[jacquesm]

> He set off the explosive detector, and didn't provide a good answer to why he set it off.

What, short of "I was making a bomb" would be an answer that would satisfy you? It's not like it is up to him to know the intricacies of bomb detectors and their ridiculous false positive rates for certain chemicals, including such terribly dangerous goods as soap.

[Pilfer]

He doesn't know how to talk to security. The primary purpose of security questioning is to establish that you are a safe, non-violent, legal traveler. Of course, security agents can't ask you this directly, so they ask this through proxy questions. Varnull did not understand this, and when asked the proxy questions, he gave vague answers and did not address the primary purpose. When the questions became personal, Varnull became defensive and talked back (the exact opposite of what he should do).

All that really matters here is the discussion with the explosives agent. This was the guy who had the power to 1) waive him on or 2) send him through tertiary screening. The interaction for the whole day was decided in this conversation. I honestly believe Varnull gave very bad answers here. Answering "I don't know" is a very bad answer. Even if he didn't answer the proxy questions, if he established that he was a safe and secure traveler, the security agent would have waived him on and he would have avoided the whole ordeal.

One of the answers he gave was so bad it made me cringe.

>“Well, I haven’t touched any explosives, but if I don’t even know what chemical we’re talking about, I don’t know how to figure out why the tests are picking it up.”

After he said this, I'm completely unsurprised he got held up in tertiary screening.

[ajmurmann]

So it's the duty of the interrogated person to know how to give good answers to security questions and not the security personnel's duty to ask good questions?

[jacquesm]

> He doesn't know how to talk to security.

Is that a course in high school?

> The primary purpose of security questioning is to establish that you are a safe, non-violent, legal traveler.

It failed, miserably, see linked article.

> Of course, security agents can't ask you this directly, so they ask this through proxy questions. Varnull did not understand this, and when asked the proxy questions, he gave vague answers and did not address the primary purpose.

That is your interpretation. Mine is that he was exactly who he said he was: someone going about their legitimate private business and who - reluctantly - had to interface with the authorities.

> When the questions became personal, Varnull became defensive and talked back (the exact opposite of what he should do).

What should he do then? Grovel and stick his head up their asses? They're off base, they make all kinds of assumptions without verification and on top of that spend so much time on this one utterly benign traveler that a whole bunch of baddies could have slipped through elsewhere.

Here's a thought for you:

Take 10 guys like the OP, use them to tie up the resources of the authorities, then take 1 guy that is white, middle aged with a plan and some basic gear making it through the resulting melee. After all, if they are so easily distracted that's actually a security hole.

> All that really matters here is the discussion with the explosives agent.

Yes, who was using equipment that produces false positives regularly and who is well aware of all the ways in which it can create false positives.

> 1) waive him on or 2) send him through tertiary screening. The interaction for the whole day was decided in this conversation.

Nice they let him know. Instead he got several hours of 'you'll be out of here in a few minutes'.

> I honestly believe Varnull gave very bad answers here. Answering "I don't know" is a very bad answer.

Are you suggesting that he make stuff up? Do you realize that lying is a federal offense in this situation?

> if he established that he was a safe and secure traveler, the security agent would have waived him on and he would have avoided the whole ordeal.

Guess what, he was. So the process failed.

> One of the answers he gave was so bad it made me cringe.

>“Well, I haven’t touched any explosives, but if I don’t even know what chemical we’re talking about, I don’t know how to figure out why the tests are picking it up.”

It's an honest answer, as honest as he could have possibly been. Or is it illegal for a citizen to have some basic knowledge of chemistry? Any highschool student here would be able to understand the basics of what is happening at this screening. Or would you prefer we all pretend to be dumb sheep instead?

> After he said this, I'm completely unsurprised he got held up in tertiary screening.

Good for you. Me, I'd rather the authorities spend their time more productive than on harassing perfectly safe travelers on their petty little power trips.