TSA busts myths, too!

June 18, 2007 10:23 AM

Last week, a woman at DC's Reagan Airport was detained because of water in her son's sippy cup. In an unusual step, the TSA has posted their own Mythbusters site where they show the security footage and the official incident report. Here is BoingBoing's take on the video. And a security/security technology blogger posts about the larger lesson that people readily side against the TSA "because there's no accountability or transparency in the DHS."
posted by spec80 (253 comments total)

Stay classy, TSA.
posted by boo_radley at 10:31 AM on June 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

A pilot walks into a bar and yells, "All TSA agents are assholes!" A guy at the end of the bar yells back, "Hey I resent that comment." The pilot asks, "Are you an agent?" The guy replies, "No, I'm an asshole!"
posted by rolypolyman at 10:32 AM on June 18, 2007 [18 favorites]

Also hoping for thoughts here on TSA's appropriation of the Mythbusters name.
posted by boo_radley at 10:36 AM on June 18, 2007

In all fairness, what if the sippy cup HAD contained a liquid bomb? Giving the terrorist complete control over the disposal of said bomb....would still be a bad idea.
posted by DU at 10:36 AM on June 18, 2007

I think, in general, that is a bigger problem than people realize. Not just with the TSA but almost all forms of authority in the States are now under constant suspicion. Cops, doctors, judges, priests, politicians... you name it. Everyone we are suppose to trust to operate for the common good is under suspicion. Part of the problem is a perception of different levels of accountability, part of the problem is high profile cases of abuse of power. There is no easy fix, but I can't help think it poisons our society.
posted by edgeways at 10:36 AM on June 18, 2007 [11 favorites]

Hmmm, it does look like she poured the water on the floor.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:38 AM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

The woman originally claimed that she spilled water while trying to drink it. But in the video she doesn't try, maybe just dumped it on the ground.

So the scenario I'm seeing is:

1) TSA asks her to dispose of the liquid
2) Lady gets all pissy and dumps it on the ground
3) TSA gets more pissy and makes her clean it up.

There are people who react inappropriately to Airport security warnings, and basically think rules don't apply to them. How could anyone not know about the liquids Ban? My sister ended up losing a $15 bottle of lotion she'd gotten as a wedding gift the last time she flew, almost everyone knows about it.

So why did the woman try to bring liquids on the plane? And why did she get upset about it? Why did she dump it?

I think the liquids ban is preposterous, but that's the rule, and it seems like this woman just didn't think the rules applied to her. And they made her clean up the water that she'd spilled oh it's so horrible. Come on.

Plus she apparently lied about what actually happened (claiming that she tried to drink it)
posted by delmoi at 10:38 AM on June 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

My opinion of the TSA is officially documented, but honestly, exaggerated accounts of their actions only end up helping them, in the long run.
posted by jonson at 10:39 AM on June 18, 2007

Big detail from that last link: She was a Secret Service agent and thought she deserved special treatment. Assholery all around.
posted by ao4047 at 10:40 AM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm pretty sure the issue here is that normal people just trying to get on a goddamned plane are now under constant suspicion. Scrutiny of authority figures who have life and death control over the lives of their fellow men isn't poison, isn't common sense.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:40 AM on June 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

So, a passenger inconvenienced by a silly regulation may not have told the story from an unbiased POV. And selectively released footage / documents may not tell the whole story either. I'm willing to assume that the guys who declared nail clippers a security threat are probably more wrong. On preview, yes, some people react badly to power trips, inducing further power tripping.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 10:40 AM on June 18, 2007

...isn't common sense...it's...um...SUPER common sense!

No, not really. It's just common sense. As is using the preview feature before posting. Oops.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:41 AM on June 18, 2007

I've had to do this before. One adult and one child trying to handle a flight is difficult at best. Most of the passengers/TSA folks were failry sympathetic and ran me throught the "special needs" line where I think they handle families/handicap/person's of interest. So maybe someone would scream "profiling" or preferential treatment, but honestly it makes sense.

They should have a line for parents with small kids, handicap folks, and other types that hold up the lines for everybody else. In those shoes it would make life a bit easier for them as they could put better folks with these potential problems (and a negative PR potential). The bonus would be for the regular passangers and the other TSA folks as it would streamline the lines and lessen the aggrevation.

I just can't see why issues like this come up, but then I think I have too much faith in the average person.
posted by Numenorian at 10:43 AM on June 18, 2007

I watched the video and read the report. Then I went back and read what she said in the Nowpublic post.

Seemed fairly clear to me that she intentionally poured the water on the ground. As a father with experience with sippy cups, they are designed not to open easily, so I have doubt that she did it accidentally.

I am no fan of the TSA rules, but IMHO the woman is to blame for causing her own problem her. It is made exceedingly clear that liquids passing through will not be allowed.

As an ex-government agent, she should have even a better understanding of the reason behind enforcing rules equally than most citizens.

