Hacker News Reader

Comment by fc417fc802 | Hacker News Reader

I find it interesting to contrast this with my experience flying out of China. I was taken to a private room and shown the digital colored X-ray of my bag on which a box had been drawn around an empty lighter, I was asked to remove it myself and hand it over, and I went on my way. All in under 5 minutes, no pat down, no fuss, and no one physically rifled through my belongings. (Granted I was a tourist so that might well not be typical.)

I'm not sure what their success rate is when tested by professionals but the experience definitely left me wondering WTF the deal with the TSA is.

View on HN

This sounds like my experiences in Toronto. It’s less adversarial than the experiences I've had in the U.S.

My experiences were basically a form of, “Hey we saw something that caught our attention and might be an issue. Let's work through addressing this."

One case it was a handful of 3.5" galvanized nails. "Whoops. Okay, so, this bag used to be my makeshift toolbag. My other one ripped and I had to get one last minute--" "No problem. Can you remove them? You can either surrender them to us or we can get them mailed back to you, but I'm guessing it's not worth it..." I was so defensive because to me it looked bad but they weren't actually after me in the way I thought they'd be.

The second time was that I had an "Arduino Starter Kit" full of bundled up wires and random chips and such. Once they saw the box they didn't even ask me to un-shrinkwrap it, and unlike the nails, didn't re-x-ray the bag.

Both times they rotated their screen and pointed to the box framing the item in question on the colourized x-ray.

Meanwhile, the TSA looks at me like I'm, at best an annoyance, and at worst a criminal, when I ask them to inspect my camera kit manually (film, not digital). And that inspection consists of swabbing 35mm film canisters - like, the shell of a 35mm roll is going to tell them anything useful?!?! It's a complete sham.

I guess they're probably operating on the assumption that at worst a few short nails stuffed in a small film canister are no worse than the metal handle from a rolling suitcase.

The swab is for common explosives. The canisters are a bit on the small side but I guess could still pose a threat if packed with high explosive and a bit of shrapnel.

The apparent annoyance (or worse) is the part that gets me. The entire process just feels needlessly adversarial. At least they didn't insist on patting you down or emptying out your bag!

I think for film specifically it might be for drugs? Seems like a very convenient way to smuggle contraband. You can’t open it to inspect it, you can’t xray it either otherwise it will ruin the film.

Worst and most aggressive pat down I have ever experienced was in Toronto for no reason that I can think of, so I have learned to be stoic about all interactions with gate keepers, regardless of country. You never know when someone had a bad cup of tea just before the met you.

New York is the worst security I've ever come through for just being needlessly horrible. Like screaming at people because they didn't literally put their feet on the "footprints" on the floor.

Toronto was fine. Just a slightly incredulous conversation about how we could take 3 weeks off to travel Canada.

Only time I have ever been shouted at by personnel in an airport was at JFK.

That's just a New Yorker's way of saying "I love you and want you to get home safely".

Especially if you've been in New York for a few days, being yelled at shouldn't be taken so personally. Especially when you consider how many people badly need instructions yelled at them because they're so very confused, I can see why they do it!

Was it US customs or the Canadian TSA equivalent?

US customs were less friendly in my limited experience.

While there's U.S. Customs agents in Pearson, the entirety of security is done by CATSA. I cannot imagine U.S. Customs doing any sort of pat down. I'm not sure they'd even be allowed to do anything like that in Toronto. I think they're pretty much only allowed to screen and admit or reject.

They thought I had a gun in Toronto airport and were surprisingly calm about it. (I didn't actually have a gun.)

That's been exactly my experience recently in the US. Most recently it was some Hot Hands hand warmers. They just had me go to the end of the line where you get your bags ouf of the scanner and the agent brought my bag down there on the other side of the rollers. They set it on the table in front of me, and there was a monitor above the table where they pointed to the hand warmers on the screen. They said something along the lines of, "Looks like you might have some hand warmers in the main pocket, would you mind taking them out?" I pulled them out, showed them to them, they thanked me and I put it back in the bag and went on my way. This was in Juneau, AK.

Once at a security checkpoint to a museum in Shanghai, they saw my water bottle, and then told me to take it out and drink from it.

That is the way!

Was it just you? Or do they apply the same policy for every visitor with a bottle of liquid?

Just a guess but at a museum I assume they're looking out for vandals. If it's a water bottle the counterpart would be something like concentrated sodium hydroxide in which case a single sip is sufficient.

Not sure how they would handle dye in a paper coffee cup though.

I doubt that's against vandals I think it's against terrorists with liquid explosives/poison.

I saw them do this to a few others in line.

