Oh those polite Canadians

[Asta Kask]

Excuse me sir, is this your bomb?" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-25760132)

[TechnoScrabble]

"Do...do you want it back, sir?"

"Nah, I've decided I'm not gonna kill everyone after all."

"Okay, sorry for the inconvenience!"

Being polite to tourists is key to a booming travel industry.

Man, Canadian airlines are the bomb!

One hundred Canadian dollars? That's 88.95 in the US!

How are we supposed to fight the infected without a pipe bomb?

[Killer Angel]

I would really like to see that in an episode of "Border Security: Canada's Front". :smallamused:

[Don Julio Anejo]

More like,

"Is that a bomb, sir?"
"Uhh... yes?"
"Okay, I'm sorry for the delay sir, you can go ahead, but next time please leave any firearms and/or explosive goods within the United States. Also, Canucks lost 0-4 but on the bright side it looks like Luongo will be benched for the next 3 games. Welcome back home."


I would really like to see that in an episode of "Border Security: Canada's Front". :smallamused:
We have such a thing. Typical episode goes like:

"Sir, are you bringing drugs into Canada?"
"Uhh, no."
"These look like drugs. It also looks like you got ripped off, because street value in Canada is about 1/2 what you likely paid for them."

[inexorabletruth]

Sweet sugared baby Jeebus!

That's not polite… that's (how to put it nicely) under-reacting! (Nailed it. :smallcool:)

Canada… please keep bombs off planes. America appreciates your future diligence in this matter.

Sincerely,
'Murica.

[Eldan]

Well, read the rest of the article. Everyone involved was suspended.

[Mono Vertigo]

... *blink blink*

Well, read the rest of the article. Everyone involved was suspended.

It's still mind-boggling this even happened in the first place.

[inexorabletruth]

... *blink blink*


It's still mind-boggling this even happened in the first place.

Yeah… that's kind of my point. Try just saying "bomb" at an airport in New York and see what happens. The fact that the security employee basically got a slap on the wrist after trying to hand back the pipe bomb blows my mind.

[TechnoScrabble]

Canada… please keep bombs off planes. America appreciates your future diligence in this matter.

Sincerely,
'Murica.

Well, the bomb never actually made it to the plane...

[inexorabletruth]

Well, the bomb never actually made it to the plane...

Lol! You have a point, but it wasn't for lack of trying. According to the article, the guard tried to give the bomb back to the guy. Thankfully, the individual responsible didn't actually want the bomb back. However, if he was the type to want to blow up a plane there's nothing indicating that security would've done anything to prevent it.

[kailkay]

I've read this article a few times in Canadian news. It's even more amazing than you realize.

See, the kid who made the bomb originally did it with the attention of getting some hooligan laughs by blowing up a shed. So, he was fined $100, told to donate $500 to a burn unit, and I think he also got some community service time.

You can't blame us Canucks for not realizing what a pipe bomb looks like. We don't go through life generally fearing for our safety. I'm in Alberta (the Texas of Canada), and I'm pretty sure none of my neighbors have guns.

Lock the door? Only when I'm about to make love, to keep people from walking in on us. :P

Obligatory pre-emptive apology: I'm sorry.

[LaZodiac]

Also, it's only fair to return it. After determining he's not a threat, give him back his property.

I'm being REALLY sarcastic with the above comment, by the way.

[inexorabletruth]

Lock the door? Only when I'm about to make love, to keep people from walking in on us. :P

My grandpa is like that. He lives in a little town outside of Chorpus Christi, TX (it's a bayside city). The only time he locks his door is when a hurricane is blowing through. When he goes fishing, he leaves his keys in his truck in case someone needs to borrow it. Most times, he comes back to find it with a topped off tank of gas, even though it wasn't full when we got to the docks. I only remember coming back from the boat one time to find his truck missing. The guy showed up ten minutes later, apologizing for making him wait, then tossed him the keys.

I'll never fully understand small town mentality.

Of course… he's a Texan. So he owns like 7 guns. So that part's different. :smalltongue:

[Brother Oni]

Yeah… that's kind of my point. Try just saying "bomb" at an airport in New York and see what happens.

An example in Miami. (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2004/jan/21/britishairways.terrorism)

[warty goblin]

Airport security is essentially theater anyway. Nice to see somebody's got the low-key comedy covered.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, he didn't end up hurting anyone, so alls well that ends well.