As a result, I side with the TSA on this one.
posted by Argyle at 10:43 AM on June 18, 2007

So the TSA selectively posts their surveillance camera footage, then? I can't believe they would post video showing agents behaving badly on their website.

It seems to me that, if they can use footage to vindicate themselves, that the public should have similar access to demonstrate the validity of complaints.

Not that it will ever happen, but I can dream... I'm sure "national security" would be mentioned in any sort of FOIA request.
posted by lalas at 10:44 AM on June 18, 2007 [6 favorites]

I feel like yeah, that society is becoming increasingly totalitarian and oppressive. But in this case the "punishment" fits the "crime". She dumped water on the floor, and she was forced to clean it up. Thats the kind of punishment children get. How fucking spoiled is this woman? She has to clean up some water and then she goes crying and screaming about it on the internet, goes on TV. Sheesh.

I guess they shouldn't have threatened her with detention. They could have told her that they wouldn't let her through until she cleaned up her mess, and maybe that's all that happened. We don't know, because the woman already lied about some other things.
posted by delmoi at 10:44 AM on June 18, 2007

Upon reviewing the video a second time it looks like she is trying to get the lid/cap off of the cup and it spills. To me it looks like an acident and not intentional dumping.
posted by Numenorian at 10:45 AM on June 18, 2007

My sister ended up losing a $15 bottle of lotion she'd gotten as a wedding gift the last time she flew, almost everyone knows about it.
Actually this is the first time I've heard about it. That is pretty crappy though.
posted by Flashman at 10:46 AM on June 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

What I want to see is if the TSA will post the video when they're wrong.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:46 AM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

delmoi: I think the liquids ban is preposterous, but that's the rule, and it seems like this woman just didn't think the rules applied to her. And they made her clean up the water that she'd spilled oh it's so horrible. Come on.

I think you outlined the two problems most people have with this case:

A. It's a ridiculously stupid rule.
B. The rudeness of the TSA agent, who knows damn well he's not going to answer for anything he does short of shooting someone.

I mean, come on, we're not letting a parent board a plane with a sippy cup of water. That's probably the most pathetically cowardly thing I've even seen or heard of. Meanwhile, there are still approximately a billion ways a terrorist could cause damage equivalent to taking down a plane without alerting any form of security, anywhere.

You can not fight terrorism with a million stupid rules enforced without judgment or intelligence.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:46 AM on June 18, 2007 [7 favorites]

Aviation expert Jim Tilmon on the incident.
posted by ericb at 10:47 AM on June 18, 2007

I'm not sure that wanting to be free of small-minded bureaucrats and tinpot dictators is really "spoiled".
posted by DU at 10:47 AM on June 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

Ex-Secret Service agents carry Secret Service badges? What's with that?
posted by amro at 10:50 AM on June 18, 2007

I said this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here, because it bears repeating. While there may have been multiple asshats involved here, sometimes, an asshat is just an asshat. It's not always evidence that an asshat conspiracy is afoot.
posted by frogan at 10:52 AM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I love how even when faced with videotaped evidence, BoingBoing remains physically incapable of suggesting the government may not actually be doing something evil at a given point in time.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:53 AM on June 18, 2007 [9 favorites]

DU, I disagree.

As a frequent traveler, I am often inconvenienced by people that don't obey the rules, think they can get around them, or are plainly ignorant.

The rules are made clear about liquids, shoes, etc. Personally I disagree with them, but the decision is not made by the local TSA staff on what to enforce. Those rules are set elsewhere. They are asinine, but they are the rules.

When I have to wait for someone to argue about their lotion or shoes or luggage size, while I should be getting through security, that person is being selfish.

The woman in the story felt that the rules didn't apply to her and appears to have thrown a tantrum and then was held accountable. This was not a legitimate protest aimed at effecting change. An actual protest might be acceptable even if it inconvenienced me.

Further, she was acting 'spoiled' by referring to her previous job as a government agent, expecting special treatment due to her former status. This is the height of arrogance.
posted by Argyle at 10:57 AM on June 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Upon reviewing the video a second time it looks like she is trying to get the lid/cap off of the cup and it spills. To me it looks like an acident and not intentional dumping.

Look again. Immediately after the spill, she gives the cup a shake or two -- it looks like she wanted to make sure the cup was empty.

Also notice 34 seconds in one TSA agent threatens to beat another with a screening wand. This is how TSA employees flirt.
posted by eddydamascene at 10:58 AM on June 18, 2007

paging asavage - surely we can't the TSA get away with invoking the Mythbusters for so foul a purpose.
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:00 AM on June 18, 2007

Also, YouTube link in case the TSA site is too slow for you.
posted by eddydamascene at 11:04 AM on June 18, 2007

For every good TSA officer, there's at least 6 other shitheels waiting to make your trip through the airport a living hell.
posted by smackwich at 11:08 AM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

...there's at least 6 other shitheels waiting to make your trip through the airport a living hell.

