TSA loudspeakers threaten travelers with arrest for joking about security

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/tsa-loudspeakers-threaten-travelers-arrest-joking-security/

by jes • 13 years ago

164 131 13 years ago

jes3• 13 years ago

I 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• 13 years 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.

cstross4• 13 years ago

Problem: 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• 13 years ago

Solution #4: Shut down the entire DHS and fire all the TSA dirtbags.

smoyer4• 13 years ago

I'd like solution #4 as part of solution #3 please ... now we just need someone in DC to listen to what we want.

ruttiger• 13 years ago

But then, people will bring shampoo on flights.

schtev• 13 years ago

Solution #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.

smky80• 13 years ago

Also, throw the head DHS and TSA officials in Guantanamo for terrorizing the American public.

Sagat3• 13 years ago

Why would a "competent, intelligent human being with discretion" choose such a crappy job in the first place?

DanBC6• 13 years ago

Because they need the money? Many people have little choice in the work they do. It's this shitty job or that shitty job or no job.

goostavos2• 13 years ago

To some, it's not a "crappy" job. Friend of a friend left his "crappy" position as a manager at a popular retail chain to go work for the TSA, AND secured an extra $8k per year in doing so.

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.

DanBC6• 13 years ago

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.)

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.

Daniel_Newby• 13 years ago

Even though no sane terrorist would joke about smuggling a bomb ...

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.

cstross4• 13 years ago

I think you over-egg the argument.

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.)

redacted2• 13 years ago

I would hope that the security apparatus would apprehend any bomber insane enough to loudly talk about plans long before they got to an airport queue. Surely getting that far in your attack is a clear indicator of, if not sanity, then good planning and op-sec?

glenra4• 13 years ago

How do you know this to be the case? Can you give a couple of examples of US attackers who did this? (Not including FBI plants who spoke deliberately attempting to incite violence in others)

bane2• 13 years ago

Possible solution #4: arrest the wrong guy for joking and get slapped with a 1st Amendment case so fast the TSA can't pull their hands out of the woman's trousers their "securing".

goostavos2• 13 years ago

I'm honestly not even sure how that case would play out at this point. I have such little faith in my country currently that I suspect it would be presented as creating unnecessary panic (or something similar) and thus not be protected by the first amendment.

reginaldjcooper• 13 years ago

You can't even joke about crimes on Facebook anymore. I wouldn't take my chances at loci of police state activity.

mattchew• 13 years ago

A large subset of the American population believe that government can do no good . . . This is why we can't have nice things.

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.

cstross4• 13 years ago

You're wilfully misinterpreting what I wrote.

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.

rdtsc• 13 years ago

[1] A large subset of the American population believe that government can do no good.

[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.

cinquemb• 13 years ago

Interestingly enough, less than 1% of the population at the time of the revolution, actually fought in it and propped up a government which was the grandfather to the mess we have today…

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.

alextingle2• 13 years ago

Possible solution #4: Admit that the "terrorist threat" is largely made up; reform security measures to focus on actual threats; allow the rest of us to get on with our lives.

javajosh• 13 years ago

This is a good comment overall, but I dislike the way it starts off by blaming levity itself for being a problem, when clearly it is not.

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.

dhughes• 13 years ago

Regarding #2:

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.

threeseed• 13 years ago

Makes 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• 13 years ago

Unfortunately 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• 13 years ago

The only reason a joke wastes time and causes panic & disruption is the idiotic overreaction to something harmless.

UnoriginalGuy3• 13 years ago

Society 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.

Sagat3• 13 years ago

Wake up, sheeple!

noarchy• 13 years ago

People who think it is funny to waste people's time, cause needless panic and generally be disruptive are nothing but selfish assholes.

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.

drdaeman• 13 years ago

and lobby your local representative

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?

bad_alloc• 13 years ago

TSA is rapidly approaching the level of creepiness of Half Life's Overwatch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y_3...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZX6oLEK5KQ

vanattab• 13 years ago

There 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.

smoyer4• 13 years ago

You 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.

twoodfin4• 13 years ago

Sorry, who was arrested for that?

michaelfeathers2• 13 years ago

Making 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.

appleflaxen2• 13 years ago

There 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.

UnoriginalGuy3• 13 years ago

It 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• 13 years ago

I 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-l...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

notahacker2• 13 years ago

If 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...

angersock2• 13 years ago

So, here's the best bit from the BBC article:

"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.

devx• 13 years ago

The thing about visionaries is that they can see trends long before the others, too, while the others can look at the same thing and see nothing - and therefore think they're crazy.

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.

borplk• 13 years ago

Very well said. I guess another way to think about it is the famous story about 'how to boil a frog'.