This is/was fairly common, I've experienced it on the Chinese subway a few times and I've seen a few clips of it happening online. No idea if it's official policy or not, though.

In the 90's USA was sensible. I was flying with a thermos of hot coffee in my carry on. As soon as they took out the thermos and felt the heat radiating from the lid the agent said, "I don't think they would heat it", smiled and passed me thru.

Now when I fly I have to be careful. When they ask purpose of visit I say sightseeing. I used to say tourist, but with my accent that once caused alarm when the agent thought I said terrorist.

I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism"

Believe it or not it’s a question on the pre-clearance form for travel to the US: ”are you or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organisation” - I always wondered what the rationale for that was

It's easier to deport people for lying on their immigration form than for having been a member of a terrorist organization

But to prove lying you would have to prove being a terrorist anyway...

No, being a member of a “terrorist organization” and the government allows itself latitude in defining that. It’s much easier to associate someone with an organization than to show personal acts of terrorism.

Right but to demonstrate that you lied about X they have to demonstrate X. So by the time you're deporting someone for the lie you could just as easily have deported them for the thing itself.

You're making assumptions the thing they lied about and the thing they are being deported for are the same, and quite often the thing you're actually being deported for is not a reason to deport anyone at all.

You come to the US and make a social media post saying Trump is a big fat dummy head.

You get deported for lying about being in a terrorist organization.

Is that actually a realistic example? I’m having trouble following what’s happening in the US

100%.

This pattern of government behavior is everywhere. One common one is the yellow sheet (form 4473) for buying a firearm in the US.

Here is an example of a question

> “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

No matter the state law, federal law says it's illegal.

So, what happens. At some point you buy a gun in Colorado. Then lets say you get on the news and talk about legalization, or you talk about anything that catches social media popularity and someone in the government doesn't approve of. Well, you better not have any record of a marijuana purchase anywhere, or pictures of you doing it because you've just committed a federal crime and the ATF/FBI can kick down your door as they please.

I see what you mean.

But is insulting the president evidence of being in a “terrorist organisation” ? I thought free speech was the one principle that is untouchable in the US

Having formerly been a member of a terrorist group is different from currently being in one - it may not be illegal, but lying about it is a deportable offence.

But the method of due process may be different, and the standard of proof to meet may be different. Revoking a visa is easier for the executive branch to accomplish.

Member of a terrorist organization. Did you protest for Palestine action? Then you're a member of a terrorist organization, and they don't have to prove you did any terrorism or planned any terrorism. It's a form of thoughtcrime.

> I always wondered what the rationale for that was

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. An easy way to keep communists out of the country.

And we've seen how easy it is to expand that list with "antifa" groups just recently, with antifa groups in Germany having to deal with their banks closing their accounts because the banks were afraid of getting hit with retaliation in their US business.

I liked the “have you been in contact with someone with Ebola” questions the kiosk used to ask people entering Canada.

I’m like, uhhhh, I dunno, maybe? A little late to inform me that I was supposed to be asking/testing everyone.

If I knew the answer to that was yes I'd already be at the hospital ...

It could probably be part of the premise for a gag in a hypothetical Liar Liar 2 after Jim Carrey haphazardly finds himself mixed up in one 30 minutes earlier in the movie, so there's that.

You say "No", then it turns out you're a HAMAS supporter --> deported.

On the other hand, if somebody said "I'm here for terrorism" and the immigration officer laughed that off, imagine the shitstorm if that person turns out to be a terrorist.

For the individual employee the cost of wasting someone's time by escalating the case and detaining them is zero, the potential cost of letting someone slip by is realistically tiny but potentially huge

The point is that the situation must be really crazy if we reach a point where someone (mostly foreigner) saying "tourist" is being confused as to saying "terrorist". Airport are full of tourists, and exactly 0 person on the planet would reply with "terrorist".

>and exactly 0 person on the planet would reply with "terrorist".

Unfortunately you give your fellow humans way too much credit.

Much like the people that rob a bank by writing a note saying to hand over all the money... on the back of their own deposit slip.

So when an immigration officer makes an error parsing the tourist's words, you think the security protocol ought to be to let the tourist pass through the gate?

> I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism"

Its like those stupid questions on US immigration forms, e.g.

"Do you intend to engage in the United States in Espionage ?" or "Did you ever order, incite or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person ?"

It's like, really ? Do they seriously think someone who should answer yes will really answer yes ?

Might as well just turn up at the immigration desk, slap your wrists down on the counter and invite them to handcuff you .... why bother with the form !

> It's like, really ? Do they seriously think someone who should answer yes will really answer yes ?

