https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/tsa...

Given that involves a lot of personal information, I also asked for more general information sans personal details:

https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/sec...

I'd be surprised if either are fulfilled with any actual information.

What's most interesting to me is this line: "However on any given day, the TSA and Port Authority Police at JFK interact with passengers departing on non-stop flights to and from Dubai, Doha, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait City, Lagos, Istanbul, Jeddah, Riyadh, Casablanca, Amman, Riga and Tashkent."

Mukerjee’s entire account, and virality, is predicated upon implied racism. And yet, the numbers stack against him pretty heavily. He was not the only "muslim-looking" person to go through the airport that day. Not even close.

He was not singled out just because he was Muslim-looking. He was singled out because, if for no other reason, the dude tested positive for explosives, and, according to both accounts, was clearly agitated about it.

Now, yes, there's a completely logical reason for that. Yes, he has every right to be agitated when falsely accused. But no, it is not unreasonable for any security personal anywhere to throw up massive red flags about a guy who TESTED POSITIVE FOR EXPLOSIVES and was acted incredibly suspicious. Mukerjee is literally case example of what agents are trained to look for.

Everyone is up in arms about this, not because Mukerjee is even remotely worth being up in arms about, but because people just like bashing the TSA, regardless of the facts.

Not withstanding the original article, the above statement alone should be enough for us to question the pervasive use of the TSA.

I appreciate seeing someone else's perspective on the incident that has appalled all my Facebook friends who have seen Mr. Mukerjee's own account

http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/59021412512/dont-fly-...

of his experience at the airport (which was a top post on Hacker News for about a full day). We can all learn something about any incident by hearing a second opinion on it.

That said, if Mr. Mukerjee’s behavior that day was "aggressive," my interpretation of that, never having met him, but knowing his roommate very well indeed, is that he was assertive about claiming the civil rights of an American. (I imagine he was also hungry, tired, and eager to travel to see his family.) It's too bad that people who assert their rights are taken to be acting suspiciously, but let's examine the incident and modify the system in a way that makes it easier, not harder, for a tired and hungry traveler to get straight answers and have factual misimpressions resolved, rather than assuming that every loyal American[1] is a terrorist.

After formal study of the law and work as a judicial clerk in a state supreme court, I find that my bottom line is that I still have to remind myself to be very deferential in the presence of law enforcement officers--especially armed law enforcement officers. Asserting my rights is not something the system makes easy to do, EVEN FOR A LAWYER, once the situational triggers of law-enforcement occur. But this is all the more reason to let the great majority of travelers who are neither terrorists nor lawyers, but just people trying to make a living and spend time with their families, enjoy efficient, friendly travel. Something went awry here, and being just one remove away from directly knowing the victim, I'm inclined not to blame the victim.

[1] I am sure that Mr. Mukerjee has a strong sense of being an American because he met my son in Ireland, where both were as part of a summer program. The Irish kids teased all the Americans in the program for their horrific accents in spoken English [smile]. My son and Mr. Mukerjee forged their friendship through their shared Americanness in a foreign land, and I think the United States ought to treat all its own citizens and all the foreigners who visit America better than current TSA procedures treat air travelers.

AFTER EDIT: Another comment in this thread reminded me to check the background of the author of the blog post kindly submitted here. Wired reported in 2009

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/dhs-threatens-blogg...

that the blogger was questioned by TSA agents after releasing a TSA document on his blog. It seems that at least some of the time he has been most interested in posting an interesting read for frequent travelers, and not necessarily trying to curry favor with TSA. I think he succeeded here, too, agree or disagree, in writing an interesting blog post (as did Mr. Mukerjee in his blog post).

And please do tell, why is it wrong for one to be agitated or aggressive when being hassled by goons? Any pretense of civilized interaction vanishes the minute they threaten you into complying with their theatre.

I mean he's a blogger, so just like you and me, he'd have to put in requests to all those agencies for information, and then have to re apply when they lost his paperwork. Then they'd say no in a hundred different ways. And about five years later everyone would have lost interest.

It didn't happen.

There's only two possibilities: 1. He made it all up, or 2. They gave him the story

No. Mr. Mukherjee refused screening in private. It's unacceptable to be unconsensually screened in private without a third party (I.E. not TSA officer) witness. I've refused to be screened in private, the TSA makes it VERY hard for you to do that, and I definitely got verbally agitated. How would you feel if there you were exposed to a significant risk of being sexually assaulted with no witnesses present?

"This is absolutely correct, at this time he was in limbo, he was not being detained, but he could not leave."

That is completely unacceptable.

Once you are threatened with sexual assault, it is unreasonable to expect to be anything besides "aggressive evasive".

