Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Saturday January 20 2018, @03:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the play-stupid-games dept.

A film crew linked to cable business news channel CNBC was arrested at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey on Thursday after attempting to sneak a fake bomb through airport security.

Seven members of a cable TV crew working for the Endemol Shine Group, which contracts with CNBC, were arrested for the attempt, which the Transportation Security Administration determined was not a threat. According to CBS's New York City local affiliate, the seven suspects told investigators they were part of the "Staten Island Hustle" show.

The prop "had all the markings of an improvised explosive device," according to a TSA spokeswoman.

"At the same time, others in the group covertly filmed the encounter," she added.

Port Authority police said it has charged the seven crew members with conspiracy to create a public alarm, among other charges.

Source: TheHill


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Saturday January 20 2018, @05:58PM (8 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 20 2018, @05:58PM (#625218) Journal

    We have all the elements of incompetents at work here in places of undeserved power and screwing up bigly.

    "Seven members of a cable TV crew... were arrested for" something that "was not a threat", even in the judgment of "the Transportation Security Administration."

    Fail.

    "Port Authority police... charged the... crew... with conspiracy to create a public alarm" despite the fact that, from the story, you can tell that they were engaged in a conspiracy for no one to notice--the opposite of 'public alarm.'

    Fail.

    I have not been accosted by terrorists, armed or otherwise, even 1% as often as I have been accosted by armed incompetents in positions of authority and power, especially transport police (such as MARTA cops in Atlanta) and TSA (every time I fly). And I've spent time in Southwest Asia and Northern Africa, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia (Seeing the Sphinx and Giza Pyramids, visiting Saudi Aramco, shopping in random middle eastern markets, visiting the nice shopping malls in Dammam), supposedly areas brimming with hostile anti-American terror.

    It's not just me--run the numbers. How many affected directly by terror threats and attacks? Sure, many thousands. But how many directly affected by armed pseudocops who don't know about the protections against unreasonable search and seizure formerly offered by the fourth amendment? Millions daily and counting.

    I know it's kind of a 'captain obvious' observation, but this is a loss for me--and my fellow citizens--and a win for opposing forces such as terrorists and anarchists of all stripes. Plus, any idiot who wants to attack a crowd, can still do it easily, no matter these jerks harass me or anyone else, so there is no net benefit to safety at all--perhaps a negative benefit, even, in that some less than clever people might actually falsely believe that they are safer when harassed.

    Honest question for the community: Is my position extreme or odd, or is it pretty mainstream? Thanks.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Crash on Saturday January 20 2018, @06:35PM

    by Crash (1335) on Saturday January 20 2018, @06:35PM (#625237)

    Honest question for the community: Is my position extreme or odd, or is it pretty mainstream?

    Yes.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday January 20 2018, @08:07PM (1 child)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday January 20 2018, @08:07PM (#625270) Journal

    Honest question for the community: Is my position extreme or odd, or is it pretty mainstream? Thanks.

    Within this "community"? Your position is likely pretty mainstream. Within the U.S. public at large? You are an extreme outlier.

    Most of the public is driven by fear. And their objection to the TSA (if it exists at all) mostly has to do with complaining about taking their shoes off or delays in lines. Concerns about warrants and abstract arguments about privacy are basically meaningless blabber to them. Sure, they'll be a story every few months about some outrageous thing -- some kid or old person with a hip replacement asked to do something ridiculous and embarrassing for the TSA, or somebody's phone will be searched in a ridiculous way. And there will be outrage for a few hours on social media... until everyone goes back to their regularly scheduled cat videos. And even if they were vaguely motivated to take 2 minutes while sitting on the couch and sign an online petition they don't understand, all of that motivation will be instantly dissipated when some random mentally ill dude attacks a few people somewhere and is branded a "terrorist." At which point, "We gotta protected ourselves from the evil dudes" takes over again, no matter how irrational the fears may be or the disparity between the extreme unlikelihood of being a victim of a legit terrorist attack vs. the much, much greater likelihood of having their rights violated regularly by government officials.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by requerdanos on Saturday January 20 2018, @08:13PM

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 20 2018, @08:13PM (#625272) Journal

      That's so plausible that it's scary.

