He didn't just mouth off, he claimed that he could use the device to circumvent their access badge control system through cloning.
It seems like there is a pretty legitimate case to confiscating a device from a person who says he could use said device to compromise security. Even in the case that there isn't an explicit policy against that specific device.
I sometimes travel with VHF/UHF ham radios. These, if used improperly, could interfere with airport and operations, as well as aircraft band radios. I occasionally get asked what the radio is for, and I explain what it is. If I mouthed off and said I can use it for all sorts of stuff, like jamming security frequencies, I would expect to lose cus
If I casually mention to the cabin crew that my mealtime knife could, technically, be used to stab them, should they also let that slide since I'm just stating the capabilities of the knife?
He could just shut up about it, instead of acting smart, because the device looks like a retro game. If he did that in a Russian airport ten years ago he'd probably be thrown in prison for at least six months.
You would think so, but like many places, it's all "luck of the draw". For some it can be great, for others it's a life-long hellishly miserable death actively enforced by all those around you.
> He didn't just mouth off, he claimed that he could use the device to circumvent their access badge control system through cloning.
It doesn't matter.
What is allowed inside and what is not allowed inside of an airport should not be a matter of personal discretion.
Either a thing is permitted or it is not permitted. There should be no room for interpretation. If the airport has a problem with these devices, they can damn well write a policy that is observable for anyone prior to visiting the airport.
You can try mental gymnastics to justify this all you want, but the fact remains the device not being permitted is not policy, and the decision to confiscate it was made at a personal level.
> If I casually mention to the cabin crew that my mealtime knife could, technically, be used to stab them, should they also let that slide since I'm just stating the capabilities of the knife?
See, like this sort of mental gymnastics. You wouldn't have the knife confiscated, you would have yourself detained and possibly arrested for demonstrating signs of mental instability. The knife would remain on the aircraft and undergo its normal lifecycle. This really wasn't a difficult situation to theorycraft out, so I'm not sure why you thought it'd support your position.
> If I mouthed off and said I can use it for all sorts of stuff, like jamming security frequencies, I would expect to lose cus
See, that's what's so dim about this logic; you've been so programmed to accept the dick that you think it's totally normal that discussing the capabilities of legal objects is valid grounds for intervention that you honestly think this shouldn't be allowed.
You broke the site guidelines badly by crossing into flamebait, name-calling, and personal attack, and it led to a nasty flamewar. Please don't do this again.
(For clarity's sake, I'm not referring to the interpretations of your post as sexist, etc. The issue with your comment is that it was aggressive, broke multiple site guidelines, and derailed the thread.)
Please refrain from insults and crude sexist personal attacks. It violates the site rules, and weakens the effectiveness of your argument.
I didn’t defend the airport security rules, I simply pointed out that this is a pretty rational reaction to the existing rules, and not at all an unpredictable outcome of that persons actions.
I would love to see airport security reformed. I would love to live in a world where we can acknowledge that traditional hijacking is not really a risk anymore.
However, I don’t see a possible and likely reform where you can go to a secure area and talk about your ability to bypass security with a device, and expect to keep that device.
If you want a list of things that are and aren’t allowed, you end up with a list that defaults to anything not explicitly allowed is banned.
> Please refrain from insults and crude sexist personal attacks. It violates the site rules, and weakens the effectiveness of your argument.
Fair enough. (Edit: What I said isn't sexist and it won't ever be, but this guy seems intent on driving that narrative)
> I simply pointed out that this is a pretty rational reaction to the existing rules
It's not, though. Not even remotely. I know how to commit a crime with every object on my body, including the actual parts of my body. I know that, you know that, the airport security staff knows that, a child knows that. He didn't say, "I'm going to punch people at this airport," he said, "I know kung fu," and this scared the individual, so he was detained and the scary object confiscated.
Further: I can use the wifi radio in my laptop to commit a crime in the UK, according to an adjacent comment. Is it sane that possessing that knowledge should mean I have my laptop taken away? Is my laptop, which was just fine moments prior to me saying, "I can listen to wifi with a laptop", suddenly no longer alright? That's any wireless NIC with promisc mode...
> If you want a list of things that are and aren’t allowed, you end up with a list that defaults to anything not explicitly allowed is banned.
No. You end up with a set of predictable restrictions that people can rely upon to know what they are and are not permitted to bring into a facility-- this shouldn't be /guesswork/. There are some /serious ramifications/ to your entire life if someone decides something you have is dangerous at an airport, so there should be some pretty serious requirements for making clear what is and is not permitted.
I disagree, but it's a tiresome argument that isn't worth having. Going on about it would distract, which is what the point of the objection was; that's why he led with it.
Homophobic would be appropriate, yes, but that's not what the was claimed, and there's nothing else related to sex/gender in my response to him, so I guess that's the angle he's going for.
It seems like there is a pretty legitimate case to confiscating a device from a person who says he could use said device to compromise security. Even in the case that there isn't an explicit policy against that specific device.
I sometimes travel with VHF/UHF ham radios. These, if used improperly, could interfere with airport and operations, as well as aircraft band radios. I occasionally get asked what the radio is for, and I explain what it is. If I mouthed off and said I can use it for all sorts of stuff, like jamming security frequencies, I would expect to lose cus
If I casually mention to the cabin crew that my mealtime knife could, technically, be used to stab them, should they also let that slide since I'm just stating the capabilities of the knife?