Do you mean TSA officers or other passengers?
posted by hydrophonic at 11:12 AM on June 18, 2007

Everyone we are suppose to trust to operate for the common good is under suspicion. Part of the problem is a perception of different levels of accountability, part of the problem is high profile cases of abuse of power.

In the case of the TSA, I suspect the problem is neither of those things. Rather, it's that people don't view the TSA as a helpful, important, on-the-level security agency, they view it as a theater troupe that forces air travelers to participate in a kabuki show about how safe we all are now. To be fair to the agents, they can't control the implementation of stupid rules, but it's not just the stupid rules that make the whole thing seem like a joke.
posted by aaronetc at 11:14 AM on June 18, 2007 [14 favorites]

The last time I flew, I forgot about my water bottle. I volunteered to drink the water right there (it was a dribble). No, I couldn't. I had to go outside the screening area to drink it, sir, because the screeners couldn't know that it wasn't going to make me swell up and explode.

The rules are stupid, and encouraging a theater of security in which we pretend we are safe diminishes our ablity to investigate and evaluate actual threats.
posted by klangklangston at 11:20 AM on June 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

I think the liquids ban is preposterous, but that's the rule

Honestly, though, what line did America cross to become a bunch of wussies? A sippy cup? Seriously?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:23 AM on June 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

...there's at least 6 other shitheels waiting to make your trip through the airport a living hell.

Do you mean TSA officers or other passengers?

Or gate attendants, or wait staff in crappy lounges, or luggage cart drivers or....

The whole experience is so unpleasant that I would rather drive ten hours than fly for one. And I actually enjoy being in an airplane and still have a sense of wonder that we can transport that many people so quickly miles above the earth.
posted by TedW at 11:24 AM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

So the TSA selectively posts their surveillance camera footage, then? I can't believe they would post video showing agents behaving badly on their website.

The conclusion is simple. Whenever the TSA doesn't post exculpatory evidence, believe the worst.
posted by grouse at 11:30 AM on June 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

Whether Monica Emmerson was "pissy," an "asshat," "selfish," or "arrogant" is completely irrelevant. The TSA's ban on liquids and gels has no scientific basis and does not improve the security of airline passengers one iota. To accept the TSA's actions in this context is to accept creeping totalitarianism.
posted by jonp72 at 11:30 AM on June 18, 2007 [8 favorites]

While the rules may be stupid, and I think the TSA folks can be real assholes, they seem to have handled that really well. The woman spills or pours water on a high traffic slick floor and they ask her to clean it up. It never looks like anyone got pissy with her, while it looks like she got plenty pissy with them. (I know, she's traveling with a toddler, but, in fairness, the TSA folks have to deal with people acting like toddlers all day long.)

The BoingBoing write-up is just embarrassing. I usually tend to think that Mark F. is a level-headed guy, but I read the write-up before watching the entire video, and then as I watched, the guy he characterizes (incredibly condescendingly) as directing traffic with his sign because it's going to be something he tells his grandchildren, actually only moves the sign when a flight lets out and he sees there are a bunch of people coming. He's trying to keep someone from breaking their neck, for christ's sake.
posted by OmieWise at 11:30 AM on June 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

delmoi: How could anyone not know about the liquids Ban?

I'm not a frequent flyer, but I've done a lot of flying in the past few weeks. And I goofed up on the liquid thing, even though I knew all about it. Sometimes you're packing in a rush and whatnot, and it doesn't occur to you that TSA will have a problem with your eyedrops (or whatever).

When rushing to catch that cab to the airport, even a seasoned traveller may not be thinking about the TSA. And really, should he/she be? Should a mother with a toddler in tow be giving the TSA her undivided attention? If a passenger's confusion, ignorance, or unfamiliarity with the inhumane maw of the security machine really causes delays, does it make sense to blame the passenger?

I wonder how long this rule would stand if every single passenger in the continental US decided to break it for a week.
posted by Western Infidels at 11:32 AM on June 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

I flew on an airplane last Sunday, out of San Diego. I was the next person in line to go through the security line, when screening was halted. There was something weird on the belt. I was standing 6 or so feet from the x-ray machine- I could see the bag in reflection of the screen on to plastic divider. We all stood there for 15 minutes, while security stared at the screen at the mysterious contents of this bag. Nobody suggested, asked or ordered me to move away. Finally, screening started again and I walked through. I overheard the owner of the bag say, I don't know what they're looking at, all I've got in there is dirty magazines. The theater of security is alive and well, but I certainly would not have been if that bag had contained a bomb.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:32 AM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

The level of hostility towards TSA officers here is remarkable. So i'm going to remark on it.

Are the current rules regaring luggage screening, liquids, etc. draconian and ridiculous? Yes. I travel a lot and have often cursed these rules for the needless inconvenience they cause.

