Do Not Flush Your iPod

realjordanna writes "Clearly the bar for what is deemed as a security threat has had to be lowered — but should it be this low? When a rather embarrassed passenger loses his iPod in the lavatory — even admits to the crew his mistake, the plane is diverted to Ottawa and a bomb squad is brought in to investigate. Read the iPod owner's story and take one lesson from this kid's plight — clearly the iPod is not flushable."

Comments

Watch what you drop in the toilet

[suso]

Wow! I'd hate to think of what would have happened to him if he had dropped something more obscure like a GPS device into the toilet. Fortunately iPods are commonplace.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[skoaldipper]

iPods use Sony lithium ion batteries. For fear of an explosion in the plane shitter, I'd say the FAA was quite prudent in this decision.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[LiquidCoooled]

Your right, if it had exploded the shit would have hit the fan.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[notque]

TLDR

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[Xanthis]

What are we coming to? Having to confess that iPood in the toilet? What? Oh... iPod. Nevermind.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[ultranova]

Your right, if it had exploded the shit would have hit the fan.

Turbine. Fans are soooo yesterday tech.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[The-Ixian]

banned

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[pixelguru]

I've always wondered this, and now is as good a time as any to ask. (please pardon the off-topic)

When & where was the that first history-making occasion when feces was introduced to moving fan blades, and what were the circumstances surrounding it?

I've tried to research this, but all I get are articles on world politics, but I did uncover this.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you could have at least gone the extra step and said turbofan.

But yeah, we get it. Funny!

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[Runefox]

Actually, some jet engines are referred to as turbofans.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[Anonymous Coward]

TLDR may refer to:

        * Top-level domain registry
        * Too long, didn't read--used as a response on message boards when a user posts a long or boring message.[1]

(from Wikipedia)

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[iwsnet]

I've heard a lot of people losing cellphones on bathroom toilets. Don't see how an iPod could do any worse harm.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[mrs clear plastic]

For that matter, we might as well ban farting. Fart gas does explode in the right circumstances.

That being the case we're going to have to ask everyone in the security line what they ate recently. Anyone who ate anything that generates gassy stomachs (Taco Bell, Berger King, beans, whatever) may have to step aside for a few hours so that security makes sure they have completely farted out.

Look at it this way, we as bio processing organisms create dangerous substances.

Hmm, I guess that means either making everone wear a totally sealed suit (including bubble helmet) or enclosing each seat in a sealed acrylic box that can withstand an explosion.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[geekthink]

Or, "b7" as the cool kids would say.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this guy dropped it in the toilet by accident.

OK, we all agree on this point.

No, that doesn't absolve him of having committed that blunder.

What punishment do you think he deserves for making a mistake? In addition to losing the iPod itself, of course. As a member of the flying public, I think there are more than enough gotchas in the system for passengers that make minor mistakes. (And yes, I consider this a minor mistake.)

By the way he talks and acts on online fora, you'd think he was a bloody hero.

I didn't get the impression he thought he was a hero. Would you mind quoting the portion of the story that gives you that impression?

Fact is, because of his blunder, other people suffered.

Yes, because of his blunder and the over-reaction by the authorities.

Is this braggart going to compensate these people for his blunder?

How do you classify him as a braggart? What compensation would you think would be adequate?

Instead he keeps on bragging, and from what I can tell, even tried to sell his story.

What is wrong with selling his story? Did he forget to get his writing license from you? I think it took a lot of courage to tell his side of the story instead of hiding in the shadows. If nothing else, his story serves as a reminder that passengers must be careful -- perhaps that will keep a couple of other flights on schedule.

It's not that he through stupidity had an accident and made an error, but his failing completely to take responsibility for it, and even bragging about it with total unconcern for how his actions hurt others.

Geez, his iPod came unclipped in a tiny washroom. It is pretty easy for a mishap like that to occur. He did take responsibility for his action as soon as he understood what happened - he spoke up and explained the situation to the flight attendents. Again, I don't get where he was bragging, nor do I get the impression that he was unconcerned with the impact on the other passengers.

What an utter piece of shit. And you apparently brighten everyone's day. By leaving the room.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[arth1]

What compensation would you think would be adequate?

Paying for any and all expenses incurred by any and all people because of his accident?
If I by accident dropped an ipod out the window and it hit a car, I would be liable for paying any damages caused by that, including not only the car it hit, but other cars colliding because of it.
It's not too much to ask that this person stops trying to profit on his accident faces the consequences and realises he should pay for the extra cost of the procedure to the airline, plus compensating the passengers for their lost time and extra expenses which would not have occurred if it hadn't been for his accident.
People are responsible for damage they cause others, even when it's done by accident. Yes, it's sad. But the alternative is worse -- that each and every one of us is responsible for problems caused by other people's negligence or stupidity. The bragging and hero worship I see here is, quite frankly, sickening.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[ObiWanKenblowme]

I really hope you were just trolling here, because this has to be, without a doubt, the most asinine idea I have ever read on Slashdot (and that's saying something!) "Paying any and all expenses incurred by any and all people because of his accident"!? Talk about punishment not fitting the crime!

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[arth1]

ObiWanKenblowme (718510) wrote:

I really hope you were just trolling here, because this has to be, without a doubt, the most asinine idea I have ever read on Slashdot (and that's saying something!) "Paying any and all expenses incurred by any and all people because of his accident"!? Talk about punishment not fitting the crime!

No, I'm not talking about punishment. I'm talking about compensating others who were harmed, and wouldn't have been if it hadn't been for this guy's accident. Even though it might look unfair to the one person who is responsible, is it more fair to have everyone pay for one person's negligence?
Accidents do not pay, and should be avoided, and other people's accidents should not cost you anything.

It's common decency to /offer/ to compensate anyone you've harmed through your actions, even when it is an accident. And in most cases, it's even the /law/. If the shopping cart rolled away while I was loading my car, and it hit yours, I would be expected to pay for the actual damages to your car, and you'd think me a shit (and the police would think me a criminal) if I left the scene without taking responsibility. Pointing this out is not trolling.

--
*Art

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[ivanmarsh]

Indeed! I really wouldn't want to find out what happens to a lithium battery soaking in chemical toliet sludge does at 30,000 feet.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[ObiWanKenblowme]

Maybe calling it trolling was a bit too harsh. You can't expect this kid to compensate everyone for anything just because he made a simple mistake that got out of hand. Besides, you could just as easily hold the flight attendants responsible, or the captain, or the ground crew, or anyone else responsible for escalating the situation. What it all really boils down to is: life just isn't fair. There's no good way around it, and sometimes shit just happens. Where would you draw the line at compensation? What if someone drove too slowly in front of me and made me late for work? What if someone ahead of me at the grocery store bought the last bottle of Pepsi? Should I be able to demand to be compensated for my inconvenience?

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[Anonymous Coward]

but if it was flushed, how did they find it?

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think trolling is too strong a word here, parents legal assertions are not based wholly on reality.

IANAL, but based on the legal courses I have taken, compensation is only required by law if the plantif can show that the defendent had a legal duty to perform, neglected that duty, and that neglect caused "real harm" to the plantif. Pay careful attention to the fact that the word "neglect" is used in place of "fail". You have a legal duty to secure loose objects inside your car as not to create a road hazard, but if the iPod were to fly out your window due to something a "reasonable person" would not forsee then you do not owe anybody anything.

First off I don't believe its on the books anywhere that you have a legal duty not to drop anything down the toliet. Secondly if you did managed to establish such a duty, the fact it was clipped to his belt should more then qualify as a reasonable attempt to fufil said duty.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[Anonymous Coward]

This is in Canada. I think it is the Transport Canada - Air.
Not all lithium batteries are bad. Poor manufacturing and QA is the reason for this recall of Sony batteries. There are lithium batteries on Mars Rovers that are on Mars for two years running without any problems. Any poor manufactured or maintained battery will destroy itself.

Re:Watch what you drop in the toilet

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying for any and all expenses incurred by any and all people because of his accident?

Think about what you are saying here. The expected mother who missed the family reunion -- he should pay to have the family brought back together, including paying their wages for travel time as well as the party itself? The businessman who missed that meeting -- well, he ought to get paid for $50,000 because it was an important meeting, right? When you add up all these claims for all these passengers, the total would be staggering.

Couple that with the risk of triggering a delay (saying the wrong word, forgetting you have a small knife, sharing a cell phone or horrors! smuggling a bottle of water. It isn't all that hard to find yourself held responsible for a delay.

I'd think twice about taking a flight if I had to factor in the kind of risk you are suggesting.

High Alert

[charliebear]

After the fact it may seem silly, but after the recent arrests in London, I sure would want the flight crew/law enforcement to fully investigate an electronic device in a toilet. After all, the alleged plot involved liquid explosives that were to be detonated in the bathroom, *using an electronic device or camera*

Re:High Alert

[Sqwubbsy]

I'm kind of split on this. Safety where electronics is concerned is important to me - especially when I'm on the plane.

But the person was up front about what happened. And you have to admit, being forced to Ottawa should be punishment enough.

Re:High Alert

[badfish99]

If they have to go to these lengths to investigate an ipod device in a toilet (where, after all, it is likely to be wet and no longer functioning) then what should they do in order to investigate all the hundreds of ipods and telephones and laptops that are taken on every airline flight?

If it's really impossibly to be reasonably certain that something is harmless without all this performance, then we should shut down the entire commercial airline industry at once, and for ever, because it is clearly impossible to make it safe.

On the other hand, if it is possible to discover that this ipod is safe just by passing it through an xray machine and giving it a cursory examination (as is done with every other ipod taken on a plane), then all this theatrical performance of questioning the passengers has got to have nothing to do with security: it is just the police and customs having a power trip.

Re:High Alert

[shreevatsa]

These excerpts might be interesting:

Now the questions became really pointed. What do you think about 9/11? What are your views on the Iran issue? Do you think government is too big, too powerful? Would you ever "make a point?"

and

He then asked me to turn on my laptop. I did, and he began using it. I saw him open Spotlight and begin searching.

"Do you connect to the Internet on this laptop?"
"Yes."
"Have you downloaded and images?"
"Huh? What do you mean?"
"Do you have any pornography?"
"No."

This guy is obviously lying, isn't he? :) But let's go on:

I waited in total silence for about 10 minutes as he kept searching and searching, until I finally asked him, "What are you looking for?"

"Contraband," he said without looking up at me.
"Such as?"
"Child pornography, hate propaganda."
"Child porn I can understand, that's illegal. But hate propaganda is protected speech."
Now he looked up. "What country do you think you're in?"
"Oh, it's illegal in Canada?"
"I honestly don't know. But that doesn't matter. I get to decide what goes in this country. Do you have a problem with that?"
I paused for a long time while I thought about what I should say to this. "Yes."
"Yes, you do have a problem?"
"Yes, I do. If it's illegal in Canada I'll understand, but saying 'I don't want it in my country' isn't good enough when you're a government official."

Now he was pissed. "Don't fool around with me. I'm sure you want this to end as much as I do. So I will ask you questions, and you will answer. Do you understand?"

Another long pause while I thought. "Yes, I do."

Re:High Alert

[49152]

FTFA: Thing is, this guy only came forward after the fact that the flight crew had realized some kind of foreign object was blocking the lavatory from beeing flushed. It was even after they had contacted the authorities on the ground about this suspicious object. I dont think they had much choice other than going through the motions in case it actually was something dangerous.

Re:High Alert

[antifoidulus]

Getting more off topic, but iPods can actually boot after absorbing a large amount of water. I accidentally left mine in the washer once, and the thing actually booted, kinda sorta. The Apple came up but then I saw the sad iPod icon. In the end, I think the spinning knocked parts loose in the hd.

Re:High Alert

[Hope Thelps]

If they have to go to these lengths to investigate an ipod device in a toilet (where, after all, it is likely to be wet and no longer functioning) then what should they do in order to investigate all the hundreds of ipods and telephones and laptops that are taken on every airline flight?

If he'd noticed at the time that he dropped it in the toilet and reported it straight away then sure, it seems obvious that little investigation is required. But what he reports is very different to that. He didn't realise that he'd lost it until after he'd watched them having whispered conversation and examining the toilet. Then he approaches them and says not to bother calling anyone about it because he's just realised he lost his ipod.

From their perspective, they started investigating and then someone who'd seen they were aware of something wrong approached them with a story to allay suspcicions. They pretty much had to investigate further. Some of the stuff on the ground, especially with the customs guy after the ipod had been removed is another matter.

Re:High Alert

[boxlight]

Mod parent up! I'm from Ottawa and I'm very happy that the investigation was so thorough. The liberal media in Canada makes it seem like Canada is ignoring the terrorist elements in the world. I'm glad to hear the cops are on top of things.

boxlight

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean the conservative media? The liberal media would most likely applaud a country not going ape-shit about each possible, suspected terrorist threat.

Re:High Alert

[Alef]

I once sat down and calculated an estimate how much my life expectancy is shortened because of terrorist bombings. I don't remember what exact value I came up with, but I remember that I concluded I had just wasted more time doing the calculation.

Why not just let them blow up a plane once in a while, I say, and perhaps we can get rid of some of these increasingly absurd security procedures.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of this scaremongering shit.
 
  Here's something to scare you, one liquid explosive I'm aware of wouldn't need a detinator at all! pickrick acid slowly oxidizes in air, until it is HIGHLY volitile. Just a nock with a shoe could set it off.

'OMG OMG we must create laws to prevent this'. NO WE DON'T!!!! a plane is a volitile object when in flight. Half a brain and enough will, will down a plane regardless of laws, security measures and what not. Don't give people the REASON to WANT to down the plane, is the ONLY answer!!! (seriously this is pissing me off now)

Re:High Alert

[Millenniumman]

He can't be accused of a crime for hate propaganda, but it would be a tip for the security official to be more suspicious.

Re:High Alert

[Hope Thelps]

Why not just let them blow up a plane once in a while, I say, and perhaps we can get rid of some of these increasingly absurd security procedures.

It's hard to imagine why they should pick on planes in particular apart from the challenge of beating the security anyway. A train or a supermarket or a road junction or the airport checkin area would be as good a target for just killing people. Presumably some other motive is involved. Beating the security seems like the obvious one.

Re:High Alert

[mpe]

If they have to go to these lengths to investigate an ipod device in a toilet (where, after all, it is likely to be wet and no longer functioning) then what should they do in order to investigate all the hundreds of ipods and telephones and laptops that are taken on every airline flight?

As well as PDAs and watches. Best not let passengers with pacemakers onboard...

Re:High Alert

[YrWrstNtmr]

It's hard to imagine why they should pick on planes in particular apart from the challenge of beating the security anyway.

Shock value. Drop an aircraft or two in the ocean, and you screw up air traffic worldwide. Plus, some people are just naturally scared of flying anyway. This plays on those fears.
And then we have the talking heads on TV, who cream their shorts every time there is a crash. Like this morning.

Re:High Alert

[triso]

...
"The liberal media in Canada makes it seem like Canada is ignoring the terrorist elements in the world. I'm glad to hear the cops are on top of things."

By focusing on trivial matters, like a lost iPod in the shitter, Canada is ignoring the terrorist elements in the world.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

We could just make a bomb out of your atrocious spelling. When it explodes, everyone's IQ drops by half and the pilot can't fly the plane anymore.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Yeah AC whatever.

I just wanted to point out this exceprt from the New York State Penal Law:

Section 240.15 Criminal anarchy

  A person is guilty of criminal anarchy when (a) he advocates the overthrow of the existing form of government of this state by violence, or (b) with knowledge of its contents, he publishes, sells or distributes any document which advocates such violent overthrow, or (c) with knowledge of its purpose, he becomes a member of any organization which advocates such violent overthrow.

  Criminal anarchy is a class E felony.

Yeah, it's a little different from hate propaganda, but still.
--Murph

Re:High Alert

[Poltras]

But as soon as they knew it was an iPod, why did they continue the interrogation and worse, having a power trip to search for stuff on his computer that was legal and trying to trick him into admitting he did this on purpose is totally over-reaction.

What part of this whole story is actually security measures and what part is just annoyment...?

I've said it before and will say it again; being plain paranoiac just made things worst. There is no security justification over such acts. Even the whole interrogation should have stopped when (or waited until) they found the object and made sure it was harmless (or not).

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you forgetting which country he's in too?

In Canada, it is a crime to produce or possess hate propoganda. Although Canadians are guaranteed the right to free speech by our constitution, this right does not extend to inciting violence or genocide. The Criminal Code specifically prohibits possession of hate propoganda in section 318, and our Customs and Border Protection agents have a duty to keep this filth out of Canada. Speech in Canada is protected only so long as it does not seek to incite violence against an identifiable minority.

So, if he indeed had hate propoganda on his laptop, he could be liable to imprisonment for up to 5 years just for landing on Canadian soil with it in his possession. Although, more than likely, he would just be deported and barred from ever entering Canada again.

Re:High Alert

[Transmogrify_UK]

How did they know it was an ipod? Because this guy told them?

Re:High Alert

[Poltras]

Actually, later they found it, from what I've read...

Re:High Alert

[kwandar]

As a Canadian I was ABSOLUTELY APALLED by the manner in which he was treated. After politely explaining the situation as he did, I'd have told them all to fuck off in no uncertain terms long before I got to this cutoms jerk. The routine should be ... amd I under arrest .. what is the charge .. get me a lawyer ... or go screw yourselves.

The questions were completely irrelevant, uncalled for, and he was under no obligation to answer such crap. I'm terribly upset at the pompous security asses and my government ... god help them if its ever me ... I've told customs to go take a hike before, and wouldn't hesitate to do it again.

Grrrrr.

Re:High Alert

[msh104]

well, he COULD have told them that it was an ipod he lost in there just to hide the fact that it actually was a bom.
he was already spotted, so he would have nothing to lose, and this would have been a nice trick to persuade the personel to just keep going.

I think they did the right thing by investigating it. (for as far as there are any right things when it comes to terrorism)

Re:High Alert

[bitslinger_42]

You've got to be kidding! In theory, the readers, and by extension the posters, of /. are better educated than the run-of-the-mill sheep in this country, but I really doubt that now. Does anyone actually read stories like this, this, or this.

People, let's start using that grey matter for once. Yes, there are definitely people who would want to blow up planes, and yes, there are ways that it could be done. The War on Moisture isn't going to make anyone safer. Beyond the huge inconvenience and expense factor (read Schneier's Wired essay (I posted the link to his blog rather than the Wired article due to updates), a simple question of proportion should come in here. According to the US government's own statistics, fewer than 2,000 people were killed WORLDWIDE in 2004 by terrorists. Even if you add in the thousands of people killed on 9/11, you're still talking about 10,000 people, tops. Compare that to the number of people killed each year in car crashes (38,000 US fatalities in 2004), malaria (1,000,000 to 3,000,000 per year worldwide, mostly in Africa), or heart disease (276 out of ever 100,000 people in the US in 1996, or 22,800 in New York City alone). In fact, if the statistics are right, more people are hit by lightning each year (1 person out of every 600,000 per year, or 10,000 worldwide) than are killed by terrorists.

So, are you going to stop driving your car? Stop smoking/drinking? Stop taking romantic walks in the rain? (ok, so maybe not a good one on /.) Think of all the lives that would be saved if the billions of dollars that are being spent protecting us from push-up bras and shampoo were spent on finding a cure for malaria, or tuburculosis, or lung cancer, or AIDS.

Bah, the world is filled with nothing but sheep.

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

"Child porn I can understand, that's illegal. But hate propaganda is protected speech." Now he looked up. "What country do you think you're in?" "Oh, it's illegal in Canada?"

Yes hate-speech is illegal in Canada allong with certain types of non-child pronography where people or bound or depicting rape.
Immigration offers aren't really told what is illegal and what is not they are just given a list of things that cannot enter the country. That includes firearms without prior permission and large amounts of alcohol and tobacco all of which may be legal in Canada but not legal to transport over the border.

Re:High Alert

[mdwh2]

A train or a supermarket or a road junction or the airport checkin area would be as good a target for just killing people.

In particular, in an airport right by those long queues of people waiting to go through the extensive security checks...

Re:High Alert

[pkiff]

RE:

"Child porn I can understand, that's illegal. But hate propaganda is protected speech."
Now he looked up. "What country do you think you're in?"
"Oh, it's illegal in Canada?"
"I honestly don't know. But that doesn't matter. I get to decide what goes in this country. Do you have a problem with that?"
I paused for a long time while I thought about what I should say to this. "Yes."
"Yes, you do have a problem?"
"Yes, I do. If it's illegal in Canada I'll understand, but saying 'I don't want it in my country' isn't good enough when you're a government official."

Two points about this.

First, just FYI, hate propaganda is not "protected speech" in Canada. Indeed, the concept of "protected speech" is not part of Canadian constitutional or rights laws; "protected speech" is a concept that comes from American court cases related to free speech laws and the First Amendment. In Canada, there is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects one's "freedom of expression", but that same document also protects people from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc. Generally, freedom of expression is protected in Canada only within such reasonable limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society. Within this framework, the Canadian Criminal Code has laws against "hate" crimes -- primarily in cases where one's activities can be described as an "incitement to violence". In Canadian law, therefore, the individual right to free expression does not trump the group right of protection from hate speech. Both are present and both may apply to the same speech at the same time, so the question of whether "hate speech" is illegal or not depends upon the specific circumstances of the communication and on a localized intrepretation of events connected to the use of those words.

Second, if I'm not mistaken, border guards from both Canada and the U.S. are indeed empowered to make decisions on the spot about what or who can come into either country. There is little difference between Canada and the U.S. about this. In both cases, customs officials are given sweeping powers that allow them to make choices without having to justify those choices to a court. There is a long history of abuse of this power on both sides of the border that has led to the improper seizure of literature associated with radical, leftist, or communist causes (as well as fascist hate propaganda) and of pornographic material associated with gay, lesbian, or BSMD lifestyles (as well as child porn or other clearly objectionable materials). Lots of brown-skinned muslims travelling these days will be quick to confirm from experience that when you are at the border, you really don't have any rights at all, and you have very little recourse if you are mistreated. It's only people who have never run into problems at the border who live under the illusion that their "rights" are robust and in full force at the border. This does not mean one should not object to mistreatment, but border guards really are empowered to make decisions about what comes into your country, and if you are going to dispute their choices, you had better be ready for a long, miserable experience...and you had better be sure that you know the law of the particular country you intend to object to!

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

Summary of Hate Crime Legislation
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

Re:High Alert

[mdwh2]

Does it count has hate speech even when you aren't publishing it to anyone? I can't see it's what people would think of as "hate speech" when you only find it by violating someone's privacy. What if it's encrypted, and hence not even readable?

Anyway, whether or not certain things are illegal though - should security measures brought in supposedly to combat terrorism (e.g., making sure it's a working laptop, not a bomb) be used to search people for every other possible violation (e.g., they have a picture of their girlfriend in some kinky situation which happens to be illegal under the country's authoritarian laws, even though that person never intended to distribute the image to anyone)?

I mean, if the Government decided that everybody's houses had to be searched, and everyone's computers searched, I'd imagine many would oppose it, whether or not they were only after the technically illegal material.

Maybe if security kept to security rather than harrassing and locking people up for naughty images of consensual sex, or having speech the Government disapproves of, maybe we'd actually have a chance of safer flying?

Re:High Alert

[Pieroxy]

It's not about blowing up a plane. It's about making sure a plane cannot be hijacked. If you can build a bomb onboard, you just got yourself a nice device to pressure the pilot to give you his seat.

Now between blowing up a plane and 9/11, there is quite a difference in price (both $$$ and lives). That seems a bit more serious.

Re:High Alert

[badfish99]

Of course it could have been any one of hundreds of things. But, given that it looked like an ipod, and that a passenger claimed that it was his ipod, there was no reason to think that it's anything else.

If you've just planted a cunningly-disguised bomb, and someone finds it, you don't jump up and say "it's mine".

Of course, the police had their own reasons to behave as though they did not believe it was an ipod. If you've been stuck in a boring job like that all your life, suddenly being given the excuse to interrogate a whole planeload of "suspected terrorists" without any fear of comeback from higher authority must make them feel like they've died and gone to heaven.

Re:High Alert

[Millenniumman]

I was assuming that it was protected, and responding to his objections to the security officials search.

Also, free speech except when someone doesn't like what you are saying is troubling. For now, "hate" might only apply to idiots who support such violence. Tomorrow, it may apply to someone who doesn't like paying for a legislators yacht.

Re:High Alert

[Poltras]

I am not saying it was a bad thing, just that when they searched the plane and found the thing, they should have let everybody go. If I tell you "hey! i've lost my ipod in your car", once you've found the ipod, and searched the car for bombs, everything's fine and you let it go. Why didn't they?

Re:High Alert

[alienmole]

Frankly, these particular cops sound like incompetent Gestapo. I wouldn't be so proud if I were you.

Re:High Alert

[badfish99]

Given that incidents like this have started to happen, screwing up air traffic worldwide has become much easier. You don't need bombs any more. Just put some ipods in a few toilets, or scribble something in Arabic on some sickbags, and then sit back and let the security industry do the screwing-up for you.

Re:High Alert

[badfish99]

Illegal or not, customs officers do not usually spend such time and effort searching and interrogating one person. Given the circumstances, it is pretty clear that they had no particular reason to believe that he was a smuggler. So they were picking on him in order to displace onto him their feelings of guilt and annoyance for having caused such an uproar for no valid reason.

