5 ms·

Along these lines, I wonder if anyone has pointed out why the TSA is storing whay they view as "potentially explosive and life-threatening liquids" in the middl

by athenot 10y ago

Along these lines, I wonder if anyone has pointed out why the TSA is storing whay they view as "potentially explosive and life-threatening liquids" in the middle of a high-traffic area? Also, if all those bottles of liquid are worth being confiscated because they contain harmful chemicals, they are also to be disposed of by personel in hazmat with proper EPA considerations, namely audit, analysis and documentation. It would be fun to see a lawsuit along those lines.

TillE 10y ago
The precursors of TATP are not particularly dangerous by themselves. The extraordinarily stupid part is where they hypothetically confiscate such a liquid, and then they let the person go.
- mikeash 10y ago
  They don't have the resources to actually check every bottle for explosives. That's why it's a blanket ban. Note that if you have a good reason to bring a liquid (because it's medically necessary, for example) then they will let you take it through, but they will test it. And if it tests positive for explosives, then you can bet that they neither toss the bottle in the trash nor allow you to proceed to your gate. The liquid ban itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but if you grant their IMO faulty assumptions (that liquid bombs are a big threat), the way they carry it out is actually pretty reasonable.
mikeash 10y ago
It's a bit of a paradox. The purpose of screening isn't really to confiscate dangerous materials, but to prevent people from ever bringing it. If you have a ban on liquids, then an attacker isn't going to bother bringing a liquid bomb. All liquids you encounter will be benign. Yet that doesn't mean that the ban is useless: if someone wants to bring a liquid bomb, then if you remove the liquid ban they will bring it. I think the liquid ban is pretty silly, but that's because the whole idea of a liquid bomb seems to be unworkable, and there are better ways to handle this stuff. The fact that confiscated liquids are handled so casually is not actually an argument against the ban.
- minionslave 10y ago
  I think the whole ban, gave the terrorists the bright idea of bringing liquid bombs in the first place.
  - tdeck 10y ago
    The ban was put in place as a result of a real terrorist plot uncovered in 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl...
ptaffs 10y ago
i had a fruitless discussion, when we found a water bottle in my bag, he said he knew, exasperated, and it's the rules and whatnot, but I so wish he said "Look Son, I don't know it's water, so I'm asking you to dispose of it". It's like even the staff know how stupid the theatre is.
- sosborn 10y ago
  > but I so wish he said "Look Son, I don't know it's water, so I'm asking you to dispose of it" I'm sure he did that when he first started, but being berated on a daily basis ("Are you calling me a liar?!") probably made him decide that his current method is the path of least resistance.

by athenot 10y ago

TillE 10y ago

The precursors of TATP are not particularly dangerous by themselves. The extraordinarily stupid part is where they hypothetically confiscate such a liquid, and then they let the person go.

mikeash 10y ago
They don't have the resources to actually check every bottle for explosives. That's why it's a blanket ban. Note that if you have a good reason to bring a liquid (because it's medically necessary, for example) then they will let you take it through, but they will test it. And if it tests positive for explosives, then you can bet that they neither toss the bottle in the trash nor allow you to proceed to your gate. The liquid ban itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but if you grant their IMO faulty assumptions (that liquid bombs are a big threat), the way they carry it out is actually pretty reasonable.

mikeash 10y ago

It's a bit of a paradox. The purpose of screening isn't really to confiscate dangerous materials, but to prevent people from ever bringing it. If you have a ban on liquids, then an attacker isn't going to bother bringing a liquid bomb. All liquids you encounter will be benign. Yet that doesn't mean that the ban is useless: if someone wants to bring a liquid bomb, then if you remove the liquid ban they will bring it. I think the liquid ban is pretty silly, but that's because the whole idea of a liquid bomb seems to be unworkable, and there are better ways to handle this stuff. The fact that confiscated liquids are handled so casually is not actually an argument against the ban.

minionslave 10y ago
I think the whole ban, gave the terrorists the bright idea of bringing liquid bombs in the first place.
- tdeck 10y ago
  The ban was put in place as a result of a real terrorist plot uncovered in 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl...

ptaffs 10y ago

i had a fruitless discussion, when we found a water bottle in my bag, he said he knew, exasperated, and it's the rules and whatnot, but I so wish he said "Look Son, I don't know it's water, so I'm asking you to dispose of it". It's like even the staff know how stupid the theatre is.

sosborn 10y ago
> but I so wish he said "Look Son, I don't know it's water, so I'm asking you to dispose of it" I'm sure he did that when he first started, but being berated on a daily basis ("Are you calling me a liar?!") probably made him decide that his current method is the path of least resistance.