TSA loudspeakers threaten travelers with arrest for joking about security
policestateusa.com
policestateusa.com
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?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-l...
In practical terms, firearm ownership is restricted to shotguns and rifles and you've got to be able to demonstrate why you wish to own a firearm - i.e. pest control, sports shooting, etc - and you've got to have a clean criminal record and pass a background check by the police. It's also at the discretion of your local police force to grant you the licence or not, which is likely to depend on things like how suitable the choice of firearm is to it's stated purpose - you'd be unlikely to get a licence for .50 calibre rifle if your stated purpose is hunting rabbits for example.
While the UK doesn't have a huge gun-culture, they're far from banned - as evidenced by there being roughly 1 legally held gun for every 70 people in Great Britain (GB - The UK less Northern Ireland, as noted above NI has different licensing laws).
- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firearms-law-guid...
"Arming the force would, say opponents, undermine the principle of policing by consent - the notion that the force owes its primary duty to the public, rather than to the state, as in other countries."
That's what we're missing more of in the US.
They can see trends when stuff goes from 0.001%, to 0.002% the next year, then 0.003% the year after that and so on. Most other people see a trend only when it rises from 5%, to 10%, to 15%, etc.
People hear some police unit bought a tank, and think "ok, but it's not a police state". Then they see more units buying tanks and other war equipment, and they still think "ok, but it's not a police state yet". Then they see the police using the same equipment against protesters, and still say "ok, but it's still not a police state yet. America is not Russia! etc".
Then, they start barging into people's home for things they've searched online, and for protests they "liked" online, and start thinking "ok, maybe we are a police state now".
The problem is now it's going to be a very hard uphill battle to roll everything back. Now only do you have the police units wanting to keep all that equipment they bought, and thinking they now absolutely need it to "keep them safe", but you also have contracts lobbying to keep the police buying such equipment from them, and the federal government supporting it, too, and so on and so on.
And all of that perhaps could've been stopped early on 10-15 years ago, if people actually believed the people who started saying US is becoming a police state, and didn't wait until the very last moment, until nothing can be rolled back anymore, just like with the NSA spying.
There are at least 2 trends that are starting now, that you can start fighting early, before it goes too far: domestic drone surveillance, and NSA collaboration with domestic agencies.
These trends are very early, and most people are still probably thinking "ok, but let's see how it goes first, before we get outraged". Sure, you can do that. But before you know it, drones will surveil everything from the sky for the government, and NSA sharing with DEA, FBI, DHS, and even the police will be done "as a matter of fact". Don't believe me? Look how DoJ thinks about this:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/doj-if-we-can-tra...
You have to start fighting the abuses at the very first signs, not when the abuses are already an "entrenched system" and a culture of doing things for the authorities.
People tolerate small incremental changes until it is far too late, like the frog that tolerated small incremental increase in the water temperature and now it is boiling...
Because they exist, and employing them justifies their existence. In past decades, SWAT was only found in large urban police departments. Now many cities that rarely if ever have criminal activity requiring a SWAT-like response have some form of SWAT, critical incident, etc. teams that need something to do.
The real warning labels on video games and movies needs to be "not approved for viewing by law enforcement".
Since they're causing all this violence, you simply remove the cause.
Her name is Star Simpson.
https://www.google.com/search?q=that+chick+from+mit+with+led...
gets you what you want.
Plus I'm almost certain you wouldn't have made that post if I had have said "That dude from MIT." You might have posted the name, but you certainly wouldn't have turned it into a respect thing (not least of all because it isn't actually disrespectful).
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.
Are you talking about short time scales, or periods of years?
We had students who used their time to study, some read books, others used their beats for exercise, and some just plainly enjoyed a job that was stress free ninety nine percent and more of the time.
At first when I worked there, coding a wide range of programs including payroll, I was a bit distressed at the pay scales. However after meeting many different guards I came to realize that many saw advantages I didn't and they could not understand why I wanted to work so hard, all day and sometimes more at a computer.
They're not making engineering salaries, but for a job which, let's face it, requires no skills or education, the make a very decent rate.
Add in a personality which loves a little power and being a TSA jockey surely looks pretty good.
And it's not even new. See all the people dragged off for intimate searches by latex gloved customs inspectors after their pal joked about drugs.
There's the rub: the majority of mass violence attackers are not sane. In their insanity they often talk about their violent plans with no regard to who hears them. It is sound security policy to interview people who make such comments.