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

Does it count has hate speech even when you aren't publishing it to anyone? I can't see it's what people would think of as "hate speech" when you only find it by violating someone's privacy. What if it's encrypted, and hence not even readable?

What if I dissolve (without a prescription) methadone tablets in my water bottle prior to crossing the border in order fool the border guards? You know your bags may be checked. You know you will be asked questions when crossing the border. How are the contents of one's laptop any more private then one's luggage? Myself I don't bring anything that may be illegal in the country I am traveling to and if I am unsure I check.

Anyway, whether or not certain things are illegal though - should security measures brought in supposedly to combat terrorism (e.g., making sure it's a working laptop, not a bomb) be used to search people for every other possible violation (e.g., they have a picture of their girlfriend in some kinky situation which happens to be illegal under the country's authoritarian laws, even though that person never intended to distribute the image to anyone)?

I think you are misunderstanding what went on. He was no longer investigated for planting a bomb the agent who searched his stuff was doing so to grant him access to the country. Sure he got the full treatment but he got nothing that someone who an agent had a feeling about might get. The same things (personal use) can be said about drugs unless it's a large quantity it's likely for personal use but the question becomes do we really want people don't make an effort to follow the law in the country.

I mean, if the Government decided that everybody's houses had to be searched, and everyone's computers searched, I'd imagine many would oppose it, whether or not they were only after the technically illegal material.

There is a big difference between being search on the border and choosing to take that risk anyway and being forced to a search with no aspect of choice. There is a world of difference between the two.

Maybe if security kept to security rather than harrassing and locking people up for naughty images of consensual sex, or having speech the Government disapproves of, maybe we'd actually have a chance of safer flying?

The problem is a customs agent has nothing to do with flying planes or even largely secuirty their job is to allow or deny people into the country. The job of security falls to border guards not customs agents.

Re:High Alert

[Asic Eng]

That sort of thing scares me too. The danger from terrorism is statistically very low, yet it's used as an excuse to place governments above the law. The danger from that is rather high.

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

I don't see how an accident somehow makes it unlikely that someone would be a smuggler. Granted I don't think it makes him more likely. If he talked back to anyone the way he talked back to that agent however would trigger further investigation regardless of the situation.

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

Tomorrow, it may apply to someone who doesn't like paying for a legislators yacht.

I wouldn't get too concerned at this point. The law is very specific and really spells it out as either avocation of Genocide or hatred based on color, race, religion or ethnic origin and only if it falls to the level that it is likely to incite violence. And of course there are a lot of exceptions.

Re:High Alert

[boxlight]

> Don't you mean the conservative media?

No. USA has a conservative-leaning media.

Canada has a far left liberal-leaning media.

boxlight

Re:High Alert

[Asic Eng]

I think that a case can be made that something could be brought onto the plane which could endanger the flight. So checking whether a laptop contains explosives is a reasonable thing to do. There is really nothing reasonable about looking at people's private files without suspicion.

he got nothing that someone who an agent had a feeling about might get.

That might be true, but that's a sad state of affairs. There was no reason for such disrespect.

Re:High Alert

[badfish99]

You're right, we should all be deferential to authority. If customs agents tell us to strip, we should strip. If police tell us to bend over, we should bend over. We should never say anything that might remind such people that they are our paid servants and that they are not above the law.

Re:High Alert

[ultranova]

If you've just planted a cunningly-disguised bomb, and someone finds it, you don't jump up and say "it's mine".

Unless you are trying to keep them from trying to examine it further and realizing that it is, in fact, a disguised bomb and not an iPod.

Of course if you disguise something as something else and someone starts examining it closely, you try to distract them. That's the only logical course of action. Well, apart from going to bathroom and just blowing up the thing instead of leaving it there to blow up a little later, since you're going to die anyway.

Re:High Alert

[tverbeek]

The problem is that our governmnets are responding to terrorism by promoting hysteria instead. It sounds like every airline and government employee in this incident shut off their common sense and overreacted, responding not to the actual situation (some online gamer loses his iPod in the toilet), but to an imagined worst-case scenario (a baby-raping racist cyberterrorist has rigged a bomb to explode in an airplane lavatory). If an individual behaved in this manner, he'd be diagnosed as psychotic; why do we excuse it when a government does?

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

I think that a case can be made that something could be brought onto the plane which could endanger the flight. So checking whether a laptop contains explosives is a reasonable thing to do. There is really nothing reasonable about looking at people's private files without suspicion.

I don't see it as any more unreasonable as searching my car (which can involve removing parts of the car) or my luggage for contraband and certainly a heck of a lot more reasonable then strip searches that can be preformed. I don't particularly like having it happen but I certainly don't draw attention to myself by talking back to agents the way he had.

Re:High Alert

[cvas]

but iPods can actually boot after absorbing a large amount of water.

He dropped it in the toilet. He wishes he just had to worry about water.

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

First of all entering a foreign country is a choice and not a right. Secondly the salaries of custom agents are paid for by the citizens of the country. Finally this has nothing to do with police or authority in general it has to do with customs agents when entering a foreign country.

Re:High Alert

[ultranova]

Bah, the world is filled with nothing but sheep.

Not true, the world has plenty of wolfs as well. That's the problem actually, nothing stops the wolfs from having a feast.

I'll leave to the reader to figure out if the wolfs wear, turbans, suits or both.

Re:High Alert

[TuomasK]

I waited in total silence for about 10 minutes as he kept searching and searching, until I finally asked him, "What are you looking for?" "Contraband," he said without looking up at me. "Such as?" "Child pornography, hate propaganda."

What he should have replied next is "Why, are you somekind of pervert?"

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Which government do you work for?

You clearly love to play Blame The Victim.

Re:High Alert

[Nimey]

Bah. It would be just as scary to have coordinated attacks on airport security checkin lines, and there's really no way to guard against it.

Re:High Alert

[EsbenMoseHansen]

He can't be accused of a crime for hate propaganda, but it would be a tip for the security official to be more suspicious.

Except that it seems this took place after the plane was cleared by the bomb squad, the ipod was recovered (and offered back, no less!), in customs to Canada. The officer was apparently (as in, that's what he said) looking for contraband. For my money, that guy was having a very bad day or was just not a very nice person.

Re:High Alert

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

If it's really impossible to be reasonably certain that something is harmless, we'll all just have to travel in carrier-provided clear plastic "air travel suits" with no carry on baggage. Checked baggage will fly in tandem but in a separate craft. The FAA will have to maintain a pharmacy from which passengers can register for in-flight meds if they absolutely cannot do without something for the duration of a flight.

Or you could just drive there.

Re:High Alert

[istartedi]

you just got yourself a nice device to pressure the pilot to give you his seat.

No. The rules changed starting with flight 93 and the will probably stay changed. If they tell the pilot to fly someplace, the passengers *might* cooperate, but if they try to take the cockpit the passengers and crew will assume that they are a missile and are dead anyway. If you're dead anyway, you're not going to let them pick their target; at least I wouldn't.

Re:High Alert

[flight_master]

You can never be too safe... An iPod is plenty large enough to flush out (get it, flush out!) and put some C4 + detonator + timer into it.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Planes are expensive. If you want to terrorise a government or commerce, you have to hit them in the wallet - they have a much more realistic and detached view about a few hundred people getting blown up than the public, but to them the bottom line is all-important. A plane is the best of both worlds, although I think the estimated costs of the London Underground bombings were in a similar league.

Re:High Alert

[FireBreathingDog]

Hey, calm down.

Your use of logic and your citation of facts are depriving the Slashdot Skript Kiddies of their inalienable right to blame all the world's problems on the United States.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you fear this sort of terrorist bombing proves that terrorists are winning. This is no much different than not going outside for fear of lightning. I await a day when I can walk into an airport devoid of security and step aboard a plane, joke with the passenger and flight attendents about bombs and go about my business. If the plane blows up, well, that's a risk I took getting on the plane to begin with. The fact of the matter is that the odds are still so low that it is irrational to fear it.

Re:High Alert

[necro81]

Lots of brown-skinned muslims travelling these days will be quick to confirm from experience that when you are at the border, you really don't have any rights at all, and you have very little recourse if you are mistreated.

That could be because, when you are at or in the border, or within customs area at an airport, you aren't exactly in any country. You certainly aren't in the country that the customs area happens to be located in. Consider, for example, London Heathrow or New York's JFK: until you clear customs, you aren't officially in England or the United States. As such, what laws (and rights) apply while in this weird space aren't always clear.

Re:High Alert

[houghi]

Why not just let them blow up a plane once in a while, I say, and perhaps we can get rid of some of these increasingly absurd security procedures.

Because their might be children on board. Somebody has to take car of the children.

Re:High Alert

[JD-1027]

Bah, the world is filled with nothing but sheep.

Too good to pass up.

Re:High Alert

[Larry Lightbulb]

Shouldn't you post your calculations before we can give any weight to them? It may be, for example, that you never fly out of the country and that fact would alter the risk.

Re:High Alert

[oohshiny]

Why not just let them blow up a plane once in a while, I say, and perhaps we can get rid of some of these increasingly absurd security procedures.

Because then various politicians couldn't justify wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on ridiculous and overpriced security services provided by their buddies in industry.

Terrorism is a symbiotic relationship between the people blowing up planes and the politicians claiming to stop them: the former get more attention than they otherwise would, and the latter basically get a political carte blanche.

Imagine where GWB would be today if 9/11 hadn't happened: his administration was already failing, his programs were going nowhere, and the nation was starting to realize what a dope they had elected.

Re:High Alert

[dogod]

i guess it's time to arrest americas founding fathers.

maybe we should start calling them americas founding terrorists.

Re:High Alert

[mdwh2]

What if I dissolve (without a prescription) methadone tablets in my water bottle prior to crossing the border in order fool the border guards? You know your bags may be checked. You know you will be asked questions when crossing the border. How are the contents of one's laptop any more private then one's luggage? Myself I don't bring anything that may be illegal in the country I am traveling to and if I am unsure I check.

I didn't question the privacy, I asked how it can be hate speech in the first place. Drugs are illegal whether or not they are hidden; I was saying that surely illegal hate speech much be published or distributed to others in some way by its definition?

Sure he got the full treatment but he got nothing that someone who an agent had a feeling about might get.

I know that, but I was questioning the system in general. Increased checks are brought in on the basis of combatting terrorism, yet they are used to enforce drugs or even people's private sex life. Is that right? is what I am asking. Shouldn't the Government at least be upfront about what any new security procedures are going to be used for, rather than going "Blah blah War on Terrorrr"?

There is a big difference between being search on the border and choosing to take that risk anyway and being forced to a search with no aspect of choice. There is a world of difference between the two.

In some contexts, yes, but I was arguing against the principle of "If it's illegal, you shouldn't complain if they investigate and charge you for it".

The problem is a customs agent has nothing to do with flying planes or even largely secuirty their job is to allow or deny people into the country. The job of security falls to border guards not customs agents.

Then perhaps we should have more people to deal with security instead of more to browse through people's porn collections?

Re:High Alert

[multisync]

being forced to Ottawa should be punishment enough.

Actually, the summary is wrong (suprise!), he was visiting a fellow World of Warcraft player in Ottawa. I don't know why the submitter said the plane was diverted there, or why Taco let it pass (can't believe I just said that with a straight face).

Re:High Alert

[kimvette]

(a) he advocates the overthrow of the existing form of government of this state by violence

Oh, so now, advocating for exercising responsibilities and rights explicitly protected by the second amendment (overthrowing tyranny) is now a crime?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Re:High Alert

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

When something bad happens people reflect on it and try to figure out if there was something they could have done to stop it. The goal of this line of thought is to prevent a tragedy from happening a second time. I'll give you an example: After Columbine happened, a kid in grade school picked up on of his chicken fingers at lunch, pointed it at his teacher, and said "Bang! Bang!" The kid was immediately suspended, investigated, yadda yadda yadda. This seems awfully absurd, right? Well, it was. I'm not arguing that it wasn't. The problem is the imagined worst case scenario. Say the kid did this, and later he brought a gun to school. The teacher would have looked back and said "Oh my... I could have stopped this!" The teacher may have thought he/she saw a warning sign and did what that person thought was right. He/she didn't want to take a chance on something worse happening.

Now we live in the post 9-11 world. Worse, there was the recent arrest of a number of individuals who were alledgedly planning to use items (such as iPods) to blow up planes. If by some oddball quirk of fate, this iPod actually was an attempt at terrorism, and it had succeded, there would have been awful questions like "Why did we allow him to take an iPod into the lav?"

These events are sad, but I'm not sure why they're not better understood. The terrorist attacks worked. We're terrorized. We don't want to die. We don't want others to die. Now we're being overly vigilant. It sucks. What can we do?

Re:High Alert

[darkonc]

You're still far more likely to die because of an unexpected buildup of ice on the wings. Given that they've already identified the impugned item, this is just a waste of resources better used to a more productive end.

Terrorists have killed about 6000 westerners in the last decade (including about 2500 soldiers on active duty in the Middle East, which are arguably just military deaths, not terrorist). Thats about how many people drunk drivers kill in 2 months. It's also the number of people that the Tobacco industry kills in about 2 weeks.

What we've got here is the sociological equivalent to an anaphylactic alergic reaction.

Re:High Alert

[st0rmshad0w]

billions of dollars that are being spent protecting us from push-up bras

Hey pal, truth in advertising laws are there for a reason.

Re:High Alert

[Runefox]

Actually, if you pull anything dangerous at all on a pilot and start barking commands, they are (supposed to be) trained to comply faithfully in a yes-sir-no-sir-three-bags-full-sir sort of manner. After all, if the pilot dies or is incapacitated, and there's nobody to fly the plane, everyone on board also dies. It's one of the only situations where terrorists have any semblance of control against authorities.

Re:High Alert

[DavidTC]

FYI, it looks more and more like the terrorists in London were no real threat to anyone at all, and were arrested as a PR move.

That's not to say they weren't bad people, and actually 'planning' what they were planning, but their plan was idiotic and a good way to kill only themselves in the plane restroom, required quite a few materials they had no access, required things they had access to, but hadn't bothered getting yet, like passports, and they were being watched by the British.

The British were pressured into arresting them by the US before anyone was ready, and, at this point, have already had to let a few of them go, because, while they've discovered various tools and supplies in their neighborhood-wide search...they can't actually link them to the terrorists, thanks to the utter stupidity of just randomly arresting them with no planning. And, of course, we can't track down who was supporting them, and who knows how many people got away.

Oh, and almost all the evidence against them is either the vague plans the British picked up via legal wiretaps, or the testimony gained by the Pakistans torturing some guy. And guess which one of those is admissable in British court? (Of course, they were still mostly at the point of vague plans anyway.)

Thank you, George W. Bush, for fucking something else up. Now I'm expecting someone to point out the released-for-lack-of-evidence terrorists and say 'See, this is why we need Gitmo'. Because suddenly, after hundreds of years, we've suddenly gotten too damn incompetant to actually build legal cases against bad guys.

Incidentally, if someone was going to blow up a plane with something iPod sized...wouldn't it make more sense to carry it into the bathroom (Or wheverever) and set it off manually? Why on earth would you go there, turn on a timer, and walk away?

Re:High Alert

[donaggie03]

Shock value yes, but also death value. Sure, you can drive a van up to the front of a supermarket and detonate the tons of explosives you have inside, but how many people would that kill? Supermarket shoppers are generally spread throughout the store, not congregating around the doorway. On a plane, you don't have to worry about all that. All the people you want to die, you don't have to worry about actually making them all explode, you just have to worry about making an explosion just big enough to put a hole in the side of the plane. Then you could kill quite a few people with the explosion and TWO bonuses. First, the survivors would have to deal with getting pushed out of the plane by the sudden air pressure change caused by the explosion, and second, for everyone left, there would be a very very long fall to look forward to, and an incredibly quick stop at the end.

Re:High Alert

[Detritus]

Just because a law is on the books, doesn't mean that it will stand up to review in court. Any prosecutor with two brain cells would realize that a conviction based on that law would get reversed by the appeals court. See the Smith Act.

Re:High Alert

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

First Canada wants tourists, they publish advertising saying come visit Canada. Secondly, if you purchase anything while in Canada you are paying for the salaries of the customs agents. And yes this has to do with middle level bureaucrats thinking they are Jack Bauer and can do whatever they please to stop them terrorists.

Re:High Alert

[nbauman]

Here's a Nobel laureate http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laure ates/2005/schelling-lecture.html who says that more people are killed in bathtubs than by terrorists.

Wall Street Journal
November 7, 2005

A Nobel Economist Analyzes the Strategies Of the Deadly Serious Games Nations Play, Jon E. Hilsenrath.

Interview with Thomas C. Schelling, 2005 Nobel Laureate in economics.

[snip]

Schelling: "With the exception of the Twin Towers in New York, terrorism is an almost minuscule problem. [John] Mueller, at Ohio State University, estimates that the number of people who die from terrorist attacks is smaller than the number of people who die in their bathtubs. If you take the Trade Towers, we lost about 3,000 people. Three thousand people is about 3 1/2 weeks of automobile fatalities in the U.S. If you rank all of the causes of death in the U.S. or around the world, different kinds of accidents, drowning, falling down stairs, automobile accidents, struck by lightning, heart attacks, infections acquired during hospital surgery, terrorism is way down at the bottom."

[snip]

"It's perfectly clear that [the Bush administration] had no success in Iran, and it's had no success in North Korea. ... We really ought to give North Korea some kind of nonaggression assurance." It's rational for countries to get nuclear power for deterrence, but not to use it.

[snip]

Global warming is a problem; if the West Antarctic ice sheet melts, sea level could rise by 20 feet.

Re:High Alert

[tubapro12]

The real problem here is that while the police and FAA officials are retrieving iPods toilets; they could have been diverted from a real plot, where the iPod case was a ploy to divert attention or even just a coincidence.

Re:High Alert

[KDR_11k]

And even if, you'd need dictatorial powers to restrict such a basic right and at that point you don't really need to care about the law anyway.

Re:High Alert

[tftp]

TFA stops mentioning other passengers long before the iPod is found. And the police had to wait until they have the device in their [gloved] hands and have a chance to verify that it is not something nefarious. After they did that the police stopped treating the owner as a terrier, and only the customs inspector - who was probably required by the book to go through all the luggage - chose to play tough, out of habit or just for his personal pleasure.

Re:High Alert

[vtcodger]

Hey man, we're talking security here. It doesn' t HAVE to make sense.

As long as you panic at the least provocation, you are responding normally and appropriately.

Re:High Alert

[TheSpoom]

Ah, but you forget: He's not a Canadian citizen. He's an alien looking to visit Canada.

The rules change quite a lot in this situation. He could do what you said, but I guarantee you he'd be instantly thrown out of the country and would likely be looked on with extreme suspicion if he tried to get in again (read: he wouldn't).

Customs officers effectively have complete authority when they're dealing with non-citizens.

Re:High Alert

[tftp]

I don't want to give any ideas, but it is not a rocket science to find a place on the ground where many people are present, and bring it down. Compare to a half-empty aircraft, with 80 people aboard. You probably can find more people than that at any fast food restaurant at lunch time.

Sure, you can drive a van up to the front of a supermarket and detonate the tons of explosives you have inside, but how many people would that kill?

Ask Tim McVeigh when you get a chance.

you just have to worry about making an explosion just big enough to put a hole in the side of the plane.

Like Aloha Airlines Flight 243? Fact is that it's not easy to bring a passenger plane down; even a missile hit into one engine is not guaranteed to destroy the vehicle, unless the wing is breached and the fuel ignites.

Re:High Alert

[Kreigaffe]

What an idiot.

Riddle me this: If one wanted to get some files of illegal material into a country, would it be easier to:

A- smuggle them in on a laptop's HD

OR

B- PUT THEM ON THE INTERNET

Mr. Customs Offical, Welcome to Two Decades Ago!

Re:High Alert

[tftp]

Pacemakers indeed; a suicide bomber can have a good deal of explosive surgically implanted into him, replacing most of his bowels, for example, or one lung (as larger organs that are not mandatory for survival.) He'd need to live on injections of glucose for the rest of his life, but that's hardly a long time; he could board his flight mere days after the surgery. A similar scenario was described in the Gap trilogy by Stephen R. Donaldson; in his version the assassin had his blood replaced with an explosive that was still functioning as blood, more or less, just enough to carry him through the mission.

Re:High Alert

[NMerriam]

Shouldn't you post your calculations before we can give any weight to them? It may be, for example, that you never fly out of the country and that fact would alter the risk.

The only thing that would raise his risk wold be to stay off planes, so i don't think it much matters how or where he flies (so long as he stays on first-world airlines). If he spent 24/7 in flight, he'd be statistically safer than if he just stayed home.

Re:High Alert

[NMerriam]

or BSMD lifestyles

BSMD -- is that where people get sexually excited by listening to doctors talk authoritatively about things they don't know? :P

Re:High Alert

[IO ERROR]

As I said in my own post about this yesterday (which somebody ripped off) it's security theater. All this is meant to make people feel safe, not to make them actually safe.

Re:High Alert

[tftp]

What the agent should have replied to that is "I wish I were, so much of that stuff people keep smuggling in!"

Re:High Alert

[db32]

SHHH...don't let the cat out of the bag! What will those poor companies like Halliburton and Blackwater Security do without all those lucrative no bid government contracts? TSA!? Think about how many people would be out of work if it wasn't for HomeSec. Its about creating jobs that won't be offshored! I mean really...we onshore those ones...imported workers and all... I almost told the TSA guy to sit in the chair while I screened him because the man barely spoke english.

Re:High Alert

[loraksus]

Because the people who work at Canada Customs have a tendency to go on power trips - which is sort of understandable because they do have pretty much unlimited power when you're at their mercy. They could of easily have ordered a cavity search.

Doesn't help that they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
(This applies to American border agents too)

Re:High Alert

[westlake]

People, let's start using that grey matter for once

Statistics presented without any social context are meaningless.

There are a handful of cities that can absorb 3000 deaths and massive loss of infrastructure in a single incident. New Orleans is patently not one of them. The WTC at noontime held 50,000 people. Minimized Fatalities

That is the problem.

It has become possible to imagine a terrorist attack with deaths on the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As for myself, I'll not waste any sympathy on the passenger who can't live without his laptop, his hair gel, or his iPod for four to six hours.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

> No. The rules changed starting with flight 93

Flight 93 was taken down by an US missile to prevent it of landing on the white house.

Re:High Alert

[loraksus]

Hate speech is banned, even books like "The Turner Diaries" will be confiscated.
They don't like certain kids of porn either. linky

Re:High Alert

[loraksus]

As a Canadian I was ABSOLUTELY APALLED by the manner in which he was treated. After politely explaining the situation as he did, I'd have told them all to fuck off in no uncertain terms long before I got to this cutoms jerk

You haven't been through Canadian Customs lately, have you? Complainers get their car or suitcase torn apart and sent to a back room for "the blue latex gove" treatment.

Re:High Alert

[tverbeek]

The terrorist attacks worked. We're terrorized. We don't want to die. We don't want others to die. Now we're being overly vigilant. It sucks. What can we do?

Get over it. Instead of quivering like a 7-year-old because some national father figure says that we all need to be afraid of everything now, evaluate the situation for yourself and assess just how "terrorized" you really need to be. On a long soul-searching walk on September 12, I decided that I wasn't going to be afraid. Not of flying. Not of Arabs. Not of Muslims. Not of tall buildings. Not of anything that I wasn't afraid of on September 10. I wrote an essay that went into a little more depth about it (published by the local metro newspaper the following week), but the basic point was: I don't want to live in fear, and I won't. Granted, I do still struggle with certain fears... of being hit by a car on my bike, of my mom having a cancer relapse, of global warming, of losing my job... of things that have some statistically signficant chance of happening. But I won't let fear lead me to restrict my own freedom, and I don't think we as a society should allow it to restrict our collective freedom to the point that crap like this happens.

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

I didn't question the privacy, I asked how it can be hate speech in the first place. Drugs are illegal whether or not they are hidden; I was saying that surely illegal hate speech much be published or distributed to others in some way by its definition?

You said it was a violation of one's privacy. Regardless if the person did have such material on their laptop and the officer believed he individual would spread it the person should be denied entrance to the country, after all entrance to a foreign country is not a right.

I know that, but I was questioning the system in general. Increased checks are brought in on the basis of combatting terrorism, yet they are used to enforce drugs or even people's private sex life. Is that right? is what I am asking. Shouldn't the Government at least be upfront about what any new security procedures are going to be used for, rather than going "Blah blah War on Terrorrr"?

Customs agents have been pulling people aside for suspicion of contraband way before any war on terror this has nothing to do with any war on terror. I don't understand why you keep playing that card. He was pulled aside likely because of his attitude toward the police and other customs agents which even relying on his side of the even was quite aggressive.

In some contexts, yes, but I was arguing against the principle of "If it's illegal, you shouldn't complain if they investigate and charge you for it".

I am not following are you saying you should be able to complain if you are investigated for a crime you committed? Sure you can I guess but you would sound sort of foolish I guess. Regardless we aren't talking about a crime investigation anyway you are petitioning access to the country. At any point you can say fuck you and go home.

Then perhaps we should have more people to deal with security instead of more to browse through people's porn collections?

Or perhaps they can do their job and ensure contraband does not enter the country and leave security to those who's job it is ensure.

