<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>ghshephard</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s an excellent question if people pay attention - the question, (at least as asked in Singapore), is, &amp;quot;Did you pack your own luggage, are you aware of everything in it, has anyone given you anything to place in your luggage, and has your luggage been under your control&amp;#x2F;observation the entire time.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Every time they ask me that question - I do a quick mental checklist, always mention that my luggage did leave my control when placed in the boot of the cab - which they always understand is an acceptable loss of control.&lt;p&gt;There are a couple alternatives that one could take to further increase security - first, presume that 100% of people are threats, and do a full security scan, and hand check&amp;#x2F;rejection, of 100% of checked luggage.   Likewise, enhance the carry-on security check, and further restrict what people can carry-on.  In particular, shift the carry-on check to the &lt;i&gt;gate&lt;/i&gt; (where it should be).</text><parent_chain><item><author>jhildings</author><text>The baggage questions is so stupid, IF you wanted to do some  evil with things packed, WHY would you say something that isn&amp;#x27;t the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; answer to them?</text></item><item><author>jamesbrownuhh</author><text>This isn&amp;#x27;t exactly a new phenomenon - even before 9&amp;#x2F;11, a careless joke at baggage check-in (&amp;quot;Did you pack your own luggage today, Sir?&amp;quot; - &amp;quot;No, my wife probably put a bomb in there.&amp;quot;) would often result in the joke not being recognised or treated as such. Said jokester gets taken to one side, scrutinised by the boys in blue, and eventually told that they &amp;quot;will not be flying today, sir.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;In the age of Twitter, such hijinks are amplified further due to their world-readable nature. The problem with innocent, uncomfortable-but-well-intentioned jokes is that you have to consider how it will play with someone whose job it is to flag up and respond to any and all threats, no matter how credible.&lt;p&gt;Fundamentally it&amp;#x27;s your joke versus a member of staff who is not in a position to deviate from the procedure and brush it aside.&lt;p&gt;Plus, who&amp;#x27;d want to be the guy who gets their face on the news after an incident because they ignored a threat and thought it was a joke? They won&amp;#x27;t, and often CAN&amp;#x27;T, take that risk - they are simply not in a position where they are allowed to do so.&lt;p&gt;As you say, we live in shitty knee-jerk reactionary tines, but whatever the rights and wrongs, in this kind of situation it&amp;#x27;s prudent to moderate one&amp;#x27;s comedy appropriately.</text></item><item><author>csirac2</author><text>We live in shitty knee-jerk reactionary times, but did anyone else see his tweet at the time? At best, it seemed in poor taste. At worst, the outcome seems depressingly predictable.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t know what I&amp;#x27;m trying to contribute here, except that whilst I have no problem with EFF working on this, their article here seems overly shrill and over-reactionary at how shrill and over-reactionary the airline was in their response to what (admittedly, in hindsight) could have easily been interpreted as a threat by an over-zealous corporate drone blind to smily-face emoticons.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/united-airlines-stops-researcher-who-tweeted-about-airplane-network-security</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>bonaldi</author><text>Because you might not be aware that you&amp;#x27;re being used. I can&amp;#x27;t find the reference right now, but that question started being asked after a man put an explosive in his wife&amp;#x27;s luggage (when she was flying without him, naturally)</text><parent_chain><item><author>jhildings</author><text>The baggage questions is so stupid, IF you wanted to do some  evil with things packed, WHY would you say something that isn&amp;#x27;t the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; answer to them?</text></item><item><author>jamesbrownuhh</author><text>This isn&amp;#x27;t exactly a new phenomenon - even before 9&amp;#x2F;11, a careless joke at baggage check-in (&amp;quot;Did you pack your own luggage today, Sir?&amp;quot; - &amp;quot;No, my wife probably put a bomb in there.&amp;quot;) would often result in the joke not being recognised or treated as such. Said jokester gets taken to one side, scrutinised by the boys in blue, and eventually told that they &amp;quot;will not be flying today, sir.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;In the age of Twitter, such hijinks are amplified further due to their world-readable nature. The problem with innocent, uncomfortable-but-well-intentioned jokes is that you have to consider how it will play with someone whose job it is to flag up and respond to any and all threats, no matter how credible.&lt;p&gt;Fundamentally it&amp;#x27;s your joke versus a member of staff who is not in a position to deviate from the procedure and brush it aside.&lt;p&gt;Plus, who&amp;#x27;d want to be the guy who gets their face on the news after an incident because they ignored a threat and thought it was a joke? They won&amp;#x27;t, and often CAN&amp;#x27;T, take that risk - they are simply not in a position where they are allowed to do so.&lt;p&gt;As you say, we live in shitty knee-jerk reactionary tines, but whatever the rights and wrongs, in this kind of situation it&amp;#x27;s prudent to moderate one&amp;#x27;s comedy appropriately.</text></item><item><author>csirac2</author><text>We live in shitty knee-jerk reactionary times, but did anyone else see his tweet at the time? At best, it seemed in poor taste. At worst, the outcome seems depressingly predictable.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t know what I&amp;#x27;m trying to contribute here, except that whilst I have no problem with EFF working on this, their article here seems overly shrill and over-reactionary at how shrill and over-reactionary the airline was in their response to what (admittedly, in hindsight) could have easily been interpreted as a threat by an over-zealous corporate drone blind to smily-face emoticons.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/united-airlines-stops-researcher-who-tweeted-about-airplane-network-security</url></story>