![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
This has always been the policy in the 2.5 years I've been with TSA. Liquid is liquid whether it's in a bottle or a glass enclosure with a miniature figurine inside.
Don't get me wrong: the liquid policy is downright stupid and does nothing to solve the problem of multiple terrorists bringing in mini bottle of liquid explosives and mixing them in a big bottle in the departure area. But this rule has been on the books for over three years. If you can't be bothered to take the 30 seconds to go the tsa.gov before you fly and take even a cursory glance at the rules, please don't fly.
And if you do, don't be a dick to the TSO who makes 30k a year when he has to take your bottled water. He doesn't make the rules and most likely realizes how stupid some of them are. The only thing your attitude accomplishes is ruining the chance that you'll catch the TSO in a good mood and he'll let you keep your crap.
@Shivver:
\"The only thing your attitude accomplishes is ruining the chance that you'll catch the TSO in a good mood and he'll let you keep your crap.\"
The attitude you show in your comment is a great example of why people hate TSA employees.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-789724-100x100.png\")
@Shivver: There is a word that is associated with the TSA, and it is 'Terrorist'
However, it's not in the way you like to think.
Terrorism is defined (in US code no less) \"…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… ...appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion...\" 18 U.S.C. §2331
The TSA intimidates a civilian population with the 'threat' of death. That's over 88 million incidents of terrorism during 2009 just in Atlanta and Chicago.
Compare that with a total of 3,850 killed in every terrorist related incident involving a US target (be it property or person, although the death total includes the terrorists and non-us casualties as well) since 1994. By comparison, according to FARS ([www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov]) approximately 3100 died every month in traffic accidents last year alone (the lowest for 15 years).
In the grand scale of things, terrorism is a negligible danger to human life. The WEATHER is twice as lethal. Oh, and if you take the total number of terrorism incidents involving the US over the last 15 years, and count the same number of incidents for the UK, starting on Jan 1st 1994, you come to... February 1994. Got to love the (US funded!) IRA.
Anyway, Mr TSA man, if you want to prevent terrorism, quit your job. The only kind of terrorism the US has right now, is domestic terrorism.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
@ktetch: There's a book that was published around 9/11 and calculated that your chances of dying from terrorism or similar acts was so much smaller than your chances of dying from being hit by a tornado or from a parachute malfunction while skydiving that a lot of the fear was simply overblown.
The problem with accepting these figures and understanding them as rational beings is that unlike terrorism, people choose to live near a tornado-prone area, or they choose to go skydiving, knowing somewhere in the back of their mind that there is risk for failure. Terrorism represents what is most fundamentally fearful for all of us - that we can't control what happens to us. And even though the chances are much, much smaller, we are still afraid of that arbitrary hand coming down on us.
But terrorism is also different because if one person dies from a parachute malfunction while he or she is skydiving, a comparatively small number of people are affected upon that person's demise. Terrorism, however, affects every person in a much more profound way. This is why anytime there are severe acts of destruction, whether terrorism or accidental, (shootings, industrial accidents, etc.) therapists and psychologists are immediately dispatched. The ramifications are so profound for such a large number of people that we have to make efforts to mitigate as much of the trauma as we can.
@pecan 3.14159265: \"This is why anytime there are severe acts of destruction, whether terrorism or accidental, (shootings, industrial accidents, etc.) therapists and psychologists are immediately dispatched.\"
Hmm, I don't remember seeing any of them. I walked past one of the (US funded!) IRA bombs that went off in Warrington just moments before it went off, back in 93. Having a trash can explode just down the road scares the CRAP out of a 12 year old. Later, after university, I trained as an accident investigator and safety inspector. I never saw any therapists or psychologists immediately dispatched. Some times cards were given out to local ones. That includes when I was working in California (there's no requirement, its just done sometimes)
Having been AT a terrorist attack (and as a kid) It was surprising, a little disturbing, but profound and traumatic? No, not unless you count the amount of fear generated by what passes for news reporting nowadays.
