Crazy CDG security questioning
 

Connected through CDG going from AF to DL for the transAtlantic flight a few days ago. All on a DL coded itinerary. When we got to the gate at CDG, we were met with a security person at the line to get on the plane. He proceeds with an interrogation similar to this:

Did you pack your own bags? (yes)
How did you purchase your ticket? (with my credit card online)
Do you have your credit card with you? (I did)
Can I see it please? (I pulled it out of my wallet, but he didn't look at it)
What kind of work do you do? (professor at a university)
What university? (I told him)
Do you have a university ID badge? (Yes, but I don't have it with me)
Why didn't you bring it? (Didn't think I'd need it, I have a passport after all)
Has anyone given you anything to carry on board? (no)
Have your bags been in your control since packing them? (yes)
What university do you work at? (I told him again)
What is the purpose of this trip? (business, teaching at a conference)
Where did you stay? (The Nile Hilton in Cairo)
Do you have proof that you stayed there? (yes, I have the receipt)
What university do you work at? (I told him again for the third time)

I was traveling with a faculty colleague and she was given a similar interrogation. He insisted on seeing her hotel receipt and took it to show some security supervisor.

I am very used to the 2 or 3 or 4 questions about packing your bag, but I've never been asked about where I work, asked for my work ID, asked about where I had stayed or asked for proof (I wasn't asked, but my traveling companion was asked).

I am Platinum on Delta and have been gold or platinum for years. I'm a US citizen with a US passport. I heard this guy talking to the folks ahead of us in the line and he was asking them similar questions. I don't know if this guy was just very overzealous or if they are just being paranoid or what, but it was pretty crazy!

This is the stupid kind of questioning that passes for the dog and pony show that is security when flying on US carriers back to the US from places such as CDG and AMS.

I'm certainly no fan of this idiocy. Sadly, this is not just unique to DL, as I've seen it with NW and AA rather often too when flying from CDG and AMS.

At AMS, the "interogator" wanted a piece of my travel companion but my travel companion was not interested. :eek: :D

My game with these people is to identify them and where they grew up and/or learned English. ;)

Had this happen at LGW the other day, on NW too, i.e asking a bunch of the same questions over and over..

Don't forget the look of utter contempt when you get asked the same question more than once. ;)

"I told you: I work at IBM." <Idiot boy>

The agent took it a little bit too serious, normally the most important question is who has packed your bags and if anybody had the chance to place any items into your bag, because of obvious reasons...

All other questions might be asked, if the agent likes you or is pretty bored or wants to slow down the process in order to hire more people. ;)

It is mandatory for TATL on US metal ex Europe.

If you fly across the pond quite often, it is as boring as the same questions by US immigration officers again and again...

The person doing my interrogation had a hard time believing that I was a contractor who just came from Iraq but did not have a DOD badge.

Happened to my wife and me about 10 years ago prior to a flight from Cairo to Tel Aviv. El Al security (read Mossad) singled us out and demanded to see "proof" that we were in Egypt. In addition to the "routine" hilarity as above, we also got:

When do you claim you entered Egypt? (2 weeks ago)
How? (on the El Al flight)
May I see your ticket for that flight? (I presented the stack of tickets)
This is the receipt. I need to see the ticket itself. (the airline has that now. we used it)
Well then, did you check any bags on that flight? (yes)
May I see the baggage check? (showed her the little sticker)
No, the part that goes on the bag. (no, we discarded that)
Why did you discard it? (we got the bag and it wasn't needed any more)
So you have no proof that you have your bag? (here it is)
<frustrated> ...
Ok, where did you stay in Egypt? (rattled of the hotels)
Please show me a receipt. (no individual receipts but here is tour receipt)
That is from the US and not valid here. (i'm sorry)
Did you buy anything in Egypt? (yes)
Please show me a receipt. (cannot ... they do not give receipts in Egypt)
Why did you not ask for one? (we didn't need more paper to schlep)
Schlep? (never mind)
...
Do you have anything to prove you are here? (uh.........)
...
and so on for about 15 minutes. Fortunately, the El Al Station Manager wandered by and I caught his eye with a look of pleading. He came over and asked the problem. Ms Mossad said these people cannot prove they are here. SM said I see them, I know them (another story), let them pass. She reluctantly did and he muttered to me "ah, stupid mossad...do you need anything else, sir?"

Later, MM was at the gate and we got the dirtiest look you could ever imagine. We were anticipating a reception committe in TLV ... our adventure story now is how we evaded that!

In many security related interviews, the questions and the responses are secondary to the way a person reacts to them. In the cited examples, the interviewer was trying to get a sense for the individual - are they hiding something or not?