No, they do not think anyone will check 'Yes' to that box.

The purpose of the box is that it's a crime to lie when someone checks 'No', and that tends to be an easy charge to bring.

So, the purpose of the form is to generate convictions for lying on the form.

> the purpose of the form is to generate convictions for lying on the form.

Yeah but if the immigration officer has reason to question you about those sections of the form then surely they have more than enough evidence of the underlying crime anyway ?

No they’re playing the long game. It’s for if they need to deport (and/or jail) you later.

Lying on a customs form is a valid reason to revoke a visa, and it’s an open and shut case.

Is traveling to the US for the purpose of engaging in espionage not also a valid reason to revoke a visa?

Yes. And murder is illegal. And yet, Al Capone was in Alcatraz on tax evasion charges.

It’s often an easier case to prove that you lied on the form when you said you came to the US with no intent to commit espionage than it is to prove that someone committed espionage.

It basically unlocks a second set of potential facts that they can use to bring a criminal case (or revoke a visa, etc).

Intent to commit espionage is not a crime (but committing or attempting to commit it is) Lying on the form is. It is probably easier to demonstrate intent to commit espionage than to catch them in the act.

Wouldn't it be easier to make those things illegal and then prosecute them instead of the lie? For prosecuting a lie you need to prove 2 things, the thing lied about and the lie itself, so it seems like a more difficult prosecution for no reason. Also how does every other country in the world manage to not have these questions?

That crime alone wouldn’t give you a basis for denaturalizing and deporting people who commit certain kinds of crimes.

This is what happens when a legal system and a political system is taken over by specialists with little to no other skills.

Instead of politics being about setting policy to work toward desire outcomes, politics becomes about ensuring the viability of future political processes. Instead of the legal system being about defining crime, establishing punishment and carrying out said punishments it becomes about ensnaring others in legal "gotcha" moments like lying on a form. Society is not safer because of the outlawed nature of lying on a form. Society is not better off because someone is convicted of lying on a form. The individuals who participate in the prosecution are better off because it gives them an opportunity to advance their career.

> Also how does every other country in the world manage to not have these questions?

You sure about that? Many other countries have what would be considered odd questions on their forms.

Also, saying "every other country" is a mighty wide brush. There are a whole lot of countries where the rule of law doesn't come first and they can simply do what they want if they suspect you of anything regardless if they have a law or not.

Making false statements to federal officials is itself a crime. The intent of having those sections is to be able to have legal recourse against people that lie on them, which hopefully deters people that would lie on them from attempting to immigrate in the first place.

There were no liquids rules in the 90s.

Correct, that is why I was able to fly with a thermos of coffee. However, they did screen carry on items.

Man, all this time I've been playing Nethack, wearing a Hawaiian shirt, snapping my expensive camera, and applying my credit card, without realizing my character class was actually Terrorist.

How come it's considered the weakest ever?

So if a suicide bomber can drink explosives, they will be fine. As long as it's not poisonous within a few hours, should be no issue.

As long as they can drink it without making a face.

I am a strong believer in the "low-tech" solutions for this kind of thing. I seriously doubt the terrorist suicide bomber knows if drinking the explosive is going to prevent them from taking the mission to the end (ie. they will die in 5 min, in 30 min or in 24h), so they will start panicking when asked to drink from the bottle.

The US embassy in London do this. You can take liquids in, as long as you drink from them at security.

Flying back from Beijing, I had bought a lot of books. I filled my bags with it, so they were very heavy. When the agent came to try to check my backpack, he casually grabbed it, and fell on the conveyor belt trying to lift it. He looked at me with shock. "I'm done", I thought. He opened the bag, and saw a box of zongzi the university gave me, on top of the books. He instantly became radiant, gave me a pat on the back, and just indicated the way.

If I were him, I'd have let you bribe me with a zongzi. Those look delicious!

I know it's a joke, and they probably get only a tiny minority of cases... but the Chinese government makes a huge show of executing people that do stuff like this.

> the Chinese government makes a huge theater of execution people that do stuff like this.

This sentence has a critical grammatical error, but I can't figure out what it was supposed to say.

Execution should be executing

Also not sure about the usage of theater there. I'd probably swap it out for "show". Never heard theater used like that although it is pretty close to a standard idiom, "to make a show of something".

Thanks, changed both.

Flying out of HK after visiting SZ, I was quietly and quickly surrounded by men with guns after my bag was xrayed. I like nice clothes, especially neatly laundered and pressed shirts. I had an Altoids tin with a few brass collar stays for those shirts. Brass. With a pointy end.