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

First: Canada wants tourists who will not cause problems in the country that is why there are borders and border and customs agents. Don't believe me? Try telling the border agent you had a felony conviction.
Second: In case you are unaware sales tax is refunded on most items you return to your country of origin.

Re:High Alert

[madcow_bg]

Actually, I believe that even a passanger can land the plane given instructions from the control tower.
Modern airplanes have all sorts of technologies. Takeoff and landing are the only parts of the flight where the pilot has direct control of the plane.
And most of all, I believe that in 60 people flight there will be at least one that has any idea how to land a plane. With help, at least.

Re:High Alert

[sumdumass]

WoW, it didn't take long for the kooks to turn up..

93 was downed by the pilot who knew he couldn't make his target because of the passengers uprising.

It has been proven with the cockpit recordings, black box recordings and telephone calls made by the passengers. Some of them were recorded too.

I'm sure some of the kooks are thinking 'thats what they want you to think' but i'm seeing more colaberative evidence on the official story then anything the "konspiracy cooks" have produced. Besides, missles have never been found at the crashsite. And the debry filed resembles that of the actions of a plane falling/flying directly into the ground.

Re:High Alert

[ereshiere]

After politely explaining the situation as he did, I'd have told them all to fuck off in no uncertain terms long before I got to this cutoms jerk.

And you wouldn't be let in to the country.

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

And even if, you'd need dictatorial powers to restrict such a basic right and at that point you don't really need to care about the law anyway.

You speak of the freedom of speech as if it is absolute; it isn't and never has been. If it was said to an individual instead of a group it could be Terroristic threatening, slander, or libel. This law simply applies similar laws that have always applied to individuals to groups so long as the group are targeted specifically in the same manner that one would target an individual. Hate speech is something very specific in Canada, we are not just talking about speech that may be hateful.

This is about as dictatorial as not being able to firebomb a government office is somehow abridging one's right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". Regardless a person would have a far easier time using slander laws against someone saying things they don't like then they would hate ones and this is true for virtually all countries including the US and Canada.

Re:High Alert

[geminidomino]

why Taco let it pass

He stole some of the exlax-laced brownies from the other story, and couldn't help letting it pass.

Re:High Alert

[Asic Eng]

I don't particularly like having it happen but I certainly don't draw attention to myself by talking back to agents the way he had.

That's the part which concerns me most, actually. Cause it implies that the search is not made out of genuine concern for security or upholding the law, not because the agent is interested in performing his job well - but because he feels entitled to lord it over innocent people. This is not just humiliating and annoying, but it's also means that instead of doing his job he'll waste his time pursuing personal vendetas. He won't apply his time where he thinks he might find something, but instead spend it to extract respect which he doesn't deserve.

Re:High Alert

[falconfighter]

No, no, no. It's obviously, "some kind of a prevert?" Dr Strangelove established that like 40 years ago.

Re:High Alert

[geminidomino]

Why on earth would you go there, turn on a timer, and walk away?

You know what they say:

"Any suicide bombing you can walk away from..."

Re:High Alert

[Blymie]

I will say one thing here.

No country needs to ever allow any citizen of another to enter its borders.

Is there paranoia? Yes, and idiocy, and just plain silliness. However, I am much more concerned about

1) whether or not someone is tortured or harmed in some way, instead of merely delayed or ejected when entering another country
2) how the citizens of a country, when entering their own country, are treated

Note that while this incident was just plain silly, no one was imprisioned, or tortured, or thrown into a concentration camp. Further, the author was not a citizen of the country in question.

Re:High Alert

[thegrassyknowl]

Inciting hysteria allows the governments to reduce our freedoms without hearing the complaints from the "common" man. Commonman doesn't want to get blown up by terrorists. He's never seen the "crazy arab terrorist" that the government tells him is hiding everywhere and wants him dead. Commonman doesn't realise that the term "crazy arab" is not apt.

When the government says "we are going to give the police power to buttfuck anyone they suspect they might one day think could possibly want to maybe consider walking past a terrorist in the street" then commonman says "that sounds good, do that and protect me from these crazy people".

The events of Sept 11 gave the Bush administration the mass public hysteria to play on and do this in the US. Prior to that the "it won't happen to us" mentality prevailed and people were more happy to complain when the government wanted to trounce their freedoms.

Back to the iPod in the loo.. I can understand them landing the plane on account of that. Aircraft cans contain some nasty chemicals. I wouldn't be putting my hand in there to get my ipod out. iPods contain all sorts of nasty chemicals (batteries). The reaction of the loo chemicals and the chemicals in said iPod may or may not have been able to produce some kind of toxic chemical that may or may not have been able to make people sick or dead.

Interrogating them vigourously for it. I can't support that.

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

That's the part which concerns me most, actually. Cause it implies that the search is not made out of genuine concern for security or upholding the law, not because the agent is interested in performing his job well - but because he feels entitled to lord it over innocent people. This is not just humiliating and annoying, but it's also means that instead of doing his job he'll waste his time pursuing personal vendetas. He won't apply his time where he thinks he might find something, but instead spend it to extract respect which he doesn't deserve.

That could be the case but it's far more likely they see that as a suspicious act. The fact that he was allowed into the country lays backs up this, if this was just a power thing the guy could have been held overnight or indefinitely, strip searched or denied access to the country out of hand. You sort of have to look at it from the agent's perspective this guy caused probably a huge mess most reasonable people would probably be embarrassed and cooperative someone behaving with passive aggressive hostility will raise some red flags as if having an airplane grounded due to you isn't already going to have raised flags.

Re:High Alert

[kfg]

The problem is that our governmnets are responding to terrorism by promoting hysteria instead.

And the next time I run a fever I'll jump in an oven.

KFG

Re:High Alert

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Takeoff and landing are the only parts of the flight where the pilot has direct control of the plane.

Yep, flying the plane is pretty straightforward. It's that landing thing that's the hard part!

Re:High Alert

[shadowbearer]

  Guess you canucks don't stomp on gov officials who exceed their authority any more than we down here. Why this inspector isn't being fired for stepping outside the bounds of his job is beyond me.

"I get to decide what goes in this country. Do you have a problem with that?"

  Guess that asshat didn't pay attention in training and has no concept of what enforcing the law means, like, it isn't your personal opinion, asshole... :-(

  Helluva world this is becoming.

SB

Re:High Alert

[PyroMosh]

Bom means "fuck you" in Polish.

Re:High Alert

[Takumi2501]

I cross the Canada/U.S. border all the time. I've never been "power tripped" on my Canadian customs. U.S. customs is another story all together.

I originally thought that this was because I'm a Canadian citizen, but I know many Americans who also have more problems crossing into the U.S. than Canada.

Re:High Alert

[hazem]

Yes, you can be "safe" to a stupid degree.

Is a would-be terrorist going to tell the flight-crew that the dropped his bomb-laden i-pod in the toilet?

"Pardon me, ma'am, I dropped my i-bomb in the toilet. Can someone help me retrieve it so I can put it where I really wanted it?"

We could all go around with giant styrofoam bubble-suits to keep us from getting hurt when we fall down and sure, it would be "safer"... but I think most of us would agree that it would be "too safe", and rather ludicrous.

When security people don't use common sense when it comes to security then the populace ends up with a general disregard and disrespect for what security people are doing.

Re:High Alert

[mdwh2]

You said it was a violation of one's privacy. Regardless if the person did have such material on their laptop and the officer believed he individual would spread it the person should be denied entrance to the country, after all entrance to a foreign country is not a right.

I am not addressing whether it is right or wrong to look at their laptop - the point is that even if we believe it is right, the contents of that laptop are still not public, so I don't see how it can be considered hate speech. There are some things that are only illegal if done in public - e.g., sex or nudity; if police burst down your door and find sex or nudity, then even if they have every right to do so and we decide it isn't a violation of privacy, that does not suddenly make it a public event, and mean they can arrest you for sex/nudity in public!

Customs agents have been pulling people aside for suspicion of contraband way before any war on terror this has nothing to do with any war on terror. I don't understand why you keep playing that card.

There have been numerous new security changes since 9/11, all in the name of fighting terrorism, which can end up being used for other things. Yes I realise there was security before then - were the Government open back then that any new security measures weren't actually for hijackers etc, but instead were just to fish for porn?

I am not following are you saying you should be able to complain if you are investigated for a crime you committed?

No, I am saying we shouldn't be searching everyone fishing for random crime, just like it would be wrong to search everyone's home just on the off-chance.

I mean, if someone searched your home and found evidence of a crime, are you saying you shoul be able to complain for being investigated for a crime you committed? If not, you think that searching everyone's houses and computers is okay?

At any point you can say fuck you and go home.

I am a citizen too, and if I want someone to visit, I can say fuck you and keep your eyes out of their private life. Also, security measures apply to those who are citizens of that particular country. Or perhaps we can debate without resorting to xenophobia and personal insults.

Or perhaps they can do their job and ensure contraband does not enter the country and leave security to those who's job it is ensure.

Right. And don't be surprised when there are people (yes, citizens and taxpayers, with just as much right to a say as you) object to such people and their jobs, as they have been doing so in this thread.

Re:High Alert

[mdwh2]

At any point you can say fuck you and go home.

Sorry, I misread that bit in my reply ;)

But still, my point remains: Yes, people don't have to travel, but I believe we should be able to, and I object to restrictions placed on those who wish to travel. It's all very well people saying "But they don't have a right to enter the country", but I may wish people to come visit me, and I may also not wish to be subject to these measures by my own Government when I leave or reenter the country.

Re:High Alert

[Achromatic1978]

Second Amendment? What's that? You might have missed the bit about it not happening in the United States ...

Re:High Alert

[Achromatic1978]

I just wanted to point out this exceprt from the New York State Penal Law

Because, apparently, New York State Penal Law is directly relevant to your situation when you're being held by police in Ontario, Canada.

Or something ...

Re:High Alert

[Achromatic1978]

like, it isn't your personal opinion, asshole... :-(

For better or worse, when you're a foreign national trying to gain entry into a country, it is down to the personal opinion of the immigration official. You may be able to ask to see the supervisor, but unless the person was being an utter pig, etc, they'll probably be backed up. After all, part of their job remit is to have the ability to make judgment calls based on their experience and opinion on the merit of a particular case.

Re:High Alert

[dave420]

What if the iPod had actually flushed without causing any problems, and someone else had done something to the toilet with something more dangerous? If the flight attendants accepted his story, then there could have been big problems. They can't take ANY risks, as if something should happen, everyone involved would be serially fucked by whoever serially fucks people in their position who screw up.

They can't assume anything, as hundreds of lives are at risk.

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

I am not addressing whether it is right or wrong to look at their laptop - the point is that even if we believe it is right, the contents of that laptop are still not public, so I don't see how it can be considered hate speech. There are some things that are only illegal if done in public - e.g., sex or nudity; if police burst down your door and find sex or nudity, then even if they have every right to do so and we decide it isn't a violation of privacy, that does not suddenly make it a public event, and mean they can arrest you for sex/nudity in public!

The laws of interest to the agent: Child pornography and hate speech are illegal regardless of if they are done in a public setting. He has every right to ensure that contraband such as child pornography and hate speech do not enter the country.

No, I am saying we shouldn't be searching everyone fishing for random crime, just like it would be wrong to search everyone's home just on the off-chance.

I mean, if someone searched your home and found evidence of a crime, are you saying you shoul be able to complain for being investigated for a crime you committed? If not, you think that searching everyone's houses and computers is okay?

No one's home is being searched I don't see where you get this from. However if you happened to roll your house up to a border crossing and petitioned entry to the country it is completely reasonable that the house be searched for contraband. Otherwise having one's house searched has about as much to do with this as the price of tea in china.

There have been numerous new security changes since 9/11, all in the name of fighting terrorism, which can end up being used for other things. Yes I realise there was security before then - were the Government open back then that any new security measures weren't actually for hijackers etc, but instead were just to fish for porn?

Custom officials have always had the ability to search those petitioning entry into the country's belonging this has not changed with whatever laws 9/11 spurred. If you want to start a rant about 9/11 laws then do so in an issue appropriate to this subject. After the bomb craziness ended this ceased having anything remotely to do with 9/11.

At any point you can say fuck you and go home. I am a citizen too, and if I want someone to visit, I can say fuck you and keep your eyes out of their private life. Also, security measures apply to those who are citizens of that particular country. Or perhaps we can debate without resorting to xenophobia and personal insults.

What the heck is insulting or xenophobic about being able to return home if you feel you are being treated badly. When you withdraw your petition for entry to the country they lose any power to search or questioning. It is your choice to put up with the questioning and searching.

Right. And don't be surprised when there are people (yes, citizens and taxpayers, with just as much right to a say as you) object to such people and their jobs, as they have been doing so in this thread.

The ability for custom agents to search belongings has been around far longer then you or I have and has outlasted many, many, many governments. So forgive me if I don't take your word as Canadians as a whole. Until such time as people vote to have the law changed it is not unreasonable for the agents of the government to follow the law when an individual petitions entry into the country.

Re:High Alert

[letxa2000]

Well, yeah, but that's because the Canadian Customs people know that nobody really wants to go to Canada, so if they're jerks, people just won't come! (Just kidding).

I used to live in Mexico and crossed the border, both by land and by air, more times than I want to count. They (U.S. Customs/Immigration) were always polite and, quite frankly, their lack of interest in me when I spoke and had an American accent (or lack of a foreign one) often bothered me. Sure, I was no threat, but how did they know that? Especially when driving into the U.S. I would've expected a little more scrutiny, but other than 1 or 2 times, never was subject to anything more than a few sentences asking where I lived, where I was going, etc. Even when I moved back to the U.S., with my SUV literally FULL of boxes and stuff, they just looked at a list I had made that documented what was in each box. They didn't even have me open the rear door of the SUV, let alone open one of the boxes. For me, it sure was convenient and let me get to my destination faster than I expected, but I was quite surprised. I figured they'd want to peek inside one of the boxes that was hardest to get to--and while it would've been a hassle, I would've considered it completely understandable.

My wife (Mexican) once had an incident with a total jerk on the U.S. side entering by land. The guy was just being a jerk because, for some reason, American citizens of Mexican descent (i.e. they LOOK like Mexicans) that live on the border are completely jerks to Mexicans; kind of an "I'm an American and you're not, so I'm going to pretend I don't speak Spanish and act like a total jerk, too" type of attitude. So that was trying. But then I intervened, refused to budge because he was being a jerk, and finally an AMERICAN-looking border agent came over, asked what the problem was, and basically told his jerk-of-a-coworker to let us in.

As my wife has mentioned, every AMERICAN-looking customs agent she's had to deal with has been 100% pleasant and friendly.

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

Missed this so my previous reply reflects that. What I don't understand is you don't seem to be objecting to searches just when it happens on a laptop. What makes a laptop so special as to make it more private then the contents of my wallet and my underwear?

Re:High Alert

[shadowbearer]

  It is.

  But rubbing it in someone's face in an arrogant and bullying manner is way the hell out of line. There are courteous ways to deal with that, and this particular person obviously never learned how. ( Like "It's my job to ensure that..." or "I am charged with the responsibility to...") and the sort of person we *don't* need doing that sort of work is one who spouts shit like "I get to decide who..." which implies to me that the inspector/customs official in question has a personal agenda. Doesn't it sound that way to you? Sure as gorram hell seems so to me.

  Look at it another way... if you got treated that way in a retail business where you were doing some shopping, wouldn't it piss you off? Would you shop there again? Is there some reason why these officials can't do their job without courtesy? I know it's a rough job, but I've worked enough roughshit retail to know that there are lines that one shouldn't cross, and if you can't keep your cool in your work, you simply don't belong there...

SB

Re:High Alert

[flink]

I prefer C:
Stuff it in a bale of marijuana!

Re:High Alert

[westlake]

[John] Mueller, at Ohio State University, estimates that the number of people who die from terrorist attacks is smaller than the number of people who die in their bathtubs.

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that such accidents are distributed among a population of three hundred million people: no one city has ever had to bear the full weight of these deaths and they are never compressed into a single incident.

The impact rarely extends beyond the immeadiate family. The physical, political and economic infrastructure of society remains intact.

Social institutions like the Roman Catholic Church continue to function normally, with over 2000 years experience in providing emotional support and financial assistance to the bereaved.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, fuck Canada and their governmental officials who take the law into their own hands.

Re:High Alert

[KDR_11k]

No, I meant you'd need dictatorial powers if you wanted to extent the hate speech definition to basically mean "disagreeing with the party". A dictator wouldn't give a damn about the law and an elected official won't be able to modify that definition that far without getting into serious trouble. The poster I replied to used the US mentality that any restriction to free speech will be abused to outlaw crimethink.

Re:High Alert

[devilspgd]

Say, like an airport security check point?

Re:High Alert

[devilspgd]

Heck, you have 20 people willing and able, train them as snipers and set them loose one in each of the 15 largest cities around the US, with the other five to be shipped into cities as the first five are captured, to make it look like there is more then one sniper in each city.

They'll probably do a better job at causing confusion and fear then anything an airline attack will ever cause.

Re:High Alert

[MWojcik]

Bom means "fuck you" in Polish.

No it doesn't. It means 'boom' as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_(sailing)

Re:High Alert

[NateTech]

What's REALLY interesting to analyze is:

Is there some bigger, nastier reason one might need International air travel disrupted?

With as easy as it is to do today, if someone NEEDS to do it, they've pretty much got an open invitation, now.

Re:High Alert

[PyroMosh]

Yes it does, my source said so too!

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

What if it really was a bomb ? What if some chemical was hidden inside the iPod that let out a poisonous gas on contact with water ? What if it was a work of a bomber who thought that now the only way for his plans to succeed would be to tell the airline staff that it is only his iPod.

Re:High Alert

[badfish99]

What if it was the ipod that was blocking the toilet, but there was a bomb in the toilet of some other plane that had flushed without any problems?

According to your logic, we should now ground every other plane in the world and examine their toilets closely because of this incident.

Re:High Alert

[badfish99]

Actually, suicide bombers tend to be amateurs without access to such sophisticated technology. The ones arrested in the UK recently did not even have bombs, or airline tickets, or even (in most cases) passports.

Re:High Alert

[badfish99]

Actually, you don't have to destroy anything in order to incur a cost.

The IRA bombing campaign that we had here in the UK a few years ago showed this nicely. The terrorists would put a bomb in a crowded place (airport, railway station, shopping centre) and then phone the police and tell them exactly where it was, and when it would go off. The economic damage was all done by the resultant closure of a major piece of infrastructure while the bomb was found and disarmed.

Thanks to the reaction of the authorities, we now have exactly the same effect, only without the need for the bombs.

Re:High Alert

[MadEE]

This is the last time I will reply to a topic without looking at the comment tree. *lol* My appologies.

Re:High Alert

[Xenna]

Yes, the old traffic deaths argument. Beaten to death already.

In my country it took just one movie maker being killed to cause many opinion makers to be scared out of voicing their opinions.

The whole point of terrorism is that the effects are much more serious than the deaths of the people involved. Also, the relatively low number of people killed in attacks may be low in the west, but that is undoubtedly partially because of the paranoid security that some people like to laugh about.

You, my friend, are just a different type of sheep.
Lots of those about these days, they pretend to be better than the others.

Who else do you think modded you up? ;)

X.

Re:High Alert

[hr raattgift]

No, they do not have complete authority. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.2 starts with:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Everyone. Not "everyone in Canada", not "every Canadian". The universality of the Charter was chosen to be clear and unquestionable, and it repeats itself throughout the sections headed with "... Rights".

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention...

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right...

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment...

etc.

Note that I left out section 6: "6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada."

Immigration officials with the Canadian Border Service Agency may exclude non-Canadians from Canada under statute law and regulation in accordance with the Charter.) No statute, regulation, or administrative act by the government is legal if it contravenes the universal rights to due process guaranteed everyone by the Charter. It is not legal to deprive non-Canadians of their rights, and s.24 remedies are regularly meted out by the courts in such cases.

There is a detailed set of administrative processes and judicial reviews involved when excluding or removing people from Canada. (Here is an overview).

Note that even persons constrained by statute law from appealing such an order may also resort to the Federal Court in two main (and very different) ways. However, CBSA/CIC will always be very careful about exclusion and removal order processes.

CBSA agents may also make arrests. There is an overview here. Note that even Canadian citizens may be arrested and detained.

Arrests and detention are serious in Canada, and the arresting officer and all his superiors are open to a variety of civil suits, section 24 remedies, and even criminal charges, if they do not follow the appropriate processes and are not especially conscious of the Charter. A number of prominent lawyers offer pro bono services in many such cases.

Since Canada is country with many immigrants and international travellers, especially concentrated in major cities, a variety of media organizations tend to be interested in the activities of the CBSA, especially given who the current Public Safety minister http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockwell_Day >idiot happens to be.

Canada is certianly not perfect, and the CBSA can be unfriendly especially at busy times, however "don't fool around" should not be confused with "you are liable to be shot", and "I want to get this over with too" is not the same as "I can abuse you if you don't cooperate".

Re:High Alert

[hr raattgift]

Well you could always try complaining to Stockwell Day, the Minister responsible. Just don't complain on a Sunday. He doesn't work on Sundays.

Re:High Alert

[Redwin]

It's hard to imagine why they should pick on planes in particular apart from the challenge of beating the security anyway.

Shock value. Drop an aircraft or two in the ocean, and you screw up air traffic worldwide. Plus, some people are just naturally scared of flying anyway. This plays on those fears.
And then we have the talking heads on TV, who cream their shorts every time there is a crash. Like this morning.

Would getting 10 people around a city to detonate a bomb in their car while sitting in morning rush hour traffic on bridges and tunnels not work just as well? "Shit, I could die every time I drive to work!!" Why are planes special? Take the madrid and london bombings they were pretty effective for publicity.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I will say one thing here. No country needs to ever allow any citizen of another to enter its borders.


So? Doesn't give them a right to be supreme assholes for no good reason.

Re:High Alert

[Scudsucker]

I cross the Canada/U.S. border all the time. I've never been "power tripped" on my Canadian customs. U.S. customs is another story all together.

Try being a U.S. citizen and making the mistake of saying "eh?" back to the girl working in booth when she says "so you're going fishing, eh?" I'm probably on their watch list for life now. At least I didn't say "no doot aboot it", or else I'm sure I would have been in for a cavity search.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah i`ve always thought it would be so easy for a terrorist to walk into a busy terminal and kill hundreds of people. Imagine if it was done in every terminal at a major airport on the same day. It would close the airport for months and bring into question the whole future of flying.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is the key point...

While the government still struggles with how to deal with this problem, the US people/citizens/passengers on flight 93 solved it on 9/11.

We, the people, changed our policy to meet the situation once we realized that the nature of "hijackings" had changed. The government is lost, and those who look to it to solve all problems and protect them from all evil are equally lost.

You can count on the government (read: a bureaucracy) to fail to act (properly) in these situations. It was the leadership on that flight that solved the problem. Bureaucracy and leadership are basically mutually exclusive.

Re:High Alert

[ArsenneLupin]

they could have been diverted from a real plot, where the iPod case was a ploy to divert attention

Thanks for giving the terrorists some ideas.

Hmmm, let me rephrase this:
Hopefully, some future terrorist plot will involve silly stuff dumped into a toilet as a diversion, so that gummint officials learn their lesson, and stop overreacting to such shit.

Re:High Alert

[bitslinger_42]

True, but the point I was trying to make is that, while there IS some reason to be concerned about terrorists, the War on Moisture IS NOT actually making us safer. It removes comfort and convenience from the travel experience, it provides another way that the airlines can start direct charging for a service that had been "complimentary" in the past (just you wait, in a month or two, one of the airlines'll be charging for water on flights), and it helps the government in their goal to monitor our movements. The arrests in London were not the result of ANY of the security measures introduced to combat terrorists, they were the result of traditional policework and a neighbor tipping off the cops.

When compared with the whole slew of false alarms (nine seperate incidents between 8/15 and 8/24), the War on Moisture has only served to threaten, intimidate, and coerce innocent people, and has done nothing to actually deal with the terrorist threat. I mean, let's be honest. If a terrorist is prepared to blow up a plane, and give their own life in the process, do you think they'll have any qualms about taking a baby along and even feeding the baby some "breast milk"? Do you think that they'd have any problems at all getting enough people on the plane, each with 4 oz of cough syrup, to put together the hypothetical bomb? The War on Moisture is security theater, whose only point is to instill terror in law-abiding citizens in an effort to consolidate power and make everybody that much easier to control.

Re:High Alert

[Doctor Faustus]

I once sat down and calculated an estimate how much my life expectancy is shortened because of terrorist bombings. I don't remember what exact value I came up with, but I remember that I concluded I had just wasted more time doing the calculation.

Does that mean the terrorists have already won?

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never travelled internationally, so I truly am clueless here, but does that mean the pre-Customs Zone is an area in which one could commit a crime and not be charged because it is officially not part of the hosting country?

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, it didn't take long for the idiots to show up. The parent agrees with you. He used the term missle to describe what the planes TURNED IN TO when they are flown into a building, not what was used to down the plane. The parent basically said that the passengers of a plane, post 9/11 will uprise and not allow the terrorists to use the plane AS A MISSLE.

Take a reading comprehension course, it will help.

Re:High Alert

[Damvan]

All the flights involved in 9/11 were domestic. So, perhaps flying out of the country has no relevance.