There was also an incident 20 years ago, at Hillsboro footbal stadium. 96 people were crushed to death. They were all from my city, Liverpool. I knew some people who were there, One of my teachers a year or two later was in the crush, but he only had minor injuries. My stepmother has the job of preventing that at Everton, Liverpool's rival. There was no psychologists. In fact, The Sun (a news corp paper, belonging to the same media group as Fox) accused the fans of all kinds of things (more on wiki [en.wikipedia.org])
\"Terrorism, however, affects every person in a much more profound way.\" Terrorism affects people as much as they let themselves be affected. There were TEN provoIRA bomb attacks in Jan and Feb 93 alone, plus another 5 rocket/mortar/grenade attacks [en.wikipedia.org]
It affected the whole country, because there were frequent multiple attacks spanning the entire country. Did we go apesh!t paranoid? no. Did we resort to stupid security theatre? no, not at the time.
It wasn't until it was shown that by telling lies, exagerating threats, and actually putting fear into people that didn't exist, that it happened, under Moneybags Blair.
In the last 5 years there's been the tightest restrictions ever, citing terrorism. There has been one major act in the last 8-9 years in the UK.
We have a lot to thank for the situation, but I think the Akre ruling is one of the major culprits. There are many other reasons though, acting in combination, like poor education and reasoning skills, and religious bigotry. 2 attacks in 16 years = war because they're muslim, but funding over three hundred attacks in the same period is ok, because they were Christian.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@pecan 3.14159265: I vividly remember the safety expert who, just after 9/11, was asked the best way for us to make ourselves safer. \"Stop smoking,\" she said.
It's not just terrorism, it's skewed perceptions in general. We like to be in control, and we're unforgiving of flaws in situations when we aren't, despite what a mess we make of stuff when we are.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-318831-100x100.png\")
@Shivver: That is why the TSA needs to be overhauled or abolished right there. You can be 100% within the rules, and just because a TSA agent is having a bad day and decides to be a dick, he or she can detain you, make you miss your flight, insist that perfectly legal objects must be discarded (for example, the TSA agent who ruled that ANY gel, regardless of flammability, regardless of volume (travel size toothpaste, or a 2oz bottle of shampoo, for example), was banned, just because he said so, on a flight my Father took recently), and so on. TSA agents have too much power and too little accountability or oversight.
@Difdi: But isn't that precisely what nearly all humans do anyway? You go to the doctor's office, and the doctor is crabby because he or she had an unruly patient - the reaction from the rest of the people waiting is usually \"please don't let me be the one who goes in next.\" The waiter who has done a good job gets no tip from his table - anyone still waiting is hoping they won't get that waiter. It's not right to assume that people will take their hardships out on us, but we do. And it's because it does happen. I don't see that singling out TSA when nearly everyone else does it as well helps the situation.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-127623-100x100.png\")
@pecan 3.14159265: You're right. Everyone does it and it's easily seen in service settings. However, and I'm sure you're mother taught you this, just because everyone does it does not make it right.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4863-100x100.png\")
@Shivver: \"The only thing your attitude accomplishes is ruining the chance that you'll catch the TSO in a good mood and he'll let you keep your crap.\"
That right there is why no one likes TSA agents. If the rules dictate something be taken from me, then apologize for the inconvenience, and take it. If the rules allow me to have something, then allow me to pass through the checkpoint with it. Unfortunately, whether or not the rules get followed is directly related to the mood of any given TSA agents. If the agent is having a good day, and they're all smiles and handshakes, then perhaps things that shouldn't get through a checkpoint get a pass. I've heard enough stories of guns and knives making it through. If the agent is having a bad day, a passenger may be detained for no other reason than failing to say \"please\". People get physically molested, verbally abused, separated from their children so that the child may be searched (you know, in case that baby is actually a baby bomb), or otherwise humiliated for no good reason other than the mood of the officer in question.
I won't argue that TSA agents don't make enough, however, if you can't handle working with the public in a professional manner, then consider a career change. If my attitude can cause you to break the rules to the extent that TSA agents so often break them, that is to say to the extent that my civil rights are violated, you don't deserve the job, nor the measly 30K that goes along with it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-101046-100x100.png\")
@What The Geek: What rules? Whatever shit you decide to make up that day?