When I was kid long before TSA was even a thing my family flew up to visit the grandparents. My mom had us pack our own bags with some of our favorite toys. My brother decided to bring his Megatron, but sadly left it out of Robot mode. It was quite a scene at the X-Ray when every single agent in the area came running with guns drawn at once.

Interestingly, I had the exact same experience leaving Shanghai - I had picked up some nifty lighters at the wholesale markets. They took me to the room, had me take them out, and I was lucky enough to be able to hand them off to a friend who was staying. No fuss, waiting, or intimidation. They just took care of my honest mistake.

I flew into the UK once with a small nerf pistol. Going in, no problem. Going out I was asked to remove it, lol.

Heathrow is annoying in that you need to go through security every time you change terminal (or enter one for the first time when arriving internationally).

Had to go through security 4 times in a day due to a colossal fuck up by an airline.

Each time they flagged something different on a different person. Still no idea what they were looking for in a purse 3 of 4 times.

It’s wildly inconsistent and I kinda doubt it’s intentional fuzzy logic.

The different Heathrow terminals have different security requirements. I suspect it’s based on countries they fly to from each terminal, but it could be age if equipment.

It is frustrating for security to act like you’re a total idiot for following a process another terminal says is fine (like leaving very small electronics like Kindles in your bag).

Oh, well.

Indeed. Other airports in Europe even have separate terminals or areas for Schengen and non-Schengen destinations, with passport control and sometimes security scans again between them.

Bonus points to Zurich (Schengen but not EU, just to test the edge cases) - I think they have an airside metro where each car is segregated for a different security category of passenger.

That was one of my jokes going between terminals (always by bus): has this country thought about discovering trains?

Once leaving a terminal the staff said we’d take an internal bus and I asked if that meant we wouldn’t have to go through security again, but they just meant the same one as the rest.

All of our trips were non-UK-entry but possibly some terminals do have heightened security to meet one-stop-security requirements. Didn’t seem like it but can’t be sure.

I was flying out of Chicago and I had a big metal bolt that was hollowed out to store pills inside. They showed me the scanned image, and you could see everything clear as day - steel bolt, hollow core, Xanax.

I had exactly the same experience in 2008, the year of the Beijing olympics. It seemed futuristic then and I can only assume their technology is even better now.

A lighter is very different from a weapon. I'm sure they can see everything they need to see with X-rays. Do you think they find a white guy flying out of China to be a likely terrorist? (I'm assuming you are white or asian.)

I've never had a bad experience with TSA but I hate taking off my shoes and all. I really question the value of those security measures.

I haven't had any particularly bad experiences with the TSA either but I have been physically searched a few times. The entire process is definitely slower and more involved. The contrast of that coupled with the published failure statistics just leaves me wondering. I'd rather we got rid of them but if we must keep them I think we could do at least a bit better.

Almost every time I've had a secondary search I've thought "Yeah, I can see how that looks suspicious on x-ray". A large block of cheese as one example.

My two favorite pull-asides were for a three inch toy cannon my son brought back from a civil war site and my 18 inch plastic roller I carried to the Boston Marathon. I was allowed to proceed with both but the roller required a supervisor's approval and the cannon actually had to go up two levels.

> Do you think they find a white guy flying out of China to be a likely terrorist?

What does skin color have to do with this? And yes, oppressed groups in China, like the Uyghurs, have support in the west. Among white people.

Maybe the winning strategy is comprehensive mass surveillance which flags you in a database long before even showing up at the airport and then the security theater just provides a suitable pretense for an arrest.

> What does skin color have to do with this?

It affects their perception of how risky you are, obviously. Accurate or not.

In fact, security tech in China will openly classify you by race/ethnicity.

Of course according to the US government terrorists are now white US citizens, so you could say they have become more open-minded.

Yes, although the US is genuinely one of the least racist places in the world, that's more about how bad the rest of the world is.

In China the CCTV view just tags you up as Han/Uyghur/African/whatever. Nobody would even think twice about it.

There's not even a forum to discuss it, not because it upsets people to be confronted, it's just so casual and matter-of-fact it'd be strange to even talk about. Like of _course_ the Uyghurs are the dangerous ones.

The same Uyghurs in the US would be judged by theie religion und be tracked down by ICE

There are countries that for whatever reason do not allow lighters on airplanes.

One time my bag was searched furiously because they saw a lighter on the machine, but had trouble locating it. Took two people about 15 minutes. Finally found it. It was very tiny.

Can depend on the lighter. A $1 plain lighter is fine in some countries while a $3 pressurized “jet” lighter is often prohibited.

You don’t have to take your shoes off anymore!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com