But every time I travel I also think about how these rules put TSA officers in the unenviable position of having to enforce silly regulations while doing their jobs - jobs which are difficult and extraordinarily important. Do you ever have to deal with someone who is hurried, harried, self-important, and in a bad mood when you are on the job? The TSA folks have to deal with it 8 hours a day (or however long they work), often while doing boring, repetitive tasks. I grit my teeth every time I'm stuck in the security line behind one single person who, ignoring the myriad posted warnings on the walls around them, thinks that somehow the rules do not apply to them. I cannot imagine what it would be like having to deal with dozens upon dozens of these people while maintaining a level of professional courtesy and decency.

And the kicker is that if they fuck up, there is a very small but not insignificant possibility that people will be killed or seriously injured. I seriously wonder if, the next time there is a security lapse of some sort at an airport, we won't see the same folks in here castigating TSA folks for incompetence.

I personally can't pass judgment on this particular incident based on a few minutes of soundless video and some blog posts. But it seems to me that saying this is the result of a few TSA dolts being petty tyrants is just a bit premature.
posted by googly at 11:34 AM on June 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

How could anyone not know about the liquids Ban?

Easy. It's not like the TSA banned nail clippers. It's like the TSA banned an entire state of matter. After the TSA bans solids and gases, airplane passengers will be forced to limit their carry-on luggage to plasma and antimatter.
posted by jonp72 at 11:37 AM on June 18, 2007 [32 favorites]

The whole experience is so unpleasant that I would rather drive ten hours than fly for one.

Word. TSA has never given me a hard time, but their ridiculous OCD rules and regs slow down traffic SO fucking much that I have often spent longer getting on an airplane than actually flying in it. Long lines and slow-slow-SLOW service tend to put everyone in a bad mood, and generally I have come to see the airport as a place best avoided.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:39 AM on June 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

The BoingBoing write-up is just embarrassing. I usually tend to think that Mark F. is a level-headed guy, but I read the write-up before watching the entire video, and then as I watched, the guy he characterizes (incredibly condescendingly) as directing traffic with his sign because it's going to be something he tells his grandchildren, actually only moves the sign when a flight lets out and he sees there are a bunch of people coming. He's trying to keep someone from breaking their neck, for christ's sake.

Exactly. I'm a BoingBoing fan, but the condescension towards people with difficult, low-paying jobs in that writeup was cringeworthy.
posted by googly at 11:41 AM on June 18, 2007

grouse writes "The conclusion is simple. Whenever the TSA doesn't post exculpatory evidence, believe the worst."

The real question is: is it appropriate for a government policing agency to post videos online of incidents to clear their name with the public? Is this a worthwhile use of their time and our money? Or is a more formal review process with citizen representatives more appropriate?
posted by krinklyfig at 11:42 AM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

The TSA's ban on liquids and gels has no scientific basis

Yes, because clearly, no explosive ever has ever been made out of a liquid or a gel.

It's one thing to rail against stupid regulations. It's another to toss around comments like "no scientific basis."

To accept the TSA's actions in this context is to accept creeping totalitarianism.

Again with the catastrophic language. One man's "creeping totalitarianism" is another man's "Hey slippery slope guy, chill out."

I promise you guys ... when the brownshirts show up, you'll get to say, "I told you so."
posted by frogan at 11:43 AM on June 18, 2007

The level of hostility towards TSA officers here is remarkable.

Not really. Just a reflection of hte hosilityof the TSA towards airplane passengers.

And the kicker is that if they fuck up, there is a very small but not insignificant possibility that people will be killed or seriously injured.

Hmm. But isn't the point that the greater majority of what they do is completely irrelevant to that? Harrasing moms for sippy cuts is Security theatre and nothing more.
posted by Artw at 11:45 AM on June 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

Yes, because clearly, no explosive ever has ever been made out of a liquid or a gel.

Not on a plane, that's for sure.
posted by Artw at 11:46 AM on June 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

TSA Security Training.
posted by ColdChef at 11:47 AM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

The last time I went on a plane, I was flying out of Austin and had completely forgotten about the idiotic rule about the size of personal toiletries. I had stuck a full tube of toothpaste in my carry-on and they went through and found it. Luckily, the TSA guy just let me go through and I made sure that I just put the silly thing in my checked baggage on my flight back.

However, in the end, all these rules that the TSA is adding on are pointless and ridiculous. If someone really, really wanted to attack an airport, an airplane or anything else in this nation, they could do it. All it requires is the mentality that nothing is enough, nothing is too much. If you are deranged enough to think that other people deserve to die and you're willing to sacrifice your own life in doing it, there's nothing anyone can do to stop you. Period.
posted by jennybaxter at 11:47 AM on June 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?

Ah, memories --

In March 2000 "[a] videotape captures [Rhode Island Rep. Patrick] Kennedy pushing a 58-year-old airport security guard backward and bumping the metal detector archway at Los Angeles International Airport. The catalyst apparently was that his luggage was too big for carry-on and he was disturbed the guard did not recognize him."^*
posted by ericb at 11:48 AM on June 18, 2007

...it's that people don't view the TSA as a helpful, important, on-the-level security agency, they view it as a theater troupe that forces air travelers to participate in a kabuki show about how safe we all are now.