The TSA won't post their own regulations and rules to begin with.
Have you heard \"Am I legally required to answer this question?\"
@doctor_cos: Actually, the TSA goes pretty in-depth on what can and can't be carried in the \"For Travelers\" section of the website. They also give quite a bit of information for those that are traveling with people with disabilities and with small children. When in doubt, you also can call your airline to seek guidance on something that you plan on bringing with you.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what rules you think should be made available for public viewing.
@Shivver: [papersplease.org] has more specific information on how forthcoming the TSA is with their 'regulations'
And as far as civil rights go, the TSA doesn't care. You can refuse to be searched in the airport until you pass the boarding pass check. Once in the pre-'sterile' zone, you are under the TSA's control and can no longer refuse any search.
So where are my civil rights now?
@Shivver: My crap? My property, thanks. If you don't like your job, get another job, but putting people through suffering because you hate it makes no sense. Trust me, passengers hate going through TSA as much as you hate working there.
I got detained once by a TSA agent for almost an hour. I almost shat myself thinking that someone had put drugs in my bag or something. And lo in behold, it was my damn Ipod.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-134363-100x100.png\")
@BabyFirefly: \"My crap? My property, thanks.\"
You should try some of George Carlin's comedy before you make comments like that. He clearly knew the difference between \"My stuff\" and \"Your shit\"
@Shivver: I don't know why it should be the fault of citizens that TSA policy is security theater. If you recognize that the policy of your company or in this case agency is inherently stupid, don't be a dick and expect consumers to quietly and blindly put up with it. I'm not advocating rudeness to TSO agents, but I do think people who politely argue over these useless stupid policies are right to do so.
@lmarconi:
but I do think people who politely argue over these useless stupid policies are right to do so.
You're arguing with the wrong people - frontline TSA employee's aren't going to say \"hey, you're right\" and change the rules.\"
write to your congressional delegation and tell them it's a lousy rule.
@wrjohnston91283: The writer was suggesting that TSA agents decisions can be arbitrarily decided by their mood at the time and that consumers should expect this and adapt to it. If true, that does not only reflect the idiocy of the policy, but it also reflects the competence of the agents.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-552772-100x100.png\")
@Shivver: My problem with TSA is at certain airports they tend to be very rude. If I do something wrong (I have a security check point at work, so I usually get everything right), then fine, I'll back up and undo the problem.
@Shivver: Does TSA pay any attention to its own employees? If a majority of TSA employees tell management that a particular policy is counter-productive, will management listen?
@H3ion: No, management is pretty detached from what actually goes on down in the screening checkpoint. If they consulted the officers, half of the changes that have gone on in my airport in the past year would have never happened.
@What The Geek: TSA policy does give the frontline TSO some latitude to make decisions, especially involving liquids. That doesn't mean that anyone is given a free pass. There are testing methods to make sure that a liquid won't present a threat. So in that sense no rules are actually being broken. It's comparable to a police officer letting you off with a warning instead of writing a speeding ticket. If you mouth off to a cop, you're going to get the ticket 10 out of 10 times. If you treat him like an actual human being, he might just cut you a break.
That being said, that has nothing at all to do with guns and knives and other dangerous objects getting through the checkpoint. That's simple human error that can and does occur at any job. Ideally we would catch 100% of everything people try to bring through. Realistically, we do the best we can given the circumstances.
As far as your civil liberties go, how exactly are they being violated? There is no right to fly, the same way there is no right to drive a car. If you want to fly, you have to abide by a certain set of rules. If you don't like those rules, Amtrak and Greyhound will always be available to serve your needs. No one is forcing you to go through the screening process. Technically, we can't even compel you to give anything up. Everything we take is considered a voluntary surrender, with the caveat being that you don't get past the checkpoint without giving it up.