Mass violence attackers who are part of an organized political movement are usually sane -- but they're not intelligent. The smart ones almost always find a way to participate in the mainstream political process to get their desired outcome, so they don't take up arms. Relatively few intelligent terrorists exist; they usually do so in circumstances where there's (a) an intolerable level of oppression, (b) the authorities aren't listening and won't negotiate, and (c) peaceful protests have failed -- and if (d) the authorities eventually agree to negotiate, they rapidly lay down arms. (Examples of statesmen who were formerly defined as terrorists by governments they subsequently became part of: Nelson Mandella, Menachem Begin, Martin McGuinness. None of whom were either insane or stupid.)
Yup, suspicion of government is the root of all evil, and TSA only act the way they do because some people don't trust them enough.
Good lord.
Yes, some government employees do bad things. And suspicion of government is widespread. But the response has not been to try and get better government, it's been to hamstring and hobble government instead.
This wilful incompetence in governance is a peculiarly American institution. (I'd have said "unique", but I'm sure there must be at least one other nation out of the 160-odd on this planet that shares it.) And it's hugely detrimental because it contributes to low expectations which in turn lead to poor outcomes.
With that said, can you provide some examples of willfully making government incompetent (and hopefully not just anecdotes)? I don't mean to seem confrontational on your point, it's provocative to assert this is done on purpose as opposed to it simply happening on its own, so if in fact you are right that would be outrageous and wasteful set of actions to say the least. Some examples might help to put me in your camp, because I'd consider that worthy of a revolution and I am genuinely interested in your point. It's interesting.
Potential counter example: NSA. They seem quite competent at their stated mission, frighteningly so. Perhaps this hobbling of government is limited to only certain functions, but not all?
(Yes, the hobbling of government is limited to certain functions: and even within those functions it varies considerably -- it can be argued that there's serious incompetence in the administration of big military procurement contracts, for example, but the reason is that it makes it easier to spread the pork around, which is necessary to steer any large project through to completion because of the way federal spending is administered; whereas once the horrifyingly expensive procurement program has delivered a weapons system, actually operating it is usually carried out quite effectively.)
The IRS 1040 is two: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf
Both require no more effort than copying values from forms that are mailed to you, and some addition/subtraction-level math. I guess they could still be simpler, but come on, it's less work than opening a bank account or filling out your medical history every time you visit a new doctor.
[2] An even larger subset of American population believe that government was there assigned by God and one should listen and obey it. Anyone who disagrees or criticizes government's position (especially related to privacy issues, torture, wars, extra-judicial executions) is deemed a terrorist sympathizer.
They are also known as authoritarian followers. Their numbers far far surpass the number of those who think "government can do no good". From my observation, the proportion is surprising given the story of "freedom", "war of independence", "democracy". I have seen more dissent and criticism of government in other countries with governments with authoritarian or totalitarian leanings.
If history sets any precedent, "authoritarian followers" of any governing/religious system, aren't much of a factor when the dust settles… they're just the icing on the cake for any system in power.
We in the US have an expensive, shitty security apparatus, and nowhere is it's shittiness and expense more visible than at our borders, where thanks to vague laws these shitty security organizations have expanded their own powers as much as they think they can get away with.
At this point in time, all security and law-enforcement organizations in the US will use any and all actions they are legally allowed to use to their full extent. There is no value given to self-restraint within security organizations any more. None. And this, I fear, is the central problem in our government today: losing "self-restraint" as a cardinal virtue will be our undoing.
Note that the responsibility for this lies ultimately on Obama's head. He as the leader of the executive branch, he appoints the head of the DHS who appoints the head of the TSA, and so is ultimately personally responsible for the actions of the TSA. Congress can choose to defund the DHS, but that's a very clumsy check on the President's power. Obama needs to issue clear guidance to the TSA: do not threaten people with arrest for joking. Show self-restraint. If an organization or individual show self-restraint, and heaven forbid a terror attack gets through, you WILL NOT be held personally responsible.
I thought the Israeli approach worked because it uses layers rather than one big scary wall between you and the airplane. Educated guards (educated anyone!) certainly would help but it seems layers are the key.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y_3...
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.
Hint: It's not about the jokes.
TSA have the authority to put messages on the airport sound system. TSA does not have the authority to arrest you for making innocent jokes.
Maybe the TSA have the authority, but they are not allowed to disclose what they are doing? That wouldn't be the first time we heard this.
Back on a more serious note: Please, prove this blog entry wrong. Don't just try to decrease the trust of this source. I'd love to know this wasn't true, but I'm afraid it is.
"The woman kept repeating the word 'bomb' after the security pointed out that they didn't find it funny." She also said "I'll just leave my bomb here," while placing her cell phone on the X-ray belt.
As the security said (kindly!), it is not fun. If someone, after kindly being reminded that this kind of humor can be misinterpreted, continues - then I agree you asking for trouble, especially when the so-called joke involves a threat against the employees.
