5 ms·

Consider how many bottles of liquid the TSA confiscates in a day because they might be explosives. Now imagine actually treating each of those as if the agent

by daten 16y ago

Consider how many bottles of liquid the TSA confiscates in a day because they might be explosives. Now imagine actually treating each of those as if the agent really believed it was a threat in the style described in the article. Does this still make sense?

bruceboughton 16y ago
It would make sense if they actually put some thought into identifying threats, rather than simply confiscating items previously used in thwarted attacks.
- hrabago 16y ago
  This is the part that disappoints me the most, especially after the toner ban. I would expect this from the third world country I came from, where actors win elections because they play likable characters in movies, but not here in the US.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    > I would expect this from the third world country I came from, where actors win elections because they play likable characters in movies, but not here in the US. In that case, I'm going to have to disappoint you about American politics by mentioning Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Springer, Clint Eastwood, Howard Stern, Shirley Temple, Al Franken & co. were all both. I guess I'm less sure about the "likable characters" part, and at least one of those failed to actually get elected (but became an ambassador instead), but even so, I'm only mentioning the more famous ones. There are quite a few more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_actor-politicians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_actor-politic...
TravisLS 16y ago
In fairness, I get the feeling the TSA doesn't actually think any of these bottles of liquid are explosives, since they just throw them in the public terminal trash cans. If they did treat every water bottle as an explosive, then yes, this procedure would make a lot more sense than evacuating the terminal.
- aplusbi 16y ago
  Exactly - if they don't really think they are explosives, then why are they confiscating them in the first place? Either dispose of them properly or just let people on the plane with bottled water.
  - tzs 16y ago
    They don't think they are explosives. They think they might be precursors to explosives.
    - foobarbazoo 16y ago
      You had it right when you said "They don't think." Should've stopped there.
    - aplusbi 16y ago
      A fair point. I think it's safe to say that's not the case - they really think it's just water, but let's just say they do treat them as bomb ingredients. Even though binary explosives are inert when separate that still doesn't mean you can just throw them away.
    - chris_j 16y ago
      It's more subtle than that. They don't think they are explosives. They are merely ensuring that no liquids are taken through security. If no liquids are taken through security then no liquid precursors to explosives are taken through security. What's more, if it is known that no liquids can be taken through security then the bad guys won't even bother to take liquid precursors to explosives through security. This begs a number of questions but, in the meantime, security personnel can throw confiscated liquids into the trash without worrying too much about it.
      - jemfinch 16y ago
        > What's more, if it is known that no liquids can be taken through security then the bad guys won't even bother to take liquid precursors to explosives through security. So the bad guys will just find another way to get their precursors through security. TSA's focus on things just forces the bad guys to adapt; instead, it should focus on the bad guys themselves. > This begs a number of questions No, it doesn't. It may raise a number of questions, but that's very different than "begging the question", which is a philosophical term for a circular argument. Please stop misusing this phrase and contributing to the general decline in modern English usage.

by daten 16y ago

bruceboughton 16y ago

It would make sense if they actually put some thought into identifying threats, rather than simply confiscating items previously used in thwarted attacks.

hrabago 16y ago
This is the part that disappoints me the most, especially after the toner ban. I would expect this from the third world country I came from, where actors win elections because they play likable characters in movies, but not here in the US.
- Natsu 16y ago
  > I would expect this from the third world country I came from, where actors win elections because they play likable characters in movies, but not here in the US. In that case, I'm going to have to disappoint you about American politics by mentioning Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Springer, Clint Eastwood, Howard Stern, Shirley Temple, Al Franken & co. were all both. I guess I'm less sure about the "likable characters" part, and at least one of those failed to actually get elected (but became an ambassador instead), but even so, I'm only mentioning the more famous ones. There are quite a few more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_actor-politicians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_actor-politic...

TravisLS 16y ago

In fairness, I get the feeling the TSA doesn't actually think any of these bottles of liquid are explosives, since they just throw them in the public terminal trash cans. If they did treat every water bottle as an explosive, then yes, this procedure would make a lot more sense than evacuating the terminal.

aplusbi 16y ago
Exactly - if they don't really think they are explosives, then why are they confiscating them in the first place? Either dispose of them properly or just let people on the plane with bottled water.
- tzs 16y ago
  They don't think they are explosives. They think they might be precursors to explosives.
  - foobarbazoo 16y ago
    You had it right when you said "They don't think." Should've stopped there.
  - aplusbi 16y ago
    A fair point. I think it's safe to say that's not the case - they really think it's just water, but let's just say they do treat them as bomb ingredients. Even though binary explosives are inert when separate that still doesn't mean you can just throw them away.
  - chris_j 16y ago
    It's more subtle than that. They don't think they are explosives. They are merely ensuring that no liquids are taken through security. If no liquids are taken through security then no liquid precursors to explosives are taken through security. What's more, if it is known that no liquids can be taken through security then the bad guys won't even bother to take liquid precursors to explosives through security. This begs a number of questions but, in the meantime, security personnel can throw confiscated liquids into the trash without worrying too much about it.
    - jemfinch 16y ago
      > What's more, if it is known that no liquids can be taken through security then the bad guys won't even bother to take liquid precursors to explosives through security. So the bad guys will just find another way to get their precursors through security. TSA's focus on things just forces the bad guys to adapt; instead, it should focus on the bad guys themselves. > This begs a number of questions No, it doesn't. It may raise a number of questions, but that's very different than "begging the question", which is a philosophical term for a circular argument. Please stop misusing this phrase and contributing to the general decline in modern English usage.