Arriving in LA on a cruise that had originated in Costa Rica (flew DL to there), I presented my U.S. passport to the agent, and he asked what country I was a citizen of. I thought it was a trick question. After all, I had a US passport, so I said isn't it obvious? He didn't like that, and wouldn't let me leave until I told him that I am in fact a citizen of the US.

Interrogations to get on a plane are contrary to a free society. :td:

"Malesh." ;)

They do a poor job of that or even catching blatant lies. And everyone that defends this stuff uses a handful of anecdotes to defend such practice.

X interviewed, with Y percentage of X being a credible threat to the security of a plane, with only Z percentage of Y "caught" (or "flagged" in any seriously meaningful way). If 10-100 times the number of people talked about in the most publicized anecdotes equated with the number of people that are Z percentage of Y, may we still be talking about a waste? Perhaps.

In any event, even the defence of such practices as part of the "layering" of security is just an excuse for weak security practices.

In a free country people should not be interrogated by security to be what we were born to be -- namely free people, free to choose with whom we speak and don't speak when in public venues and not violating the law. And if airlines want to make this a condition of travel, they better make such requirement an explicit -- and very visible -- demand. Sort of like naming themselves "Totalitarian Air".

I disagree with this hyperbole. The questions referenced above are similar to the interrogation one has on the way in and out of Israel, whose national airline has a pretty good security record despite the breezy dismissal of such practices above.

Moreover, travel by airplane is a privilege, not a right. Even our rights as a free people are subject to limitations, as the constitution is not a suicide pact. Privileges are subject to even greater limitations. I fail to see the argument that ten or twenty polite questions at an airport is the leading wedge of totalitarianism. Frankly, I want tight security at airports.

Couldn't agree more.

I developped my own practice a long time ago to handle that kind of questioning. I tell them, I am not going to answer the same questions more than once. They can get a supervisor if they like. They never did so far. :D

Yikes, I used to think I was good in math in school... but I'm so glad I don't have to deal with this stuff in real life. :D :p

And I disagree with you.

Travel by airplane may be a privilege, but it is a privilege granted by common carrier airlines, not a privilege that should be lorded out by the government.

Folks, I am moving this thread over to the TSS board as that board is the more appropriate home for this type of discussion.

Rssrsvp - Moderator

Remember however that these security types at CDG actually identified Richard Reid as a threat and held him off the flight that he initially attempted to board. Despite the security staff's concerns the airline let him board the next day after putting him up in a hotel overnight.

Security staff 1 : Airline 0

El Al is the one airline where I know that certain Indian terrorists -- including those who posed a real threat to a plane (even if not an LY one) -- have gotten on board planes and not been "flagged" by questioning of the sort.

Tamil Tigers have had no problem getting through AA's CDG questioning. Security staff: -3; Airline: N/A.

I want good security at airports too. What I don't want is a dog and pony show -- including stupid questioning -- that takes away resources from security. If the money spent on these inquisitive types was spent on better explosives and firearm detection, that'd be better money spent IMO.

What I like is stuff like this:

Papers, please!

peace,
~Ben~

Who do you think should have the authority to limit the privilege to fly (domestically in the US, since you mention the Constitution) on a commercial airline? The airline? The TSA? The DHS? Courts? Law enforcement?

If any (other than the airline), what due process do you think should be necessary to restrict that privilege? Conviction by a jury? Warrant from a judge? Arbitrary government decision to put passenger on a secret no-fly blacklist?

Nope, it's a right.


You could lobby for a special line for yourself.

I don't know how I acted, but I know that I was feeling pretty peeved. The AF flight we had just connected from was late, so we had run through the airport to make it to the DL flight only to be interrogated by this guy. We went through no less than 4 metal detectors (2 in Cairo and 2 in CDG) and the carry on bag was xrayed 3 times.

I posted this in another thread recently.

The TSA did a test of its behavioral profiling where they set up a guy behind the ID checkers at a dozen or so airports during the holidays. Based on watching pax interact with the ID checker, they pulled over 500 people to talk to. People were either let go, sent for secondary, or sent for secondary and an LEO was called, depending on how "suspicious" they were.

Just under 30 people end up getting nailed for something. No terrorists, of course. Mostly people who had outstanding warrants, "too much" money or drugs.

30/500 = 6%

That's not a bad percentage, but the problem is that 99.9999999% of the people they catch are going to be people who are no threat to aviation security, but have "too much" money on them or something of the like. If we were just trying to catch criminals this might be a good idea (and I'm totally against using the checkpoint for that purpose), but I'm not sure how valuable it would be in catching terrorists.

Actually, I believe that the more peeved you are -- and show it! -- the quicker they let you pass. Real terrorists probably try very hard not to stir up any trouble. I always complain about stupid questioning and answer questions literally.

