![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
I'll tell you why. It's because they spend so long weighing \"forbidden liquids\" to see if they meet the minimum necessary for a Con Air-grade fictional gel-bomb, or nattering about their sideline selling bomb-detecting equipment to other countries' security services, as I recently discovered at the aiport in Houston.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-20222-100x100.png\")
The problem is they give TSA employees too specific of objects to look for. If you tell them 'You cannot have more than 4oz of some liquid' or 'Tools must be less than 3 inches' they start to focus on that and take people's nail clippers and eye drops, but they miss big obvious things. I don't think any of these Screeners are allowed, or care for that matter, enough to use their own brains to be effective. This 'profiling' is only going to make matters worse. If they cannot find a fake bomb effectively how are they going to successfully profile people out of thousands of passengers?
Ridiculous. For the BS that we get put through, continual ineffectiveness is truly unacceptable.
Although, the heightened security itself is a deterrent. It seems unlikely that terrorists will try once again to use airplanes, and it's a bit of a case of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. However, it's a catch-22. Without the heightened security, terrorists might try to use the planes again. We're unlikely to catch any more would-be terrorists as long as we have such intense screening scrutiny.
(And on that note, it's such a ridiculous argument to say that our government is over-restricting us without reason, the justification for such a statement being that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11. Could it be that we haven't had a terrorist attack because of these restrictions?)
How come I can't bring a 15 ounce bottle of mouthwash on a plane, but I can bring 5 3-ounce bottles of mouthwash on a plane?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4587-100x100.png\")
I went to some podunk airport in Arizona, show up early for my flight. The TSA guy is on a cigarette break and he tells me \"you'd better not have any rocks in those bags.\". I guess because taking rocks from the national parks is prohibited?
So anyway, I tell him I don't have any rocks. Once I check my luggage, I get to watch him tear apart my entire bag looking for contraband. I don't know if he didn't trust me, or if he was just bored since I was the only person at the airport.
Anyway, the point of this rambling is that I hate the TSA.
Cos John Malkovitch never blew up a jail cell like that in Con Air, which remains, I think, the best source of inspiration for this shakily-sourced bomb plot nonsense.
@Funklord: because then you can *share*! The TSA is just like your kindergarten teacher...only more thuggish.
Like the poor geologist mentioned on Boing-Boing, IIRC, who had a prized specimen confiscated from him, rocks are \"dual-use\", i.e. not only is it a rock, it could be used as a weapon!
I'd like to see some idiot try to take over a plane with a rock.
People like to joke that eventually you won't be able to board a flight without being naked, carrying nothing at all. This does not go far enough in ensuring security. After all, a terrorist could have a bomb surgically implanted, undetectable by current technology. No, the only sure way to be safe is for the TSA to make it as hard as possible for people to fly. Then the only people willing to put up with it, besides those with a very odd form of masochism, will be terror minded individuals. Prevent them from flying and everyone will be safe!
NeonCat, I've always thought that it's far easier to kill someone with a pencil or a pen than with a nail clipper or anything else the TSA bans. One good stab with a six-inch pencil, and you're down...so why can I pack a sharp pencil when it's such an obvious weapon, and not a rock, which really is harder to kill someone with for your average Joe or Jane?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1623-100x100.png\")
Are the reporters at the Star-Tribune going to be hassled by the FBI now that they've revealed this dangerous security hole?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1530-100x100.png\")
Its simple. Screening is bogus. Its simply a tool of the government to make you fearful that a attack could happen (and thus keep you electing the very people who caused the environment that these \"terrorists\" are created in) while at the same time making the public feel safe cause its happening, all the while letting tools much worse than the ones used in 9/11 (box cutters and fake, yes FAKE explosives) through.
We will overlook the fact that the hijackers could have been stopped at least 25-30 times BEFORE the week of the attacks by our own government but wasnt because they are so stupid and politically inept to see the warning signs. We'll just blame it on airport security and leave it at that, while the real threats continue on.
That way if someone gets through its the poor guy working a minimum wage jobs fault, not the 100-200 k a year government appointee (ie buddy of the party in charge) who couldn't even pass high school most likely but still got a important job that those screens could probably do better simply cause they padded so and so's election fund with a little bit of green.
Unfortunately way too many Americans in this country are just stupid enough to believe in this kind of bullshit from our government, either from the left, or the right. The fun of being a free country... your completely free to have no common sense.
If we cannot keep weapons out of prisons, how can we keep them out of airplanes?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
20 of 22 tests failed. I can't even begin to calculate how much lower than an F that is.
Favorite quote:
\"Mark Hatfield Jr., Newark Airport's federal security director [said], \"Test results are not a grade or a scorecard.\"
Well then! I'm relieved.
Phew!
This is ridiculous. I fly in and out of Newark fairly regularly, and given how long security lines are and how anal they are about making everyone take off shoes, jackets, and anything else not required for decency, you'd think they'd be, like....productive. It's all theater to intimidate the innocent traveler, obviously, since it's sure not actual protection of airline security!