[Lither]

I really don't see the problem. Even if he did get it past security, he wouldn't have used it. He didn't take it back when offered it, and said he'd forgotten it was even in there. Just because they brought a bomb in their backpack doesn't mean they're a threat to the airline. I've waited a very long time to say that sort of thing.

[inexorabletruth]

I think the issue here has nothing to do with the kid who forgot he had a pipe bomb in his backpack. The only thing I can really penalize him for is being irresponsible and absent-minded.

The issue is with the way security handled the situation. Attempting to return a bomb based on the premise that he didn't intend to use it isn't good enough.

The officer should've confiscated the bomb, then double checked him and the rest of his belongings using more invasive and thorough techniques. And, even though all was indeed well that ended well, he should have been brought in for questioning just in case his intentions weren't as innocent as they appeared.

We all understand that when we walk into an airport we give up certain rights and privileges. In hindsight, considering the number of would-be bombers we've actually caught in the last decade as a result of our more stringent airport security initiatives, I think the current policies count as one of those "necessary evils" at least until we live in a world where we're not trying to blow each other up anymore.

I'm sorry; maybe I'm making the topic heavier than it was intended to be. I know it's supposed to be a cheeky thread about how polite those Canadians are. So, I've said my piece and now I'll walk away slowly, smiling and waving the whole time.

[Don Julio Anejo]

We all understand that when we walk into an airport we give up certain rights and privileges. In hindsight, considering the number of would-be bombers we've actually caught in the last decade as a result of our more stringent airport security initiatives, I think the current policies count as one of those "necessary evils" at least until we live in a world where we're not trying to blow each other up anymore.
No.

By the same logic, any time we walk into a public place, we give up certain right and privileges (like the right to not get searched without a warrant) because bombers use public places. Imagine the bombers (and media pirates!) that could be caught if we simply strip-searched every person on the street.

Not saying you're not justified with what the officer should have done in this particular case (the kid really DID try to bring a bomb on the plane), but the statement itself is fallacious in its logic.

Won't say more on the topic because it's inherently political.

[Proud Tortoise]

No.

By the same logic, any time we walk into a public place, we give up certain right and privileges (like the right to not get searched without a warrant) because bombers use public places. Imagine the bombers (and media pirates!) that could be caught if we simply strip-searched every person on the street.

Not saying you're not justified with what the officer should have done in this particular case (the kid really DID try to bring a bomb on the plane), but the statement itself is fallacious in its logic.

Won't say more on the topic because it's inherently political.

But in airports they have signs posted saying you understand that you could be searched at any time, for any reason or none at all. However studies show that the extra security measures adopted after 9/11 have caused ENOOOORMOUS expense and stopped almost no terrorists.

[Worira]

The officer should've confiscated the bomb, then double checked him and the rest of his belongings using more invasive and thorough techniques.

Which would help how, exactly? The kid's pretty obviously not a master smuggler.


In hindsight, considering the number of would-be bombers we've actually caught in the last decade as a result of our more stringent airport security initiatives

ha ha good one

[comicshorse]

Out of curiosity does anybody have any figures for how many (any ?) would-be bombers have been caught by the new methods ?

[Asheram]

Out of curiosity does anybody have any figures for how many (any ?) would-be bombers have been caught by the new methods ?

It've probably never been made public due to national (economical) security. Would be an interesting read though.

[Asta Kask]

But in airports they have signs posted saying you understand that you could be searched at any time, for any reason or none at all. However studies show that the extra security measures adopted after 9/11 have caused ENOOOORMOUS expense and stopped almost no terrorists.

I think they're more about showing that something's being done than actually helping with anything.

[Killer Angel]

No.

By the same logic, any time we walk into a public place, we give up certain right and privileges (like the right to not get searched without a warrant) because bombers use public places.

Try to enter a stadium. Especially during the Olympic games.
In certain places, public security trumps the privacy of the single individual.



We have such a thing. Typical episode goes like:

"Sir, are you bringing drugs into Canada?"
"Uhh, no."
"These look like drugs. It also looks like you got ripped off, because street value in Canada is about 1/2 what you likely paid for them."

I really love Canada, but sometimes, canadians are weird... :smalltongue:

[Don Julio Anejo]

Try to enter a stadium. Especially during the Olympic games.
...I did. During the Olympics. Saw the Canada - Germany game during 2010 Winter Olympics here in Vancouver. All there was, was a metal detector. Nightclubs had more stringent security.

[Togath]

It've probably never been made public due to national (economical) security. Would be an interesting read though.

