An award-winning Italian economist is removed from a U.S. flight and detained... for doing math.

Economist Detained for Doing Math on an Airplane

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/05/economist_detai.html

Excerpt:

An economics professor was detained when he was spotted doing math on an airplane:

    On Thursday evening, a 40-year-old man ­-- with dark, curly hair, olive skin and an exotic foreign accent --­ boarded a plane. It was a regional jet making a short, uneventful hop from Philadelphia to nearby Syracuse.

    Or so dozens of unsuspecting passengers thought.

    The curly-haired man tried to keep to himself, intently if inscrutably scribbling on a notepad he'd brought aboard. His seatmate, a blond-haired, 30-something woman sporting flip-flops and a red tote bag, looked him over. He was wearing navy Diesel jeans and a red Lacoste sweater -- a look he would later describe as "simple elegance" -- but something about him didn't seem right to her.

    She decided to try out some small talk.

    Is Syracuse home? She asked.

    No, he replied curtly.

    He similarly deflected further questions. He appeared laser-focused ­-- perhaps too laser-focused ­-- on the task at hand, those strange scribblings.

    Rebuffed, the woman began reading her book. Or pretending to read, anyway. Shortly after boarding had finished, she flagged down a flight attendant and handed that crew-member a note of her own.

This story ended better than some. Economics professor Guido Menzio (yes, he's Italian) was taken off the plane, questioned, cleared, and allowed to board with the rest of his passengers two hours later.

This is a result of our stupid "see something, say something" culture. As I repeatedly say: "If you ask amateurs to act as front-line security personnel, you shouldn't be surprised when you get amateur security."

What's taking the blonde jokes so long to materialize? I mean come on they are materialistic by nature.

This is a result of our stupid "see something, say something" culture. As I repeatedly say: "If you ask amateurs to act as front-line security personnel, you shouldn't be surprised when you get amateur security."

I must disagree at this point. A lot of law enforcement relies on people from the community reporting suspicious items. Often times it is nothing but sometimes it is something.

On top of that, there is a tendency of people to not report things they should. People think someone else will say something but then they all say that and no one says anything.

Would you rather have a nuisance for a false alarm or no action when action is needed?

I must disagree at this point. A lot of law enforcement relies on people from the community reporting suspicious items. Often times it is nothing but sometimes it is something.

On top of that, there is a tendency of people to not report things they should. People think someone else will say something but then they all say that and no one says anything.

Would you rather have a nuisance for a false alarm or no action when action is needed?

I disagree.
Was there a crime? Reasonable suspicion? Why was he detained and questioned?

Either you err on the side of presuming a person is innocent (and leave him alone), or you err on the side and presume he is guilty, just in case (and give him a lot of hassle).

Perhaps someone should start a country based on the former.

Note that widespread NSA surveillance is based on the premise that it's better to have tons of information about people, you know, just in case.

Also perhaps it's better people not have guns. Just in case they do something rash or illegal.

Most people want safety above freedom.

That country I mentioned, it should prioritize freedom.

(Actually freedom = respect for a person as an individual)

The benefits of see-something policies are that they might be able to stop a disaster and save some lives every once in a while.

When taken too far, however, it changes the social dynamic to a Stasi state where people can turn in their neighbors just so they can steal their stuff while they are detained.

I disagree.
Was there a crime? Reasonable suspicion? Why was he detained and questioned?

The article does not say. We don't know what the lady wrote on a note and gave to the flight attendant.

Police regularly stop individuals who are innocent but they do so with reason. The person stopped may match the description of a suspect for example. The officer doesn't know whether the complaint is legitimate. If the lady making the report turns out to be crazy then the individual is released but they cannot do that until they investigate a little.

The benefits of see-something policies are that they might be able to stop a disaster and save some lives every once in a while.

When taken too far, however, it changes the social dynamic to a Stasi state where people can turn in their neighbors just so they can steal their stuff while they are detained.

Absolutely. Either viewpoint, when taken to an extreme, can end up being causing a negative consequence.

I think back to the report from 9/11 where one of the hijackers took flight classes. It was reported that the student seemed overly interested in getting in the air and taking off auto pilot but had no interest in landing. (if I remember all the facts correctly) Had the instructor said something maybe 9/11 would have been prevented.

Of course not every instance has to be about some big terrorist event. Say a neighbor sees an individual they don't recognize acting suspicious around your house. They could call the police or they could do nothing. That person could be a burglar or could be a relative. If no one ever called in these situations the police job would be much harder. If people called all the time at the slightest though of suspiciousness (hyper vigilance) we would all go crazy.

I think the key is balance.

I absolutely agree the key is balance.

The Constitution of the United States of America was SUPPOSEDLY written with good checks and balances. But it's quite evident they have been insufficient.

There is a kind of "prevailing wind" in government, where governments naturally drift toward totalitarian states.

As a result, there must be a countermeasure to ensure that the system errs on the side of protecting the citizens.

The 2nd Amendment is one such measure, and possibly the only truly practical and effective measure.

Everything else depends on the 2A.

Everything else depends on the 2A.

unless you are in Hawaii

unless you are in Hawaii

Hey, at least "they" "let" you still have some guns and some magazines in some places (albeit a very short list). /sarc

I suspect certain legislators are feverishly working to remedy the situation next legislative session...