[ck2]

Sorry I am still taking his side.

This writeup is not only just nit-picking his story - it's using the TSA as witness against itself.

I am most certainly not going to the take TSA's word for what happened. That would be like taking the NSA's word to congress for example. What do you think happens by lesser agencies on non-sworn testimony when they see what their big-brother can get away with?

And the "behavior detection" has already been outed multiple times as a huge pile of poo. It's identical to the signals cops can give their dogs for false positives to search someone anyway just because they want to.

By the way, if he was so dangerous and already being watched YOU LET HIM GET INTO A CROWDED TERMINAL WITH LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE WITH HIS LUGGAGE AND BACKPACK.

Morons. So someone is only dangerous if they get on the plane, not in the crowed terminal eh?

I feel so safe now at your crowded checkpoints.

Prove to me they didn't search his home without serving him a warrant and then we'll talk about the accuracy of this story.

[neotek]

>Prove to me they didn't search his home without serving him a warrant and then we'll talk about the accuracy of this story.

Can't really prove a negative - what would the evidence look like? The reasonable question to ask is "prove to me they did search his home without serving him a warrant."

[InclinedPlane]

Did you read the original article? If so re-read the very end of it to acquaint yourself with the evidence that his apartment was searched without a warrant.

Edit: P.S. note that I said evidence not proof.

P.P.S. I find it somewhat weird how people are so eager to jump to the defense of law enforcement with shouts of "that evidence proves nothing!" while at the same time supporting the idea that a now known to be false positive explosives test is more than sufficient to justify someone's ill-treatment for hours at the hands of law enforcement.

I'm not saying that Mukerjee's story of missing and tampered items in his apartment is sufficient to convict any law enforcement agent of wrong doing but maybe it's enough to justify an investigation (which could easily be rolled into the investigation into LEO behavior around the entire incident).

[lambda]

I read the original article. I don't see any particularly good evidence his apartment was searched without a warrant. He says a picture on his wall was missing, and some luggage was moved. Now, his apartment being searched is one possible excuse; but the landlord of the apartment he just moved into, or some maintenance staff, coming in to fix something or check on something, and finding a poster that had fallen off the wall and thrown it out in the assumption that it was the previous tenant's, is a lot more likely to me than the government searching his house without a warrant.

It sounds like the TSA's actions were excessive and heavy handed. It sounds like perhaps he got a little argumentative, due to being hungry (as he said, he hadn't eaten; I know I get cranky when I go too long without food), thirsty, and upset about missing his trip.

The TSA, and whatever other officers interviewed him, should probably be trained better in dealing with this kind of situation. In particular, using behavioral excuses to detain someone who's been singled out for extra screening is silly. Many people get upset about that kind of thing. And given that none of these TSA agents have ever actually interacted with a terrorist, and most likely never been trained with anyone who has, it's hard to believe that their training is any good at actually distinguishing a terrorist from someone who's just mad that they haven't had food or water in many hours. Heck, if you were a terrorist, you would prefer to blend in and act calm to singling yourself out for more screening by acting angry.

I feel like his article was a bit of an overreaction, but likewise the TSAs screening policies are much bigger, costlier, more painful overreaction.

[jlgaddis]

It does not seem unreasonable to me to believe that someone (other than law enforcement) broke into his apartment and, finding it nearly empty, rifled through his suitcase, and took the picture simply out of anger.

None of us on here know exactly what happened but the above seems (to me) just as likely as law enforcement breaking into his apartment. I would think they would also visit the apartment/residence he was vacating.

[InclinedPlane]

It's certainly far from proof, but it is very disconcerting.

Let's go through the lines of evidence here.

First off, there were apparently no visible signs that anyone had broken into his apartment. If the FBI or the police had picked the lock or if they had gotten the super to let them in and told him or her to remain silent about it then that would explain such an absence. A thief could also pick the lock but why would they bother if it is so easy to simply break through the door?

Second, this seems like exceptionally odd timing for a random act of thievery.

Third, why would anyone except law enforcement bother to put everything back almost exactly where it was before?

The most logical conclusion that I can come to is that a law enforcement agent searched Mukerjee's apartment and probably took the photo so that it could be scanned or for some other reason but accidentally forgot to put it back. It's certainly not a very high degree of proof that such a thing happened but I think it's the most likely possibility, though it's mostly just a side-show compared to the other more troubling issues in this case.