My take is that this is a facile analysis that harms the credibility of its source; I am less likely to take this person seriously in the future after reading this.

I appreciate that they took the time to do actual "reporting" by contacting officials involved with the story.

However, a couple things worth keeping in mind as you read it:

* We can reasonably be convinced that Mukerjee wasn't hiding anything. The concern evinced by TSA, NY PAPD, and JetBlue was that Mukerjee was a danger to the flight he was trying to board. We know he wasn't! This article routinely supplies innuendo about Mukerjee's evasiveness during screening. But we know he had nothing to be evasive about, and thus that the signals TSA picked up on were false; the article's framing puts the onus for that on Mukerjee, incorrectly.

* TSA's rationale for detaining Mukerjee doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. The reasoning supplied by this article could be applied just as effectively to an 85 year old grandmother or a 10 year old boy. It's not falsifiable and not relevant to what happened.

* The analysis glosses over the pivotal moment in the story. The problem wasn't that Mukerjee was denied water or questioned by people that don't know anything about the world's third largest religion. The problem happened when TSA refused to escort Mukerjee, with his carryon, out of the airport, as they are required to do when a passenger refuses screening. Mukerjee's own account has him trying to leave, but put in a position where doing so would cost him his bag and computer. That's the problem here.

There's a worthwhile case to be made for skepticism about some elements of Mukerjee's story. I agree with the article that it seems unlikely for PAPD to have searched his house. It's interesting that Mukerjee claims he was interviewed by an FBI agent when no record seems to have existed of that. I buy the analysis that says that a coherent rebuttal to Mukerjee's story could not easily have self-assembled from 3 different security agencies in the span of a couple days.

Unfortunately, it's hard to take skepticism seriously when it's framed in an article that seems hellbent on taking TSA's claims at face value.

I'm not known to be a conspiracy terrorist, and I do not believe there is one here. Just a bunch officers doing their (IMHO) misguided and useless jobs.

As a rational person I am not afraid of terrorist - the chances to be victim of an attack are minuscule compared to the risk of dying in car accident. I am afraid of getting into gear of law enforcement - for example by not simply behaving right in the eyes of the BDO, as in this story.

Lastly what is this "limbo" state the article refers to? Either I am being detained or I am free to go. There is nothing in between, if you are not allowed to leave you're not "free to go" and thus you're being detained.

Edit: Spelling.

  Steven Frischling, aka: Fish, is globe hopping professional 
  photographer, airline emerging media consultant working with large 
  global airlines and founder of The Travel Strategist.

Near as I can tell, this post confirms the original account. The differences between what he saw and what is being reported are trivial minutia. But if anyone actually cares to be able to find the truth in such cases, the thing to do is record all such searches. (And encourage the people being searched to do the same, and make the official tapes available to the searchee on request.)

It is REALLY HARD to defend one's rights against the morons of the TSA without getting angry at them. Any interaction with them raises blood pressure. If anything, it ought to be deemed "suspicious" if somebody doesn't get "agitated" when their trip is pointlessly interrupted by TSA agents demanding you bow and scrape before their authority.

This blog post is their way of saying "Fuck you..we will not change anything"

Figures.

Why do they allow children to fly then? :-)

Let's get those self-driving cars soon, so we can give the airlines what they deserve for not pushing back on behalf of their customers.

In other words, the test is almost completely useless. Given how low the base rate of terrorists sneaking through bombs is, a positive test result on one of these machines is >99.9% likely to be a false positive.

Let's do the math. We'll assume there are never any false negatives and just look at the positive results. Let's simplify "0.6-1.8%" and just call that "1%". Out of 100,000 bags, let's assume that ONE contains a bomb being snuck through by a terrorist. 1/100,000 is our postulated base rate of terrorism. 1/100 is our false positive rate on the test.

So let's put 100,000 bags through the machine. There will be 1,000 false positives and one true positive. which means that if some bag "tests positive for explosives" the odds are a-thousand-to-one against that being a valid result.

"But," I hear you cry, "we RUN IT THROUGH AGAIN when we get a positive result!"

Sure, that would work GREAT if false positive results were COMPLETELY RANDOM. But they're not. More likely than not, the false positive is being triggered by something that is or was actually in the bag. So when you run it again, there's a good chance that it'll trigger again. The "false" part of "false positive" is that the thing in the bag that it's triggering on...isn't an explosive. It's just some other chemical.

The question (and failure) is what happens after that. But false positives in themselves isn't surprising.

(What? TSA's job isn't to protect marathons? Silly patriot, do you want to let the terrorists win?)

> These events include Mr. Mukerjee becoming further agitated and aggressive after testing positive for explosives, as well as him repeatedly reaching for his not-yet-manually-searched bag.

