Comment by beloch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by beloch | Hacker News Reader

"Mr. Mukerjee contends he asked to leave the screening area and return to the pre-security section of the terminal, with the intention of simply stepping back in line and going through screening again, but was not allowed. This is absolutely correct, at this time he was in limbo, he was not being detained, but he could not leave. A person cannot simply leave the security area of any airport once they are on the airside but have not satisfactorily completed screening. Once a person has passed through security, but is not cleared to fly and then chooses to leave, such as Mr. Mukerjee, s/he must be escorted out of the secure area (and usually the terminal)."

----------------

Deciding if I am detained: a rule of thumb.

If I receive word about an urgent emergency, such as my wife being hit by a bus or about to give birth, can I immediately go to the hospital? If yes, I am free. If not, I am detained.

This rule breaks down a bit on amusement park rides, but one would assume the ride operators would immediately let you off if you could communicate with them and, in any case, you're only going to be stuck there for a couple of minutes at the most.

Mukerjee was not in "limbo". He was detained. When someone chooses to redefine words White-House-style I tend to view whatever else they say as though they are serving an agenda.

That's the same feeling I was getting from this article. It was completely disingenuous (or better put, an outright lie) to say that he was not detained. The police were keeping him against his will to determine if he was guilty of a crime. That pretty well fits the definition of detainment.

The article makes it very clear what "detained" vs. "not detained" means, in this context.

Mukerjee wasn't being detained, or kept, beyond the basic protocol of "unscreened passengers have to be escorted out of the terminal."

Mukerjee was free to leave, he simple had to leave the building entirely. He could not just leave and then step back into line, as was his intention, for numerous utterly sane reasons.

So they have their procedures. But that raises the question - what is the point?

Let's assume the threat is real, someone with nefarious intent is not-detained, escorted to outside the building and left to his own devices. What is to stop him from simply turning around, re-entering the building and going through a different screening station?

I'm pretty sure the answer is "security theater."

Well, if you'd read the rest of the article, you'd see the procedures are designed to ensure that, if he's going to do that, he's doing it without any implement of harm on him, or least not one the TSA can find.

Also, pointing out that it's impossible to deter a truly convicted person from a heinous act does not mean all deterrents are pointless.

Yes, MUCH of what the TSA does is theater, and doesn't do much to keep us safe. Yes, much of it is theater.

But based on all the evidence provided in both his account, and the one above, the TSA acted in a completely sane way in this incident.

That does not mean he wasn't detained. If you aren't free to go, you are detained.

If you are pulled over for speeding, until the officer lets you go, you are detained.

So not only was he detained but his bag was seized. Now arguably everyone is briefly detained by the TSA on condition of travel, and arguably all bags are seized briefly. However, that is why there needs to be scrutiny on these practices.

As was stated, he wasn't detained. He was told he could leave the airport, escorted by personnel, but that his bag had to remain.

So he chose to stay.

He was told he could leave the airport, escorted by personnel, but that his bag had to remain.

Being told you can walk away if you like but we are keeping your stuff, is usually a form of theft.

Not a form of theft, but it is a seizure of property.

This is interesting. The argument is over whether he was detained or whether his property was seized. Fun shell game there. Not....

"Wait here for someone who will escort you out" = "he was detained."

"The bag had to remain" = "they seized his bag."

> Yes, MUCH of what the TSA does is theater, and doesn't do much to keep us safe. Yes, much of it is theater.

ALL of what the TSA does is theater, and it actively makes us LESS safe. Their actions cause over a thousand unnecessary deaths a year by making air travel less convenient and more expensive so people who drive when they would otherwise fly get killed in auto accidents. There is no evidence they have saved even a single life with any of these precautions, much less the thousand-a-year they'd need for the billions we spend on them to be a break-even proposition.

Either he was detained or his bag was seized, or both.

Keep in mind that if you are pulled over for speeding, you are technically detained for the duration of the traffic stop.

He also had to surrender his bags.

IOW his bags were seized.

Right at the end of the section you quoted states he would have been able to leave in such a case. He would have been allowed to leave the airport if he was willing to "be escorted out of the secure area (and usually the terminal)." The problem is that Mukerjee wanted to leave the interrogation area and immediately reenter the security line. Don't you think it would have been a little pointless for the TSA (ok, more pointless than the TSA usually is) to allow people who were stopped in security to simply restart the process again in hopes they wouldn't be stopped a second time?

I was told by a TSA agent you have a right to go through the scanner again to check for false positives. So yes you are simply allowed to restart the process.

But that's like saying, every time you are going through security in any airport, you are detained, because - you could not - if you so wanted, simply go back through security again. But you sort of opt-in for this when you fly; you know you are going to go through security and they won't let you leave unless you are cleared.

Edit: etchalon said it better.

It's not a question of "going back through security", re-entrance has nothing to do with it. Going to a concert where they don't stamp your hand when you go through the door doesn't make you "detained".

>But that's like saying, every time you are going through security in any airport, you are detained, because - you could not - if you so wanted, simply go back through security again

I am not a lawyer but I think that the line drawn at detention is whether one is effectively told, under the color of law, that one is not free to go. By this standard, I think it is pretty clear that everyone is briefly detained when going through airport security, and that all bags are briefly seized.

If this isn't a detention or a seizure, then you are free not to put your bags on the conveyor and walk back out and the most they can do is say "you can't go further in." But if there are threats of fines, etc. then it is a detention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com