Re:High Alert

[Damvan]

We would have attacked Iraq even without 9/11. So we would be in a similar situation, I think.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that to be really safe every passanger boarding a plane should be hand-cuffed

Re:High Alert

[2short]

"Yes, the old traffic deaths argument. Beaten to death already."

Is that intended to be a rebuttal? Does repetition make the argument less apt? Vast societal resources are expended on minor threats while obviously more significant ones are ignored, why should people stop saying so?

"The whole point of terrorism is that the effects are much more serious than the deaths of the people involved."

Because we let them be, and we should not.

"Also, the relatively low number of people killed in attacks may be low in the west..."

It's relatively low in the whole world, actually.

"...but that is undoubtedly partially because of the paranoid security that some people like to laugh about."

Undoubtedly? Well, I doubt it. There is no evidence of paranoid airport security stopping any terrorist plot ever. Without even thinking hard, I can imagine ways to get explosives on a plane that won't be detected short of a cavity search and an MRI scan; I'd assume would-be terrorists can come up with these too. The War on Moisture is pointless. It is a huge waste of time, money and civil liberties that protects no one. At the very best, it is laughable, so why should we not laugh at it?

Re:High Alert

[sumdumass]

sorry. "taken down by an US missle" sounds an awfull like getting shot down by a missle controled by the US.

I didn't realize "an US missle" ment US passengers when the plane was downed. I guess your right the idiots are out. I just asumed "an US missle" was part of the conspiracy kooks' theories who even make the claim that plains never hit the twin towers.

As for the reading comprehension course, yea, i'm sure it would have taken a statment like what was made and put it into the fairy tale perception.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post!

To use the tagline of a great movie, "The Shawnshank Redemption:

"Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free."

Indeed, certain fears will always be part of you as a living being, but somewhere a line must be drawn!

The reason why I post this as an AC? Well, although I realise all that was written by the parent post and with the lines I've written myself, sadly my body (amygdala) does not fully agree. However, it is perhaps because I suffer from panic attacks and agoraphobia, I belong to the group of people who are perhaps most likely to realise that "[it is a] Terrible thing, to live in fear. ".

Re:High Alert

[JakartaDean]

I'm kind of split on this. Safety where electronics is concerned is important to me - especially when I'm on the plane.

Why? Do you, for example, buy the stupid warning against using cellular phones? Is it issued by the FAA? No, that would be the FCC, soundly captured by telecoms companies. There is no repeatable evidence that cell phone use on a plane interferes with instrumentation, but it truly f*cks up the cellular netowrks, since the plane is traversing multiple cells very quickly

But the person was up front about what happened. And you have to admit, being forced to Ottawa should be punishment enough.

Okay, I'll agree with you there. No proof is needed: Ottawa's abilty to induce boredom is axiomatic.

Re:High Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. A fecal matter.

Re:High Alert

[tompaulco]

Don't give people the REASON to WANT to down the plane, is the ONLY answer!
Are you aware that certain people on this planet will not be satisfied until the entire population of certain other people on this planet are all dead?

Re:High Alert

[nickthisname]

Why not just let them blow up a plane once in a while, I say, and perhaps we can get rid of some of these increasingly absurd security procedures.
Your flight first?

Re:High Alert

[WilliamSChips]

Personally I think that if the Second Amendment were really made for overthrowing tyranny then treason wouldn't be a crime.

Re:High Alert

[WilliamSChips]

The wolves on both sides are pretty much buddy-buddy until one or the other needs a scapegoat of some kind.

Re:High Alert

[WilliamSChips]

What we've got here is the sociological equivalent to an anaphylactic alergic reaction.

Which is exactly what the terrorists want.

Re:High Alert

[TheSpoom]

Absolutely, and if I hadn't already posted here with the grandparent, I would mod you up informative.

Clearly I was wrong about them having complete authority. As someone who has been through the process from the other side (US customs), though, I really don't like customs that much, especially when it takes them three hours to get you back across the border to your origin country. And it's not like they were processing me or anything, that was done within twenty or so minutes, no, I was just sitting in the immigration office for the rest of the time.

I guess it just seems absurd to me that I'd meet with such suspicion on a trip to the States when I had already taken the same trip under the same circumstances twice before with no problems. Details here if you care to read.

Canadian customs do seem a lot easier to deal with.

splish splash I was listening to iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

and then and then oh no the horror and the Apple Store guy is gonna look at me funny when I want a new one...

I flushed my Zune the other day

[Anonymous Coward]

But it wasn't an accident.

bigger story

[legoburner]

I think the bigger story is that a WoW player actually left the house and went far enough away from their computer that they needed a flight!

Re:bigger story

[WwWonka]

...and to visit/talk to/be in the same vicinity of a girl no less!

So wait, all those WoW players telling us they really have a girlfriend in a Canada might actually be true?

Re:bigger story

[antifoidulus]

He does claim to be meeting a girl he met on WoW. Draw your own conclusions from that....

Re:bigger story

[SlayerDave]

Don't get excited. He took his laptop.

From TFA:

It was me and a gruff, humorless customs official. He unpacked my luggage entirely, ran the contents of my wallet through a bomb sweep, and carefully examined all of my belongings. He then asked me to turn on my laptop. I did, and he began using it. I saw him open Spotlight and begin searching.

Re:bigger story

[geminidomino]

And you know it's the same girl.

That damned hussy...

Re:bigger story

[StikyPad]

You obviously didn't RTFA...

He brought his laptop.

the iPod

[macadamia_harold]

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. not flushable. Lame.

Now buying it...

[patio11]

... that was the accident. What did you do, wrap it in a Hustler when you were walking out of the store so nobody would think poorly of you?

Re:Now buying it...

[jb.hl.com]

Probably bought it along with some condoms, porno mags and illegal fireworks to make it look inconspicuous.

Not security, but MORONDOM

[unity100]

This is what it is. Even schizophrenia. This is what it is.

Americans especially, and some other westerners are WAY too much indulged in their own well being that, EVERYTHING is taken as a disaster when the unbelievably minimal, almost non-existent threat to life occurs. (as if a flushed ipod by a kid can EVER be, and as terrorists DO tell that they flushed a bomb disguised as an ipod)

Also there's the morondom dominance question of the plane crew, unable to deduce that if the kid have been a terrorist, s/he wouldnt inform them of the action.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[pimpimpim]

I don't know about you, but a toilet that's stuck on a long distance flight sounds like a good reason to stop and repair that essential part immediately! Or maybe you don't give a crap.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[AutopsyReport]

Americans especially, and some other westerners are WAY too much indulged in their own well being that, EVERYTHING is taken as a disaster when the unbelievably minimal, almost non-existent threat to life occurs. (as if a flushed ipod by a kid can EVER be, and as terrorists DO tell that they flushed a bomb disguised as an ipod)

It's not that people are too indulged in their own well-being, it's that they are indulged in everyone's well-being (100-250 people). A flight crew would rather inconvenience someone for a few hours than inconvenience those people's families with the death of their loves ones because they ignored a possible threat, however minute it may seem in retrospect.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[venicebeach]

I think of it in signal detection theory terms.

This is a time when bias is turned up so that we have fewer misses but more false alarms. This is what tends to happen when a miss is very expensive, which it is in the case of airplane security. The price of having fewer false alarms is greater potential for a miss. We are not as concerned with our accuracy in finding a terrorist as we are in making sure we don't miss one.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[unity100]

Your standpoint is true, but ONLY IF we take life as an electronic circuit.

Getting occasional cavity searches, horrendous amount of false alarms that result in more shameful and unseemly consequences are a higher price to pay than the profit more false alarms and paranoia delivers.

So in terms of FINANCIAL approach to this problem, revenues does not cover the expenses.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[enrgeeman]

As they say, 10 out of 10 constipated people don't give a shit!

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[unity100]

Way too far fetched still. Terrorists do not try to create scenes - if s/he had enough time to drop the ipod in the toilet, it is enough time to ready the bomb and explode it. Killing 10 people in a plane is enough as destroying it in its entirety.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[noidentity]

If nobody gives a crap, then the stuck toilet isn't a problem.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[Sargeant Slaughter]

Americans especially, and some other westerners are WAY too much indulged in their own well being that, EVERYTHING is taken as a disaster when the unbelievably minimal, almost non-existent threat to life occurs. (as if a flushed ipod by a kid can EVER be, and as terrorists DO tell that they flushed a bomb disguised as an ipod)

Once again I feel pigeon holed and stereotyped by someone who thinks that all (or most, which is nearly as bad) Americans are like this or that... Everyone is different damn it! In fact I would say that goes expecially in the states. If Americans are anything, we are individuals. Out primary education system focuses on the strength of the individual and stresses independent thought. Soo, international community, please stop acting like you know what we are thinking and who we are. Hell, less than half of us vote! So chill out!

And I don't think this was a kid. If I had to guess I would say he is an overweight twenty something who used to be an IT administrator before he got fired for shooting his mouth off or being too anti-social at work. But then again I'm just guessing based on stereotypes propagated on the net and among buddies about WOW players whom I haven't met and I have never played a mmporg anyways. So I guess I really have no idea what I'm talking about. Sound familiar????

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[unity100]

Everyone is different indeed, however the ones which can be classified as 'conscious' of their environment and at least harmless to it, are always a very little minority of every society in this world.

The rest, with their ignorance and stupidity, vote and fuel the power need of exploiting parties by putting them into power.

As unfortunately u.s. is the most influential country in the world, morons (which are a majority) in your country is far mor dangerous than ones in other countries.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[kbielefe]

as if a flushed ipod by a kid can EVER be [a disaster]

Yes, but this "kid" has a degree in physics. According to Will Smith's character on Men in Black, that makes him the most dangerous creature on the plane.

if the kid have been a terrorist, s/he wouldnt inform them of the action.

Ah, but wouldn't a real terrorist want to lull the crew into a false sense of security?

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[unity100]

A real terrorist would detonate the mixture s/he fixed in the bathroom with a loud yell of jihad, ethnic yell or whatsoever.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[unity100]

Terrorist organisations do not care for the loss of grunts in terrorist attacks. The types of terrorist who cared if ever for such losses were the communist organisations, and then they are an extinct type now. Islamic organisations NEVER care for such loss, in fact they raise the attacker so that s/he definitely dies in the attack. Only the western organisations like eta, or ira would care for such a loss and do such an operation, and then again they have no reason to do any action lately.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[madcow_bg]

Yes, you have a point.
But are misses so expensive? These days we hear a plane crash almost every day. Which, by the way is still the safest way to travel.
For example, if I was the "decider" I would lock the cocpit so nobody could enter (without electronic keys obtainable from the air control tower, in case the pilots die from something, dunno.
If a terrorist blows a plane, just cover everything (dispose of the black box) and voila:
1. No hysteria, cuz noone knows.
2. Dead people don't mind that. The worst for them has happened.
3. No success for terrorists, because they want the act to be known.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[MindStalker]

The Isrealis have successfully been hijack free for something like 20 years. They don't do overly intrusive searches, or freak out when someone drops and ipod. They have one basic rule, they shoot to kill anyone who starts hijacking the plane, no questions asked, damned any hostages. They havn't even had an attempted hijacking in many years.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[Rix]

So, they'll be insisting that all those passengers not use a car to complete their trip, then? Terrorism isn't actually all that dangerous.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[pete-classic]

Americans especially

Um, the morons in this story were Canadian.

-Peter

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[Moofie]

That moist "thwap" sound was the joke hitting you in the damn forehead.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[JakartaDean]

Good point. but...if we wanted to do a cost-benefit analysis, exactly how many successful terrorist attacks have occured on airplanes since 9/11/2001?
For that matter, how many unsuccessful ones?
Your analysis is interesting, but incomplete. Have we really done anything to ensure we don't miss a terrorist? Have we, in fact, done anything useful at all, in the case of the alleged UK bombers??

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[noidentity]

Nahh, I was just under the illusion that I was improving on the joke. After months of attempts at Slashdot humor, I'm still mostly missing when I try.

Re:Not security, but MORONDOM

[Moofie]

Fair enough, happens to the best of us. I might suggest that when somebody is saying something in a broadly sarcastic or ironic way, saying the same thing in a not sarcastic or ironic way is typically not much with the funny.

There are exceptions, I'm sure, but I'd leave those to professionals. (IE not me.)

When is an Overreaction OK?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've seen this kind of thing over and over and over (and over) the past several weeks.
At some point, YES, it is OK to overreact for everyone's safety "just in case"

But are ALL overreactions OK?
Does EVERY discovery of "powder" coming out of a parcel necessitate a two block evacuation and the hazmat team called out?
Does EVERY electronic device accidentally left somewhere necessitate the bomb squad being called out?
Does EVERY suspicious group of "arab-looking" people speaking their native tounge necessitate the police/FBI/air-marshals being called out?

C'mon...let's step back and accept some risks in our lives.
And don't use that old canard of "well, you wouldn't be saying that if it was your daughter on the plane"
YES, I would.

We ARE OVERREACTING. I'm sure I'll be modded down as a troll, but I am serious and I'm really getting ticked-off

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[Quince alPillan]

People who are afraid, overreact.

Yes, the terrorists have won in this regard.

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[ms1234]

Yes and it's called covering ones ass. If they miss one their heads will be on silver plates and the public will go apeshit over the incident. Or more likely the media. The public doesn't understand or don't care.

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[15Bit]

Yup i agree. And every time they confiscate a fork from my lunchbox at heathrow i get a little bit more pissed off, cos i know that i'd be damn site more successful hijacking a plane with a broken glass bottle i bought in the duty free, than i'd ever be with a sodding fork. And why was it they never stopped selling stuff at duty free, even at the time they were confiscating knitting needles from old ladies?

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[bit01]

Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world.

-- Mary Shafer, risks researcher, NASA

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[kestasjk]

It's a bad time for an arab couple to join the mile high club, that's for sure..

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, but when a suspicious group of "arab-looking" people with "powder" coming out of a parcel and a suspicious looking device will do something - you can read your post again.

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[Dantu]

C'mon...let's step back and accept some risks in our lives.

I couldn't agree more. I'm from British Columbia but live in Ontario, so I fly back and forth several times a year. The flight is tedious enough, I'll take my chances with the terrorists in exchange for quick security screening. I can see banning steak knives, guns and lighters, but forks and drinks? Give me a break. I'm much more likely to die either on the 401 on my way to Pearson, or on one of the mountian passes in BC anyway.

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[hemp]

But are ALL overreactions OK?
Does EVERY discovery of "powder" coming out of a parcel necessitate a two block evacuation and the hazmat team called out?
Does EVERY electronic device accidentally left somewhere necessitate the bomb squad being called out?
Does EVERY suspicious group of "arab-looking" people speaking their native tounge necessitate the police/FBI/air-marshals being called ou

Well, it is an election year.

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[Flavio]

Wow, Mary Shafer's amazing!

I just spent the last half hour reading some of her old Usenet posts, and she wrote a *lot* of great stuff about the SR-71, the Orbiter and some other NASA projects.

Thanks for the reference.

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! Let's say someone is carrying a package in their backpack and it somehow drops out on the floor in a bank. Police State of America will be called and they will send a bomb squad, detonate the innocent package which is just carrying a gift for someone's grandparents. The person that was carrying the package, well their ass will be hauled of to jail by Police State of America and will either be tried in court under the unconstitutional Patriot Act or just use the unconstitutional Patriot Act and unconstitutionally prevent them from having a trial and execute them. That is what Americans get when they also want a nanny & welfare state. Nanny State + Welfare State = Police State.

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[dr_d_19]

People who are afraid, overreact.

Yes, the terrorists have won in this regard.

No, your government (assuming you're american or british), using "terrorism" as an excuse for getting more power, has won.

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[elgatozorbas]

Does EVERY electronic device accidentally left somewhere necessitate the bomb squad being called out?... C'mon...let's step back and accept some risks in our lives.

Hindsight 10/10.

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[MtlDty]

You're absolutely right of course, people are overreacting in mostly all of these situations.

..but put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Imagine you're working in some dull 9-5 job, doing the same monotonous thing day in, day out. Then one day something unusual happens.. a parcel with white powder, an odd looking device where you dont expect it, whatever.

If its unusual, you will want to make a big deal out of it, for two reasons:

1 - The usual rap that every good right-winger spouts... There's always that chance that if it is something bad, you could save lives by reporting it, and you cant risk being responsible for the consequences of ignoring it. But more probably..

2 - Something unusual just happened! You can make a big deal out of it. Its something to tell your buddies at the bar. It could lead to some recognition from people above who perhaps previously didnt even know your name. You can make a name for yourself, perhaps even get a minute on the local news. You can probably cause enough disruption to take a short break from the 9-5 monotony when the law agencies arrive. And lets face it, having a bomb squad arrive at your place of work IS pretty exciting, especially if they use one of those neato robot things...

So anyway, dont be too suprised that this happens. Its human nature.

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[capologist]

I don't think this was just a fear-induced overreaction. When a kid dropping his iPod in a toilet leads to him being interrogated by law enforcement about his sexual desires, I think we can state with confidence that at least some of these officials were not performing their duties in good faith.

I don't know what motivated this whole fiasco, but it doesn't seem that it can all be explained as a legitimate effort to protect public safety, or even slavish following of regulations.

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[shadowbearer]

[Carlin] Fuckin' pussies...[/Carlin]

  Sorry. It had to be said.

SB

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[vistic]

If you read the message board post the guy made... this isn't just about over-reaction... it's about government officials being power hungry and being real jerks to ordinary people.

Some of the questions they asked were invasive and inappropriate... and the customs guy seemed to think it was up to him personally to decide what's legal and what isn't.

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[Trogre]

Is it 2008 already?

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Security" is a business. Hysteria is a marketing tool.
Billions are made. More hysteria the "plant", more money they make. There is NOTHING to do with "lets make people feel all warm and fuzzy". Absolutely NOTHING!
BTW, most big-wigs in US government are investors in war- and security industry! So...

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[Sosarian]

Unfortunately it is up to the customs guys what's appropriate.

Canadian Bureaucracy at work.

They seize stuff all the time at customs that isn't illegal.

For instance like:
http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_12.30.93/NEWS/n v1230.php

Re:When is an Overreaction OK?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

When a kid dropping his iPod in a toilet leads to him being interrogated by law enforcement about his sexual desires, I think we can state with confidence that at least some of these officials were not performing their duties in good faith.

I think the agents were performing their jobs in good faith, it's just that the protocol for handling this sort of situation is seriously screwed up. I'd be willing to bet that the agents were simply following their terrorism training rather than using their brains when dealing with the situation. Of course, you're likely to get fired for using your brain instead of following protocol in many jobs, especially a government job.

If you haven't dealt with law enforcement personnel, then I can understand thinking that the agents overreacted. However, law enforcement personnel are trained to be pricks and to bully in order to take control of a situation. They really do believe they are judge, juror and executioner and when a person stands up to them they usually can't handle it and blow up, start threatening you, etc. It's their modus operandi.

I don't know what motivated this whole fiasco, but it doesn't seem that it can all be explained as a legitimate effort to protect public safety, or even slavish following of regulations.

Security policy motivated the fiasco. It's just that the security policy was created by a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats. Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

Lessons learned...

[AtariDatacenter]

1] People involved in security love to over-react to security issues. Take those Arabs in Michigan buying cell phones. My God, was there rampant paranoid speculation about what they were doing. (RECAP: "Make meth out of cell phone batteries", "Provide cell phones for anonymous terrorist organizing", "Provide cell phones to make bomb detonators", "Going to blow up our bridge", and best of all, even if they were telling the truth, they could be selling the phones to "Raise money for terrorist activities". I mean... WTF?)

2] If you end up doing something that a remotely paranoid security type would find suspicious, even by accident, do yourself a favor and DON'T tell anyone. No, really. They're just better off not knowing, and you'll be no worse off than if they discover something on their own later and have a paranoid fit.

Re:Lessons learned...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what exactly would they be doing with 1000 cell phones?

I have to justify every damn handgun I would like to purchase. So we've already allowed government to ask these kinds of questions.

Re:Lessons learned...

[mpe]

So what exactly would they be doing with 1000 cell phones?

Something which may or may not be legal, but is unlikely to have anything much to do with terrorism.

I have to justify every damn handgun I would like to purchase.

Unless you were to buy black market guns...

Re:Lessons learned...

[LordKronos]

So what exactly would they be doing with 1000 cell phones?

Does the answer to that question really matter? We've now had a couple of groups of arabs arrested for buying quantities of cell phones, and, as far as I know, all have been released without any charges of terrorism filed (though I think some of them were charged with something unrelated...kind of a "since we wasted our time and you were innocent, we'll find something we can get you on to make it worth our while").

The problem is that there was a rush to judgement and arrest made without any sort of investigation taking place. Consider the 2 possibilities that exist:

1) The arabs were involved in terrorist activity. The authorities rushed to arrest them, but in the process, they failed to acquire the necessary evidence to charge them. A good strategy would be to covertly investigate them and get solid evidence with which to charge them. Along the way, the investigation could lead them to learn of other terrorists to whom they were linked. Once they had the evidence in hand, they could then have charged them. Instead, they rushed in and blew the case. Now they A) have nothing on these terrorists and let them get away with whatever they were doing, B) potentially lost out on opportunities to uncover other terrorists, and C) alerted the other terrorists out there that buying quantities of cell phones is a good way to get caught, so avoid that.

2) The arabs were honestly and completely innocent of any connection to terrorism. In this case, the whole situation could likely have been avoided by covert investigation into the matter. Sure, the "arrest them now and sort it out later" method probably saved time and effort for the authorities, but it's a bad idea for all the reasons I pointed out in #1 above. In addition, they have also screwed with the life of innocent people by plastering their names and faces on the news, likely irreversibly negatively affecting their relationships with neighbors and coworkers (now those people will always have suspicions about them). They've also probably scared these people out of doing things that are well within their legal rights to do, simply because they want to avoid anything which could accidentally put them through more inconvenience (ie: a chilling effect)

Re:Lessons learned...

[Jtheletter]

So what exactly would they be doing with 1000 cell phones?

No one else actually answered your question here but I followed the story through the news since I figured it would turn out to be exactly what it was: a moneymaking scheme. That's all. Turns out that discount superstores such as Walmart and Sams/BJs/Costco etc sell prepaid cell phones at a very steep discount to what they go for in other markets, such as NYC, NY. These guys have been doing this for a couple years, and in fact there are a number of groups of people that do it, especially in the TX/AK area. The reason why they were out driving around is because all the stores in their area had already been bought out. They said on average they make about $6K each after expenses doing this for a weekend. Not a bad profit.

While I understand the need for greater security, and that this bahavior was slightly suspicious (I build EOD robots, you'd be amazed at how many IEDs are cellphone activated) the response was handled poorly. Buying 1000 cellphones in and of itself is not illegal, and the arrests should not have been based on that. Instead of law enforcement rushing in and busting all these guys with no other evidence than a carload of phones, they should have, oh hell I dunno, done some investigative work. Employees of the Walmart in question, and other stores that sell the phones were interviewed by news outlets and guess what - many of them KNEW about this cellphone trade, and were aware that from time to time people buy them all out to resell.

OK, what about the using the money to fund terrorists angle? One may ask. There is nothing about making a quick buck that indicates the money is to fund terrorism, the only thing that made that a question was the race of the suspects. So OK, law enforcement, are we racially profiling or aren't we? Remember that subway searches in NY are performed at random and purposely select everyone from Arabs, to Japanese tourists, Latinos, and even little old Jewish ladies. Do we really think little old ladies are going to release sarin gas on the subway? Hell no, but our law enforcement is under the requirement to be fair and not racially profile. It's not always the best way to do things but it helps keep things fair in other areas. Anyway, I'm not here to get into a debate on racial profiling. But it seems that was the case here since nothing other than the race of the suspects was used to determine the money might be going to fund terrorism. More surveilance and investigation was called for before the law jumped the gun and started arresting people for practicing capitalism.
Ironically these guys probably moved to America in the first place to enjoy the freedom and opportunity to make money. Well, we sure taught them a lesson, and ourselves one as well.

And real quick I'd also like to address your other statment: I have to justify every damn handgun I would like to purchase. So we've already allowed government to ask these kinds of questions.
This is a terrible comparison. A handgun is a weapon, pure and simple, it has no other designed use. 1000 cellphones, while they have the potential to be used for ill - and really, what product doesn't - there ARE plenty of other uses for them, all very reasonable and legal. So are you suggesting that because we've allowed the government to place restrictions on WEAPONS purchases, we should allow it to do the same for anything that could ever possibly be used as a weapon? They really do not fall under the same category. Otherwise, look forward to 5 day waiting periods on bottles of bleach, any amount of AA batteries, and god forbid - gasoline. Did you know any 15 year old can just walk in off the street and buy 40 gallons of highly flammable gas?! OMFG Terrorist! Sorry, sarcasm aside you can see that there are reasonable limits to what we allow the government to regulate directly. Before you jump all over me though I will point out I strongly support 2nd amendment rights, but a gun is a gun and 1000 cellphones are not bombs without quite a bit of work, and even then they are only triggers, you still need explosives.

passing mobiles can have the same effect

[ashwinds]

Passing mobiles got 12 indians into trouble with the Dutch and US Air marshalls. Its horrible how jumpy people have become. Fear is more debilitating than terrorism.

Re:passing mobiles can have the same effect

[TFGeditor]

"Fear is more debilitating than terrorism."

Uhm, I thought inciting fear was the whole point of terrorism.

