Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs Tries To Sneak Shurikens On a Plane
An anonymous reader writes "Steve Jobs, while on a family vacation to Japan in July, picked himself up some Shuriken, otherwise known as Ninja throwing stars, as a souvenir. In his wisdom he decided to put them in his carry on luggage for the return journey. As it was a private plane he probably thought there would be no issue, but he was wrong. Even private plane passengers have to have all their baggage scanned, and the throwing stars were detected and deemed a hazard. It's alleged that Jobs argued that he could take them on the plane as no one could steal them on his private jet and use them. Security at the airport disagreed and demanded he remove the stars. Jobs, clearly angry at losing his throwing weapons, stated he would not be returning to the country." Undoubtedly this is part of the iNinja project.
But he is RICH! It is wrong to think that rich people should have to follow the same rules as the unwashed masses.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
The point is that even on a private plane, even on YOUR private plane, you are subjected to the same rules. I don't think most people would intuitively know that.
The only possible reason that this particular item would have made it off the Firehose is the flame-inducing material within it. It makes me sad. While I'm no fan of Apple, per se, I feel sorry for the guy. He could have investigate the local laws and policy before challenging them, and will absolutely be returning to Japan at some point, but still this is genuinely trivial.
Maybe 'Idle' material, but 'Apple'? Trolling, plain and simple.
Its not because he's rich, its because its his own fucking plane and quite honestly he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property, just like there are rules in buses and taxis that don't apply to your own personal cars.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The idea of "Post-9/11" is bullshit. For one it is his own property he isn't endangering others. Secondly, the world isn't safer due to all this security theater and imperialistic wars. The thing that changed on 9/11 is now if someone tries to hijack a plane people are going to tackle them and pin them to the ground. People now associate hijackings with that they are going to die no matter what they do, and not the idea that they should comply with the hijackers, wind up in Cuba and be on a plane home in a day with a wild story to tell to the media. No, if someone even remotely tries to attack a plane the passengers will prevent that. -THAT- is why we haven't had another 9/11.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Which results in the bigger question of... "So what?"
So someone brings ninja stars on a 747 and goes on a bloody rampage (or...well...two, three people before everyone in the 5 rows above and behind tie him up with seat belt extenders...)
How different is this from someone taking a tie and strangling the person in front of them? Or breaking off the tray table? Or using any one of a hundred other improvised weapons?
Security theater is not security. There are more cases of passengers stopping lunatics on planes than there are of TSA stopping lunatics from getting on planes.
Yes, while you're driving. That has a rational purpose: to ensure that you conduct your vehicle with reasonable respect for the safety of others. If the car is sitting in my garage, it's nobody's business whether I sit in the driver's seat to drink a beer.
If A has the right to make the rules for B, surely that right is contingent on such rules serving a rational purpose. Of course, such rules are often an injustice to others. For example, not being able to carry my pocket knife in my pocket is an injustice of a sort to me, since I'm not going to hijack the plane. However, it is rational for me to accept this rule, since I don't want planes (even ones that I'm not on) being hijacked. You could think of it this way: rule minimizes the *net* injustice to me, so it's in my interest to accept this rule.
This particular argument doesn't apply to a private jet. Does that mean that the rule is irrational? Not necessarily.
I suspect this may involve scenarios that people aren't taking into account. One such scenario might go like this. We're talking about security at the perimeter, right? So Steven Jobs points out to the security screener that this is a private plane. Why would he want to hijack it? The screener agrees and Steve takes his Ninja stars inside the security perimeter. Once there, he transfers them to a confederate who takes them aboard a commercial flight.
But wait! Steve isn't a terrorist, and he would do no such thing. But neither am I, and *I* can't bring throwing stars inside the security perimeter.
Now I should point out I have no idea whether this scenario is possible. I'm just saying that there is often more to a situation than what is "obvious".
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
No, there are rules about what you can do on the public highways.
And remind me, whose airways was Steve planning on running his private plane through?
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Jobs was right to think that he could get on the plane with his stars because, usually, he would be able to.
Well, technically, he was *wrong* to think that, because it was incorrect.
Property is theft.
I can carry a gun in my private car, even onto an airport, even in Washington DC or New York City. I do not need a permit to do so. Federal law and legal precedent clearly state that you may transport a firearm from place A to place B as long as it is legal in the endpoints, and intermediate jurisdictions may not interfere as long as the firearm is secured. I can even take it INTO an airport, as long as it's unloaded and in my luggage and is declared at the counter for tagging so some TSA monkey can steal it.
When I fly my own plane, I can carry a gun, not just in my baggage, but on my hip. For private aircraft, it's the pilot-in-command that makes that decision, and has full legal authority to do so. I can also choose to allow my passengers to do the same. I can also let them have as much alcohol as I, the pilot, think is prudent (though I can't have any. I don't work for Northwest, after all...) As long as the gun stays in the airplane, no local authority can gainsay me. That's the law too. Note the difference between "private plane" and "chartered plane".
The above are US laws, applicable to US territory. Japanese laws are more restrictive. While the interior of an aircraft registered in a given country is technically the sovereign territory of that country (same laws as a ship), the fact is that local law enforcement does have considerable authority as to what happens on their airports. Not everybody is aware of this. Assuming this story is true-as-reported (and I am not assuming that, given the... bias which a lot of people have about Mr. Jobs, both against and for), it's likely that Jobs was thinking American laws apply on American planes regardless of location. That's true, but only to an extent. And there IS the possibility that the Japanese authorities overstepped their bounds. To know for sure would require a careful examination of AMerican law, international law, Japanese law, and any treaties which may be in effect. We don't have that information.
It's also worth noting that other high-profile CEOs (Larry Ellison) have run into issues with the Japanese authorities regarding export and carrying of Japanese bladed weaponry, though in Ellison's case it has to do with laws regarding antiquities. Ellison is a well-known fan of Shogunate-era arms and armor, and has a substantial collection (one of the largest). However, Japan does not allow the export of antiquities without a permit, and Ellison has run afoul of this from time to time. Japan's export laws arose in response to the very large amount of antiquities which were claimed as war prizes following World War II, and as soon as Japan regained its sovereignty it passed those laws to stem the flow of its cultural heritage out of the country. It is possible that, if the shuriken in question were old and "real" (as opposed to cheap tourist-trap knockoffs), that Jobs ran afoul of the same law. Again, we don't know. The law might not differentiate between new and antique items in that category.
Like most sensationalist stories which are relevant to nothing in particular except fueling dislike for someone famous and controversial, I'd take this one with a huge grain of salt.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.