phltraveler

The Endemol party line doesn't even make sense.

Endemol party line is that they were people filming a show called Staten Island Hustle, which had the working title "I Got a Guy". Here's a description:

So according to Endmol's explanation (here), they had a crazy idea for vacuum compression luggage that would allow you to fit more clothing into a bag. That's on its face absolutely dumb (look at the size of the pump and relevant structure, it's gigantic and rigid, and clearly requires a power source of at least 12V with decent amperage like a car battery, making the size of the device impractical), but then they bring this to a passenger security checkpoint, some try to surreptitiously film it, not one of them has any sort of media credential, and they admit that they wanted to film the TSA's reaction "when they found the device". By the way, this is something with a gigantic electric pump, at least some metal fixtures, homemade PVC pipe, and wires sticking out of said PVC pipe.

It's just dumb, dumb, dumb. What did they think would happen? Do they think the TSA would be okay with it? If so, why were they trying to covertly record the reaction of the TSA to the device? Was it because they thought they would inspect it and let them go?

Nope.

Oh, but it didn't turn out to be a bomb, so we should just let them go for trying to incite a mass panic with a hoax device. /s

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

nachtnebel

What a great quote, and apropos!!

Section 107

See post #7 .

jfunk138

I'm thoroughly surprised at the number of people willing to take TSA's word on this, given their history of lying to the public and overreacting to non-threats. It's not like these guys were with some kind of hidden camera news show or Project Veritas, this is a CNBC after hours reality-TV entertainment program about a team that makes crazy inventions and sells them to investors. The show is not about creating public chaos or embarrassing government agencies. Unless TSA was thinking about investing in this device, it doesn't seem that they were any kind of intentional target of the cameras. Then again, TSA does also have a history of investing in crazy, stupid inventions so maybe there is something there...

Pesky Monkey

I'm not sure what panics you but stuff inside people's bags out of sight is not something that panics me.

Section 107

Stuff out of sight didnt panic the pax on pan am 103, NW 253, or Daalllo 159 either. Different situations to be sure but I disagree with that blanket platitude.

phltraveler

This is the quoted purpose in a trade show blurb about a show that has not even aired on television yet. None of the staff had any credentials proving they were filming for a TV show or had been contracted for one. The explanation was belated, more than a day after they were arrested.

Even if we are to believe the stated purpose of the show, that does not make those filming/participating/acting in the show immune from poor decision making. According to the TSA, some people were trying to film it, and admitted to such. The TSA involved local police and the individuals were arrested after speaking to said local authorities.

​​​​​​
I have a basic level of trust that people are checking bags properly on the x-ray (passenger carry-on checkpoints) or CT scanners. Of course, I don't trust the TSA to check everything properly (I've gotten through with full sized bottles of water), but if I see something that looks like a homemade device with random wires sticking out of it, I would expect that the TSA would properly screen it, even given other failures they've had. I have more faith in the CT scanners since they can discern objects in the bag in 3D and also determine the density of objects (which makes them much better at automatically detecting explosives/guns/knives/etc., but also provides a clearer image to the operator), but I have more faith in the recent rules changes to make the X-ray images clearer in the US. (For contrast, compare Precheck to a Trusted traveler lane in Canada - you have to remove way more from your bag in order to clear without secondary, because the operator will say the x-ray is "not clear").

Let me put it this way: Even assuming the crew had an intent to display their wacky crazy totally impractical vacuum sealing luggage (of which the system to do the vacuuming took up way more space than any space saving capabilities the device could provide)... if I had found out that the TSA allowed the device depicted in that article - I would be calling for everyone involved to be fired and barred from working in security ever again. If I was in the shoes of anyone at that checkpoint and I saw that, I would call local authorities myself. There is *nothing* that smells right about that device from a common sense perspective.

Exactly correct. I don't worry about other passenger's luggage because I expect authorities to see it.

When an idiot checked this (was screened, turned to be an alarm clock) through Toronto US Customs Preclearance:



I didn't think about it. When he got arrested, I rolled my eyes about what a dumbass he was.

The fact that it turned out to be an alarm clock does not change the fact that it looks like an explosive and could reasonably incite panic are facts.

Pesky Monkey

Those were bombs. This was a vacuum cleaner.

Loren Pechtel

A prototype that's impractical doesn't mean the idea is nuts--so long as you don't mind slow you can make such pumps pretty small.

Section 107

Yes, after inspection the item was determined not to be an explosive or incendiary device. But the persons attempting to take it through the checkpoint (allegedly) altered the vacuum cleaner to appear as if it was a bomb specifically because they wanted to film the reaction of security personnel as the item was inspected.

Should someone who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater because he wants to see everyone's reaction suffer no repercussions because there was no actual fire? More apropos, should someone who simulates having a gun by poking her fingers through her coat pocket at a bank teller while demanding an unauthorized withdrawal be let go because there was no actual weapon?

More to the point, the principles related to the use of toy weapons or simulated/hoax devices in relation to bank robbery (addressed by the Supreme Court in McLaughlin v US) are covered by Title 18 Section 2113 subsection D and for the same reasons this situation is really no different.

phltraveler

They all entered a not guilty plea through their attorneys and CNBC apparently attends to start airing the show in April despite the charges. I wish they were charged federally, because then the docket information on the basis that was used to arrest them/press charges would be visible publicly. This would help clarify what the case of the prosecution is, and any evidence that the defendants offered up in return.

In the interim, airing the show seems kind of tone deaf (although I think CNBC has correctly calculated that it's long enough outside the public view for the average viewer to notice).

To those who would say that "it was just a vacuum cleaner", that misses the point entirely. If I put something that looks like a dangerous device in view of someone screening it or in public, I would reasonably expect to be charged for a hoax device. And as Section 107 has stated, there is precedent and relevant law in regards to hoax devices.

Without the docket it's hard to say the strength of the evidence. If none of them have criminal records, it's likely that they'll end up with a plea bargain + community service and/or fine for a misdemeanor so they can apologize and everyone can save face and avoid the risk/embarrassment at trial. (Everyone meaning CNBC/Endemol/individuals charged, and also the relevant prosecutors/agencies).

jfunk138

I think precedent provided by the Boston Lite Brite case is helpful. In order for something to be a "hoax" they must have intent to incite panic. My guess is there was no such intent, and even if there was, it would be impossible to prove, unless they could find a script or storyline for this show describing this intent. From what we know so far, the storyline has nothing to do with "inciting panic"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_B...ooninite_panic

"Attorney General Martha Coakley cited the difficulty in proving intent to incite panic on the part of the two men"

jfunk138

"As tempting as it is to use this case to make a public example of what not to do, based on all the facts and circumstances, we concluded that the charges had to be dismissed because they did not knowingly create a false public alarm, as required by the statute," Laurino said.

Case against 'Staten Island Hustle' crew blows up; charges dropped | SILive.com

As expected, we find that this is yet another overreaction to a non-threat by the TSA.

Boggie Dog

No surprise, it didn't look like an IED then or now. TSA, as a whole, has so little credibility that I don't see how any legal group takes TSA claims seriously. Remember this is from the agency that thinks water is dangerous.

FliesWay2Much

But, they can still levy a civil penalty for interfering with the screening process.

And, the TSA made them spend a lot of money on defense attorneys.