The number per year's not changed(from the research I've done on it anyway, which admittedly uses just public information.. but I can't imagine if the number was higher that they wouldn't mention it, since airport security currently has a very bad reputation, if it actually did something, I'd assume they'd boast about it) =3
The new methods just cost more, and piss more people off.
Also, the actually number of plane-bomb relation fatalities is almost nil(with 911 having been the only plane-related incident that resulted in fatalities due to an attack, and it wasn't even a bombing, just a hijacking.)

edit: I should mention; I'm not criticizing the idea of airport security, it just seems pointless to increase security(and spend more on it), if it already had a nearly 100% successful protection rate.

[Killer Angel]

...I did. During the Olympics. Saw the Canada - Germany game during 2010 Winter Olympics here in Vancouver. All there was, was a metal detector. Nightclubs had more stringent security.

I think our anecdotal experiences (although involving different places), may differ slightly...
Good for you! :smallsmile:

[Miriel]

Try to enter a stadium. Especially during the Olympic games.
In certain places, public security trumps the privacy of the single individual.
I never went to a stadium during the Olympics, but the stadium security I've seen in other places was more interested in my smuggling alcohol or other stuff they sell inside than bringing guns or bombs.

[Eldan]

I never went to a stadium during the Olympics, but the stadium security I've seen in other places was more interested in my smuggling alcohol or other stuff they sell inside than bringing guns or bombs.

They started checking the fans for weapons, fireworks, molotovs and improvised explosives before football games around here, after some people were injured. There might have been a death or two.

[Karoht]

Hey man, he used the magic Canadian word.
He plead guilty, said he was sorry, and paid the fine. :smallwink:

I think it is more that he managed to convince them that it was an honest mistake. Another article I read said that they did a background check on him, the guy was clean, they also checked with US border guys (standard update after such an incident), they said they said it was fine, so they made the call to not inconvenience the guy any further.

I agree, letting him on the plane after that was probably a mistake (probably should have waited at least a day), but after you've frisked the guy 10 times and found nothing for him to hurt anyone with, or in his luggage beyond the already confiscated pipe bomb, you're supposed to just say no to letting him fly? By that logic, they shouldn't let anyone fly that they don't find anything threatening on their person or in their luggage either.

Please contrast this incident with people who are now on no-fly lists who are in their late 80's, all because they refused to let some young lad 1/4 their age making minimum wage give them a pat down because they can't go through a scanner because of their pacemaker or cholostomy bag or other medical prosthesis that they might be sensative about.

[Forum Explorer]

Out of curiosity does anybody have any figures for how many (any ?) would-be bombers have been caught by the new methods ?

Eh the figures are kinda useless anyways. It hits a logic problem of you can't compare them to the results of what would have happened if the new protocols were put in place so how can you really measure how effective they actually were?


...I did. During the Olympics. Saw the Canada - Germany game during 2010 Winter Olympics here in Vancouver. All there was, was a metal detector. Nightclubs had more stringent security.


I think our anecdotal experiences (although involving different places), may differ slightly...
Good for you! :smallsmile:

Key worded bolded for emphasis. In a thread about how Canadian security confiscated the bomb and let the guy fly anyways, are you really surprised that there is a lack of security in our Olympic games?


Anyways on topic, I don't think the airline security guys really did anything wrong. Okay they probably shouldn't have given the bomb back, but they already confirmed he didn't have any other way to blow up the plane so why not let him fly?

[Misery Esquire]

Which would help how, exactly? The kid's pretty obviously not a master smuggler.


A master smuggler, you say? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iDlwcc1CT8)

[The_Ditto]

but sometimes, canadians are weird... :smalltongue:

Sometimes?!? What an insult!
*Sigh*

I'll have you know we work very hard at being weird. :P
Most of the time ... at least!

[Killer Angel]

Sometimes?!? What an insult!
*Sigh*

I'll have you know we work very hard at being weird. :P
Most of the time ... at least!

This probably means that I'm a little weird too. In the Canadian way!


I never went to a stadium during the Olympics, but the stadium security I've seen in other places was more interested in my smuggling alcohol or other stuff they sell inside than bringing guns or bombs.

Anyway, when someone search your bag/backpack for anything, you are effectively losing a certain amount of your right to privacy.
Especially if they have no such a justification as "looking for something really dangerous as a bomb". :smallsigh:

[Aliquid]

Another factor:

The judge made a comment to the boy, pointing out how lucky he was that the bomb was found in Canada, and not when he reached his destination... Mexico.