Re:passing mobiles can have the same effect

[Tinned_Tuna]

Fear is the point of terrorism, by being paranoid and afraid, the terrorists have 'won'

Terror = Fear ++
Therefore, Terrorism = Fearism ++

Re:passing mobiles can have the same effect

[cypherz]

"fear is more debilitating than terrorism"

Wow. No kidding, that's profound insight. I think that's the point of all this "over-reaction". "They" have to keep the public in a state of fear so they can control us and our reactions to the loss of our freedoms. V for Vendetta made this point very well.

Re:passing mobiles can have the same effect

[johntash]

So did 1984.. I liked that book. V for Vendetta is an awesome movie though

Re:passing mobiles can have the same effect

[ultranova]

"They" have to keep the public in a state of fear so they can control us and our reactions to the loss of our freedoms. V for Vendetta made this point very well.

"V" was an idiot who kept on dreaming about anarchy, not realizing that he was already living in an anarchy. Namely, he was living in stage three of anarchy, where one of the gangs fighting for power had won and, since there was nothing stopping them, had created a tyranny.

What V showed very well was that anarchy never leads to freedom, it leads to dictatorship, since there are no laws to stop anyone from achieving it.

Re:passing mobiles can have the same effect

[twistedcubic]

Are you sure you watched this movie? I saw it last night. V was dreaming of FREEDOM, fool.

Re:passing mobiles can have the same effect

[geminidomino]

Way to miss the point.

Once he had the freedom he wanted, the people would get complacent, then self-interest would kick in. Then the cycle would begin again.

Re:passing mobiles can have the same effect

[ashwinds]

I agree. Guess what I was trying to compare it with meant acts of terrorism - not terrorism.

Re:passing mobiles can have the same effect

[Trogre]

I keep seeing this repeated but don't really know where it came from.

I realise it's an important component, but is instilling fear really the primary overbearing goal of terrorism? Because if it is, then we'd better start calling what's going on something else.

Re:passing mobiles can have the same effect

[ultranova]

Are you sure you watched this movie?

I read the comic, but haven't seen the movie.

V was dreaming of FREEDOM, fool.

So he was. However, anarchy doesn't lead to freedom, it leads to the rule of the strongest. That's how the government V hated so much had come about, and destroying it would simply cause another one to rise from the chaos and be hailed as heros for securing people's lives, at least in the beginning.

V had a long conversation with a statue of justice on top of a courthouse. He told it he had once loved justice but was now in love with anarchy, thinking it would lead to freedom. What he didn't realize is that freedom requires justice; you won't remain free for long if anyone can oppress you with impunity.

In order to be free from oppression, you need a system of laws to protect you. Absolute freedom isn't, or at least won't stay for long. There lies the paradox which V failed to understand.

Re:passing mobiles can have the same effect

[tomhudson]

Of course its the whole point. A flea cant' bring down a giant - but a giant that can be convinced to tie himself up in knots is doomed.

This is what's happened, and it was succesful because there's money to be made in helping that giant (the US) tie itself up in knots. Lots of money. Lots of power.

And we all know that every politician has this lust for power thing going ...

It's not funny, don't laugh...

[EvilCabbage]

... read the WoW forums and see what this kid went through.

Insane, paranoid shit like this is exactly why the fuck I won't be visiting the US-of-A or Canada in a hurry.

Kid admits to losing his toy in the toilet, bomb squad comes in and they interrogate him in that fashion? Fuck that for a game of soldiers...

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[NoTheory]

I agree to a point. I totally sympathize with this guy, particularly since i have to run the US/Canadian customs gauntlet semi-regularly (often enough for it to be annoying, but not so often that it's worth it for me to get a commuter pass). They can be, and often are, assholes for no particular reason. In this particular case, i think the bomb squad's actions were justified. They were called in in response to a supposed terrorist threat. Now, assuredly the classification of this event perhaps could have been handled better, but on the off chance this was a bomb, the bomb squad interrogator was right, he had 5 guys on that plane that could die.

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[Joe The Dragon]

I wonder what would have happened if wow was also the name of a terrorist group?

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[Anonymous Coward]

So asking about wether he WANTS a romantic relationship with this cara person is relavant to determining how much danger his bomb squad guys are in? Quite franky, who you want to sleep with is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS. The investigators were over the line. But in the name of "security" the sheep will accept it as "necessary in today's society".

For the most interesting time I've had flying - the TSA guys at D.C. National waved me through without X-raying the laptop or its bag, without making me take my shoes off, and didn't seem to care when the walk-through x-ray dinged on my keys that I forgot were in my pocket and I pulled them out and said "sorry, forgot about my keys". I'm not complaining at all, but I can certaintly understand how stuff gets past them - some of them just don't care, especially at 5am on a saturday morning.

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[sparks]

Everyone seems to think that was a particularly creepy question to ask him; but they're trying to form a profile of his mood and character. They were asking him that question to help him, not embarass him. Someone who is looking forward to meeting a girl and hoping to get lucky with them is a highly unlikely plane bomber.

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[cdn-programmer]

Quite franky, who you want to sleep with is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS.

Governments have been making this their business since at least the time of Jesus Christ.

This is where marriage comes from and marriage licenses

This is where the adultery laws come from.... and the incarceration and in some countries stoning of people. This is where the prostitution laws come from.

You are very misinformed if you think its None of their Business. Mind you - perhaps we the people need to take things back under control and make it none of their business. Call you your favorite pollie and start making this happen.

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[DerekLyons]

Kid admits to losing his toy in the toilet, bomb squad comes in and they interrogate him in that fashion? Fuck that for a game of soldiers...

Right. After they find a suspicious object, someone comes up and tells them 'these are not the droids you are looking for'... It's not possible that somebody with evil intent would attempt to divert attention away from himself or his activities is it?

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[The Cydonian]

... and down in Amsterdam, Netherlands (clearly, the most conservative city in Europe), they jail a bunch of travellers coz they were showing off their mobile phones to each other. That, apparently, seemed suspicious enough to warrant an F16 escort back to Schipol, and overnight stay in jail for those poor shmucks.

If you think paranoia is limited to North America, you're badly mistaken.

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[Malchor]

Ah but this is Canada,

The governement has no business in the bedrooms of the nation (Pierre Elliot Trudeau)

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[supersocialist]

Any time you can say that sort of invasion of privacy was "for his own good," things have gone too far.

Not that I'd "make a point" of it.

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[Anonymous Coward]

of course its not limited to north america, but we all know where it STEMS from..

i heard from a mate about a bunch of indians going from UK to US on a stag do, they
commited the horrendous crime of queuing up together for the toiled. next thing you know
plane diverted, landed, off you go, interrogations the whole lot.

fucking rubbish man.

there are two ways of dealing with this:

more bigger and better guns
EVERYBODY joins in and breaks the laws so that they become "useless"

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[ruisantos]

Let me remind you that this was an American Plane, from an American airline and the security alert was made by it's american crew.

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[capologist]

on the off chance this was a bomb, the bomb squad interrogator was right

The very, very, very, very, very off chance.

There's always a finite chance that anything could be a bomb. Does it follow that anybody who has anything should be regarded as a potential bomber and that according such a person any rights places the public in jeopardy?

Um, honestly, that's not a rhetorical question. I'm not sure what the official position on that question is these days.

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[astroturfing]

The pilot requested the escort and the aircraft was from Northwest Airlines.

There was a big terror scare in London just before this happened. Liquid explosives.. remember that ? The "liquid explosive" idea came from american news channels and is showcased in Michael Moores movie Fahrenheit 9/11 as a sign of american paranoia.

Let us hope, for Tony Blairs sake, that the terror plot is not a case of "muslim buys DVD".

Re:It's not funny, don't laugh...

[hr raattgift]

Let us hope, for Tony Blairs sake, that the terror plot is not a case of "muslim buys DVD".

Let us hope for everyone else's sake that Tony Blair (authoritarian, self-righteous, strong supporter of the Bush Administration, and surrounded by people who encourage public hysteria) is thrown out of office sooner rather than later. Whether he exits "gracefully", is turfed out by his own party, or is defeated at an election triggered by yet another lost vote in the House of Commons matters little. Whatever's fastest, please. (And hope he takes John Reid with him).

Fast foward the history tape...

[ColdWetDog]

Imagine if this had happened yesterday: http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/col/smith/2002/10/ 03/askthepilot13/index.html

Won't be long...

[__aaclcg7560]

Before they ban using the restroom at all. After all, it only takes a trip to Taco Bell before the flight to bring a toxic goo that could jeopardize the entire plane.

Re:Won't be long...

[mrs clear plastic]

Good!

This is an opportunity to ban Taco Bell for creating terrorizing chemicals and odors.

My dream may have finally come true.

It had a timer display and a lithium ion battery?!

[D4C5CE]

Oh well, in this case...

Recalls still allowed?

[Plocmstart]

I'm suprised they haven't yet done something crazy like requiring you to prove your laptop battery isn't currently recalled given the random Dell balls of fire.

Re:Recalls still allowed?

[jonwil]

At least one airline, QANTAS, has banned using dell laptops on battery power in flight for this very reason.

Re:Recalls still allowed?

[k3vlar]

Wouldn't it be safer to have them require the batteries to be removed? Or ban AC power when the battery is still plugged in. I seem to recall all the explosions occured when they were charging...

Re:Recalls still allowed?

[master_twig]

Not quite as bad as that anymore.. now you just have to remove the battery or not actually run off the battery (directly powered off the mains with battery removed). But they certainly didn't waste time in making a statement about it.

Re:Recalls still allowed?

[RedWizzard]

At least one airline, QANTAS, has banned using dell laptops on battery power in flight for this very reason.

That's not quite accurate according to the Sydney Morning Herald (and covered on Slashdot). You must either use your Dell laptop on battery power or on the plane supply with the battery removed. They just don't want the battery charging in flight, that's all.

oh dear god the horror!!!

[gsn]

My housemate had BBQ yesterday - I went in to the toilet this morning after him and I was sure he was launching chemical warfare against me! And he'd blocked it up! WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! Much worse than any iPod! ITS ILLEGAL IN CANADA! People if you ever get on the plane with David Fowler inform the authorities! Even if only the name matches because thats good enough for Western Union and eBay! Hes white - you may not even suspect him of being such a vile and noxious agent of destruction! Tell the TSA! Think about the children!

No verification

[Maeric]

I know this isnt' a news site by any means but I can't believe what makes it into news at Slashdot. There's no independant verification of the WoW poster being the owner of the iPod. I do believe the iPod story because I saw it on several news sites but seriously. Somebody posting on the WoW forums automatically gets written off as truth. I guess people believe what they want to believe. Truth doesn't matter anymore.

Re:No verification

[Reese268]

I hardly see why the fact that there is no absolute proof that he was the one involved means that it shouldn't be posted here. No, it wasn't on a news site, but he does go into a lot of detail involving the story. Enough so that I have no reason to doubt him. Besides, he would have to be very desperate for attention to make up such a story, and if he did, he really should consider a career in writing, because it was quite enjoyable to read. It's a story that is of interest, and hence is perfectly worthy of a post on slashdot.

Re:No verification

[Maeric]

So detail = truth? Your logic leaves something to be desired. Did you by chance vote for Bush?

Re:No verification

[Reese268]

I didn't say it's definately true, but it's not like I'm basing my life on this. The story is plausible, the way he presents it seems believable, therefore I BELIEVE he is telling the truth, despite it not being proven fact. My point is, so what if it isn't hard news? Does that really matter? And you act as if, even if I did vote for Bush, as though Kerry would have been a better choice. But to answer your question, I didn't vote for either of them, because frankly, they were both equally terrible choices.

Technology provides the solution

[Supercrunch]

This wouldn't have happened if all airplanes were equipped with one of these: http://www.atechflash.com/products-icarta.html

The real perpetrator?

[CrayHill]

Is there any actual evidence that the person posting on WoW is the actual person? The post didn't quite "seem" as it was written by such a victim. Far too many direct quotations and mostly grammatically correct. I suspect someone found the story and went off on a tangent...

iPod = WMD

[MarkByers]

iPod: Weapon of Mass Disruption.

Re:iPod = WMD

[787style]

That's iWMD to you, mister.

Re:iPod = WMD

[TheRaven64]

Oh dear. I remember the adverts when the G4(?) was classified as a munition. Apple's marketing is going to have a field day with this one...

Actual quotes

[Jugalator]

Some eye opening quotes...

Now the questions became really pointed. What do you think about 9/11? What are your views on the Iran issue? Do you think government is too big, too powerful? Would you ever "make a point?"

"Child porn I can understand, that's illegal. But hate propaganda is protected speech."
Now he looked up. "What country do you think you're in?"
"Oh, it's illegal in Canada?"
"I honestly don't know. But that doesn't matter. I get to decide what goes in this country. Do you have a problem with that?"

All this for something that can easily be identified as an iPod? :-/
And how was the child porn and hate propaganda suspicions tied to an iPod in the toilet, exactly?

Re:Actual quotes

[Jugalator]

Besides, and this is on a different note, if I'd be honest, I'd answer "it's sad, but it didn't affect my life as a foreigner much" to "What do you think about 9/11?", "yes" to "Do you think government is too big, too powerful?", and perhaps even "maybe by demonstrating sometime" to "Would you ever "make a point?"".

What I wonder is what they would do if I did tell them that?
It would be interesting to see the response if he had done so.

Re:Actual quotes

[awehttam]

And how was the child porn and hate propaganda suspicions tied to an iPod in the toilet, exactly?

No doubt to justify further surveillence of people's communications, but not just for public security, now for public safety.

Gotta love the spin.

Re:Actual quotes

[Manchot]

I suspect that the official suspected that the kid was trying to cause a commotion (akin to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater).

Re:Actual quotes

[ChaosDiscord]

And how was the child porn and hate propaganda suspicions tied to an iPod in the toilet, exactly?

That little bit irritated me as well, but I believe at border crossings you sacrifice most of your rights to privacy and freedom from search. If you don't want to be subject to arbitrary searches, the answer is "don't enter our country." The people policing the border have a fair amount of freedom to say, "No, I don't want you in our country." While it may be misapplied (as it was in this case), ultimately you're a visitor to their country and you have no fundamental right to be admitted.

However, this does reinforce my belief that airline security is wasting a hell of a lot of money on useless things. Trolling random people's computers for porn isn't a good use of their time.

Re:Actual quotes

[greg_barton]

And how was the child porn and hate propaganda suspicions tied to an iPod in the toilet, exactly?

The same way Iraq was tied to 9/11, obviously.

Re:Actual quotes

[aaarrrgggh]

While I have a similar opinion to your answers, responding that way is a great way to get yourself in trouble.

It's really wrong how much power the immigration people have. I'm happy I spend most of my time in a country that is grossly corrupt and almost celebrates it, rather than a country that hides the obvious fact. It's nice to know where you stand.

Regime Change for the USA!!!

Re:Actual quotes

[saskboy]

While it may seem witty, being witty to a customs official - someone with no sense of humour by training - is a way to end up getting probed. Mouth off to your politicians after the fact, not to the drone.

Re:Actual quotes

[houghi]

ultimately you're a visitor to their country and you have no fundamental right to be admitted.

So if Americans come to Belgium, we can gang-rape them, because they have no fundamental rights? Or any other country for that matter.

Re:Actual quotes

[daft_one]

Uhh... "to be admitted" being the rest of the sentence... which you even copied & pasted with the rest of it, yet STILL seem to have failed to read? Even assuming English is not your first language, that's a pretty horrendous comprehension error there, bud ;-)

Re:Actual quotes

[vistic]

But that's not being witty, that's just being honest. He shouldn't be punished for complying, and doing nothing illegal.

I agree though if you KNOW what these people are like, then you should KNOW that you might be better off lying for the time being. It's unfortunate that they force people to not be honest, but that's the way it is.

You can be punished now for what you believe, how you feel, and what you WOULD do. It's not just all about your actions anymore.

Re:Actual quotes

[reed]

Well, hate speech actually is not "protected". (Though it's fairly well defined.)

Re:Actual quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that the official suspected that the kid was trying to cause a commotion (akin to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater).

Wouldn't it be more like saying, "I dropped my popcorn" in a crowded theater?

Overreacting? Perhaps, but...

[Krokus]

...bear in mind the following things:

- An iPod stuck at the bottom of an opaque blue liquid is not readily identifiable.
- The crew were just following procedures.
- The guy played dumb about it for a while and didn't say anything.
- When he finally did tell the crew, they had already called the incident in, at which point the wheels were already in motion.

Had he spoken up as soon as he'd discovered hi iPod missing and the suddenly strange behaviour of the flight attendants, they might have brushed off the incident.

I agree the the behaviour of most law enforcement people on the ground was way over the top (especially for Canada), I don't believe the airline can be blamed for the actions of its crew. As a co-worker of mine put it: "Landing the plane because of a potential threat inconveniences 200 people, but it's not any worse than thunderstorms and warning lights. From a corporate standpoint (the airline) you'd rather risk being dumb than wrong. Wrong could sink your entire company."

Re:Overreacting? Perhaps, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it *is* worse than thunderstorms. You don't subject the passengers to extremely protracted, invasive, and unnecessary screening just because of bad weather.

But I guess all you need is one terrorist claiming he has a weather-control ray...

Re:Overreacting? Perhaps, but...

[ptbarnett]

Had he spoken up as soon as he'd discovered hi iPod missing and the suddenly strange behaviour of the flight attendants, they might have brushed off the incident.

RTFA. That's exactly what he did.

The reason he didn't say anything at first is because he thought the seat cover had clogged the toilet.

Re:Overreacting? Perhaps, but...

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

Had he spoken up as soon as he'd discovered hi iPod missing and the suddenly strange behaviour of the flight attendants, they might have brushed off the incident.

He did. The problem was the flight attendants found the iPod before he discovered it was missing.

It all started when I got out of my seat to go to the bathroom. I went to the bathroom, washed my hands, and returned to my seat. A little while later the two stewardesses on the flight crossed each other in the aisle. They had a quick conversation that I was in earshot of.

"I locked off the front lav. There's something in the toilet that's preventing it from flushing. Run some water and see if you can clear it." My face immediately turned red. The seat cover! I thought. It must have been too big to flush! I should have thrown it out!

I was so embarrassed. I tried to act normal ... I took a sudden interest in the contents of the seat pocket in front of me, acted nonchalant and all. I watched as the stewardess got on her hands and knees in the lavatory and did unfathomable dirty work.

Sometime later, I decided it would be best if I forgot the whole thing happened, so I went to put on my headphones and drown myself in iPod music. But ... no iPod. I panicked, checked my other pockets. Where was it? Not under the seat, not in the pockets, not ... anywhere. I looked up to the stewardesses. One of them had run past me in a decent clip. She was carrying a green handbook. She brought it to the other stewardess. They flipped through the handbook, read a page, then made a call. The other stewardess had retrieved a blue metal box and was removing some equipment from it.

I put two and two together. I knew what had happened.

So I walked up to the stewardesses, both clamoring over the handbook, and tapped one on the shoulder.

"So, I had an iPod before I went to the bathroom, and now I don't. I think I know what's in the toilet."

Re:Overreacting? Perhaps, but...

[AtariDatacenter]

Had he spoken up as soon as he'd discovered hi iPod missing and the suddenly strange behaviour of the flight attendants, they might have brushed off the incident.

Unlikely. You know those 'cell phone terrorists' in Michigan? Yeah, they totally explained their behavior. It didn't help them one bit. In fact, it made them MORE suspicious once they explained that they were removing the batteries from the phone. A search of their laptop revealed pictures of a bridge... "OMG! THEY'RE GOING TO BLOW UP OUR BRIDGE!!!"

What do you expect in this paranoid climate? "Oh, that sounds perfectly reasonable! Let's not err on the side of caution here. Billy, you can have your potential bomb back! No need to call TSA, folks! Everything is just fine here."

Re:Why bring an iPod into the lavatory?!??!??

[(H)elix1]

You risk losing you ipod if you hit the bathroom for five minutes and leave nice small equipment sitting on your chair. I've seen it happen. Someone gets up on a trans continent flight while most folks are sleeping, comes back, and are scrambling to find the ipod that walked off.

I'll also add that I did some 'blue juice' aviation engineering while putting myself through university. There were several occasions that someone would ask if there was any way to retrieve a watch, wallets, or bracelet from the tank. (the answer was no in my case) It does happen. Most folks on the larger jets just write the stuff off as lost. The guy is lucky to get the ipod back!

Two mistakes...

[jnik]

The first was dropping the iPod in the toilet. The second was admitting a visit to someone met online. In my experience, that immediately puts you on the "long form questionnaire with anal probe" list. Of course, lying about how you met someone doesn't work all that well either... if the first time you met in person is a plausible scenario, that may be useful to claim as "how you met."

Re:Two mistakes...

[legojenn]

I like, "we were friends in university". Even backwater Unis have foreign students.

Re:Two mistakes...

[chill]

I like, "we were friends in university". Even backwater Unis have foreign students.

Universities have extensive records that are easily checked by law enforcement.

Feed them that line and you'll be in for a much longer ride thru hell than the kid with the iPod.

Re:Two mistakes...

[Anonymous Coward]

The one big mistake was his opting to participate in that interrogation session without a lawyer present. He should have buttoned his lip and refused to say anything beyond his name and address and personal details. What could they have done? Beaten answers out of him? I don't think so.

As it is, answering any of their questions - which were obviously phrased the way they were in an attempt at entrapment - was a big mistake and he's lucky not be behind bars for giving the wrong answer(s). He needs to find an ambulance chase ASAP and sue the asses off these pricks.

Sir, please turn on your laptop...

[1053r]

"It was me and a gruff, humorless customs official. He unpacked my luggage entirely, ran the contents of my wallet through a bomb sweep, and carefully examined all of my belongings. He then asked me to turn on my laptop. I did, and he began using it. I saw him open Spotlight and begin searching."

Luckily for me, if he'd turned on my laptop all he'd of gotten would be a $ prompt:

Official: Umm... What's this $ mean? And why is it all text? Is this dos or something?
Me: Oh, that's just the bash shell, it means you're logged on as a user in a Unix system.
Official: And what exactly is unix? is it some sort of anarchist tyranny virus?
Me: Umm... No, it's just an operating system. Like Windows.
Official: I see, and where did you buy this "unix"?
Me: Well, actually it's called Ubuntu Linux, and I downloaded it off a torrent.
Official: (Into his radio) I think we have a software pirate here....
Me: Actually, it's free. Canonical will ship you free CDs.
Official: And who exactly is canonical? Are they some muslim extremist group trying to destroy the United States with computer viruses?
Me: Umm... No... Actually they're --
Official: Shut up! We're taking you into custody!

Re:Sir, please turn on your laptop...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa, take it easy pal. Even in his script he's trying to make the officer learn about it.

Re:Sir, please turn on your laptop...

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

God help you if you're running OpenBSD with encrypted filesystems and a sticker of an armed Puffy on the laptop's lid.

Omg

[Fred Porry]

Im very, very, very glad that Im not living in the U.S. or Canada...Geeez!

Re:Omg

[ScrewMaster]

Well, I do live in the U.S. and while life here is hardly as black as it's portrayed here on Slashdot (although, if you actually open your eyes and peer through the shiny film of complacency we all seem to have, an encroaching police state is evident) I'm very glad that I don't have a valid passport at the moment and my company can't send me anywhere overseas. Really, my desire to travel has been pretty much eliminated by all this post 9/11 homeland insecurity stuff. I know some people that regularly travel on business and, depending upon where you go (and where you happen to come back) it can get pretty darned unpleasant. No thanks.

Re:Omg

[Fred Porry]

Nice to see that you understood what I meant. I hoped my posting would not be the cause for a conflict and a long discussion wether or not "U.S. sux", it wasnt, thank you. ;)

Re:Omg

[ScrewMaster]

No problem ... I have knees but I try not to be a jerk.

Re:Omg

[Dhalka226]

depending upon where you go (and where you happen to come back) it can get pretty darned unpleasant

Acknowledging that you said this in advance, because I don't want to appear to have not seen it. Just want to relay my own experience.

Really, my desire to travel has been pretty much eliminated by all this post 9/11 homeland insecurity stuff.

I don't know if it has gotten any worse since the latest issues, but I flew internationally (for the first time!) a little over a year ago, in early July. I departed O'Hare, connected in LAX and then on to Sydney, Australia. The security process was really smooth, as it has been every time I've flown (almost all of them after 9/11, though domestic). The lines were a little longer sometimes, but the process itself still only took a few minutes.

In O'Hare and LAX, there was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in terms of security. In Sydney, the only "inconveinience" was that I was selected while I was going through the metal detectors to be randomly bomb tested. It was a process that took all of 45 seconds and the guy who did it was perfectly nice. He remarked, as he swabbed my clothes and luggage and stuck it in the machine, that farmers often set the machines off. So presumably, even if something on me had set it off, it wouldn't have been a particularly bad process since they deal with false positives what certainly seemed from his expression to be fairly routinely. I don't know though, because by the time he was done saying that the test was complete and I was on my way. In hindsight I'm kind of glad I got picked -- not because it was great fun or anything, but because it's good to be reminded when bad things like this, or racial profiling stories emerge, that there truly are good people just trying to do their jobs out there as well. I'm a white male, 21 at the time, so definitely not somebody who'd fit the typical terrorist profile that we hear so much about them looking for. I did have a laptop, though, just as a mention. Aaanyway...