True example (from Frankfurt): "Are you carrying anything that looks like a weapon or could be used as a weapon?" My answer: "I really have no idea what 'looks like a weapon.' How could I possibly know that? But I am carrying many things that could be used as weapons, including my hands and feet. What would you like me to do about that?" Response: "It would be helpful if you would cooperate" (wink, wink). My response: "Oh, I get it: You want me to say 'no.'" Response: Another knowing look. My answer: "OK, the answer is no." Response: "You can go."

The whole thing is just as silly to the questioners -- in Europe, anyway, where people are educated -- as it is to us. Everybody is just acting out a role. What a waste!

Even in the U.S., where people tend to take anything labelled "security" very seriously, they stopped asking these kinds of stupid questions years ago.

Bruce

On point one -- Nope, it's not! Get the facts straight before you spout off.

On point two -- I've got a better idea -- I'll lobby for one line for people who peacefully answer annoying questions, and another for smarmy people who think they don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

On point one, all of the parties you mentioned do and should have the authority to limit the privilege to fly.

On point two, due process means whatever process is reasonable under the circumstances. You obviously cannot demand a jury trial before a plane can take off without you if you've been denied boarding. Assuming that there IS some due process argument, a decision by an official on the spot that somebody is suspicious is more than enough to take a passenger off a plane. If you later prove that decision was based on something other than reasonable discretion, you can sue. Bringing up due process is a red herring.

Either way, I have a hard time understanding the hysteria over answering 5-10 minutes worth of questioning. If the experiment proves worthless, it will be scrapped. And yes, I would rather have the government with all its flaws making that decision than a bunch of frequent flyers (including myself) with their own self interest clouding their judgment.

I sincerely hope this nation will come to its senses and rip this abused, unnecessary authority away from the government which has chosen to stupidly harass its citizens and guests.

Um, the government of the United States has the power to regulate interstate commerce. It cannot do so in violation of our rights under the constitution. Travel by airplane, being a privilege, is most certainly something that can be regulated -- or "lorded out" if you insist -- by the US government. The fact that airlines are "common carrier[s]" has nothing to do with it.

Now, if the point is that the government is doing this the wrong way, then the solution is to exercise one of our actual rights and petition the government, not claiming that somehow "rights" are being violated by 10-20 irritating questions at an airport.

PS -- I was writing this response before Spiff's post just above this one. My second paragraph and his post agree on the proper solution here. Common ground amongst disagreement!!

Really? So the government can also consider driving or across state lines a privilege too and also regulate it by harassing those who choose to travel in this manner?

It saddens me to see people who defend government stupidity and harassment. :(

Spare the crocodile tears.

Interstate travel is a right under our constitution. There is no constitutional right to interstate travel by airplane. The government may regulate it. How exactly is 5-10 minutes of questioning "harassing" people getting on an airplane? Please.

It's not crocodile tears. Some of us really care about freedom and don't just pay it lip-service.

I didn't know the Constitution mentioned planes. The Constitution doesn't mention horses either -- used for interstate travel back then too ;) -- but that doesn't eliminate the right of an American to engage in interstate travel by horse. Yes, Congress could regulate that, but that doesn't make it right. The current US government may regulate how many times an adult couple engage in consensual sexual activity too, but that doesn't make it right either.

Where is the gate for the "Totalitarian Air" flight?

Did the Fascists win WW2 or the Soviets the Cold War? They too thought that there was no right of people to travel freely (even by air) without interrogation.

You have my vote on this too. We would probably be the first to complain if we thought that our security was being compromised also. Security is a pretty thankless task. Much of it is a deterrent and it is difficult to know how successful that is.

Also, whilst I agree that some security "interrogators" may not be up to the task, it is surprising how much does come to light during these interrogations. Many of it is illegal rather than a security risk (smuggling precious stones or other contraband) or just the plain "secret weekend away with the mistress". Of course, none of that is relevant to a security official, however it does allow one to practice the art of judging people's reactions and the way they behave when they are lying..and of course there is the odd occasion when they DO actually catch someone who has malevolent intentions towards the flight itself.

Some maybe, but obviously not enough of you. If there were enough, you wouldn't have the government you do.

Ah, security questions
 

I wouldn't necessarily recommend this, but a fun little game I play myself is to just outright lie. I travel *a lot* and these kinds of questions have gotten very boring for me. So, now what I do, is to concoct a story on my way to the airport and see if I can pass it off. So far, I've determined that I would be a very good spy indeed as I've told outrageous lies to security staff without ever being caught once.

C'mon, now... examples please!
:)

Nope. Air travel is a right, not a privilege.

And why would one entrust a "right" to entities that are as irresponsible as airlines? :)