@BabyFirefly: I don't love my job, but I definitely don't hate it. And I don't think I put anyone through any suffering. My point was simply that, at least at my airport, the security process is as easy or hard as you make it. If you know what you're doing, the process goes smoothly. If you don't sometimes it hits some snags, which are only compounded by the ignorance of the passenger. Like I said, the frontline TSO is given some discretion in certain matters. You'd be crazy to expect me to exercise my discretion in your favor if you treat me like dirt.
@Shivver: No offense but, you're full of shit. By giving the frontline some freedom to make decisions that deviate from the posted rules and regulations, life threatening errors can occur. I'm not just talking about guns and knives on planes, I'm speaking of the numerous people who have had difficulties flying with medication (including myself) because some TSO agent decided that the posted rule that liquid medication can be brought on with a doctor's note can be arbitrarily questioned by them if they don't understand whatever contraption (in my case an Epi-Pen) you're trying to bring on the plane. And yes, I've been given major crap for that and almost missed a flight, I worry about people who have insulin and other more serious medications to take on. I can deal with an idiotic rule, I can't deal with one that isn't clearly and transparently posted and carried out.
@Shivver: So what you're saying is that if a government run entity such as the TSA decides to... oh, I don't know... detain someone for no good reason, or take someone's child away off into another room for screening without their permission, they're justified in doing so because the passenger could have taken a train instead? You can just do what you feel like 'cause hey, I always had the option to take a bus?
Airlines are privately run companies. If they kick me off of a flight because I'm breaking some code of conduct, my civil liberties aren't violated - a private entity has ejected me from a flight because I failed to meet my end of the service agreement - end of story. If a TSA agent does something wrong, as a government run entity whom I have no direct transaction with, then yes, my civil liberties are violated.
If a cop pulls you over for speeding, and you're polite and he's in a good mood, you might get off with a warning. If you're rude, and he's in a bad mood, you will likely get a ticket. If he's on a power trip, and acting in a completely unprofessional manner, he'll taser you in the anus.
If a TSA agent is in a good mood, and you're polite to them, you keep your tooth paste. If the TSA agent is in a bad mood, and you're rude to them, you lose your toothpaste. If they're on a power trip and acting in an unprofessional manner, you'll be frisked inappropriately, and detained for six hours because they suspect your so called \"toothpaste\" to be a weapon of mass destruction, and by getting huffy when he took it from you (despite it being only 2 ounces) you snowed signs of suspicious activity, and off to some small room you go to be questioned for the next 72 hours.
Do you see the differences in the mentioned scenarios for the cop and the TSA agent? There's a difference between having some wiggle room with the rules, and violating someone's rights.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-53233-100x100.png\")
@What The Geek: OOOOH! Careful equating TSAs to cops.
TSAs were given fake uniforms with fake badges to help their self-esteem.
Cops have earned and deserve their uniform and badge, or at least most have.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1162726-100x100.png\")
@davere: And I think that a lot of those nutzoid \"I AM the law\" types who are too insane to be hired by the police departments, might just shuffle on down to the TSA offices and fill out an application. A badge is a badge, right? A badge equals power over others, right? Power trip! 'Look at these dumb, cowering sheep, uh, I mean, passengers. Yeah, I'll give you back your insulin bottles, but only if I can cop a feel, and you get down and lick my boots. Otherwise, it's strip-search time, baby.'
@What The Geek: I think you're confusing two separate issues. You're clearly referencing the St. Louis incident where the Ron Paul supporter was detained without cause. The TSA officers were clearly out of line with procedure and were disciplined for it. I hope that he sues and that he wins big. As for taking your child, it became fairly clear afterward that the woman who claimed that happened to her was not telling the truth([tinyurl.com]).
That has nothing to do with the normal day to day function of the screening checkpoint. The fact is that you don't have a right to fly, and in order to do so you have to follow some fairly simple rules. If you think those violate your civil liberties, you're welcome to feel that way. But realistically speaking you've agreed to abide by those rules just by putting your things down on the x-ray table.
Also, for the record, TSA has no detention powers. They may call in another law enforcement agency that does, but your average TSA officer cannot detain you for any reason.
