Slashdot Mirror
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."
But it wasn't an accident.
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!
Warhammer forums
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. not flushable. Lame.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
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.
Read radical news here
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
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.
$30 Off All Plans: Use code TRIPLESAWBUCK
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.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
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.
Imagine if this had happened yesterday: http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/col/smith/2002/10/ 03/askthepilot13/index.html
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
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!
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Your right, if it had exploded the shit would have hit the fan.
liqbase
"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!
Terrorism is exactly that .. .. they won. .. they won.
.. whatever way you look at it .. they won. .. they won.
By making people behave like this
Everytime an airplane is diverted for an ipod
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
They now control you.They have changed your ways your ideas
your thinking
Terror owns you and that's what they wanted to do.
Time to bi*** slap yourself and start thinking clearly ?
I'd say .
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).
Of Code And Men
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.
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/
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.
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?
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
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.
... 'tis to be expected when you run the gauntlet of /.ers. :P
Also, I'm noticing I'm not coming off very highly in some of your comments. Oh well