[chaboud]

I used to have a Sikh manager who wore a turban. Whenever we traveled together, he would get "randomly" stopped. While they were patting him down, he would inevitably chuckle and say something like "So what are the odds of being 'randomly' selected 27 times in a row?"

I don't know the specifics of the process for selection, but I can confidently say that the process is bigoted.

[diblasio]

Same thing used to happen to me when I had dreadlocks. Made the same joke too. "what are the odds I'd get randomly selected 100% of the time I go through a checkpoint..."

[jackjeff]

Besides being racist this is kind of dumb. If you’re going to bring down the plane you’re defo not going to look like someone who gets randomly selected 100% of the time. Even the 9/11 terrorists knew this and shaved their beard instead of looking like the fundamentalists scumbags they were.

[lazide]

Just because it’s dumb doesn’t mean people won’t do it.

I mean TSA, but it also applies to other groups too.

[mapt]

Rastafarian hijackers are rampant.

[defrost]

In proper English usage it would only be a bigoted

  (obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group)

check if it was unreasonable to suspect a Sikh of carrying a Kirpan.

The Rehat Maryada would suggest that is in no way whatsoever an unreasonable suspicion.

Sure, your manager likely didn't carry one on airplanes .. but that still falls short of being an unreasonable check.

[noduerme]

As a white guy who was caught accidentally carrying a large knife once through security, at the bottom of a carry-on backpack I'd had since high school, I don't think it's in any way essential to use racial or ethnic markers to figure out whether someone is taking something dangerous onto a plane. I didn't even know I was trying to bring a knife onto a plane at a regional airport. There's no reason to think that Sikhs are explicitly going out of their way to hide something.

[542354234235]

Interesting that none of these comments seem to be questioning why we can’t just carry a small pocketknife on the plane. We used to be able to before 9/11. The 9/11 hijackings only worked because the policy was comply, land, and let the negotiators do their work. Suicide attacks using commercial airlines just wasn’t a thing. We now have armored locking cockpit doors and no airplane would give up control to hijackers anymore. United Flight 93 was already taken over and heard about the World Trade Center and they revolted.

Now, knives could only be used to commit a crime i.e. assaulting another passenger or crew. Banning liquids does more to prevent terrorists than banning knives. I can see banning them for the same reason concerts ban them, that it is a lot of people in a small space, but that is very different than “national security” or “preventing terrorism”.

[xxs]

it's still allowed across the EU (Mostly all of it)- up to 6cm blades are permitted in the cabin luggage.

[notamario]

A Sikh is far more likely to be carrying a little sword than the average population.

[noduerme]

And far less likely to stab someone than the general population.

It's not a great analogy, but the same applies to registered concealed carry gun owners. They're not the people who shoot people.

[K0balt]

Welcome to the club. I inadvertently traveled with not one, but two large box cutters in my carryon satchel for at least 20 flights before I discovered them while searching for some swag. I put them in there for a booth setup in Vegas years prior. Sent a completely calm, even sympathetic report to the powers that be, got put on the DNF list for my troubles.

Still screened and detained 100 percent of the time, sometimes for hours, sometimes having to surrender personal devices, decades later.

The message is very clear.

[ralferoo]

> Sent a completely calm, even sympathetic report to the powers that be, got put on the DNF list for my troubles.

What were you hoping to achieve by sending that report?

Most people would have just thought "wow, lucky I wasn't caught with that", taken it out of the bag so it didn't happen again and carried on with their lives.

Deviating from that normal response makes it look like you're just trying to cause trouble.

[ghaff]

Yeah, if I had a "Crap, what was that doing in there?" I'd be very quiet about it.

As I wrote in a very different thread, I avoid putting anything in baggage that I might carryon that is even marginally prohibited. I used to do a lot more travel and it's inevitable that knives and the like would inevitable get left in a pocket.

[int_19h]

Some of us genuinely believe all that "cops are there to help you, so try to be helpful to cops" stuff we were raised on. Right up until the point when you actually try to do it and find out how things really work...

[thinkingemote]

You sent a report saying you were not searched for 20 times and now you are searched all the time? Has it been over 20 times that you have been searched?

[K0balt]

lol. No, I’m definitely winning the search transaction! I got way more than I paid for!

[noduerme]

So here's me at Burbank:

Officer: Look at this knife. You're trying to take this on the plane?

Me: Holy shit I didn't realize that was in my bag.

Officer: Well do you want it back? Or do you want to fly today?

Me: I don't want it.

Officer: Don't mind if I keep it?

Me: It's all yours.

[chaboud]

I had a TSA agent take my knife and hide it, carrying it over the X-ray belt and putting it in his bag in the secure area.

It was a $13 knife, but he liked it.

No doubt that was a security violation, but it's all security theatre.

[Ar-Curunir]

Isn’t that what the scanners are for? To find large metallic objects? Why do you need additional “random” screenings behind that? Or are you saying the scanners don’t work to find even obvious weapons? If so, we should get rid of the scanners.

[defrost]

To address all the questions you addressed to me.

> Isn’t that what the scanners are for?

Err, not that I know of, I generally use the OED to look up the various recorded uses of words.

> To find large metallic objects?

The OED is for finding words, "scanners" that I've used or made are for mapping background geological structures via seismic waves, gravitational waves, magnetic waves, gamma waves. Medical scanners I've worked with have generally not bee used for finding large metallic objects and some should not be used if a patient has large metal objects attached or within.

> Why do you need additional “random” screenings behind that?

In 40+ years of scanning things there's not been a single time I've needed an additioan "random" scan - a few times scans have been repeated due to various failures to save data.

> Or are you saying the scanners don’t work to find even obvious weapons?

In the comment you responded to I said that it is not unreasonable to think that a Sikh you meet, anywhere, might be carrying a knife, a comb, a bracelet, etc. I did not mention anything about scanners. No, seriously, go and recheck the comment.

> If so, we should get rid of the scanners.

We? All scanners? Okay, well, thanks for sharing that opinion.

I figure various groups of scanner users will want to keep using them, of course. I personally am in favour of scanners for exploration and medical work.