UK Man Arrested And Banned From Airport For Twitter Joke About Blowing Up An Airport

from the careful-who-you-joke-with dept

Tue, Jan 19th 2010 6:36am — Mike Masnick

A few weeks ago, I was flying with my wife somewhere, and as we passed through security, a TSA agency took my wife's shoes and asked if he could run a separate test on them. A little while later, he came back and asked if she had another pair of shoes, saying that hers had "failed the test." It was around 5am, and neither of us were completely awake and we were both really confused, and trying to figure out how her shoes could have failed any sort of test (could she have stepped in some sort of mud that set off a test?!?) or if she had packed another pair of shoes, when the TSA guy started laughing, saying he was just joking and "you were supposed to protest!" Apparently, it was all a big joke. It wasn't that funny. And, of course, we've been told over and over again that this kind of joking is only allowed to go in one direction.

Krubuntu points us to the news of a guy in the UK who found himself arrested and banned for life from an airport after posting a message on Twitter that read: "Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" This was in response to the airport closing due to snow, and the guy realizing he was supposed to fly from there a week later. Now, clearly, this was an ill-advised Twitter message. And, at the very least, I don't begrudge police from at least doing a quick check to make sure that it wasn't serious, but to then arrest him under the Terror Act, interrogate him for seven hours, threaten him with further charges and ban him for life from the airport? At some point you have to think that the response has gone too far as well. Yes, the post was in poor taste, but at some point law enforcement people should recognize when it was just a frustrated person making an ill-advised joke and move on.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: airport security, joking, terrorism, twitter

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2010 @ 6:52am

Was it a...spelling test?

Signed,
Also Useless in the Morning
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2010 @ 7:01am

Assisting terrorists
It seems that in this case the security establishement is simply assiting terrorists to terrorise us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 7:06am

WHAT??!!
"if she had packed another pair of shoes, when the TSA guy started laughing, saying he was just joking and "you were supposed to protest!""

Hell, you handled it a lot better than I would have. My response to the above would have been, "Well, sir, it's hard to protest in an animated fashion when I've caked my boxer shorts in plastic explosives...."

But be honest, how hard would you have laughed when a brief shot of me in full Dark Helmet gear kneeling on a prayer rug in the yard in Gitmo got out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 7:16am

Re: Assisting terrorists
Gotta ask--who's actually been spreading messages designed to induce fear in the populace? I personally have neither seen nor heard from any terrorists; though I've seen and heard alot about it from the news and the gov.

So, ask again--who's spreading fear?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Idobek (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 7:37am

I refer you to your previous post.
The police in the UK don't agree with free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails, 19 Jan 2010 @ 7:39am

Appaling
Well, yes, the arrest and banning is appaling, but I'm talking about the incident you experienced, Mike.

No, one shouldn't protest. Protesting leads to body cavity searches, which leads to suffering. That is the path to the dark side.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake, 19 Jan 2010 @ 7:41am

Questioning him under caution was an entirely appropriate response, though why it took seven hours I can only imagine. Like one of the commenters on the Independent article pointed out, your Twitter feed can be read by someone who doesn't know you from Adam, and textual communication makes it that much harder to judge tone.

I should probably clarify a couple of other points. First, the police don't actually have the final say in whether he gets charged; they have to refer it upwards to a civil service organisation called the Crown Prosecution Service, whose job is (among other things) to assess the likelihood of a successful conviction if charges are brought. I wouldn't bet much on them running with it.
Secondly, banning him from the airport isn't something the police can do without an Anti-Social Behaviour Order, which is basically a kind of restraining order for habitual petty crooks. Since I assume the Independent would have seen fit to mention it if he got slapped with one of those, I suspect this came from Robin Hood Airport's owners.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Planespotter (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 7:57am

lmao... how blatantly obvious does something have to be? in poor taste maybe, but it was obviously a through away jokey comment.

This country scares me more and more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2010 @ 8:06am

I think when people say "the terrorists have already won" they mean that the terrorists have successfully been elected to British public office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 8:15am

Re:
Can the owners ban him from the airport? That strikes me as odd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean, 19 Jan 2010 @ 8:24am

Am I the only person who sees this as kind of justified? In the wake of the failed attempt to blow up and airplane on Xmas in America, this guy is now posting 'jokes' about blowing up a whole airport? The guy is so incredibly stupid to post it that he deserves what he gets.

What's really frustrating is the people who post on the Internet, angry that the Xmas guy got through and almost blew up a plane and they demand more security. Then you get a guy posting on Twitter that he's going to blow up an entire airport. This man is then arrested - the requested/demanded security increase is supplied. Then the Internet posters say this was clearly a joke and that it's stupid to have people being arrested for nothing.