It is a dog-and-pony show to make us all scrape and take off our shoes, etc, to defened against a dubious threat when fundamental, known effective
methods continue to sail through. TSA serves to maintain paranoia and overall hysteria and I feel little safer today than I did back pre-9/11.

It should be mentioned that 9/11 wasn't about crazy Goldbergian devices created out of smuggled bits and pieces but a failure of procedures that had been in place for years: knives + open cockpits == bad times since about forever.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 11:52 AM on June 18, 2007 [7 favorites]

I am not a psychologist or any sort of behavioral analyst, but what I saw didn't look like someone accidentally spilling something and then being hassled in some nightmarish bureaucratic assault. Without analyzing what the dumping action seemed to be, here's how I'd imagine someone who accidentally dumped the water would behave:

*accidentally drops water*
woman: oh shit. I'm sorry, I didn't mean that. It just slipped while I was trying to drink it.
*stays long enough to hear from the agent whether it's ok or if she's in some kind of trouble.*

here's how the video looks to me (assuming she didn't intentionally dump the water on the ground):

*accidentally drops water, tries to hustle away from the scene, ignoring agent. when stopped by agent, immediately reaches into bag to produce old secret service badge.*

I mean, ignoring the fact that sippy cups are designed not to spill (the cap could have come off for one reason or another) and ignoring the extra shakes she gives the cup before putting it back in the stroller (that motion could possibly be something more innocent.) and giving her a highly questionable benefit of the doubt that her spill was accidental, the reaction she has just doesn't quite jive. I mean, if you're going to try to bully your way past an accident you have, can you really blame an agent for saying "woah woah woah," and when you then personally escalate the situation yourself where's the surprise that more people were called in and the whole thing took longer than you'd have liked?

that said, I agree with TPS and lalas that there should be puclic access to all TSA videos involved in disputes, cause this is a pretty bullshit move.
posted by shmegegge at 11:52 AM on June 18, 2007

also, I strongly believe that a free society needs voices on either extreme of the spectrum to be truly free, but god DAMN boingboing would be a more credible source of opinion and interpretation if I couldn't predict their responses to things like this word for word every time.
posted by shmegegge at 11:55 AM on June 18, 2007

An actual protest might be acceptable even if it inconvenienced me.

Wow. That's like the epitaph for Generation X. It at least needs to be emblazoned on a t-shirt. Or something.
posted by oncogenesis at 11:58 AM on June 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

Not really. Just a reflection of hte hosilityof the TSA towards airplane passengers.

I think that calling the TSA "hostile" towards passengers is a bit of an overstatement. But regardless, my point was that the lowest-level TSA employees have tough jobs, because they have to simultaneously enforce regulations that most of us agree are necessary (no firearms or pressurized gases on planes), and regulations that most of us think are useless and silly (zero-tolerance policy on liquids). I agree with you that some TSA policies are ridiculous and theatrical. But that doesn't mean I immediately assume that individual TSA employees I see on a videotape are thoughtless goons.
posted by googly at 11:59 AM on June 18, 2007

amro - ex-SS agents, as well as those of the FBI, DEA etc. often carry their badges still - they have a big fat red stamp across the middle of them saying "RETIRED" (or leastways they used to). This allows the carrier to get off parking tickets/discounts at the video shop as and when required. It's a bit like being a mason.

I'm actually quite surprised at the lack of professional courtesy from the written descriptions. Feds can be dicks to normal folk but I'm almost shocked to see them fucking with each other to this degree. Wasn't so long back that all FBI agents were allowed to carry loaded firearms on their person on national flights (not sure if this has changed recently but I imagine it has changed to carried in luggage unloaded etc. The TSA doesn't want to share the "glory" of shooting a Turkish saxophonist with light sensitivity* with others).

*No - don't google it - it hasn't happened yet but the next guy shot on an aircraft will be a Turkish saxophonist with light sensitivity. I'll bet $5 on it.
posted by longbaugh at 12:00 PM on June 18, 2007

"In all fairness, what if the sippy cup HAD contained a liquid bomb?"

So.. what's the probability of that? Does it have fewer than 8 zeros in it? The people involved probably had a few orders of magnitude higher chance of dying of a heart attack from the confrontation than being blown up. But by all means, continue basing security on feelings rather than real risks, I'm sure that'll be just as effective.

(What's gonna happen when they work out you can make explosives out of solids? zomg!)
posted by Freaky at 12:00 PM on June 18, 2007

Yes, because clearly, no explosive ever has ever been made out of a liquid or a gel.

Not on a plane, that's for sure.
posted by Artw at 2:46 PM on June 18 [+] [!]