Ditto the lack of complications on the way back on both sides. Honestly, the worst part of flying was the flight itself -- gahhh, 17 hours in those cramped little seats!! I know a trip to Australia isn't exactly likely to set off any security red flags like, say, a trip to Syria or something like that would, but this story was about a trip to Canada was it not? And either way, my point isn't to say anything other than that it's not so bad and to remind that these stories we hear, while certainly appalling and disappointing in many ways, are the exceptions rather than the rules.

If you don't want to fly, that's cool -- but if you're not flying because you're afraid of the security procedures, you really shouldn't be. Don't flush your iPod down the toilet and you should be good to go!

ipods on a plane, jackasses on the ground

[Anonymous Coward]

With lines of question like that and irrelevant handling of a situation by a bureacracy of egomaniacs, its no wonder why our government fumbles and the terrorists are capable of winning. Since landing a plane costs money, I can see a fine resulting from the incident, but once they search you and your belongings and find nothing, whats the point? If they are so fearful of passengers, why not just end air travel completely. Its already proven to be non-profitable.

Warning

[Nexum]

"Do not flush iPod Shuffle"

Re:Warning

[bcat24]

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that the iPod Shuffle is the most, er, flushable. :) After all it has flash memory, no screen, and a cap for the usb connector.

" They " won

[hebertrich]

Terrorism is exactly that ..
By making people behave like this .. they won.
Everytime an airplane is diverted for an ipod .. they won.
Everytime in your minds , a trace of powder on the pavement
is anthrax : they won.
Everytime a bag of groceries left in the tram or subway becomes
in the mind of someone a bomb that will " Kill us all " they won.

America .. whatever way you look at it .. they won.
They now control you.They have changed your ways your ideas
your thinking .. they won.

Terror owns you and that's what they wanted to do.
Time to bi*** slap yourself and start thinking clearly ?
I'd say .

Re:" They " won

[ColdWetDog]

Oh, go tell that to any to any Isreali -

They will just look at you funny.

Re:" They " won

[Wandering Wombat]

Marry me.

Re:" They " won

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up
he's right on about what terrorism is; it's about making everyone afraid of everything/everyone else
they have won

Re:" They " won

[jakarta-milwaukee]

People who have to hide in caves in Pakistan/Afghanistan because they fear for their lives are not winners.

Re:" They " won

[Carlbunn]

Of course, they don't speak english.

Re:" They " won

[kpang]

Exactly. The amount of physical damage terrorists can do to us is very limited. It's our reaction to their damage that will hurt us. 9/11 killed ~3,000 people. The war in Iraq that resulted has killed ~50,000. Reminds me of World War I where one act of terrorism that killed 1 man (Franz Ferdinand) led to the deaths of millions and the destruction of several nations.

Re:" They " won

[AtariDatacenter]

You'll probably get just as funny of a look as if you told anyone else that Israel has won?

I tend to agree with the original poster. The terrorists have won the war on terror. They've turned our own system into a terror machine.

Re:" They " won

[TheoMurpse]

Oh, go tell that to any to any Isreali -

You mean the Israelis who GO ON ABOUT THEIR FUCKING LIVES ALL THE TIME?!?! The fact is, Israeli citizens DON'T freak out whenever they go shopping. Hell, after 9/11 Americans in my hometown wouldn't go to a mall for a week or so!

Re:" They " won

[honkycat]

No, but they put up with a hell of a lot more inconvenient and intrusive searches, interrogations, etc, when they fly.

Re:" They " won

[Changa_MC]

Which just means the terrorist won in Israel a long time ago.

Re:" They " won

[Trogre]

Are you still speaking English at your job? Then they haven't won yet.
Does your SO wear a burkuh? No?
Are you still free to choose your religion or lack thereof?
Is pork and ham still on the menu in your country?

Then they haven't won yet.

Re:" They " won

[klang]

schools in England: pork and ham is not on the menu.
schools in England: the three little piglets is not a legal book to read
banks in Englsnd: piggy banks are banned

England is changing.

Re:" They " won

[poot_rootbeer]

The United States of America is not an Islamic theocracy.
The stated goals of the terrorists is to convert all the nations of the world into Islamic theocracies.

They haven't won.

Now shut the fuck up and keep fighting.

Re:" They " won

[mikeage]

True, but we're also used to: armed guards at most large stores (required by law), profiling everywhere (sucks if you're being profiled, but there's a reason for it), and traffic being stopped for 30 minutes all the time so the bomb squad can come out and blow up some stupid kid's backpack. I don't think most Americans (and yes, I was a resident for 22 years, and still am a citizen) would like to deal with that. As is, I get strange looks whenever I travel on business and instinctively open my backpack whenever I walk in a store in the US.

Re:" They " won

[ishepherd]

-1 uninformative

schools in England: pork and ham is not on the menu.

Huh?

schools in England: the three little piglets is not a legal book to read

Huh?

banks in Englsnd: piggy banks are banned

I see, you're just trolling.

Re:" They " won

[rossifer]

That's one goal of a few religious sects (some of whom are terrorist). And since that group hasn't succeeded in that one goal, you think that all terrorists aren't happy about the progress of the conflict? pffft.

Bush said that they envy our freedom. If he's right, then their actions and our responses have done a great job of pulling us down to their level.

It's simpletons like you that cause me to look overseas for my family's future. Because of people like you, the USA has become the land of the suspicious and the home of the scared. That's not the USA I want to live in.

Ross

Re:" They " won

[Anonymous Coward]

ah, well .. should have put "some" in front of each sentence. I am just refering the news.

Should I be scared?

[ENIGMAwastaken]

The bottom of my Slashdot page says "This page will self-destruct."

Should I be scared?

Re:Should I be scared?

[ENIGMAwastaken]

Shit!

Now it says "He who spends a storm beneath a tree, takes life with a grain of TNT."!

I think this is a clear message that Slashdot is planning to blow itself up and take the interweb with it.

Re:Why bring an iPod into the lavatory?!??!??

[BenJeremy]

Well, I've been on plenty of flights, and I've never seen somebody looking for something that's "walked off" but I understand that sentiment. Still, as I said, given the cramped conditions in an aircraft lavatory, a person should be absolutely sure of their belongings when moving around in there.

One more thing.... aircraft lavatories do havbe a "trap door" which should prevent anything dropped in there from falling through before flushing... I have to assume this guy dropped it in and wasn't paying attention until he flushed.

I do know people that dumb, unfortunately; one guy I worked with managed to lose his ID badge in the narrow "slot" of an elevator doorway. I guess some people are just naturally clumsy and bound to make the unlikely happen, no matter how unfortunate.

Re:Why bring an iPod into the lavatory?!??!??

[1u3hr]

That's the dumbest thing about this. The kid is going to hog one of the few lavatories on the airplane so he can sit and jam out on his iPod? He couldn't just leave it for a few minutes, if his visit was intended for a shorter duration?

Obviously not. He just had it clipped to his belt. If he'd been listening to it, he would have noticed when it went down the tube and yanked his earbuds out.

Questions asked because of his laptop...

[Hamster Lover]

If you read his entire post these questions were asked during an examination of his laptop, and I imagine they are routine questions for a customs agent.

I am more concerned about the customs agent's assertion that he alone gets to decide what is permitted into Canada, considering we had a landmark case that was decided by the Supreme Court on that very matter.

Is this even true?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we get a cross refrence to a real story on this event? Even than, how can we even really trust a first hand account on a story. As a frequent lurker/poster of the WoW general forums, I can tell you with 100% certanity that EVERY thread on that forum has to be taken with a grain of salt. Many users will embellish, and/or completly fake a story in order to recive a reaction from the userbase. As one of the highest traffic boards on the net today, it is an easy way to claim your own little slice of the e-fame pie.

Can we please get some sort of cross link on this story at least before posting it on the frontpage of /.

Re:Is this even true?

[Milhouse_ph]

The very first part of his post now contains a link to a newspaper report on it (it may have been edited in later). And a little further down he has another post with more newspaper links, the "details" of the story may be a bit embellished, but it looks like the story as a whole really happened... which is still pretty crazy.

Re:Is this even true?

[topham]

There is very little, if anything, in his story which is likely to be patently false.

The questions about who he was meeting and the type of relationship are actually standard questions if/when customs discovers you are meeting someone you don't really know.

Canada, and American customs are NOT fond of people coming in to the country to have relationships.

You can find other examples of the same type of laptop searches elsewhere on the Internet. (and previously mentioned on Slashdot).

As for the procedures followed when the iPod was stuck; at worst they get to practice their emergency procedures; at best it turns out a terrorist wanted to blow up the plane and it gets thwarted in spite of him claiming it's an ipod.

reactionary sheep-low IQ as well

[Anonymous Coward]

They have everyone completely buffaloed into this terrorism BS. I mean C'MON NOW. It's come out that that liquid attack was almost total crap and institgated by agent provocateurs INSIDE THE SO CALLED CELL. Bought and paid for by the intelligence services. Get a clue! There hasn't been any "terror" attacks in years because this is total crap! 9-11 was an inside job to get the PNAC armaggedon oil soaked zionistwhackos imperialist fascist goons into power and keep them there! It doesn't take much of anything to go do damage, does it? think about it, how hard is it really? So WHERE'S THE BEEF? The US and canada and the UK got millions of scary islamics! Where are all the attacks??? London attacks, eyewitnesses who clearly saw the explosions came from BENEATH THE CARS. the goons running a DRILL the exact same timeframe, SAME as they were doing on 9-11! WAKE UP. Take those away, where are the attacks??? Wouldn't it stand to reason that a few dozen might be carrying out attacks if all this terrorism BS was real? A few dozen out of millions-yet-no attacks! All the so called attacks they stopped had GOVERNMENT AGENTS AS THE RINGLEADERS INSIDE. WTC 93-government agent inside. 9-11, numerous ties to government intel services. They do this on purpose so they can puff themselves up and go "see, we stopped the attacks!". Well, pretty easy to do that when you ORGANIZE THEM. REICHSTAGG FIRE EVENTS. People don't smell a rat when right before a critical big brother legislation vote there is a "coincidental" anthrax attack using US army anthrax that targets opposition political leaders and some newsies???????? COME ON NOW

iPods may have Lithium ion bats but they aren't exploding, different manufacturing run and design

There are any nuber of electronic scary devices still onboard the plane

no bad guy would go ANNOUNCE he flushed something down the crapper

pilot=idiot

homeland security=freaking nazi blackshirts, goose stepping pervert mercenaries who can't get real jobs so they just follow orders and get to feel up your wife and daughter at the airport while you cower in the corner.

passengers who keep putting up with this shit = "welcoming their new reeducation camp overlords" because it's obvious they'll do anything they are told, believe anything the goon run main stream media parrots from dictator central (why is it the regimes tinfoil hat conpsiracy theories are never adequately questioned by the big news outlets? Could it be from who OWNS the bulk of the mainstream media, and gives orders that fall downstream? Do some research, see who owns the big networks and where their loyalties lie), and the airlines themselves are tippy toeing closer to becoming more hassle than they are worth and will go bust. I hope they do really, because it's obvious they have scared second graders running things.

We need this fascist big brother scare mongering regime out of power(google heglian dialectic, go ahead), they are completely destroying the nation with their lying weasel crap. Murdering lying thugs, and that's only their good qualities. Get out and lobby and vote for ANYONE who isn't in this current power structure. D or R, if they have swallowed all this overlapping lying crap and voted for it, vote them out! Either too stupid to be in government or compromised to go along with the take over. Patriot act-out! Homeland gestapo fatcat security-out! We had ONE senator who easily saw through this bullshit. Guess which senator got creamed in a plane crash. YOU REALLY THINK THAT WAS A COINCIDENCE?

Wake up folks, they are making things worse on purpose to get some weird globalist government in power, because it is involving more than one nation's high level rich fatcats. They are purposelly egging on and picking at the islamics on purpose to CREATE pissed off people to give them an excuse. Yep, they got a lot of pissed off islamics now, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PLAN.

  "We have always been at war with eastasia". That was a real book of prophecy, learn the lesson and learn to see through their smoke and mirrors crap. If it is connected to PNAC or any of their camp followers overseas, it's a lying fascist murderer.

Re:reactionary sheep-low IQ as well

[fastgood]

It's come out that that liquid attack was almost total crap

So was the iPod. But would Apple allow us to call it an iPod if it is no longer white? And would it have been an acceptable lavatory item had the passenger accidentally swallowed the device a few hours earlier, and then deposited the excess cargo through conventional methods?

Re:reactionary sheep-low IQ as well

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one accidentally swallow an iPod? At a certain point I'd imagine you would notice that it is in your mouth.

Re:reactionary sheep-low IQ as well

[hotdiggitydawg]

Maybe you don't swallow it then - maybe you slip over in the shower and land awkwardly on it...

Hey, don't look at me like that - it happens to the best of us, I swear!

Re:Why bring an iPod into the lavatory?!??!??

[cmdrfunk]

You're just like the passengers the guy was talking about in the article who were blaming him. Why do you expect him to do everything perfect? Yeah, this is all his fault; he should have had an internal debate for 20 minutes before deciding it if was okay to keep his ipod on his clip while he poopied.

At the rate those things are stolen, I'm not leaving mine behind either, by the way. If you had "attentitive" behavior in 5th grade spelling class you'd be able to spell it. Back off the guy.

Hate propaganda is illegal in Canada

[hayne]

Unlike in the US, in Canada it actually is illegal to incite hatred against any identifiable group.
See, for example: http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41491.html
So the only surprising thing is that the customs official didn't know this.

Re:Hate propaganda is illegal in Canada

[mdwh2]

But propaganda and incitement implies some kind of publication or other way of targetting the message towards people.

How is a message on someone's hard drive doing any of this?

Re:Hate propaganda is illegal in Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, now I see why everyone in Canada is so cheerful.

Re:Hate propaganda is illegal in Canada

[tftp]

A message on HDD can be considered ready for publication. Of course, these days you don't have to reside in any specific country to publish, but customs people and courts are a little old-fashioned. For example, they still ask if you carry $10K or more in cash on your person, though it's much easier to wire money anywhere you want, or just carry a book of your blank cheques - that once filled and signed will be an equivalent of as much cash as you have in the bank.

Re:Hate propaganda is illegal in Canada

[mdwh2]

Interesting ... I wonder if they read people's private diaries, and prosecute if they find anything they don't like there?

I mean, I can't believe people would think that fair, but this is what it's equivalent to, surely.

Re:Hate propaganda is illegal in Canada

[Achromatic1978]

For example, they still ask if you carry $10K or more in cash on your person

The way you describe it sounds a bit more ominous than the reality, though. To quote the full passage (in Australia, at least):

"It is legal to enter or leave Australia with any amount of currency. However, if the amount exceeds $10,000, it must be reported."

Re:Hate propaganda is illegal in Canada

[tftp]

Customs officials are not that interested in private diaries, and in 99.9999% of cases they won't look at them - but give them a reason (such as have an appearance or a name of a known evildoer) and they will give you a Class A+ examination. If they give you a cavity search be sure they will inspect everything else you have. You may have a list of conspirators there, or plans to do ${Something Bad}, for example, now that you gave the officials the probable cause for the search.

This WoW guy, though not on a list of evildoers [until now] certainly raised enough stink, literally, to attract plenty of attention from authorities. This is a standard procedure, by the book, and it may even benefit the WoW guy - now he can honestly say, with proof, that he had nothing bad in his posession. Otherwise he could be accused of having @Bad_Things in his bags or on his laptop, and he'd have no proof that he is not an evildoer. But now he has that proof, and he should be happy that he is completely exonerated.

Re:Why bring an iPod into the lavatory?!??!??

[Rakshasa Taisab]

And the lesson of this story is, if you lose something valuable in the airplane toilet, call in a bomb threat.

Barney's iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

- Barney, where's your iPod?

- It fell in the toilet.

The current climate...

[kbox]

.. has just given an excuse for jobsworths to go through the actions. It's almost as if they don't care about stopping an attack as much as they do about completely over-reacting to a situation that is obviously a missunderstanding.

Write down the serial number!

[Fulkkari]

Write down the serial number of the iPod somewhere safe. If it then gets stolen in-flight, report the theft. In mid-air, the thief is not going anywhere. With the serial number, you can prove that the device is yours.

...and no. You would not need to check every passenger, just the ones sitting next to you, and the ones who passed your seat in the hallway when you were absent.

waterproof?

[kemo_by_the_kilo]

a water proof Ipod would rock, imagine swimming in a pool with a water proof ipod... well i guess imagining swimming after the toliet part is kinda gross. oh and i guess it wouldnt be blue acid proof.

there is the chance of battery explosion

[Rooked_One]

it might be one of those sony lithiums!! you never know!

Over-reaction happened to me too.

[cdn-programmer]

I don't own an iPod but if I did and it fell in the toilet I don't think I'd admit ownership.

I've also discovered the joys of over-reaction. Read here: http://onon.org/asm/powder.html

This happened in 1996 - years before 911. The "white powder" was flour and I made pancakes for my kids with some of it for breakfast. I bought it at Safeway.

I got a call from a friend advising me of the issue. I was asked to drive to the fire station - which I did even though it meant I had to leave the kids unsupervised. I'm a single parent - my wife died.

I suppose there was a chance I could have been arrested.

When I drove to the fire station I pulled into the driveway and immediately two (2) firetrucks which were parked on the side of the road moved together to block off the driveway. So clearly they were waiting for me.

What happened is that I used the flour to mark the run. On part of the run I tossed a glob of flour on some old telephone poles...

The idjots swept up the flour from the telephone poles and tested it and found the creosote they also swept up was toxic. They were not smart enough to test another sample not on a telephone pole.

Next - some of the fire department personel run with us pretty much every Monday. In addition we have police officers who run with us. This was aired on the news. The person who reads the sports at the time has also run with us. All of our runs are published on the website. We have 1000's of pictures from former runs. We've been written up in several magazines. We're the largest running club in the WORLD and we have been doing this for over 60 years.

Yet - in spite of all of this - it happened again last year... another trail partly swept up by the same folks who tried to sweep up my trail in 1996 (and they missed most of it - it was a well marked trail and they were not able to follow it).

This has also happned in a number of other cities.

I do not know what we can do - I would think publishing what we are doing should be sufficient but it doesn't seem to be.

Re:Over-reaction happened to me too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Spray paint? Chalk?

Re:Over-reaction happened to me too.

[StikyPad]

I do not know what we can do

Use temporary paint?

Re:Over-reaction happened to me too.

[atomic_toaster]

Did anyone else skim the comments and read "http://onon.org/asm/powder.html" as "orgasm powder" at first glance? I'm used to scanning my email and clicking the "delete" box beside messages with this kind of title, so it drew my eye. How backwards.

Questions

[Lord_Dweomer]

I'm really hoping this guy gets in the press as much as possible about the sorts of questions he was asked. He is ABSOLUTELY correct that he is entitled to dislike big government, think Iraq was wrong, think we should not go into Iran etc. And it is quite disturbing to see the goverment try to turn that against him. And if he had answered incorrectly to those questions and been shipped off somewhere secret, what recourse would he have? None. Well, maybe his guild would organize a raid to free him, but still...we need to let government officials know that it is NOT acceptable for them to dish out their own interpretation of the law, or suddenly anything we can can and will be used against us in the court of law.

Re:Questions

[roman_mir]

How did he answer these questions anyway?

I guess I would have answered like this:

What do you think about 9/11? - My work colleague died in 9/11. I personally think the entire thing could have been prevented if the US government officials did their jobs better.

What are your views on the Iran issue? - Personally I would have preferred if the Iraq war never happend and the US attacked Iran instead.

Do you think government is too big, too powerful? - yes, the government is too big and too powerful and very inefficient.

Would you ever "make a point?" - to whome and about what?

Not a terrorist? Convict him of something else.

[booyabazooka]

My guess is that it was an attempt on the part of law enforcement to come out of the situation looking a bit less dumb... "He wasn't a terrorist, but we did catch a pedophile/hatemongerer."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Mod parent up

[einhverfr]

The terrorists are winning by this measure. If for no other reason than we are now at a point where our fear is more of a liability than our lack of security...

Re:Why bring an iPod into the lavatory?!??!??

[The Cydonian]

He's not the brightest person in the world, is he?

I particularly like the way you've deduced the kid's intelligence levels based on where he takes his ipod with him. A very succicent, rational and thought-provoking analysis; Sherlock Holmes would be proud.

I guess this means...

[BrianTung]

...his iPod must have been an iPoS.

WOJ

[future assassin]

World Of Jihad

Flushed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok why the hell would this guy flush his iPod down the fucking airplane toilet? Did he NOT realize that he had dropped it? Did he even try to salvage it before saying "fuck it...I'm gonna flush it" ? Would an iPod even be able to be flushed, considering its size etc?

Laptop battery

[WaveRider]

Atleast he dint drop one of those exploding laptop batteries, while using his laptop in thetoilet!

iPod Shuffle flushes better

[Anonymous Coward]

The moral is to only flush iPod Shuffles down airplane toilets:

http://www.jroller.com/page/cpurdy?entry=my_first_ mac_and_how

Be scared, it's an election year

[rjung2k]

In the US at least, the prevalent theory is that voters who are afraid are more likely to vote Republican (hey, it worked in 2002 and 2004). Since the Republicans are currently afraid of losing their stranglehold on the government, the media is more than willing to play up more fear-inducing speculative news in hopes of keeping you in line. What's a few extra hours at the airport when we're talking about keeping political power?

I talked to a Bush supporter yesterday

[chocolatetrumpet]

Yesterday I had someone look me in the eyes, tell me they are proud they voted for Bush, and would vote for him again. He lives in fear of a nuclear attack by islamist extremists.

I just don't know how to deal with that. Remember those "weapons of mass destruction" supposedly located in Iraq? They never existed. And this guy is worried about a nuclear attack against the US? Delivered how, exactly?

In my thinking, if you want to go after terrorists, you investigate them, infiltrate them, and prosecute them. It's a job for investigators and police. A dangerous job, but a job none the less.

If, however, you want to make billions of dollars in defense contracts, control all of the oil in the world, gain fascist powers, and offer people "protection," then by all means, go to war against an entire country. But don't take my word for it; I'm "misguided."*

* according to said Bush supporter

Re:I talked to a Bush supporter yesterday

[daveschroeder]

I just don't know how to deal with that. Remember those "weapons of mass destruction" supposedly located in Iraq? They never existed. And this guy is worried about a nuclear attack against the US? Delivered how, exactly?

Well, while I agree that there isn't going to be an Islamic ICBM delivering a nuclear weapon anytime soon, there were *hundreds of tons* of WMD unaccounted for in Iraq, post-1998. The intelligence capabilities of most western European nations, notably the UNSEC members, the UN as an organization, the US, UK, and so on, all believed Iraq to be in continuing possession of the WMD that were unaccounted for after 1998 when the inspectors left. After 7 years of utter lack of cooperation, deception, and all manner of lies from Iraq about its WMD programs, there was zero reason to believe anything changed for the better once it was left unsupervised. Over 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons were found in Iraq since March 2003. Entire fleets of fighter aircraft were found *completely buried* in remote areas of the desert. There is no reason to believe the hundreds of tons of remaining WMD that was unaccounted for with absolutely no acceptable proof of its disposition, combined with Iraq's lies and deception, didn't remain in Iraq's possession. Likely, it is now in the hands of nations like Syria.

The Iraq strategy isn't about "Iraq". It was about picking a nation for which a case could be expeditiously made to the American people, allowing a great number of resources, both monetary and military, to be brought to bear, on an omnibus strategy of political change in the mideast. It was a VERY RISKY proposition, but the threat of Panislamic radicalism is a very, very real one. And no, it's not something we "created". It's something that has come to this point for a variety of reasons, but the US and/or West isn't exclusively or even mostly to blame. (Is it impossible for people to believe that there are factions of people in the world who disagree about a great many things and who desire to kill those who don't agree with them?) And, FYI, we know we have problems with Saudi Arabia, but we hope for a domino affect, and also, we don't overtly attack official allies (for those who ask "Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, then?").

The big differences are intent. E.g., intent to kill innocent civilians vs not. Intent to allow people to live in a free(r) society vs not. These are very important distinctions to people who aren't pure moral relativists who think that everyone is just as "right" or justified in doing something as someone else.

While WMD wasn't the real "reason" we went to Iraq - the reasons were MUCH broader and not about "iraq" per se - it's quite reasonable that the administration and planners would expect to find caches of WMD there, thus justifying the action on its face.

I realize you're talking more about nuclear, here, but if you're going to make incorrect claims about Iraq with regard to WMD, you should take a look at the following and educate yourself:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/

And as for nuclear problems, we now have Iran to worry about as well. If you choose to "blame" the US or US policy on any troubles we have with Iran, feel free. I'm just somewhat dumbfounded by the view that others outside the US are apparently incapable of doing "bad" things on their own without provocation of the evil US, especially given the thousands of years of human history.

And as an aside, no, dealing with "terrorists" (I realize that is a vague term), especially in other nations, is not a problem for civil authorities and courts. It is a military problem, and one of critical national defense interests. Perhaps one day Europe will wake up, too, since they've got the growing ranks of militiant Panislamic radicals practically on their doorstep.

Re:I talked to a Bush supporter yesterday

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah. About WMD's in Iraq look up Scot Ritter and what he had to say about them before the latest invasion into Iraq.