      There's a fine line between +1 Insightful and +1 Inducing Crippling Depression. You, sir, are obliterating it.

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday January 20 2018, @09:36PM (2 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Saturday January 20 2018, @09:36PM (#625322) Journal

    We have all the elements of incompetents at work here in places of undeserved power and screwing up bigly.
    "Seven members of a cable TV crew... were arrested for" something that "was not a threat", even in the judgment of "the Transportation Security Administration."
    Fail.

    How often should the general public suffer delayed flights, missed connections, while the TSA does a detailed forensic analysis of yet another "maybe fake bomb" attempt would it take to satisfy you?

    Would it be ok if each passenger so delayed got one free swing with their carry-on at your head for every such attempt you so glibly justify?

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:17PM (1 child)

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:17PM (#625350) Journal

      delayed flights, missed connections, while the TSA does a detailed forensic analysis of yet another "maybe fake bomb" attempt... Would it be ok if each passenger so delayed got one free swing with their carry-on at your head for every such attempt you so glibly justify?

      You speak as if delayed flights, missed connections, detailed forensic analyses are good, normal, and right. They aren't.

      In the old days, pre-2001, you went through "Airport Security."

      They x-rayed your stuff, maybe you walked through a metal detector and maybe not, and they used their judgment.

      Air travel was 99 and 44/100% safe then, as now.

      You might want to sit down if you're standing before reading this: If you had nothing appearing threatening, you passed through without hassle, without antagonism. The "hassle" is not a given. Everyone was on the same team. You were not then, as you are now, automatically assumed to be an airborne suicide bomber just by virtue of purchasing an air ticket, until proven otherwise.

      If you had something sharp, explosive, ominous-looking, odd, etc., the airport security folks made a judgment call as to whether you were a threat. Mostly and correctly, their judgment was "no threat." == no hassle. Pass. If you were judged to be a threat, maybe they would take your dangerous stuff and send you through. Only if there was some actual danger to people because of you--these situations existed (but, note, clearly didn't in the case of the TV crew in TFS/TFA)*--would you be arrested and possibly charged. And everyone else would make their flight in any case.

      If you had a gun, bazooka, fake bomb, etc, you might or might not miss your flight (everyone else would go right ahead, and the flight would not wait for you). And in the case of that "not a bomb," you would would likely just get a pass and possibly even an apology.

      This isn't glib justification, as you claim. It's that I've seen it done both ways, and the current privacy-raping jackbooted-thug way is the wrong one, and the respectful, security-focused old way was much, much better.

      ----------
      * It boggles my mind that so many, including authorities, miss this salient fact.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:04AM

        by bradley13 (3053) on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:04AM (#625559) Homepage Journal

        This. I used to fly a lot for my job. I would park my car, walk to the terminal, hand in my suitcase at the ticket counter, walk through security without having to wait, and walk onto the plane. One time, when I was running late and basically jogged the whole way, I went from sitting in my car to sitting in the airplane in 20 minutes.

        Now you're supposed to show up at the airport at least 90 minutes before your flight, meaning you'd better be parking your car a solid 2 hours before the flight time. If you add up all the hours wasted, you come up with - literally - thousands of lifetimes per year. Really, it's nuts. On top of that, it is entirely clear that the terrorist threat is negligible: just look at those soft targets of thousands of people waiting in security lines.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @09:50PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @09:50PM (#625337)

    you can tell that they were engaged in a conspiracy for no one to notice--the opposite of 'public alarm.'

    "Hey lets try and sneak some random shit through that's bomb-looking and then broadcast to the world how these guys can't catch something truly threatening!"

    Conspiracy to create public alarm is actually highly accurate, in my opinion, but given they knowingly weren't transporting an actual device, that should not be a crime but a misunderstanding.

    • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:20PM

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:20PM (#625354) Journal

      lets...broadcast to the world how these guys can't catch something truly threatening!

      A problem with that, of course, is that a "not-a-bomb" is not truly threatening.

      If someone with a not-a-bomb is passed right through, that means the system works.

      It doesn't; it's broken.