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...

ams61103• 13 years ago

Why are SWAT now being used in no-knock arrests

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.

legutierr• 13 years ago

If they didn't have SWAT, they'd be missing out on federal "Homeland Security" subsidies. Any local politician would be remiss to pass up that kind of money, and the jobs it creates.

appleflaxen2• 13 years ago

A bit off topic, but this is the real way that movies and video games are harmful: police officers see an urban gun battle unfold in some blockbuster flick, and they translate that to "oh; that's how a 'real' police department works". It affects everyone who makes decisions in the PD, so decisions to "make our department real" get approved all the way up.

The real warning labels on video games and movies needs to be "not approved for viewing by law enforcement".

mhurron• 13 years ago

No, the clear response to your assertion would be to ban all violent video games and movies.

Since they're causing all this violence, you simply remove the cause.

mikestew• 13 years ago

Because when you watched the movie Swordfish, you said to yourself, "that's how a real hacker does it" instead of "what a load of crap", right?

frost_knight• 13 years ago

"That chick from MIT"? C'mon, man, where's the respect?

Her name is Star Simpson.

Two9A• 13 years ago

So let's say you didn't remember that off-hand, and had to search for it. What set of keywords would you use in your search, that wouldn't garner attention from certain authorities?

UnoriginalGuy3• 13 years ago

Not at all disrespectful. I didn't know her name, no different than "That dude from MIT" (had it been a guy). Sorry if you dislike the vernacular but not at all disrespectful.

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).

smoyer4• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

Golly, real life is starting to look like Half Life 2.

cronin101• 13 years ago

"Pick up that can"

dbond• 13 years ago

At least they can't hit me with a stun baton if I throw the can at them, right?... Right?

triplesec2• 13 years ago

People 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• 13 years ago

Godwin's Law states nothing about the legitimacy of said comparison—it applies to literally every online discussion.

triplesec2• 13 years ago

I 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.

notahacker2• 13 years ago

Oh 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• 13 years ago

All over the world? Really?

I've never been directly threatened via loudspeaker announcement anywhere - other than in Half Life

DanBC6• 13 years ago

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.

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.

downandout• 13 years ago

This 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.

michaelfeathers2• 13 years ago

That'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• 13 years 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.

twoodfin4• 13 years ago

Name one.

TheZenPsycho• 13 years ago

Err. 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?

ams61103• 13 years ago

I 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.

thetwiceler2• 13 years ago

This 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• 13 years 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.

betterunix2• 13 years 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.

thetwiceler2• 13 years ago

I 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• 13 years ago

Yes we can!

oellegaard5• 13 years ago

Yeah, 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• 13 years ago

If 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• 13 years ago

This 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.

oellegaard5• 13 years ago

I'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.

sergiosgc• 13 years ago

If you are more concerned about attending a conference than about the erosion of French Revolution concepts and rights, then Democratic countries are better off without you.

Hint: It's not about the jokes.

clubhi• 13 years ago

Does everyone in Scandinavia get their information on the US from blog articles?

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.

oellegaard5• 13 years ago

Some American authorities doesn't seem to have a healthy relationsship to have they do, or do not, have authority to, according to the European media. Maybe the reason why we trust these blog articles that are being posted here pretty frequently, is that they fit the picture of what we are told in the media about things like the recent NSA scandals very well?

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.

ephemeralism• 13 years ago

Sorry to say, but this happens in Scandinavia too. This woman went to jail for ten days for joking about having a bomb in the Copenhagen airport: http://www.180grader.dk/Krimi/kvinde-fik-10-dages-faengsel-f...

oellegaard5• 13 years ago

As I mentioned in my comments, the problem here is that its for any joke. Furthermore, being Danish and reading through the article it says:

"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.

lost_my_pwd• 13 years ago

Many 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.

DanBC6• 13 years 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/) See also the meat cleaver.

glenra4• 13 years ago

A 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.

derrida• 13 years ago

Why did the TSA agent not allow jokes at the airport? The last joke bombed.

coldcode• 13 years ago

Be 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.

bane2• 13 years ago

But the problem is that Security is a joke.

dickbasedregex• 13 years ago

As 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• 13 years ago

This 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• 13 years ago

As 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'?"

brownbat• 13 years ago

HN has no sense of humor.

(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").

DanBC6• 13 years ago

I've been downvoted a few times recently for attempting to make a few jokes of my own

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.

nekopa• 13 years ago

I'm not so sure about that. My highest scoring comment was a piece of humor. I think, like with all the comments on HN, people want something which is well thought out.

mark-ruwt• 13 years ago

I'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• 13 years ago

This 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.

haberman2• 13 years ago

Chances 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.

alextingle2• 13 years ago

Your 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.

haberman2• 13 years ago

So you made jokes about carrying bombs in the past and it was cool?

I said something specific, not something general.

agilebyte• 13 years ago

Why 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• 13 years ago

Laughter 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• 13 years ago

Maybe 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.

TSA loudspeakers threaten travelers with arrest for joking about security

Related Stories