About reasons for Iran to want Nukes? Look up the Iran-Iraq war and who were supporting Saddam Hussain. Look up what happened when North Korea got the bomb. Find out what happened to Pakistan when it go the bomb. Find out why negotiations on the NNPT failed last year. Look up tactical nuclear weapons and who is developing them. Find out which nation talks in terms of an axis of evil that among others contains Iran. Remember which enemy of Iran besides the US has nukes in the region. I could go on. Don't read this as saying that I think nukes for Iran are a good idea, they are not!

Again about Iraq; Why is it a mess right now? Besides the invasion there were some other mistakes like the infighting between the State Department and the Pentagon. There is the destroying of the local economy by implementing a Neo Liberal Nirvana in Iraq. There is the firing of Iraqi army in the midst of rampant unemployment. (What do you think these soldiers were going to do? Spread love and happiness?) There is the heavy handed way the US army operates in chaotic and dangerous but civilian areas. There was the neglect of policing duties after the fall of Saddam causing lawlessness.

I'm a European and not religious, I despise Islamo-Fascism (or whatever your favorite derogatory term for them is). I do hope that the west would put into action its professed ideals more often and learn to keep our cool. It has been said before but traffic kills more of us than the terorrists could hope to achieve.

Re:I talked to a Bush supporter yesterday

[Achromatic1978]

The Iraq strategy isn't about "Iraq". It was about picking a nation for which a case could be expeditiously made to the American people, allowing a great number of resources, both monetary and military, to be brought to bear, on an omnibus strategy of political change in the mideast.

This is the core to the problem. In this case? FUCK the American people. Part of the hatred/mistrust/distaste for the actions of the US throughout most of the world stem from this. It isn't America's place to be deciding on the political ideologies of foreign sovereigns.

Re:I talked to a Bush supporter yesterday

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, while I agree that there isn't going to be an Islamic ICBM delivering a nuclear weapon anytime soon, there were *hundreds of tons* of WMD unaccounted for in Iraq, post-1998.

This is where the problem began. It is a LOGICAL FALLACY to go to Iraq and say, "Prove these weapons don't exist."

If for some reason they don't actually exist, then how do you account for "unaccounted for" weapons which don't actually exist?

Then we invade, and find no evidence that they exist. Ever think that maybe we skipped the initial step with the burden of proof of proving that they exist?

Where do we turn to now?

[i123412]

Well hell now the Canadians have caught Bush's paranoia bug. Wish there was a vaccine for this. [Oh wait, there is, it's called "having half a brain."]

And I was planning on jumping the boarder to Canada once Bush's insanity got too out of hand. Now what...NZ seems too far away for this future ex-pat.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

And to think I said...

[daemonenwind]

I wouldn't use an iPod to wipe my ass.

Re:And to think I said...

[klang]

..you are such an Apple fan boy! :-)

Poster Has Basis for a Lawsuit here

[shaneFalco]

IANAL- but I am a Constitutional Law scholar and I think poster may have a case for his rights being violated, namely with the laptop. Assuming of course this flight was aboard an American carrier and that customs official digging through his laptop was also an American. Poster was informed he would be released before the customs official went through his laptop looking for contraband. It is somewhat hazy but generally computers fall under the 4th Amendment's guarantee against undue search and seizure. If the guy wants to look- he damn well better have a search warrant from a judge. Seeing as he is to be released for lack of evidence- there is no basis for the search.

Now, if the customs official was Canadian, or an agent of the Canadian government it gets a lot more murky. True- what I am assuming are American and Canadian authorities have decided to let him go, but poster is passing through the customs of another country. However, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also guarantees against undue search (Article 8) and puts forth the right to consul (U.S. Escobedo and Miranda) (Canada: CoRaF Article 10). Poster was clearly not given those.

Surely, the argument I have just made can be reconstructed by the other side of the argument- in the name of national security or some other erosion of rights. Allow me to quote Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". On that note- I encourage poster to contact the ACLU or its Canadian equivalent and bring suit (the ACLU will do all the work for you on a pro bono basis). Such a case has the possibility to clarify rights in the paranoid stripping of rights that is the War on Terror.

Re:Poster Has Basis for a Lawsuit here

[Colin Cordner]

The customs official was likely overstepping his bounds in this instance, but it is noteworthy to point out that Canada's Constitution Act of 1982 contains a "reasonable limitations" clause which places hypothetical limits on the Charer of Rights and Freedoms. Thus, Parliament can institute criminal laws that go against the theoretical grain of the Charter, so long as they don't go "too far", with the definition of "too far" being a matter decided by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in consultation with established legal precedent and present-day norms. Generally though, the SCC tends to interpret laws in a fashion consistent with Lockean principles of Liberalism.

However, the unfortunate iPod owner may not have been considered to have been on strictly Canadian soil at the time of questioning, given that he was being interviewed in an international airport -- the jurisdiction of the Charter might very well be interpreted to end at the borders of areas defined under international law; all of which is to say that any legal challenge against Canada Customs would have been a Big Deal that would take years to decide-on due to the issues at stake.

Re:Poster Has Basis for a Lawsuit here

[kfg]

Assuming of course this flight was aboard an American carrier and that customs official digging through his laptop was also an American.

Well, the blurb says that plane was diverted to Ottawa. That's in the Bahamas, isn't it? And the Bahamas are at least technically American, right?

KFG

Re:Poster Has Basis for a Lawsuit here

[Anonymous Coward]

No he doesn't -- please take a look at his collections of postings on WoW

1) Poster was released from Police custody without charges being filed- not "released from the airport terminal"

2) Consul is for criminal charges - again not an issue since he was released from Police custody without charges being filed - so no need for consul

3) Undue search is for criminal cases - not bypassing legally granted Custom's seaches

Poster then voluntarily tries to enter Canada, thus he has explicity granted the Canadian Customs officials the right to a through search of any and all items he is bringing into Canada which includes the contents of his harddrive. ( It's those little pieces of paper you fill out when flying into one country from another )

He was not randomly picked out by customs in regards to his race, religion or a few other points that in Canada would give him grounds for a lawsuit - but while the Custom's officier's choice to initiate a search was not random nor could it be considered individualy based harrasment - any judge would accept that reasonable effort was taken to select him based upon his actions/re-actions both in the plane and the hanger.

*************

If the poster had made the desicion to return to the US - without leaving the international terminal area then the Canadian Custom's official would have no right/duty to search any and all items.

*************

To claim the Custom's seach as an attack on his "liberties" is smoke and mirrors; so in regards to Custom's officials right/duty of reasonable search allow me quote many geeks ... "RTFM"

Re:Poster Has Basis for a Lawsuit here

[hr raattgift]

Nothing in the news article, or in the commentary written on the WoW board is suggestive of impropriety on the part of any of the police or CBSA officers.

I am a little sceptical of people who claim to have an argument with officials in any situation remotely as stressful as this one, but even if we accept the dialogue as accurate reporting rather than coloured by artistic licence, the worst accusation that can be levelled is that the police (likely Ottawa-Carleton regulars, or duty Mounties) asked an inappropriate question ("if you were drunk..."), which would best be followed up with his or her boss, in writing.

The Charter regulates the activity of everyone involved in the government of Canada (s.32(1)(a)) except in unusual circumstances backed by statute that survives court scrutiny. The Federal Court (which enforces the Charter per s.25) generally anticipates the Supreme Court of Canada's take on these exceptions, which I think you describe reasonably.

The (federal) loopholes in the Charter in general are only interesting with respect to legislation passed by Parliament, and this includes the gigantic one in section 1, which you describe. (It's s.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (citation as per s.34), not the Constitution Act, 1982 (Schedule B, Part I), which it also is, and isn't, simultaneously. The Constitution is fickle about citations mainly because much of it originated as Acts of the UK Parliament, including the Canada Act, 1982 (UK). Ugh.).

The most relevant sections of the Charter have universal applicability ("Everyone has the right..." ss.7-10,12) and unlimited situational applicability ("Any person charged" s.11; "A witness..." s.13; "A party or witness..." s.14) and importantly s.15(1) "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination...". This applies to non-Canadians and Canadians equally, and it also applies outside Canada, with respect to Canadian officials performing government activities.

When you are in Canada physically, you are in Canada legally. "Sterile" areas and flights are still bound by Canadian law.

There is a singular lack of obvious grounds of action (or complaint, except for rudeness) against any Canadian official in the story recounted by the WoW poster.

The general policy of "land, isolate, interview, interview again" makes overreaction likely, however, and sadly the policy is the responsibility of Stockwell Day, the minister for Public Safety (Mon-Sat only).

Re:Poster Has Basis for a Lawsuit here

[Omnifarious]

Then clearly something is wrong, because if you are correct, and all the rules were followed, they led to a ridiculous and untenable outcome in this particular case.

I also don't recall having had to sign any little pieces of paper when I've been through customs to Canada. So I think that whole line is a bunch of BS you invented because you have some irrational feeling that authority is always right.

So, no pieces of paper mean that either the US standards (the 4th amendment) or the Canadian standards (discussed elsewhere in this thread) for searching people's belongings for stuff apply. Those standards were invented to prevent state harassment of citizenry and to provide a cap on what kind of consensual crime laws could be enforced by the state.

I've lost count...

[Anomalyst]

Isn't it something like eleventy-seven mid-flight false-alarms and zero actual/effectual terrorist plots?
We have far more to fear from the idiocies of politicians and bureaucrats infringing on our freedoms than any half-baked schemes by wannabe fanatics.

Strange

[segedunum]

It's this which I don't like:

"Now the questions became really pointed. What do you think about 9/11? What are your views on the Iran issue? Do you think government is too big, too powerful? Would you ever "make a point?"

Now that's got nothing to do with the situation they're in, but if they get enough people giving these interviews it could be used to build up a picture of who they may not like.

Fuck going to the USA, that's what I say.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck going to the USA, that's what I say. He was going to Canada, you ass.

Re:Strange

[segedunum]

He was going to Canada, you ass.

North America in general then. Must be a disease or something. It's spreading.

You ass ;-).

So...

[Zoologico]

The most important question here is...will it be covered by Apple Care?

oh .. I guess Bush is a WMC ...

[freaker_TuC]

A Weapon of Mass Confusion ...

There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

[klang]

Franklin D. Roosevelt

From the time where USA was not a scared nation..

Re:There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

[Detritus]

Like just after Pearl Harbor, right...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Today electronics; tomorrow ???

[skylerweaver]

Banning all liquids was a good idea because of the given threat.

Soon *the terrorists* my find a way to detonate their clothing and all clothing will be banned in the cabin. This sounds pretty cool at first, but keep in mind how often is the random person sitting next to you a slammin' hottie?

After that *the terrorists* will find a brilliant plot to set themselves on fire by rubbing their arms together REALLY FAST. Once this happpens, all PASSENGERS will be banned from being in the cabin. Very smart.

Terrorists win.

Re:Today electronics; tomorrow ???

[guzugi]

I can't wait till they uncover some "mastermind plot" to take down planes with screaming babies.

Re:Today electronics; tomorrow ???

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

Soon *the terrorists* my find a way to detonate their clothing and all clothing will be banned in the cabin. This sounds pretty cool at first, but keep in mind how often is the random person sitting next to you a slammin' hottie?

Please have a little faith in the free market system. Very quickly, airlines will have "hotties fly free" policies, and they'll charge a premium for seats near each hottie.

After that *the terrorists* will find a brilliant plot to set themselves on fire by rubbing their arms together REALLY FAST. Once this happpens, all PASSENGERS will be banned from being in the cabin.

Surely all passengers will simply be coated with sensuous massage oils in order to reduce friction. This would have the advantage of being able to squeeze a few more passengers into the cabin.

I predict a huge uplift in airline stocks as a result.

Re:Today electronics; tomorrow ???

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't seen the Ryanair notice yet?

http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/notices.php?notice= 060822-ASP-EN

Re:Today electronics; tomorrow ???

[skylerweaver]

Better yet. All passengers are sedated for the duration of the flight.

This is a great idea for a number of reasons.

Re:Today electronics; tomorrow ???

[electronerdz]

Maybe they should ban clothing. Apparently, clothing can ignite.

Re:Today electronics; tomorrow ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Process your clothing so it is all nitro-cellulose, wear it onboard, take a window seat and proceed to detonate yourself. If you want a more concentrated boom then wad up your clothing inside a hard plastic carry-on before detonating. There is no such thing as perfect safety.

MOD PARENT UP

[Nimey]

Fsck, I thought I'd never make a mpu post.

what's hate in canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they ban the free republic website there? You can go look at any random middle eastern thread and see all sorts of anti muslim hate speech, including nuke 'em, etc. How many people have been arrested in canada for having freepers threads in their cache? Do they ban US commercial radio and TV broadcasts? You can hear similar from a variety of US broadcasters, like michael savage for instance.

Funny it's only a small select class that gets "hate speech" protection. Wonder why that is?

Re:Why bring an iPod into the lavatory?!??!??

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not the brightest person in the world, is he?

You're not the brightest person in the world, are you? Anyone who deduces the level of intelligence someone possesses based on whether or not they take their iPod to the washroom or not is an idiot who's simply looking to point out flaws in another person to make them self feel superior.

Re:Why bring an iPod into the lavatory?!??!??

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts exactly. I thought the OP was joking. The mere idea of leaving an IPod (or anything small and expensive) unnatended even for some seconds in a place full of strangers seems almost stupid for me. If you did that around here, not only you'd get stolen for sure, but people would say you deserved it.

I've heard stories about how this kind of stealing was rarer in rich countries and how people would just leave purses on chairs, etc, but I had no idea it'd go so far as people accepting as natural to leave an IPod unattended. I'm a bit envious now.

Re:High Alert - Add this

[in2mind]

According to the US government's own statistics [washingtonpost.com], fewer than 2,000 people were killed WORLDWIDE in 2004 by terrorists. Even if you add in the thousands of people killed on 9/11, you're still talking about 10,000 people, tops. Compare that to the number of people killed each year in car crashes (38,000 US fatalities in 2004 [dot.gov]), malaria (1,000,000 to 3,000,000 per year worldwide, mostly in Africa [wikipedia.org]), or heart disease (276 out of ever 100,000 people in the US in 1996, or 22,800 in New York City alone [disastercenter.com]). In fact, if the statistics are right, more people are hit by lightning each year (1 person out of every 600,000 per year, or 10,000 worldwide) than are killed by terrorists.

Just add X x 100,000 killed in Iraq too.

iPod Killer?

[Anonymous Coward]

So did the iPod still function after being fished out of the toilet system, or have we finally discovered an iPod killer?

I'm the guy

[riscfuture]

My name is Tim Morgan, and I'm both the author of the WoW post (Stupid), and the person mentioned in the news articles. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of you are suspicious that I am one and the same person, and rightly so. I reckon I have no real way to prove it. So ... for those willing to take it on faith (my WoW sig notwithstanding), feel free to ask me questions.

Also, I'm noticing I'm not coming off very highly in some of your comments. Oh well ... 'tis to be expected when you run the gauntlet of /.ers. :P

Re:I'm the guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Tim, I want to praise you for a) handling it well and b) telling us all these details. The government's actions were so unacceptable at every step of the way. The one thing I would have done personally would be to not answer all their stupid questions, and demand to speak with an attorney. I'm glad it ended well but they were doing a lot of fishing. I would rather be keep my mouth shut and be arrested than try to cooperate in hopes of not being arrested. In your case it worked but that's not always true.

Again, thanks for the detailed post about this. It really helps all of us understand how these idiots are wasting our tax money these days.

Re:I'm the guy

[Daimando]

Yeah. I was just wondering. Are you on the no-fly list thanks to the incident? Or are you gonna hold back from flying for a long time?

Re:I'm the guy

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

So how did it work out with Cara?

Re:I'm the guy

[riscfuture]

I got back from Canada OK so I'm assuming all is well at this point ... tentatively. I don't fly a lot in general (being unemployed isn't good for the wallet) so it will be many months before we see if there's an impact.

Re:I'm the guy

[riscfuture]

Hehe, Cara forgives me for having a really short fuse and being very tetchy, coming out of a 5-hour adventure of fun with Customs and the police. I wasn't in the best of moods. But, I got to introduce her to Firefly/Serenity, and she's hooked now, so I call it a win. We had lots of fun.

Re:I'm the guy

[mabu]

I got a question for you... you have a degree in Physics and you've been unemployed for four months. So you sit on your ass and play WOW?

Don't you have anything better to do? With your science knowledge did it ever occur to you to try to use those skills to do something more productive than lose yourself in endless hours of fantasy roleplaying? (I know what it's like; I used to do it and I wish I could take back all the time I pissed away playing Everquest). So can you do us a favor and maybe spend some time coming up with clean energy sources and stuff like that? After we reduce our dependency on foreign oil, chances are you'll have more time to play computer games... it's just a thought. What do you think?

Re:I'm the guy

[riscfuture]

My degree is actually in Computer Science and Physics, and my career path has been computer science. I worked at Amazon.com for 8 months prior to quitting my job, because they don't treat programmers very well there in my experience. Four months of unemployment is not for want of trying. I've been rejected for four positions at Apple, two at Microsoft, two at Google, one at Yahoo, one at Pixar, and a smattering of smaller companies, such as Flock and Telenav. Hell I've even been rejected twice by Blizzard. So I keep on trying... And I don't play WoW much anymore. Just last week I gave up GM of my guild to a trusted guildmate so I could take a break.

Re:I'm the guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Mate,
      I am a physicist and I have had to write programs for data analysis despite the fact that I haven't had any training in programming at all. I am not alone. Perhaps with your expertise, you would do better programming for scientists - we need help. University based researchers developing new experimental techniques might be a good target. Contributions to projects like Octave might add sugar to your CV.

Re:I'm the guy

[shadowbearer]

  1) Did they have someone stop by and question her as well? Wouldn't surprise me...

  2) Are you an Inna'pennant now? *g*

SB

Re:I'm the guy

[shadowbearer]

Have you thought about looking at smaller companies who do large scale survey/sat photo analysis? Be a good combo with your degree (I don't do it, but a friend does, and he says there's need) if it's something you are interested in.

  Good luck!
SB

Re:I'm the guy

[riscfuture]

1) Yeppers, they did. 2) Always been libertarian myself. :) (Note the lowercase l to distance myself from the party somewhat.)

Re:I'm the guy

[Achromatic1978]

I've been rejected for four positions at Apple, two at Microsoft, two at Google, one at Yahoo, one at Pixar, and a smattering of smaller companies, such as Flock and Telenav. Hell I've even been rejected twice by Blizzard.

You're certainly aiming high - this is a good thing. But perhaps you're aiming a little too high. Not everyone has to, or even can, work at a household name well known for picking only the best of the best - not that you aren't, or are incapable. But set the bar a little lower, and then look at those.

Re:I'm the guy

[shadowbearer]

  We just wanna be going our own way, no truck with the bad folk... just leave us alone to take care of us and ours. Leave us well enough alone, we'll leave you alone...

  small l noted and agreed with :-)

  We ain't a party, 'cept on U day maybe...

SB

Re:I'm the guy

[mabu]

I'm an independent software developer. My advice to you would be to go independent. There is good money to be made because the larger companies just aren't innovative. Why become a cog in that machine? If you can afford to hang out for many months without a job, you could use the same time to set up a consultancy or get contract jobs or form your own venture. There are lots of possibilities if you're willing to stray from the flock.

Re:I'm the guy

[Sentry21]

1. What is your name?
2. What is your quest?
3. What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen gryphon?

Re:I'm the guy

[serial_crusher]

I'll stick by the TSA in this scenario. It's not that you KNEW that was your iPod stopping it from flushing. You might have dropped it somewhere in the aisle or somewhere else. Better safe than sorry I say.

Re:I'm the guy

[Java Ape]

Thanks for taking the time to post. I think you've been very self-effacing and humble. We ALL make mistakes (I knocked over a picher of water at a nice resteraunt last night!). Losing an iPod isn't a problem, being treated like a criminal by an out-of-control government IS a problem, and one that I fear is becoming all to common. Thank you for bringing it to our attention, MAYBE if the sheeple wake up we can vote the current bozo's out of office before Bush decides to suspend elections and declare himself emperor. Tim, you rock!

Re:I'm the guy

[roman_mir]

Hi Tim.

Can you tell us how did you answer these questions:

Now the questions became really pointed. What do you think about 9/11? What are your views on the Iran issue? Do you think government is too big, too powerful? Would you ever "make a point?"

Thanks.

Disposable Ipod...

[aapold]

Brilliant! Just make it biodegradable... allow songs on it to have unlimited lifespan but the unit will die and the rights to them with the unit... we'll get kids buying several a year.... should run off to patent this now...

almost total crap

[zoomshorts]

Except that the inept "security experts' convienently forgot
that in ALL the years since the first plane hijacking,
ANYONE could have brought a container of GASOLINE, and a Bic
lighter, aboard these planes. Disquised it as juice, or not.

One cup of petrol contains a huge explosive potential. How
stupid are these bozo's?

ALL of these "security experts" need to be removed. They are
just too plain stupid. They should all be forced to repay
every penny they have received as payment for their "expertise".

Re:almost total crap

[geminidomino]

One cup of petrol contains a huge explosive potential. How
stupid are these bozo's?

Actually, liquid gasoline/petrol isn't explosive, just really flammable. It's the fumes/vapor that can explode, and you'd need a bit more than a cup to get enough vapor to get more than a bright hot flashpoint.

Re:almost total crap

[zoomshorts]

http://www.burnsurgery.com/Modules/prevention/gaso line/sec1.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d000701-d000800/d0007 60/d000760.html

The important information goes like this:

"the vapor of one cup of gasoline has the explosive power of about five pounds of dynamite".
ergo flammable is a minor point. The stuff burns so rapidly, as to constitute an explosion.
Explosions are rapidly expanding walls of gases.

Re:almost total crap

[geminidomino]

Actually, you clipped the most important part of your "important information."

"When mixed with air in the right proportions, the vapor of one cup of gasoline has the explosive power of about five pounds of dynamite..."

Whenever you start talking about vapors, you have to take other factors than just quantity into account. A pound of dynamite is a pound of dynamite, but vapors dissipate, so you have to consider concentration. 20cc of gasoline vapor inside a 1-gal gascan is going to be a lot more explosive than 20cc of gasoline vapor diffused throughout the passenger cabin of a 747 at STP (qualified because I know planes in air pressurize the cabin, and I don't know if or how that effects this particular gas).

I'm not saying that it should be taken off the "no-transport" list, but lets leave the overstating and hysterics to the TSA.

MANPADS

[Anonymous Coward]

...are available on the white, black and gray market all over the world. Your average civilian passenger flight has zero defenses. Why are those people flying when there's an obvious threat potential there? Why aren't the airlines just grounded? Aren't the flight captains concerned, I mean, have they searched every square foot for the surrounding 5 miles around the airport before every plane is allowed to take off and land?

Airport security, along with random "courtesy" roadblocks, making school kids thumbprint to get lunch, pushing for RFID verichip implants, free speech "zones", millions of surveillence cameras, full complete wiretapping by the pigs, etc, etc, huge list, etc; are all designed for one purpose only: as conditioning exercises to get you used to armed swat swine on every corner, instantly obeying every command given to you by anyone even remotely considered "authority" and keeping you with you head bowed and eyes averted from your "betters".

It's working well, too. No one's rebelling, and to even speak against it means you are "with the terrorists".

It's fascist population conditioning, that's it. Feudalism never went completely away and it is enjoying a remarkable and stronger than ever comeback.

MOD PARENT +1, ANTI-AMERICAN

[Dahan]

Fuck going to the USA, that's what I say.

That's OK, we don't want illiterate retards like you here. Next time, try reading the article for comprehension.

Re:MOD PARENT +1, ANTI-AMERICAN

[segedunum]

That's OK, we don't want illiterate retards like you here. Next time, try reading the article for comprehension.

North Americans in general then. The disease is spreading to Canada. You can then keep your illiterate selves (illiterate - that's funny when talking about people from the states!) to your selves. Maybe we should just build a wall around the USA or North America, and then you might all feel secure?

Alternatively of course, you could realise that I'm one of those people who don't like your silly government (and Canada's?) and don't necessarily hate Americans themselves.

I love it! Our society will collapse voluntarily!

[Anonymous Coward]

How beautiful! The Jihadists don't need to blow us up. No! They will make us collapse economically just through our own self-inflicted sheer stupidity. Everyone I have talked to recently dreads flying. Our airlines are going to lose so much business, and when they do operate, they get diverted for little things like an iPod in the loo. That's great! The terrorists have won without even needing real attacks anymore. Why plant a real bomb in a train station or airport terminal when you can just leave a "suspicious" unattended package, and you'll get the entire place shut down anyway?

The captains quote: "You can't be too careful!" Um, yes, you CAN in fact be too careful. "Too careful" is when you divert your flight, with an F16 escort, because someone had a bad feeling about some passengers who looked like they might have been Middle Eastern. So... someone has a bad feeling and they blow several million dollars worth of fighterplane time, jet time, and passenger rerouting expenses. One million dollars! You do that enough times and pretty soon it adds up to collapse of the air industry.

if it's yellow let it mellow...

[Anonymous Coward]

and if it's brown, send it down!

-- willie brown

Correct Answers... ?

[Zone-MR]

Perhaps the following replies would have been more suitable. IANAL, Anyone see any flaws?

"Let me make things clear. I ask questions. You answer them. Do we have an understanding?"