> However,multiple statements by TSA personnel reference Mr. Mukerjee repeatedly grabbing for his bag after he was told not to touch it.

> While false positives are not unusual for ETD, it is unusual a person and their items could fail so many times using different testing equipment.

What would you have done in a situation like this, when people's lives are at stake and it's your fault if something goes wrong and someone gets hurt?

(Yes, one could postulate really stupid terrorists who somehow don't realize they'll get caught going through security, but terrorists who are that stupid are likely to have their plans fail without the TSA's help. See also: the shoe bomber.)

Specifically, I think good directions would be:

1. Driving away the "law enforcement" culture. Are members of the TSA staff registered as policemen, assigned to a station, going through police academy and under the rules and discipline of police training? If not, they aren't law enforcement and shouldn't be treated as such, and should either a) be disallowed from conducting any kind of search without the supervision of a policeman or b) covered by the same regulation as a regular policeman. You can't have people do police stuff with non-police discipline, eschewing the checks and balances law enforcement has in order to make sure it enforces, you know, the law.

2. Providing immediate legal counseling as soon as you step into a private room. Large crowds tend to be a good protection against abuse. Once you step into a room, anything more than searching through personal items should be covered by a lawyer, and people should particularly only be questioned only in the presence of a lawyer. This is because a) the lawyer would be able to assert the rights of the person being questioned and b) the lawyer would be able to explain what's happening in layman's terms. When a particularly uptight ex-postal employee who just discovered authority exceeds gets nasty, a third-party reminding him he's stepping outside the law works much better than the person on the receiving end of his newly-discovered authority asserting his rights -- risking to be regarded as "aggressive" and "overly-assertive" by someone whose most important previous responsibility had been making sure stamps are correctly positioned on the envelope.

3. Explicitly encouraging and rewarding correct behaviour from TSA personnel, while at the same time applying serious disciplinary action. Let's be honest here, there's a large enough supply of unemployed people who can search a bag that you can afford discharging abusers, and sufficient public frustration that you can afford offering the occasional bonus to people who go out of their way to clear up misunderstandings.

When I took the course I mentioned in my post above, the explanation was along these lines: when you want to check someone who carries a bag, you need to remember that he has certain expectations about the safety of his belongings. If you're in a public place, it's reasonable that you never remove the belongings without assuring the owner that they are safe and well-guarded. So when you stop a gang of half-drunk teenagers on the street, you don't ask them to drop their backpacks on the sidewalk and then go ten yards further to search them. You ask them to leave the backpacks in a single place, right near them, and while your colleague searches the backpacks, you keep an eye on the dudes.

That's the common-sense thing to do: no one would let their bags two meters away from them in an airport, even if they kept a constant eye on them. You can't just expect someone to be okay with leaving them god knows where.

If you ask people to put their belongings away in a designated area, the correct thing to do is to have that area placed well away from any passers by and a guard near it. That way, you can tell the owner something along the lines of "Please put your bag in that bin over there; don't worry about it, it won't be stolen -- that man staying guard there isn't leaving, he's there to make sure you get it back just as you left it. We need to ask you a few questions, and then we may have to search your bag. we'll search it in front of you to make sure no one steals or breaks anything, and if all checks out okay, you're free to go. Any questions before we start?"

As our instructor mentioned it, it's really important -- especially in places like airports, concert arenas and whatever -- where you might expect one terrorist every two years and ten thousand disoriented folks with a scare of flight who triggered the bomb detector with their cheap after-shave every day -- to treat people without hostility, with an attitude of collaboration, not suspicion. Very few travelers are at fault for the US' foreign policy (and those that are probably don't go through the whole TSA hell), so it's not their fault that some guys from the Middle East want to blow up their planes. In places like these, you want to treat people so that they can say "yeah, I know this is inconvenient, but the guy is only doing his job", and because they are already under a lot of stress, you want to make sure you don't heighten their fear.

The sad truth is that the terrorists here are us. The primary reason nobody has blown up a plane recently in the US is that nobody is TRYING to blow up a plane in the US. If somebody were seriously trying, they'd have done it already.

That's actually the recommended policy in most cases (not only TSA), for several reasons. One of them is the one you stated; another one is that suspicions related to a particular item can be cleared more quickly by just asking the owner, and if you do it right, you can also get various hints about anything illegal (e.g. the guy is ok until you find the hidden pocket).

There's only one case I know of where searching without the owner's presence would be legitimate -- if the exact testing equipment and procedure must not be divulged, for fear it might reveal vulnerability. This is a form of security by obscurity though, and a sane system shouldn't need that. I'm sure this isn't the TSA's case, but there are cases where it can be an option -- for instance, in an underfunded law-enforcement system that can't afford sufficiently broad testing equipment. In their case, introducing further delay in the obsolescence of their equipment probably ought to be understood. This comes in various other incarnations -- e.g. if you suspect the bag may contain dangerous substances, you typically want to search it in a special, sealed room.