I can't tell if this is meant to be a joke or not!
posted by shmegegge at 12:01 PM on June 18, 2007

I'm not clear on something:

How the hell could she spill the contents of a sippy cup? The whole point of a sippy cup is "easy to drink, hard to spill". She says she spilled it trying to open the lid? Wha? That's like removing the panes of glass from an open window in order to let some light into the room.
posted by bugbread at 12:04 PM on June 18, 2007

What liquid explosive are you thinking of, frogan?
posted by anthill at 12:06 PM on June 18, 2007

Further, she was acting 'spoiled' by referring to her previous job as a government agent, expecting special treatment due to her former status. This is the height of arrogance.

Bruce Scheiner made a good point about that. If we wanted to make it so that certain people, (cops, government agents, people with security clearance, etc) through security without being checked, then you run into the whole problem of authenticating those people. There's no global database of everyone with clearance, or every cop, or even every federal agent for all the agencies, and to try to pull those all together would be an IT nightmare. And then you have to have a secure ID that can't be forged or duplicated. In the end you do a ton of work to make life slightly easier for a few people, and without noticeably making things any more secure or speeding things up (since so few passengers would benefit) The money would be much better spent somewhere else, so security checks for all really is the most reasonable method for dealing with this.

Honestly, though, what line did America cross to become a bunch of wussies? A sippy cup? Seriously?

Some point before November, 2004. Yes, it's stupid. But this woman was acting like the rules shouldn't apply to her. That's what's so obnoxious about it. Yes the rules are dumb but everyone has to deal with 'em.
posted by delmoi at 12:06 PM on June 18, 2007

This has a lot less to do with whether or not this was an individual over-reaction, or a case of poor management by the authorities. Or whether any of these tactics are justified. It is more a question of what the market will bear. If you look at the degree of autonomy that is offered to people in every other aspect of society - here's a website for your doctor, here's a website so you don't have to wait in line at traffic court, here's a website where you can rent any dvd ever and it will come in the mail the next day - you'll quickly realize that in terms of "doing business", certain policies backed by the american government are destined to implode. "Forcing democracy on Iraqis" being the one that takes the cake. Point being we don't have the philosophical resources to justify these actions. But, we live in a world where the ends justify the means. The question of whether you want to live in this kind of world is not up for debate.

You don't even have to go past the airline industry to see this duplicity.

Choose your flight! See the prices of other flights the same day! Change your flight with no penalty! Just show up with your ID at the airport and get an e-ticket! Just this print out and you're off to Hawaii!

Now shut up and bend over.
posted by phaedon at 12:07 PM on June 18, 2007

the condescension towards people with difficult, low-paying jobs in that writeup was cringeworthy.

This isn't the first time Mark Frauenfelder has acted this way:

I don't understand why garbage men always seem angry? What's to be angry about? They are well paid, have no deadlines or stress, never have to get their butt out of their seat, get excellent health benefits, paid vacation, and so on.

He's got links to some nifty stuff, but I suspect he's a kind of a dick.
posted by hifiparasol at 12:08 PM on June 18, 2007

I've talked about this issue before, but it all bears re-examination. First, the lady was obviously irritated and acting out. Whether or not she flashed a badge and demanded or expected special treatment, she was just being a jerk. Nothing to see here; people are jerks all the time, and the TSA/airport screening process seems to bring out the jerk in the nicest of people, anyway.

Second, the TSA agents were being jerks. Holding her up for 45 minutes? Making her clean the floor, and pointing out spots she missed? Making her go through security again after all that, knowing pretty damn well it was going to cause her to miss her flight? Come on. Government agent on a power trip, it's as simple as that.

NO ONE acted right here.

The fact is, the ban on liquids is ridiculous. Making people take off their shoes is ridiculous. Having multiple agents paw through your luggage, walking around in your sock feet trying to put your belt back on before your pants fall down, explaining your toiletries, having your nail clippers confiscated - my god. The security checkpoint at any airport these days looks like a refugee camp. It's goddamn ridiculous, and I hate it. BUT, and this is a huge BUT - it is what it is. Roll your eyes if you must, but take off your shoes. Take off your belt. Put everything you don't want a TSA agent pawing at in checked baggage. Don't bring food and water with you. Put your bag on the belt, your keys and change in the bowl, and just do what they tell you and it'll all go a lot faster. Unless you want to actually change it from the ground up, throwing a fit and refusing to comply at the gate isn't going to do anything but make you miss your flight and piss off everyone in line behind you.

As this woman found out. She could have used this incident to make a legitimate protest and a good point, and she blew it. She could have pointed out how stupid the whole thing was, tried to do something about it reasonably, and instead she threw a temper tantrum and then tried to spin the story. Now they all look like assholes and we still have to justify water bottles.
posted by jennaratrix at 12:11 PM on June 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

NB: calling Schneier 'a security blogger' is like calling Einstein 'a physicist.'
posted by louie at 12:11 PM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

What liquid explosive are you thinking of, frogan?

Uh, I hope you realize that there is more then one explosive substance out there. More then one liquid one, even. Nitroglycerin is a liquid at room temperature, for example.
posted by delmoi at 12:13 PM on June 18, 2007

If you have a problem with the ban, the line at the airport is NOT the place to contest it. Jesus Christ. I have never seen a TSA agent mess with someone unprovoked, but I have seen oh-so-many people think the rules don't apply to them and argue like it's going to accomplish anything.