[jpatokal]

Applying Ockham's Razor here, surely the most probable option is that nothing actually happened, and for whatever reason he's simply misremembering it? Maybe he was going to put the poster up but didn't, maybe it fell off but he forgot about it, etc.

And if this seems implausible, consider -- how many times have you found yourself saying things like "I could have sworn I left the keys right there", and then finding them somewhere else? Is it more likely that you misremembered, or that they were moved by ninja-like FBI agents?

[lambda]

> The most logical conclusion that I can come to is that a law enforcement agent searched Mukerjee's apartment and probably took the photo so that it could be scanned or for some other reason but accidentally forgot to put it back.

Have you ever considered that his landlord could have come into the apartment to make sure it had been cleaned up properly by the outgoing tenants (remember, he had moved in the night before his trip). If the landlord had found a poster that had fallen off the wall, he may have thought it was trash left by the other tenants and thrown it away. His landlord would not have had to break in.

I don't think it's impossible that law enforcement searched his apartment; but if they had, wouldn't his bags have been unpacked, rather than just one of them a little out of place?

But really, why doesn't he just ask his landlord or super? If the police came, they probably would have asked the landlord to let them in. I mentioned the landlord idea on the previous thread, but he never responded.

[vidarh]

> Have you ever considered that his landlord could have come into the apartment to make sure it had been cleaned up properly by the outgoing tenants

If that's legal in the US, or something one might expect, that's almost more shocking to me than the original story. If any of my past landlords had entered my flat without permission, I would have called the police on them, with good cause.

[lessnonymous]

Off topic, but here in Australia if the landlord entered a the apartment without sufficient notice or permission from the tenant, then he DID break in (well, not 'break' in, but certainly entered illegally)

[res0nat0r]

Is HN really turning to conspiracy theories now just to justify any "TSA bad" stories that make the frontage? Lets stick with actual evidence, which for the break in there doesn't seem to be any actual reports or proof of this happening.

[cpayne]

I read the article. "Something missing" is not evidence of a search without a warrant.

[cpayne]

> Prove to me they didn't search his home without serving him a warrant and then we'll talk about the accuracy of this story.

How do you prove a negative. The key for me is that he got the NYPD & Port Authority mixed up. Innocent on its own, except the bit where the Port Authority has no jurisdiction outside airports.

[sseveran]

And all the other places they have jurisdiction over...It turns out there are more "ports" than just airports.

[cpayne]

Yes, but not his apartment.

[vehementi]

I think the implication was that the alleged search was obviously illegal, regardless of whether it was the port authority or NYPD.

[greendata]

This is one of the major problems with unregulated and unsupervised NSA activities (and other agencies). We've seen them blatantly lie about their actions, to the public and to congress. They've lied under oath without any repercussions.

I don't know if I can believe any official reports. They say the FBI wasn't involved, and I believe them but "they" have proved unreliable in the past. This is the fertile soil for conspiracy theories and it's the governments own fault.

We're left with Occam's razor. Mr. Mukerjee was probably feeling a little hot-headed that day and maybe he mouthed off to the first TSA guard who placed him on some list. He probably doesn't like or trust the TSA since he opted out of their preferred method of scanning. It's pretty believable that the agents don't know much about hinduism since they are not targeting potential hindu terrorist, but extremist muslim terrorist (if you consider terrorists true muslims which I don't). It seems likely that he set off multiple security alarms. Police TSA aren't going to know about venture capital or care about your job. They are just asking to see if you slip up or act nervous. Israeli security simply asks "how are you doing today" not b/c they care but b/c a persons reaction tells them a lot and they will drill down if you get agitated by their questions.

In the end, Mr. Mukerjee did nothing wrong. He got agitated by something that would anger all but the most patient individuals. That's actually the scary part. Al-Qaeda and other terror groups have shown again and again that they are VERY patient and persistent. One of their agents would probably have gone through the main scanner and if detected remain very affable and friendly with the TSA.

[Amadou]

This is one of the major problems with unregulated and unsupervised NSA activities (and other agencies). We've seen them blatantly lie about their actions, to the public and to congress.

I'd like to point out that the TSA's shining example of the effectiveness of their behavior-detection officers has itself turned out to be a sham.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/TSA-exaggerates-claims-abou...

Man said to have 'explosives' in luggage actually had none, FBI lab report found