Nonetheless, if searching is done in another room, that's always done according to a procedure that ensures accountability: you ask the owner to tell you what's inside, make a list of everything there, and ask him about the working condition of every gizmo inside. The proper way to do it is with a constructive attitude -- if the bag is stuffed with various items, you assist the owner by taking the items one by one. You don't let him touch them, in case he might sneak up that bag of TNT when you aren't looking, but you help the guy -- if he's got thirty gizmos inside, it's only natural he won't remember them all. But in this case, the search is then conducted by someone else (in order to avoid subjectivity issues -- e.g. the dude has a vintage handheld radio from his grandfather, it's filled with explosive but when you do the search, you test it superficially because it's a vintage radio, what the hell...)

That's the problem with USA security, against say the one in Europe or the middle east (I think Israel has very good trained anti-terrorist immigration officers): In these other countries, there are a lot of darkish-skin people, so they really have to learn how to profile someone who is up to something. In the USA? I guess the majority of time they just use the skin color... and that's why they get a lot of false positive, and /very/ annoyed people.

The TSA version is a guy walking around the terminal engaging people in conversation and looking for things like "micro-expressions." (which are themselves a farce)

The point is that just because a program is thought of as 'famously effective'　doesn't mean it actually is.

"Be careful about what you have on your laptop and memory card in your camera. They could search everything. The pictures of your kids taking a bath maybe interpreted in a different way by immigration officers. The same goes for buying fake goods or pirated DVDs while on holiday in Thailand. Many people have said that in America and Europe these items have been confiscated and they were given a big fine. It’s not worth it so don’t buy any fake goods while on holiday in Thailand. And don’t copy any pirated movies onto your laptop. And certainly don’t buy any porno DVDs here in Thailand to take home. You have been warned. Don’t take this lightly."

If your intent was to bait-and-switch from "trying to bring pirated DVDs from Thailand gets you in trouble" (obvious) into this, perhaps you should have been less obvious about it.

Under the law you are subject to the same laws and privileges as any citizen - you are expected to obey our criminal laws while on US soil and you are also expected to have the same civil rights while here too.

I don't know how different circuits would look at it. My understanding is that this would not be effective in the 5th and 11th circuits since they hold that you consent to searches when you get in line and you can't revoke that consent. But other circuits haven't gone that far. That means that if they want to hold the search as lawful, they have to establish that it is a valid administrative search, and that consent is not required.

It would be clearer if "you may" was replaced by "I am aware you may" clarifying that this is not permission but a statement of possibilities.

Especially with nitpicking like pointing out it was Port Authority police rather than NYPD - it was an irrelevant correction, as the point is he likely saw shields, and most people would have no clue about that kind of distinction and would simply assume NYPD, given that it is one of the best known police forces on the planet.

Great claims require great evidence. It could be a jilted lover or frmr business partner.... Who knows. Are there any public records which support this counter-blogger's claims?

The other thought is: does the original blogger have any hard evidence beyond nitpicking and counter-claims provided by JetBlue to trash our traveler?

It sounds like the TSA's actions were excessive and heavy handed. It sounds like perhaps he got a little argumentative, due to being hungry (as he said, he hadn't eaten; I know I get cranky when I go too long without food), thirsty, and upset about missing his trip.

The TSA, and whatever other officers interviewed him, should probably be trained better in dealing with this kind of situation. In particular, using behavioral excuses to detain someone who's been singled out for extra screening is silly. Many people get upset about that kind of thing. And given that none of these TSA agents have ever actually interacted with a terrorist, and most likely never been trained with anyone who has, it's hard to believe that their training is any good at actually distinguishing a terrorist from someone who's just mad that they haven't had food or water in many hours. Heck, if you were a terrorist, you would prefer to blend in and act calm to singling yourself out for more screening by acting angry.

I feel like his article was a bit of an overreaction, but likewise the TSAs screening policies are much bigger, costlier, more painful overreaction.

None of us on here know exactly what happened but the above seems (to me) just as likely as law enforcement breaking into his apartment. I would think they would also visit the apartment/residence he was vacating.

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."

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

That he was agitated after the his ordeal is understandable, but so was JetBlue's decision not to let him board a plane.

If that's legal in the US, or something one might expect, that's almost more shocking to me than the original story. If any of my past landlords had entered my flat without permission, I would have called the police on them, with good cause.

I'm not implying the terrorist threat is large – it's really, super small. But just because they haven't done THAT yet, doesn't mean they won't. So far, in the US, what they've done is sneak explosives onto planes.

So he chose to stay.