Oh, and your examples are pretty bad too. A police officer issues you a ticket in lieu of arrest. If he so desires he can cuff you and bring you in for a speeding ticket. The police officer is also looking for signs of suspicious activity, which is why Timothy McVeigh was caught during a routine traffic stop.
@Shivver: Do a google search for TSA - hell, search on the consumerist for TSA. You'll find way more then the two stories I've referenced in my replies to you. Some TSA agents carry a chip on their shoulder, and they take it out on the passengers. I know someone who was 100% touched inappropriately by a TSA agent during a \"routine screening\". This stuff happens way more often than it should.
If you were paying any attention to my previous comments, you'd notice I said I understand flying isn't a right - nor is it a government provided service. The TSA, however, is a government provided \"service\". As such, TSA agents are (or at least are supposed to be) responsible for acting professionally, and not stepping outside of the law on a whim. Unfortunately, TSA agents are underpaid, and overworked - which leads to the wide variety of grouping, unlawful detention, and general violations of people's rights that goes on at the airport. To be clear, I'm not saying the rules violate my civil liberties - the rules are what they are. Whether I like it or not, I have to go through TSA screening if I want to get on a plane. The violation of civil liberties comes when a TSA agent decides to steal from a passenger, feel up a passenger, or detain a passenger without cause (or apparently a right to do so).
As for my police analogy, yea, the cop has a right to arrest you, and they absolutely should be looking for suspicious activity. I'm talking about what happens when a cop on a power trip steps outside the lines. If I'm playing by the rules, and the cop decides to make an example out of me by pepper spraying me in the face just because he can, that cop has gone too far, and should be punished accordingly. Unfortunately, when either a cop or a TSA agent steps out of line, the punishment seldom fits the crime. Most of the time, it's a stern talking to, along with a short suspension, and they're back on the job, now with an even bigger chip on their shoulder.
I'm not referring to the TSA agents (or cops for that matter) that come to work, and play by the rules (wiggle room and all). I'm talking about the ones who come to work, and abuse their position. It happens way too often, and it always seems to start with the \"The only thing your attitude accomplishes is ruining the chance that you'll catch the TSO in a good mood and he'll let you keep your crap.\" state of mind. By that, I mean a state of mind where the TSA agent feels justified in whatever action they take, legal or otherwise, if the passenger \"had it coming\".
@What The Geek: But it's also worth noting, I think, that the false story about the woman and her baby is indicative of the TSA's being common and popular targets. The story of the mommyblogger's desire for a book deal and the security footage showing very little resemblance to her account didn't percolate with the effectiveness of her original tale, because it didn't jibe with our prejudices in the same way, but it's still used as an example of TSA misbehavior.
I'm not crazy about the whole TSA thing, but the blanket anti-TSA thing doesn't fill me with much warmth either.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-812791-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-263779-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-56929-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-462451-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1298983-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-808630-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-72163-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-447062-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-793795-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1021770-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37033-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-175559-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-103994-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-245595-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1029606-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-326595-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-20679-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-890779-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1226904-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-782863-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-248249-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98962-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-413348-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1156621-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-309558-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-624458-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-469751-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-802934-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1411577-100x100.png\")
Well, if they measured the globe, accounted for displacement of water of what is inside.... but they wouldn't know if it was water or not.
@wcnghj: There would be no practical way to deal with the varying thickness of snow globes or the varying amounts of decorations in the globe that will be displacing liquid.
@wcnghj: at the beginning of september, i was flying back home, and decided to push TSA and bring a few water bottles with me. from what i could tell on the TSA website, i was considered a special case due to type I diabetes. i brought 2 sealed bottles and a nalgene - while she was standing there, after she dipped her strip into my water bottle, i decided to take a drink - she told me that i couldn't do that until after she had confirmed that the substance was water.
let me recap - *I* drank liquid from MY water bottle that *I* filled, and SHE viewed it as a security concern.
now, i am not an explosives expert (or even a high school chemistry teacher), but are there any combustible or incendiary liquids that are safe for human consumption?
@wcnghj: Or if the gas inside is air. I'm no chemist, but I know there are substances that react violently if exposed to air. Glowglobes have been known to break.