Before I go to the airport I read up on what restrictions there might be. Isn't this common sense? I swear to God some people just show up at the airport and don't even know how they got there.
posted by erikharmon at 12:13 PM on June 18, 2007

Yes, because clearly, no explosive ever has ever been made out of a liquid or a gel.

It's one thing to rail against stupid regulations. It's another to toss around comments like "no scientific basis."

That's right. I said "no scientific basis." And when I say "no scientific basis," I mean that any reasonably intelligent high school chemistry teacher should be able to see more holes in this stupid policy than in a plate of Swiss cheese. A couple of chemists and security experts also agree with me. The gist is that any liquid or gel-based explosive would be too unstable to synthesize on a crowded commercial passenger airplane, because you typically need ice baths or special equipment you'd only find in a college or industrial chemistry lab. If a would-be bomber did try to synthesize the liquid bomb in the bathroom (and we make the highly dubious assumption that none of the other passengers notice), the amount that could be smuggled aboard would be so small that the most likely result is that it would injure or blow up the bomber without doing any damage to the plane.
posted by jonp72 at 12:17 PM on June 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

Well yeah I do think making her go back through the security line again was over the top, though.
posted by delmoi at 12:17 PM on June 18, 2007

jonp72 writes "It's like the TSA banned an entire state of matter."

Little known pro-tip: if you need toothpaste, hair gel, or any other liquids while on the plane, store your luggage in a freezer overnight! When you go through security, they will all be solids, but by mid-flight, they will all have reverted to liquid state.
posted by bugbread at 12:19 PM on June 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

amro - ex-SS agents . . . often carry their badges still - they have a big fat red stamp across the middle of them saying "RETIRED"

Thanks for the info, longbaugh.
posted by amro at 12:19 PM on June 18, 2007

The rule against liquids in containers of a certain volume may be stupid, but hell, almost every job I've had has something stupid that employees have to do. Bitch and moan about the ban all you want, but don't take it out on the person who is following orders that must be followed to keep his job.
posted by 23skidoo at 12:19 PM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Nitroglycerin: you can't be serious. Anyone that manages to smuggle a useful quantity of that aboard an aircraft practically deserves to succeed.
posted by aramaic at 12:20 PM on June 18, 2007

googly writes "Do you ever have to deal with someone who is hurried, harried, self-important, and in a bad mood when you are on the job?"

Yes, I do tech support for an independent ISP. If I am rude to our customers, I can get fired. If our customers are rude to me, I have to smile and take it.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:21 PM on June 18, 2007

shmegegge writes "I can't tell if this is meant to be a joke or not!"

Translation into non-sarcasm:

Jonp72: The TSA's ban on liquids and gels has no scientific basis.

Frogan: I disagree. Explosives have sometimes been made out of liquids or gels.

Artw: True, but not on a plane.
posted by bugbread at 12:22 PM on June 18, 2007

I was on a cruise, talking to an old lady who complained, loudly, that she and her husband had been held up for over an hour at the airport. I was about to sympathize that some asshat had postponed their vacation when she said, indignantly, "And all because my husband had toenail-clippers with blades that were too long!"

My natural reaction to this is, "Seriously, you need to bring TOENAIL CLIPPERS on a week-long cruise? What are you, Bigfoot?"

I don't care how stupid the laws are or how ridiculous taking your shoes off or emptying your bottles makes you feel. Acting like a self-righteous asshat while you are holding up the line doesn't do anyone any good.

And frankly, if I were a terrorist, I'd probably think a sippy cup was a darn good place to put my liquid explosive, since Americans are such sappy sentimentalists.

Note to FAA, TSA and DOHS: I am NOT, nor have I ever been, a terrorist, okay?
posted by misha at 12:23 PM on June 18, 2007

23skidoo writes "Bitch and moan about the ban all you want, but don't take it out on the person who is following orders that must be followed to keep his job."

Those people are there to serve the public, not the other way around. It doesn't mean anyone can abuse them, but that goes both ways.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:23 PM on June 18, 2007

Yes, because clearly, no explosive ever has ever been made out of a liquid or a gel.


Yeah, because by that rationale gases and solids shouldn't be allowed either. And if you can't have oxygen aboard a plane, the only ones flying should be the undead.
posted by juv3nal at 12:27 PM on June 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Acting like a self-righteous asshat while you are holding up the line doesn't do anyone any good.

There are more important things in this country than whether you are delayed in line.
posted by jonp72 at 12:27 PM on June 18, 2007

And they made her clean up the water that she'd spilled oh it's so horrible. Come on.

