Comment by jamesbrownuhh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamesbrownuhh | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

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?

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)

fiancé: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

I see, thank you

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).

>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.

It also has the peripheral advantage of ensuring that you never carry a package for someone else, and that you are leery about carrying luggage/bags packed by someone else.

Really? I would have no problem bringing a wrapped gift from a friend or colleague, the contents of which I do not know on a plane. And lying about packing my bags myself.

In fact, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that...it's a constant and (imo) fair assumption of mine that my friends are not trying to kill me.

Heh. I had a moment of sudden panic when a security agent at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv asked me if I had packed everything myself, and I remembered I had a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_Hashanah gift from a client in my case. So I said 'No.'

Then, with images of airport holding cells and enhanced interrogation jumping to mind, I hastily explained what I meant. Interestingly, the agent was happy not to unwrap and open the present, and just inspected the rest of the contents...

The list of things you are nkt allowed to take over a border is very much greater than "things that will kill someone or destroy a plane".

Carrying eg an apple into the US is probably not going to be fun if they find it.

As someone else has noted, the set of things that won't harm you, aren't necessarily the same set of things that you are allowed to carry on a plane (leatherman), or check (LiOn batteries).

Also - while you can be trusted to make judgements about your own safety, the airlines have to make somewhat more conservative decisions about the safety of everyone else on the plane.

And carrying packages for someone else is just one of likely hundreds (thousands?) of factors that they are concerned about.

This doesn't guarantee airplane safety (Nothing ever will), but it reduces the number of easy attacks one can make, such that it's becoming somewhat more difficult for a passenger to bring down the plane they are flying on now. Of course, now we have to worry about the pilots (a thankfully rather rare vector)

The airlines don't care if you are carrying a package for someone else. Although if a stranger asks you to carry a package, then it is suspicious. But these questions don't really do anything to reduce the attack surface.

Look at the vast numbers of people who fall victim to ridiculous 419 scams.

People are easy to manipulate into carrying a parcel across international borders. Also, isn't it the start of gathering evidence? If you say it's your bag and you had control of it and then they find it full of contraband they can use your comments to tie the bag and contents to you?

no it isn't.

it exists to weed out the absolute moronic and deranged. not everyone is a supervillain with an iq of 300.

plus, i guess it also exists for legal reasons. lying to the question can be used against you.

there is a lot of smart people out there, working keeping things running and safe. if something looks ridiculous from the outside, it still might be ok - you just might be lacking context to understand it.

It's not actually intended to catch YOU. It's actually in response to a case where a passenger was given luggage containing a bomb, unbeknownst to them. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

That isn't really the purpose of the question. It's so you can't say "that isn't mine, I have no idea how it got there" when they find contraband.

The question is targeting naive people, who are carrying some baggage, because a friendly guy asked them to.

> 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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com