[public_defender]

https://xkcd.com/538/

Ha. Ha. Suddenly everyone's an expert in what constitutes detention. There's actually a big difference between "literally not detaining" someone and not detaining someone.

I think the detention naysayers in this thread have failed to consider that the people who practice this type of behavior are experts. Frequently the whole business of these interrogators is to make sure that someone is "not literally" detained, but that they are in fact detained, in the sense that they do not feel free to leave. In this way, the interrogator has not committed a crime or malfeasance by falsely detaining a person, but they isolate them and make them feel as though they need to answer questions.

The worst part is that there is almost no clear coaching for how a person is supposed to get through this type of situation. With the police, we can give clear advice: (1) ask "am I being detained or am I free to leave?" (2) Refuse to engage in conversation; (3) Ask for a lawyer. But these aren't police. They will tell you that you are not being detained. They have a few hundred dollars of your money and maybe a bunch of your clothes, and they just need you to answer a few questions before you get on the plane.

What are you going to say? "I refuse to answer questions without a lawyer"? "I refuse to remain in this tiny office answering questions"? Ok. Great. You're banned, and maybe turned over to TSA for a real custodial interrogation for acting so suspiciously at an airport.

Anyway, all this to say that your word games with "literally" this and that are not clever because this is actually much worse than a real custodial interrogation because the rights and obligations are much less clear and that lack of clarity accrues to the corporation's advantage.

[lamontcg]

> but that they are in fact detained, in the sense that they do not feel free to leave.

And the person in question is a teenager.

In a more well-adjusted society this would not be considered legal and people wouldn't be defending it.

[boring_twenties]

If they are airline employees and not cops I'm not aware of any way they can detain you, short of a citizen's arrest which usually requires them to have observed you committing a felony?

In this case I would just declare that I'm leaving and if any resistance, demand the real cops be called or call them yourself. Same if they refuse to return your cash and/or luggage.

[krisoft]

> The worst part is that there is almost no clear coaching for how a person is supposed to get through this type of situation.

Not true. Before you buy someone a skiplegged ticket you explain to them how this works. Why their ticket will say a different destination from where they want to go and why the airlines want to discourage the practice. Explain what things can go wrong (no checked-in luggage, things can go wrong with diversions).

If someone can’t understand the concept, or it confuses them, or they are too naive or too honest to play this “deception” or too busy to receive this information then just don’t and buy a regular ticket.

> What are you going to say?

Simple. They might ask you where you are traveling to. Answer “new york”. If they ask “but where are you really traveling?” answer “new york man, how many times you want to ask the same question?” if they ask you anything about New York answer whatever you want as long as the answer implies you are planing to go there.

[public_defender]

Hey, this is great advice. Maybe it is as simple as "just lie about your destination and don't give up any additional information." I don't think that's as easy as you make it sound, but at least it's a clear strategy.

On the other hand, I think a lot of the difficulty in situations like this comes from not knowing that this is about the "skiplag" issue (or not knowing if it's only about that issue). I think there's also a likely scenario where the airline starts investigating you for one thing and just sort of throws the book of accusations at you when they don't like how the skiplag interrogation is going.

My first comment was more about that: the private actor interrogating people without clear rules or limits.

[sonicshadow]

Thank you, I was waiting for someone to clarify the word "detain". You're right this is more nefarious than an official police detention