I am thrilled this guy got arrested, there's no reason to be joking about blowing up a god damn airport in 2010.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tyanna, 19 Jan 2010 @ 8:25am

Re: WHAT??!!
The problem is, we are too afraid to protest these days, b/c you might end up in one of those nice interrogation rooms.

But they are protecting us from the terrorists.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 19 Jan 2010 @ 8:27am

The guy failed the IQ test...
With today's paranoia on terrorism, making a joke like that is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Right or wrong, stuff like this isn't tolerated today. He should have known better and refrained from making the statement.

I would be interested in knowing how his twitter message came to the authorities attention though. Who reported it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tyanna, 19 Jan 2010 @ 8:28am

Re: Re:
I'm more curious on how they are going to enforce it. You book a flight with an airline, not the airport.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tyanna, 19 Jan 2010 @ 8:35am

See, now when I read about this yesterday I took his msg mean he was going to yell at someone. Get angry...protest.

I honestly didn't think he was a terrorist b/c I didn't think there was a terrorist stupid enough to tweet their plans a week in advance.

I do find it amusing though. He posted the msg a week before his flight, so that would be Jan 8th. They arrested him on Jan 13th. Nice to let everyone know they have about a 5 day window....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2010 @ 8:45am

Re: The guy failed the IQ test...
Our security efforts have failed the IQ test. The last 2 attempts (shoe and underwear) have been people buying one-way tickets within days of departure with cash. The underwear guy was on a list, put there by his father who had reported him as "radicalized".

We don't need body scanners...but we'd rather just throw money at the problem, as usual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2010 @ 9:09am

Re:
You're right. Now instead of joking about it he should just go do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2010 @ 9:14am

Maybe the ban too is a bad joke...
Maybe this is thier way of saying that the joke wasn't funny but they just haven't had Ashton Kutcher come out and say he was punked yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 9:34am

Re:
"Am I the only person who sees this as kind of justified? "

As far as I can tell, yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 9:52am

Re: WHAT??!!
I had a similar event happen to me on Christmas day flying to Hawaii. I had put my boarding pass in my backpack which ran through the detector. Ad the human detector, the guard asked to see my boarding pass. I told him it was in my backpack inside the other detector.

He then told me I wouldn't be able to fly that day. When I looked confused, he told me he was joking.

And my thought was: I am not allowed to make jokes here, then you shouldn't be allowed to make jokes here either.

As I thought about it later, had I gone ballistic, they would have arrested me. But when it became clear I went ballistic over his joke - he would have been in a fair amount of trouble too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 9:58am

But are we safer?
IF the police in this case are trying to make us safer by monitoring Tweeter, why are they broadcasting that people should not make bomb statements on tweeter?

I can understand him talking to the fellow, but it shouldn't be against the law to make statements on tweeter. In fact, they should have kept the fact that they watch tweeter secret!

Of course, there isn't any evidence that any terrorist would tweet about an action prior to the attempt. If the set of terrorists tipping off police via tweeter is already known to be null, what is being accomplished here?

It is like yelling "WE ARE STAKING OUT TWEETER! Terrorists! Don't Tweet or we will catch you!!!"

How does that make us safer?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bishboria (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 10:13am

Maybe he should have paid the $1.99...
Maybe the unfortunate guy should've paid $1.99 for the sarcasm icon!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tim, 19 Jan 2010 @ 11:04am

Re: Maybe he should have paid the $1.99...
Good point & funny

When they first came out, I thought emoticons were the dumbest things I ever saw...then I had a boss who read into emails and IM's whatever her personal mood of the day was. I was even sent to human resources for a corrective interview regarding the tone of my emails when all they were was statements of fact regarding department production and due dates.

How can you tell the intent or the frame-of-mind of the person in a text post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tim, 19 Jan 2010 @ 11:12am

Re: The guy failed the IQ test...
I would venture to say no one reported it. Even comments on this site, like every other site out there, are scanned by govt. sniffers. Think of Google Web crawlers - only much better and more timely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Canucklehead, 19 Jan 2010 @ 11:15am

The Faulkers
Yet somehow it was funny when Faulker makes his bomb innuendo and parody song while he is being questioned at the airport.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake, 19 Jan 2010 @ 11:33am

Re: Re: Re:
It's private property, so the airport's owners are well within their rights to ban him from entering. I imagine they'll have some kind of arrangement in place with the airlines so that if a barred individual's name comes up at check-in, an alert goes to the airport police or private security so they can come and throw them out.

The ban will probably disappear once this all blows over, though; unless he's actually found guilty, banning him is probably a violation of some part of the Human Rights Act.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 11:52am

Re: WHAT??!!
Hmmm, Dark,

I was on a flight out of Vegas CES this month, just after the underpants incident, and the guy behind me was an infrequent flyer who protested having to remove his shoes.