The Mexican police wouldn't have been so understanding... and he probably wouldn't be heading back home any time soon.

[Knaight]

Please contrast this incident with people who are now on no-fly lists who are in their late 80's, all because they refused to let some young lad 1/4 their age making minimum wage give them a pat down because they can't go through a scanner because of their pacemaker or cholostomy bag or other medical prosthesis that they might be sensative about.

I fail to see how the age or the payment of the security people is relevant here. Is it somehow better if they are older or paid more?

[ufo]

No.

By the same logic, any time we walk into a public place, we give up certain right and privileges (like the right to not get searched without a warrant) because bombers use public places. Imagine the bombers (and media pirates!) that could be caught if we simply strip-searched every person on the street.

Not saying you're not justified with what the officer should have done in this particular case (the kid really DID try to bring a bomb on the plane), but the statement itself is fallacious in its logic.

Won't say more on the topic because it's inherently political.

This fellow got it. Just gonna quote this and leave it here for anyone who missed it on the first page!

Love,
<3

[Devils_Advocate]

You can't blame us Canucks for not realizing what a pipe bomb looks like.
I'm pretty sure that if AIRPORT SECURITY doesn't know what a pipe bomb looks like, someone's job isn't been done properly.

If you're seriously suggesting otherwise, that seems like the endorsement of some remarkably low standards.


I'm sorry.
Well, all right. Just don't let it happen again.


By the same logic, any time we walk into a public place, we give up certain right and privileges (like the right to not get searched without a warrant) because bombers use public places. Imagine the bombers (and media pirates!) that could be caught if we simply strip-searched every person on the street.
I'm not sure what the formal definition of "public place" is, or even if there is one, but it seems that airports are not fully open to the general public, in the sense that they are only open to those willing to abide by certain rules.

Being able to leave one's home is essentially a right, even if not enumerated as such. Being able to enter an airport is not a right. Flying is a privilege, not an entitlement. This is why you have to pay for it.

[TuggyNE]

I'm not sure what the formal definition of "public place" is, or even if there is one, but it seems that airports are not fully open to the general public, in the sense that they are only open to those willing to abide by certain rules.

That is a poor definition, since it is the case for all public places (see also indecent exposure, concealed carry, no smoking, and so on and so forth, none of which apply if you're in your own house). A "public place" is really just anywhere that is intended to be open to nearly anyone, rather than being exclusively intended for one person's or group's use and those they invite, like a house.

[Devils_Advocate]

Well, my point was that airports have special rules beyond those of public places in general. And that this is reasonable, given that staying out of airports is a lot less demanding than staying out of public places in general.

Given that there are already private places where you're just not allowed to go, and that having places that you're not allowed to go unless you agree to certain things doesn't seem any more restrictive than that, it's hard to see the latter as a new limitation on personal freedom.

[TuggyNE]

Well, my point was that airports have special rules beyond those of public places in general. And that this is reasonable, given that staying out of airports is a lot less demanding than staying out of public places in general.

The question is not, do airports have special rules, nor even, do some public places have extra rules. The question is, are those particular special rules really justified, given the way they infringe upon various expectations.

Unfortunately, it seems this is heading off into politics, so let's just cut it off right there.

[Scarlet Knight]

"Hey, Buddy! Don't have a cow! What bomb?"
http://0.tqn.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/g/F/sp715_Christmas_in_Canada_2.jpg

[Devils_Advocate]

Anyways on topic, I don't think the airline security guys really did anything wrong. Okay they probably shouldn't have given the bomb back
... So, you're willing to grant that just maybe people shouldn't be allowed to take bombs onto planes? O_O


but they already confirmed he didn't have any other way to blow up the plane so why not let him fly?

after you've frisked the guy 10 times and found nothing for him to hurt anyone with, or in his luggage beyond the already confiscated pipe bomb, you're supposed to just say no to letting him fly? By that logic, they shouldn't let anyone fly that they don't find anything threatening on their person or in their luggage either.
Someone who was carrying a bomb in his luggage might be considered a security risk because he was carrying a bomb in his luggage. Do you maintain that people who do that are no more likely to attempt to cause problems than the average person?

I really do not think that it is unreasonable to require airplane passengers not to carry explosives with them. I would even go so far as to say that it does not strike me as unreasonable to punish the breaking of this rule.