I have acted in good will and explained the situation to yourself. I am happy to clarify anything relevant to the iPod - my personal relationships are of no relevance.

"I've got 5 good men going into that airplane right now. Five of my best bomb squad guys. If there is any reason that I should be concerned for their life, then I need to know now. So just answer the questions, and do as I say."

I assure you that your best bomb squad guys should be more than capable at removing my iPod from the toilet without incurring any injury. You have no reason to be concerned for their life.

What do you think about 9/11?

It was a terrible tradgedy - not just because of the direct loss of life, but the resulting change of government politics, eroding civil liberties, and hysteric overreaction to ipods dropped in toilets.

What are your views on the Iran issue? Do you think government is too big, too powerful? Would you ever "make a point?"

I have commited no wrongdoing, and do not presently wish to comment on my political ideologies.

He then asked me to turn on my laptop. I did, and he began using it. I saw him open Spotlight and begin searching.

Sir, I have commited no wrongdoing and do not consent to any searches. Without probable cause such searches are unlawful, and I assure you that I will file a formal complaint should you decide to ignore my request.

"Do you have any pornography?"

I have no desire nor obligation to answer such a question.

"I honestly don't know. But that doesn't matter. I get to decide what goes in this country. Do you have a problem with that?"

I have no problem with you deciding what goes on in your country by means of voting. Surely you aren't implying that you feel empowered to violate your countrys laws at will?

Re:Correct Answers... ?

[tftp]

I have acted in good will and explained the situation to yourself. I am happy to clarify anything relevant to the iPod - my personal relationships are of no relevance.

You are a suspect until we find what exactly was the device that you dropped. Your good will is appreciated. I, however, have the power given to me by my government to decide what questions have relevance; I am a trained detective, you are not, how come you presume to know my job better than I do? So don't be difficult and answer my questions, all of them. If you are not guilty there would be no consequences anyhow.

I assure you that your best bomb squad guys should be more than capable at removing my iPod from the toilet without incurring any injury. You have no reason to be concerned for their life.

Says the suspect. Bomb squad people learned get to live longer by presuming nothing, and trusting no one. I am surprised that this is not obvious enough.

Sir, I have commited no wrongdoing and do not consent to any searches. Without probable cause such searches are unlawful, and I assure you that I will file a formal complaint should you decide to ignore my request.

Sir, you are in customs area, entering a foreign country. I am a customs agent, empowered to search anything and anyone who enters the country, and I have the right given to me by my government to make decisions what and who to search. I have decided to search your belongings; this is lawful and your complaints will have no effect. The very fact that you and I are in the Search Room that is equipped by the government specifically for searches - as it is quite apparent - should be a sufficient clue for you.

I have no desire nor obligation to answer such a question.

Assuming "yes" then...

I have no problem with you deciding what goes on in your country by means of voting. Surely you aren't implying that you feel empowered to violate your countrys laws at will?

Sir, I am unsure if you are competent enough to judge us or our laws.

Re:Correct Answers... ?

[Zone-MR]

You make some good points. I guess the agents can ask whatever they want. I am still unclear as to my obligations to answer, and the consequences of giving the 'wrong' answers.

Your good will is appreciated. I, however, have the power given to me by my government to decide what questions have relevance; I am a trained detective, you are not, how come you presume to know my job better than I do? So don't be difficult and answer my questions, all of them. If you are not guilty there would be no consequences anyhow.

To what extent do I have to continue giving speculative answers to questions such as "if you were both drunk, would you --- her?". What happens to me if I choose not to answer the question?

Questions such as "Do you think government is too big, too powerful?" are somewhat problematic. My honest answer would be "yes" - and that doesn't imply I'm a terrorist. However we both know that a "yes" answer in that situation would have opened up a nasty can of worms. So what's the best way out for an innocent guy? Lie and say "no"? Or say "yes" and have to deal with the further hostility which would inevitably result? If the answer has no effect, why ask the question?

Sir, you are in customs area, entering a foreign country. I am a customs agent, empowered to search anything and anyone who enters the country, and I have the right given to me by my government to make decisions what and who to search. I have decided to search your belongings; this is lawful and your complaints will have no effect. The very fact that you and I are in the Search Room that is equipped by the government specifically for searches - as it is quite apparent - should be a sufficient clue for you.

Point taken. However, does the authority of airport officials extend to the inspection of data stored on electronic media, or only to physical items? To what extent am I required to aid such searches? My laptop is password protected and contains encrypted files - am I required to reveal my password and encryption keys? What if I don't? Am I required to point out the location of my pr0n folder, give a tour of it, and discuss my tastes? What if I choose not to? Will I get deported, arrested, or just harrassed further?

Legalities aside, surely you can see the futility behind the idea of customs searching laptop contents? If I wanted to 'smuggle' data into a country, I can do so without physically transporting it - I can FTP/e-mail it, encrypted if neccessary, accross the intartubes any time I like. In some cases one can memorize it.

- I have no desire nor obligation to answer such a question.
Assuming "yes" then...

Fine - assume whatever you like. How does that affect me? What are the implications of you assuming I have adult material on my laptop? Will you arrest me, or am I free to go?

Re:Correct Answers... ?

[tftp]

I guess the agents can ask whatever they want. I am still unclear as to my obligations to answer, and the consequences of giving the 'wrong' answers.

I don't think you can be required to answer anything at all; you can always say "Here I am, in front of you, take it or leave it" - but then you should not be surprised if the immigration agent tells that you are not admissible to his country. No country is required to admit any foreigner, and very few high level refusals are challenged on level of ministries of heads of state. In case of this WoW player, he'd be ignored by everyone.

To what extent do I have to continue giving speculative answers to questions such as "if you were both drunk, would you --- her?". What happens to me if I choose not to answer the question?

IANACO, but as I said there is no binary answer to that. The customs agent tries to understand you and your motives in order to decide if you are worthy of admission. If he says yes he is liable if you end up blowing someone up. If he says no, he will not be in any trouble. So he risks a small part of his own well-being by admitting you to the country, and he is not going to do that favor to you if you are nasty to him.

However, does the authority of airport officials extend to the inspection of data stored on electronic media, or only to physical items? To what extent am I required to aid such searches?

Both, known to me as a fact (some countries that I traveled to used to require inspection of electronic media at the Customs.)

My laptop is password protected and contains encrypted files - am I required to reveal my password and encryption keys? What if I don't?

Simple. Your laptop won't be allowed into the country.

Am I required to point out the location of my pr0n folder, give a tour of it, and discuss my tastes?

You are required to declare everything that may be not admissible or require special handling by customs. If you have inadmissible articles and you declare them, they will be not allowed but you will not be penalized; you may even be able to collect them on your way back.

Customs officials understand that travelers are not experts in laws of tens of foreign countries they may visit, and they simply suggest that if you are unsure you should declare everything questionable. If you have 10 bottles of alcohol, say so and the customs people will be very glad to advise you if only 6 are admitted for free. Or if you carry a collectible flint handgun in your luggage some countries may allow it and other may not, and other may require some special paperwork filed. The customs people are not exactly your enemies if you are honest with them.

If you have inadmissible stuff and fail to declare it, the customs people will find it and you will be fined, and you may be not allowed into the country. You may be arrested on the spot if the inadmissible articles are dangerous enough; you can't be deported because you haven't entered the country, but you will be left in the international space of the airport until you get tickets to fly back. If you can't you will be sent out forcefully. If you tried to smuggle some really dangerous stuff in, you may be put on trial and imprisoned if the court finds that you committed a crime. I think that's what happened when a few years back someone tried to bring some explosives into the USA and got caught by the INS.

Legalities aside, surely you can see the futility behind the idea of customs searching laptop contents?

Oh yes, I definitely see that, no questions here. But the Customs and the police and courts deal in physical objects, at least until recently. If you carry a material instance of a child pr0n photo you are eeevil. If you carry the image of the same photo in your memory you are a model citizen worthy of every praise.

What are the implications of you assuming I have adult material on my laptop? Will you arrest me, or am I free to go?

Depends on

Re:Correct Answers... ?

[Achromatic1978]

my personal relationships are of no relevance

Au contraire - you say to any immigration official that you're coming to meet a girl you met on the Internet, I can guarantee you'll at least be asked, if not have your bags checked, for things like resumes/CVs, things which indicate an intention to marry/overstay your visa, etc.

Re:Correct Answers... ?

[devilspgd]

I said that on a trip just over a year ago when traveling into the US... The only questions were just about whether or not I had a job to come back to, and if so, if I was really taking a month off (I was)

Once I said yes and yes, it was all good.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

HGTTG

[The Darkness]

So if Americans come to Belgium, we can gang-rape them, because they have no fundamental rights? Or any other country for that matter.

How dare you use the "B" word on a public forum.

Re:HGTTG

[WilliamSChips]

Belgium you, you Belgiumingly-Belgiuming Belgium!

FlightAware.com

[westlake]

The real problem here is that while the police and FAA officials are retrieving iPods toilets; they could have been diverted from a real plot, where the iPod case was a ploy to divert attention or even just a coincidence.

At any given moment, there are about 5,000 planes in the air over the United States. The diversion of one does not mean much in the larger scheme of things.

FlightAware > Live Flight Tracker

Fringlish"

[Easy2RememberNick]

"Have you downloaded and images?"

  Oh to live in Canada, try calling a government department and try to get an answer from a "Fringlish" speaker who thinks they know English, with a chip on their shoulder to boot. Seems to be a heavy bias of them in Government jobs.

You think that's bad...

[Thai-Pan]

My brother shares his name with a well known IRA terrorist. Every time he travels, he has to show up many hours early, and every single time they take him to the secondary inspection room to ask him if he's ever been to England, if he's planning to go to England, etc.

Poor guy

[Anonymous Coward]

What an experience to go through. Someone needs to buy this guy an iPood shirt http://www.jinx.com/scripts/details.asp?affid=-1&p roductID=456

Did you RTFA?

[brunes69]

Investigating the parcel is just a small part of the problem. That I can understand - find an electornic device on a plane, guy *says*, it's an iPod, but who knows? Land and check it out to be sure.

But once you *KNOW ITS AN IPOD*, why continue to hassle the guy? From the article they seemed to interrogate him for *hours*. Totally ridiculous. I don't even know why he answrd any of them. I fI was him I would have said somethig to the effect of "Look, I dropped an iPod in the toilet. I am sorry about that, but I don't have to answer any of these questions, and I refuse to unless you provide me with an attorney".

Re:Why bring an iPod into the lavatory?!??!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a sufferer of such clumsiness, I can say at least for some of us it's a matter of absent mindedness and chance rather than stupidity. I'm sure I'm not the only one on slashdot with the same problem, "absent minded professor" is a very real concept.

Based on a true story

[SmlFreshwaterBuffalo]

I can see it now: "Ipods on a Plane"!

Re: Job Search

[aqui]

Good luck on your job search. (Focus on networking!)

Being unemployed for 4 months despite searching every day is not uncommon, and nothing to be ashamed of.

It takes a while to find a decent job. If you're not under financial pressure it is better to take some time to find a job that fits you, where you will be reasonably happy, rather than whatever comes along.

Think about it for a moment, we all spend more time with the people at work than we do with our families and closest friends.

168 hrs (a week)
- 7x8=56, 8 hours sleep a night
- 5x2x.75=7.5, 45 min commute twice a day 5 days a week
- 9x5 =45, 8 work + 1 hr (lunch+breaks) x 5 = time at work

= 59.5 hours left (only 14.5 hours more than time spent at work)

45/59.5 ~ 75.6% (average time spent at work / average free time)

Now be honest do you spend more than 75% of your free time away from work with your family?

If you watch an average amount of TV (20 hrs per week), unless you watch it together it is already impossible... Don't forget you have to spend time eating, showering, grocery shopping, cleaning etc...

Again good luck on your search, and remember pay isn't everything...

Airport security: wasted time

[j.leidner]

If he forgot his iPod, I hope at least he didn't forget to flush.

The thing that bothers me about the whole securomania is that the authorities don't really understand the basic principles of security:

• (Perfect) security is an illusion.
• First things first.

When I accidentally had a pair of scissors in my hand luggage at a London airport a while ago, it went entirely unnoticed by the scanning staff. Realising what had happened, I reported to my carrier, explaining what had happened, and telling them that it was an accident on my side. I then enquired what I was supposed to do with the scissors now. The lady at the counter just said "just put it back, they won't notice."

Given such attitudes and levels of ignorance all efforts to step up airport security are simply a waste of time.

I'm not supprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a friend who was detained, charged then turned loose for wearing a shirt with
"Kiss My White Ass" on it in Arabic.
It was not until they had a translater document his shirt that they relized what it meant.

You're Right - We Have No Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Speech which is reasonable in a free society... Really means "whatever the Political COrrectness Nazis haven't managed to outlaw yet." which is where Canadian "rights" are going.

I sympathize with the whole drill from the authorities' perspective. If as mentioned, there had been similar scares the same time, (One mentioned in LA) then the paranoid part of their minds would have to wonder if this was a test to see what happens in certain circumstances. Remember the stories about groups like Jordainian band members congregating at the from of the plane and fiddling with carry-on duffel bags just after 9-11? Someone trying to see just what the AMerican security procedures really were and what they could get away with... you use realtively harmless, blameless guinea pigs to determine what the response will be before trying it for real... The paranoid element has to think of everything.

The customs official was being deliberately offensive. This guy was the Whack-a-Mole target who had stuck his head above the rest, so they were going to teach him a lesson and hit him with anything they could, if they could; rather than just treating him like anyone else innocent, but caught in an unfortunate situation.

That at least is no different than in the USA...

here's a new tactic

[anti-drew]

Shock value. Drop an aircraft or two in the ocean, and you screw up air traffic worldwide. Plus, some people are just naturally scared of flying anyway. This plays on those fears.

May I suggest a far simpler strategy for the terrorists, given how nicely the government plays along and terrorizes its own citizens:

Drop an iPod or two in the toilet, and the government screws up air traffic worldwide.

Think about that for a moment.

none

[Anonymous Coward]

reddit

It's amateur hour for security -corruption follows

[dbIII]

"I honestly don't know. But that doesn't matter. I get to decide what goes in this country. Do you have a problem with that?"

It's one thing to have the guy on the spot decide things - it's another to have unaccountable people with a lot of power able to take punative measures that can inconvenience many. Taking this trade off too far results in some idiot on a power trip costing an airline and passengers thousands to teach Cat Stevens a lesson for being a Muslim and situations like the recent one. I see the most recent restrictions as an over reaction - none of the suspects even had a plane ticket so the new restrictions are just a fishing expedition for similar unknown plots or as a deterrant (or the cynical would say it is a way to be seen to be taking action to assure the voters that something is being done.)

Just put these guys under adult supervision and teach them the rules - the action of getting a suspect and franticly looking for something, anything, they can be charged with should not be their job. When my state's police department was highly corrupt (the commissioner and members of the government did jail time for it) this was the sort of behaviour they exhibited - if they didn't like someone they would find something to charge them with.

oh sure

[xmodem_and_rommon]

Sure the terrorism experts say that an attack like this is possible...but what about the chemistry experts? What is the real feasability of mixing a bomb in the bathroom from checmicals brought onto the plane?

Read this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toi let_terror_labs/ and tell me that you are actually worried about an attack like this.

Unemployed and guilty

[dbIII]

I'll chime in here - I've done the unemployed do nothing but focus on getting a job thing and it is depressing and counterproductive. If you break off all contract with friends and abandon all social activities to focus on getting a job there are some friends you never get back and there are even some job opportunities you never hear about. I had better results when I was doing things other than looking for work - and desperation plus too much of a focus can result in you working for crooks because anything looks good. I've worked for people that never paid the promised amounts when I was in that state, who asked for the unethical (just pretend you didn't see that crack in the roller coaster when you tested it - we don't want to make the client angry) and even gone to a job interview with a spammer.

User was attempting a flush upgrade

[skingers6894]

sorry...

Hyper-sensitive Security Agents: Part 2.

[IHC Navistar]

I can't believe that the detective started to take the conversation in the direction he did. I know for sure I would have definitely let the smart-ass side of me show, and would probably have been arrested for causing the detective to realize just how tupid his questions were. It reminds me of the times when I was little and flew from Oakland, CA, to Medford, OR and the lady at the ticket counter would ALWAYS ask if I had packed my bags myself. Every time they asked, I would have to fight the urge to say (whith a big smile) "Nope!.....(pause).....my mom did!

Now that I am thinking of stupid, yet technically correct, "jokes" that people said at the airport, does anybody remember the clever idiot who replied to a security agent that he had a "...dirty bomb in his pants"? THAT deserves some kind of Big Cajones award. Stupid, yet fucking brilliant.

By the way, can you legally refuse to answer such deviant questions?

-----

Sig Sauer

That's pretty rough...

[BurningFeetMan]

"OK, so ... if you and Cara were drunk together, and she turned to you and said, 'Tim, let's go--'"
I interrupted him. "Well, then I'd f*** her whilst thinking of your mum..."
The detective hardened.

Fixed it for him. ^_^
I'm glad I live in Australia, where this sort of nonsense simply doesn't happen (to this scale). What's the go when you get caught in this kind of situation, and the detectives start "invading your privacy" as such? I mean, I'd be inclined to simply stop talking and ask for a lawyer if a detective started asking me if I'd like to bone a chick I game on with...

Only Thing Missing Was A Cavity Search

[queenb**ch]

Poor kid! Why didn't the stewardesses call them back and tell them it was an iPod and that a passenger had just reported it missing?

Seems to be that they need to look at their mechanisms again. I can see landing the plane and evacuating it while the item is retreived and verified to be an iPod, but it shouldn't be any more than that.

The hostile treatment...what ever happened to innocent until presumed guilty?

This is what crap like the Patriot Act gets us!

"Government, like fire, is a fearsome servant and a terrible master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." - George Washington

Harassing some poor kid who dropped his iPod in the toilet is pretty irresponsible. How many of you have doused cell phones, pagers, PDA's, or other more esoteric devices in a similar manner? Sheehs, if they're going to call the bomb squad out for that every time....

Let's just say that isn't the best use of my tax dollars.

2 cents,

QueeB

Re:Only Thing Missing Was A Cavity Search

[tylernt]

The hostile treatment...

At least they didn't tackle him and pump seven bullets into his brain.

Re:Only Thing Missing Was A Cavity Search

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

It's a damn good thing he wasn't part of a visible minority!

Re:Only Thing Missing Was A Cavity Search

[rayel78]

One point on this, the Plane landed in Ottawa which is in Canada therefore the American Patriot Act does not apply. I must say that I am disappointed in my own Canadian gov't at this mans treatment, I would like to expect better from them.

Re:Only Thing Missing Was A Cavity Search

[poot_rootbeer]

Why didn't the stewardesses call them back and tell them it was an iPod and that a passenger had just reported it missing?

What if it HAD been an explosive device of some sort? The guy who flushed it wouldn't confess that yeah, it was an explosive device and I'm trying to bring this plane down. No. He'd have been all oops, I accidentally flushed an iPod down the loo, don't bother calling the bomb squad.

Better safe than sorry.

Re:Only Thing Missing Was A Cavity Search

[Chanc_Gorkon]

This is what crap like the Patriot Act gets us!

Except this was Canada.....

Re:Only Thing Missing Was A Cavity Search

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is what crap like the Patriot Act gets us!"

Umm. Geography lesson: Ottawa is in Canada.

Re:Only Thing Missing Was A Cavity Search

[Intron]

... and the song it was playing was "The Ticking Clock".

Re:Only Thing Missing Was A Cavity Search

[Moqui]

If it was in fact a bomb, it was already on the plane. If it was a ruse that he came up with to get them to call the TSA back, more likely than not, if the trigger worked, the plane would have been downed.

I thought we spent all that time in line before bording a flight, having our belongings rifled through, and going through metal detectors to make sure that items that go boom didn't get on planes.

Or is that just a nice bit of security theater to make us feel safer, provide jobs for govenment employees, and to generally take our minds off the fact that regardless of how much of our tax dollar is spent on "security" that it won't stop someone who is determined?

Re:Only Thing Missing Was A Cavity Search

[SpacePunk]

Canada has a Patriot Act?

Re:Only Thing Missing Was A Cavity Search

[Fastolfe]

Why didn't the stewardesses call them back and tell them it was an iPod and that a passenger had just reported it missing?

It's entirely possible that they did. It's plausible that the procedure for handling events like this requires follow-through, even if an obvious explanation arises after they've initiated it. "If it was suspicious enough for you to invoke the process, then it's suspicious enough for OUR investigation to determine that it was harmless after all." They might be trying to avoid a situation where a flight attendant presses the panic button in response to something suspicious, and the perpetrator comes out and convinces (with or without threat) the flight attendant to call it off. And then the plane blows up.

My next thought was, "Yah, but they could still have completely avoided pissing all of those people off, and treating the guy like he was a criminal, if they had just waited until the device was inspected and deemed to be an iPod after all."

But then you have to consider that IF it was something bad, it's in their best interests to collect as much information as is humanly possible as quickly as is humanly possible. So while the bomb guys are checking to make sure it really was an iPod, you'd better have everyone available collecting as much information from the passengers (including the owner) as you can, "just in case" you learn something suggesting this is more than what it appears. If it takes the bomb squad an hour to figure out that it was a bomb after all, that's an hour of interrogation time you've lost, and an hour of time potential co-conspirators have had doing the same thing on other planes.

So, sadly, I have to say that, IMO, they did everything right. I certainly do feel for the guy, though.

Re:Only Thing Missing Was A Cavity Search

[queenb**ch]

Which is why I specifically said - "Seems to be that they need to look at their mechanisms again. I can see landing the plane and evacuating it while the item is retreived and verified to be an iPod, but it shouldn't be any more than that."

The extensive questioning, etc. was totally unnecessary.

2 cents,

QueenB

Kilgore Trout knew it

[Nefarious Wheel]

Read "Venus on the Half-Shell" if you can find a copy -- Phil Farmer wrote it under the pseudonym "Kilgore Trout" (a classic Kurt Vonnegut character). There's a chapter on The Prison Planet where more and more people are incarcerated in prison due to stricter and stricter laws; eventually the prison walls expand beyond a planetary great circle and the prison walls become smaller and smaller, until eventually there's only a small circular prison wall with a lone prison guard inside. Swift -- Vonnegut -- Farmer; we're not the only ones to watch a tyranny develop, and satire is a potent weapon. Remember that, samizdat!

Management of the entire incident was poor

[uksv29]

Consider:

1. If the person in charge of the incident considered the 'object' a security risk why did they wait almost an hour before getting everyone off the plane after it landed? A fire in that environment would almost certainly resulted in people being killed or injured. Thats what the emergency exits are for.

2. If the person in charge of the incident considered the 'object' to be of no risk then they should have parked at a normal gate and deplaned as normal. The possible charge of vandalism (blocking the toilet with an iPod) does not even remotely justify the impact on the other passengers.

There is no middle ground in this decision process.

What I suspect happened is that the pilot decided that there was no risk to the passengers once he landed as he had been satisfied as to the object in the toilet at this point. Unfortunately the ground commander didn't want to accept the pilots asscessment and decided to continue as 'planned'. This does raise the question as to who was in charge.

All in all a complete fsck up and farce.

Definitely Bad. Dell Batteries Definitely Bad.

[muellerr1]

Charlie: Ray, all airlines have crashed at one time or another, that doesn't mean that they are not safe.
Raymond: QANTAS. QANTAS never crashed.
Charlie: QANTAS?
Raymond: Never crashed.
Charlie: Oh that's gonna do me a lot of good because QANTAS doesn't fly to Los Angeles out of Cincinnati, you have to get to Melbourne! Melbourne, Australia in order to get the plane that flies to Los Angeles!

Oookayyy.

[justkarl]

From TFA:
They asked me why I was visiting Canada. I was to visit a friend I met on World of Warcraft, Cara. They took down her name and what I could remember of her address. They asked me how we met.

Now, you understand, I do a little online gaming. Personally, the MMORPG thing kinda turns me off. Furthermore, I'm not certain that when you meet someone in an online game that it would be totally neccecary to meet them in person. just how much is this trip costing the guy, anyway? I have no question that the kid was innocent, but if I were one of the detectives responsible for questioning the young man,I would believe that travelling to Canada to meet a lv. 18 Elf Archer that you've never met before is indeed of a questionable nature.

The Sheep

[permawired]

Bah, the world is filled with nothing but sheep

I completely agree. However the problem isn't so much they are sheep, it is who gets to be shepherd.

To make matters worse, it's not easy to change the shepherd either...

Same story, different perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you haven't seen it already here's your story from another passenger's perspective:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html ?id=1c0072fe-4d98-44e4-8414-652f83e27868&k=11746

It is written by Prof. Amy Knight who is the author of How the Cold War Began. Basically she's sympathetic to the guy who dropped his iPod and says that the current regulations are being enforced in a ridiculous manner.

How to retrieve items from the lav tank...

[SonicSpike]

My dad used to work for an airline in Memphis, TN (a few decades ago) and told me that one day a flight landed and they got a radio call that someone lost an item down the lav.

Well, come to find out some woman's wedding ring came off her finger and into the blue juice. So the airline actually dumped the tank in the grass field between the taxiway and the terminal. They took her out there to search for the ring amongst the "lav juice".

As a side note, my friend who is a professional airline pilot told me that sometimes if the seal on the lav dump isn't properly fitting, a chunk of blue ice can develop inside the pipe during flight. Nasty, eh?