That being said, this is a good example that even bomb jokes are tolerated in Scandinavia, obviously to a certain extent where they have to take action.
The day will come when all carryon baggage and clothing will be banned. You will be required to strip naked at the airport, and put on a regulation air travel robe. If you want to bring anything else on board it will have to be packed in the pockets of a transparent plastic roll, which will be duly xrayed and unrolled by security personnel who will then inspect the contents. There will be a special "pill pocket" section for any medications required on board. No electronic devices will be allowed except special tablets with removable batteries which can function when being plugged into the aircraft power supply. Things like batteries and cellphones will need to be checked in the special small baggage section along with your street clothes, and will be transported in a special bomb-proof cargo hold just in case.
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.
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/) See also the meat cleaver.
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.
I can't speak to "people in many countries", but if you think having a gun on a plane is "batshit insane", my guess is that you've been fooled by Hollywood into believing a few false things. (Perhaps you saw Goldfinger but never saw the Mythbusters episode debunking it?)
A gun fired on a plane can't cause "explosive decompression". No, not even if fired through a window. The pressure difference isn't large enough to be "explosive" and the air pressure is continuously maintained - planes are constantly leaking quite a lot of air by design so leaking a little more wouldn't hurt anything.
The 9/11 gambit could work ONCE but can't work today - the front doors are locked and the passengers and crew know to resist. Committing any sort of deliberate crime on a plane is infinitely stupider in terms of likelihood of getting caught and ability to get away than committing one on the ground.
The TSA "protects" us from "movie plot threats", not actual threats. We would be on-net safer if airport security were entirely eliminated - far fewer people would die than do today as a result of it.
(TSA kills people today by making travel by air more expensive in money and time. This causes people to drive on long trips instead of fly, leading to extra deaths in auto accidents.)
Whatever happened to the idea that we would not let terrorists change our way of life?
I'd go based on the working assumption of "Yes" for that one. So much for free speech.
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.
I've never been directly threatened via loudspeaker announcement anywhere - other than in Half Life
Comparing stupid, sub-optimal, broken security theatre to the propaganda efforts of a genocidal regime is, and there's no polite way to say this, fucking stupid.
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.
Source: I'm old enough to remember better times.
I said something specific, not something general.
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.
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.
How would I know? We have secret laws that are enforced but the offender is not allowed to know what they are beforehand.
Try again.
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).
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.
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.
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'?"
(Downvotes and arrest are radically different punishments, but I'm guessing you realize that, so setting that aside...)
I haven't read the pg essay you're referencing. I've been smacked down for a joke here or there, spent some time wondering about the same thing.
HN seems influenced partly by a frustration with other aggregators, forums. There's an explicit desire to prevent the slide towards irrelevance.
Comedy and drama never compete on a level playing field, true of forums, or in any other arena. Probably because they just aren't commensurable, and don't belong on the same scale. You can't really compare Airplane!, The Shining, or Before Sunset. They're all just completely different experiences. If people take something very seriously, like the Oscars, they tend to ignore comic achievements. If people are quickly flipping through the internet out of boredom, it can swing the other way.
One of the best moderation systems for cultivating both at the same time is over at Slashdot, where you can mod something up as "funny," "insightful," or "informative." Then readers can filter comments based on which of these they'd rather see. Everyone's experience is customized, and the "funny" upvotes are just on a completely separate scale.
All moderation systems and interfaces involve tradeoffs though, and HN seems to pride itself on simplicity. The simple interface, combined with the desire to escape the trivial tone of Reddit, pushes to a more serious discussion, maybe one that takes itself a little too seriously. But that seems a fair balance against the rest of the Internet, which probably doesn't take itself seriously at all.
That said, you can do humor on HN, you just have to know your audience. I wouldn't use "The Aristocrats" with my family at dinner, on HN, I'd stick to incredibly dry long form satire reminiscent of Jonathan Swift. Really, anything that would appeal to the humor of someone living in the Victorian era should work. Less LOL, more HVD (for "how very droll").
HN doesn't want noise, they want signal.
> 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.
Christ no. HN needs more downvoting and more upvoting.
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.
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.
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.
I'm angry that I feel like I wasted time "defending" something I don't believe in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
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.
It makes me so god damn depressed to see opinions like this on HN.
If you actually cared about what the TSA was doing you would be an adult and lobby your local representative.
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.
So the TSA are nothing but selfish assholes? I can agree with that.
>If you actually cared about what the TSA was doing you would be an adult and lobby your local representative.
Chances are pretty high that your local representatives are the ones who were in favour of all of this. Replace one with another, and you're likely to get the same result. Call me cynical if you'd like, but I think there is good reason to be.
Do you really need someone special to say what you think, or you can express your thoughts by yourself wherever and whomever you want to?