being written about here.
jhildings 12y ago
The baggage questions is so stupid, IF you wanted to do some evil with things packed, WHY would you say something that isn't the "right" answer to them?
- bonaldi 12y ago
  Because you might not be aware that you're being used. I can't find the reference right now, but that question started being asked after a man put an explosive in his wife's luggage (when she was flying without him, naturally)
  - hga 12y ago
    fiancé: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair
  - jhildings 12y ago
    I see, thank you
- ghshephard 12y ago
  It's an excellent question if people pay attention - the question, (at least as asked in Singapore), is, "Did you pack your own luggage, are you aware of everything in it, has anyone given you anything to place in your luggage, and has your luggage been under your control/observation the entire time." Every time they ask me that question - I do a quick mental checklist, always mention that my luggage did leave my control when placed in the boot of the cab - which they always understand is an acceptable loss of control. There are a couple alternatives that one could take to further increase security - first, presume that 100% of people are threats, and do a full security scan, and hand check/rejection, of 100% of checked luggage. Likewise, enhance the carry-on security check, and further restrict what people can carry-on. In particular, shift the carry-on check to the gate (where it should be).
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    >Every time they ask me that question - I do a quick mental checklist, always mention that my luggage did leave my control when placed in the boot of the cab - which they always understand is an acceptable loss of control. I'd bet that a fair number of the people who thoughtfully answer that question give an answer that is calculated to produce the least amount of hassle for themselves, even if they know that their luggage could have potentially been tampered with. Most people probably aren't aware enough of their surroundings to give an informed answer. I'd like to know out of the number of extra checks that have been initiated due to this question, how many have yielded anything useful.
pasbesoin 12y ago
Humour is a part of human nature. Denying this at the outset of your policy and procedure, seems a pretty poor start to vetting humans.

tomp 12y ago

> whose job it is to flag up and respond to any and all threats, no matter how credible. That's exactly the problem, right there. Such jobs should not exist, because non-credible/joking threats are not threats, they are just jokes.

jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
Absolutely, but a credible security researcher, on a plane, talking about its configuration and asking "shall we start playing with EICAS messages?" is not a joke that can be disambiguated in real time. That is achieved through men with badges, confiscation of property, the disruption of travel, and the kind of inconvenience being written about here.

jhildings 12y ago

The baggage questions is so stupid, IF you wanted to do some evil with things packed, WHY would you say something that isn't the "right" answer to them?

bonaldi 12y ago
Because you might not be aware that you're being used. I can't find the reference right now, but that question started being asked after a man put an explosive in his wife's luggage (when she was flying without him, naturally)
- hga 12y ago
  fiancé: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair
- jhildings 12y ago
  I see, thank you
ghshephard 12y ago
It's an excellent question if people pay attention - the question, (at least as asked in Singapore), is, "Did you pack your own luggage, are you aware of everything in it, has anyone given you anything to place in your luggage, and has your luggage been under your control/observation the entire time." Every time they ask me that question - I do a quick mental checklist, always mention that my luggage did leave my control when placed in the boot of the cab - which they always understand is an acceptable loss of control. There are a couple alternatives that one could take to further increase security - first, presume that 100% of people are threats, and do a full security scan, and hand check/rejection, of 100% of checked luggage. Likewise, enhance the carry-on security check, and further restrict what people can carry-on. In particular, shift the carry-on check to the gate (where it should be).
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >Every time they ask me that question - I do a quick mental checklist, always mention that my luggage did leave my control when placed in the boot of the cab - which they always understand is an acceptable loss of control. I'd bet that a fair number of the people who thoughtfully answer that question give an answer that is calculated to produce the least amount of hassle for themselves, even if they know that their luggage could have potentially been tampered with. Most people probably aren't aware enough of their surroundings to give an informed answer. I'd like to know out of the number of extra checks that have been initiated due to this question, how many have yielded anything useful.

pasbesoin 12y ago

Humour is a part of human nature. Denying this at the outset of your policy and procedure, seems a pretty poor start to vetting humans.