The question is not, do airports have special rules, nor even, do some public places have extra rules. The question is, are those particular special rules really justified, given the way they infringe upon various expectations.
No, the question is, are those expectations justified, given that airports are artificial in nature?

It is my position that before flying machines existed, people were not oppressed by the lack of such vehicles. Being able to fly only so long as you're willing to follow stringent rules still gives you more options than people who didn't get to fly at all, so how can your situation be unjust if theirs was not? Unless you want to seriously talk about "the tyranny of gravity" in a fairly literal way.

Again: Flying is a privilege. Sometimes you have to do things you'd rather not do in order to get things that you do want. It is my understanding that this is the basis of our entire economic system?

Understand, I'm not actually talking about the pros and cons of the policies in question. That isn't a discussion for this board. I'm talking about whether certain attitudes towards those policies make sense, their pros and cons aside.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Flying is simply a method of transportation. As such, it is no more a privilege than taking the bus, driving, or walking to the convenience store. Sure, it can be taken away under certain circumstances (i.e. a person convicted of drunk driving might have their license permanently revoked and a person in prison can't really walk anywhere), but in general it is something that is, and should be, open to the general public.

There is a level of safety to be considered, as with everything and some things really do make sense (i.e. X-ray scans of luggage and metal detectors), while others (like full body scanners or strip searches without probable cause) are extremely invasive, but all the increased security measures of the last 10 years have been shown by various statistics to be largely ineffective (I can dig them up if someone wishes).

Searching people that tried to take a bomb on a plane is justified. Strip and searching a brown guy just because he seems impatient (and therefore must be anxious about going through security and is a terrorist) like happened to my boss once is just plain stupid and abuse of privilege.

[warty goblin]

And searching people completely at random is, probabilistically speaking, enormously stupid

[Finlam]

And searching people completely at random is, probabilistically speaking, enormously stupid

We don't take kindly to people using basic statistics 'round these parts.

In all seriousness, you're completely right, but I wouldn't bring it up to a TSA agent.

[Devils_Advocate]

The use of public sidewalks does not require a pedestrian's license. I'm pretty sure that walking on either side of the sidewalk is legal. Etc. Driving is comparable to flying in a way that walking is not. Driving and flying are both more heavily regulated than walking, and appropriately so.

Perhaps I haven't made myself sufficiently clear. I was challenging the notion that there is no more justification for restricting the use of vehicles than there is for restricting access to public spaces.


By the same logic, any time we walk into a public place, we give up certain right and privileges
The right to travel from place to place at all is not the same as a right to travel from place in any way whatsoever. It is much like how a right to bear arms need not include a right to possess nuclear weaponry.

So it doesn't make sense to me to criticize the regulation of transportation simply for being the regulation of transportation. Of course it still makes sense to criticize it for other reasons.

[warty goblin]

We don't take kindly to people using basic statistics 'round these parts.

Well duh. This is America we're talking about here. If we started using statistics, who knows what crazy, evidence based decisions would could end up making.


In all seriousness, you're completely right, but I wouldn't bring it up to a TSA agent.
Yeah, I enjoy getting felt up by guys in uniform free of extra charge as much as the next bloke, but I have no desire for even more of it. Besides which, the stupid rules aren't the fault of the guy rubbing my thighs, there's no reason to make his day worse because of somebody else's inability to fathom exactly how independent events work.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Driving is regulated because driving a car without proper training is extremely dangerous to both oneself and others. It also ensures people are at least minimally responsible by the time they get their license.

I'm fairly certain it's perfectly legal in most places in NA to drive on your own property, or someone's property with owner's permission unless it's open to the public. The only catch is, insurance won't cover you in any way if you're unlicensed.

There are almost no restrictions on what kind of vehicle you can drive (any restrictions are for safety or infrastructure reasons, like tracked vehicles on asphalt roads or trucks over a certain height/weight limit).

Flying has TSA to control safety aboard airplanes. However, as many people here have pointed out, airport security is overzealous in their job and virtually ineffective at stopping actual terrorists, according to various reports. It only serves to aggravate people, increase waiting times and do other, political things that aren't PG-friendly. By PG, I mean Playground of course.

It's like being stopped by every cop you see because you're driving a Cadillac with shiny rims ("it's a gangster car, therefore we are doing a completely random search to see if you have any drugs in your car."). Or being stopped every time you get inside your car so a cop can look through your windows for any guns - won't stop a dedicated bad guy, but causes major hassle for the average Joe.