The airport was dead, so there were few around, but the TSA woman got a little snippy with him, he complied...no problem. I silently observed, for fear I attract unwanted attention.

But then the TSA woman started off on a big speech for all nearby to hear about how any inconvenience is worth it and "If I'm getting on a plane, the ONLY thing that matters is security. There is NO amount of inconvenience that matters more than my safety..."

Suffice to say I radically disagree. I, unlike she, like to perform cost/benefit analyses on all aspects of life. There IS an amount of inconvenience that goes to far, and there IS a point where the marginal safety benefit isn't worth the price. It's not just theoretical, either: I crossed the cost
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 12:00pm

Re:
So you're saying the problem is that the issue was escalated by the Sheriff of Nottingham? That guy always was a dick.

And the airport is privately owned, and the owners are the ones banning this ninny? I say we steal that strip and give it back to the people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 12:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
???

"well within their rights to ban him"

"banning him is probably a violation of...Human Rights Act"

Did you change your mind mid post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CHROnOSS, 19 Jan 2010 @ 12:04pm

im right here terrorist blow me up already
huh ...damn it didn't happen oh well onto other things of the day.

AND that my friends is how you defeat terrorism. IF you go around worrying its not healthy. YOU will get creepy yourself withdrawn and ya know what....make dumb idiot laws that never catch a single terrorist.

bush called hackers terrorists one day and the next i hacked the talibans news website.

then he recanted and said "ok hackers aren't terrorists ...but please dont do that we need to see what they have there"

thats how stupid bush is
ok osama lets put detailed plans of the next attack on a website?

thats what ran the american govt for 8 years
OMFG
thats the truth of it
your Americans are daft utterly devoid of intellect and over-react to everything
its sad sick and needs to stop.
SO what do you do?
you elect obama who brings mister hollywood with him to terrorize us all some more
like 8 years a war then 8 more of hollywood terror
FUCK YOU AMERICA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake, 19 Jan 2010 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not exactly, though that could have been better phrased. Sorry. While he's still on bail for conspiracy to create a bomb hoax they're probably within their legal rights, but if he's acquitted or not charged, they'll have to drop it or he'd be able to take them to court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 12:50pm

Re:
"I am thrilled this guy got arrested, there's no reason to be joking about blowing up a god damn airport in 2010."

It's over boys, the terrorists have won.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2010 @ 1:49pm

Re: Re: The guy failed the IQ test...
And not just any money. Chinese money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 2:42pm

Re: im right here terrorist blow me up already
You know this story is about the UK, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 6:52pm

Re: Wakes
> In the wake of the failed attempt to blow up and airplane on Xmas
> in America, this guy is now posting 'jokes' about blowing up a
> whole airport?

What if he joked about blowing up the whole *world*? That's an even bigger bomb, so maybe he should be banned from everywhere. At some point common sense has to enter into it.

And I'm tired of every new restriction on freedom and gross governmental overreach being justified with introductory phrase, "In the wake of..."

Seems like as long as we're in the "wake" of something, no amount of imposition on liberty is inappropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 6:53pm

Re: Security
> people who post on the Internet, angry that the Xmas guy got
> through and almost blew up a plane and they demand more security

No, we don't demand more security. We demand *better* security. The difference is subtle, I know, but see if you can suss it out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 8:28pm

Re: But are we safer?
pretty sure it's 'Twitter'

but yeah. it's dumb. we know this.

sometimes i wonder if getting elected, appointed, or otherwise acquire any position of authority by any non-disreputable means, requires some sort of damaging brain surgery as part of the process...

(the above statement is fairly broad, but the exceptions seem to be extensive And irregular, so I'm just gonna leave it :) )
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 8:31pm

Re: Re: im right here terrorist blow me up already
Never let reality get in the way of an amusingly incoherent rant, i say.

Especially when there seems to be a meaningful, if possibly irrelevant and nicely hidden, point to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
slander (profile), 20 Jan 2010 @ 1:14am

Re: Re: Re: The guy failed the IQ test...
The terrorists have already yuan?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 20 Jan 2010 @ 3:05am

OTT. Comments taken out of context. Bit of a flame - nothing more. Over-reaction by authorities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 20 Jan 2010 @ 11:56am

Banning someone for a threat
Mike, I see your point, but you don't know where this all started.
In the 1920's (thereabouts) a man, as a joke(?), went into a crowded theater and yelled "FIRE!". Since there had been a very devastating fire in another theater shortly before, the patrons panicked, and several were killed.
Now, this "blowing up an airport" may not be as serious; probably isn't, but it is similar - bad jokes can kill, and should be discouraged (and "bad boy" doesn't work).
[ link to this | view in thread ]