Plus she apparently lied about what actually happened (claiming that she tried to drink it)

Youre missing the point. Youre not a loud-mouth sci-fi aging hipster who has made it his life's mission to whine about the TSA on his unrelated pop-web culture blog. (complaints about airport security? whats next? white guys walk like this and black guys walk like that?) Facts be damned.
posted by damn dirty ape at 12:29 PM on June 18, 2007

misha writes "I don't care how stupid the laws are or how ridiculous taking your shoes off or emptying your bottles makes you feel. Acting like a self-righteous asshat while you are holding up the line doesn't do anyone any good."

What has been repeatedly mentioned is that this type of security theater results in these situations. People do not respect the system because they know it does no good, and TSA has not earned a good reputation in the meantime. People can grin and bear it, but that only goes so far. Sooner or later, simple psychology and the law of averages says you'll get a difficult customer. It's up to TSA to anticipate and deal with it. I agree, asshats are a drag, but you're bound to find one somewhere in an airport. We can't really put the onus on the customers to act polite, given the circumstances. That's not their job. This will continue to be a problem until we implement meaningful security.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:31 PM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Atrolite is another liquid explosive that could be used. Probably very hard to get a hold of, but possibly more stable then Nitroglycerin.

I'm not saying the rules make any sense. I think it would make more sense to try to detect these substances then ban all liquids, but the idea that there are no liquid that could possibly be used is kind of silly.
posted by delmoi at 12:32 PM on June 18, 2007

Here's the thing:

If the TSA can post this video in response to a complaint, they should be able to post all other security videos in response to all other complaints.

Why haven't they done this before? If I were to collect a list of all complaints against TSA security and file a FOIA request for the relevant videos, how far do you think I'd get?
posted by empath at 12:34 PM on June 18, 2007

I watched the video and read the report. Then I went back and read what she said in the Nowpublic post.

Seemed fairly clear to me that she intentionally poured the water on the ground.

Unless there's a version of the video with sound, I don't think there's anything "fairly clear" about the woman's intentions. It's highly possible that she deliberately poured out the water, but that she did so because the TSA agents told her to do so. If TSA is constantly telling people to get rid of liquids, and there's no receptacle to pour them into, you shouldn't be surprised that at least one person spills it on the floor.
posted by jonp72 at 12:35 PM on June 18, 2007

Nitroglycerin: you can't be serious. Anyone that manages to smuggle a useful quantity of that aboard an aircraft practically deserves to succeed.

Well, just freeze it and let it thaw on the plane.
posted by delmoi at 12:36 PM on June 18, 2007

If we wanted to make it so that certain people...through security without being checked, then you run into the whole problem of authenticating those people....And then you have to have a secure ID that can't be forged or duplicated.

There's the Registered Traveler Program which provides for "expedited security screening for passengers who volunteer to undergo a TSA-conducted security threat assessment (STA) in order to confirm that they do not pose or are not suspected of posing a threat to transportation or national security."

The FlyClear program is available at nine U.S. airports and is rolling out elsewhere this summer.
posted by ericb at 12:36 PM on June 18, 2007

I can't help but see a pretty strong "blaming the victim" vibe in a lot of the comments here. Yeah, sure, people who hold up the line are a pain in the ass, but aren't they pains in the ass who are being enabled by a system that almost seems designed to provoke people?

I think we all more or less agree on the fact that the no-liquids and no-toenail-clipper rules are little more than bread and circus, and provide no real security. And kudos to the folks on this thread who sympathize with the TSA screeners -- whose job security depends on enforcing stupid rules and occasionally having to exibit unreasonable, irrational douchebaggery in the face of people whose argument makes a lot more sense than your own.

But to say that people complaining about having to give up their toothpaste and cuticle scissors are somehow exibiting a sense of entitlement is... well, it's correct, actually, but not in the sense that people think. In truth, we're all entitled to freely travel with necessities like toileries, and to have those necessities easily accessible (and less likely to be lost -- a carry-on bag never got accidentally rerouted to Wichita). The people who complain about it in line are a little hard to take at times when we're all tired and frustrated, but to say they should just shut the fuck up and take their lumps like the rest of us is defeatist and (yeah, I'll say it) un-American.
posted by hifiparasol at 12:37 PM on June 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

Uh - for those who keep saying the write-up on the TSA video was done "by" BoingBoing, maybe y'all should go back and check the text.

Frauenfelder clearly noted that the Daily-Showesque write-up was contributed by reader "Steven", and was providing it as an amusing follow-up to his post on he original story.
posted by batmonkey at 12:39 PM on June 18, 2007

10 hours of driving is better than a one hour flight? What the hell?
posted by smackfu at 12:42 PM on June 18, 2007

Monkeys. My face is red. The fella pointed out that "Steven's" quotes ended just after "TSA is denying the whole incident.

Pardon moi!
posted by batmonkey at 12:43 PM on June 18, 2007

The FlyClear program is available

How much does it cost to become a Clear member?
Clear is available for $99.95 per year (includes a $28.00 TSA vetting fee). Your Clear card will work at any US airport with a registered traveler program at no additional cost.

Really great.
posted by nervousfritz at 12:45 PM on June 18, 2007

True enough, batmonkey -- but I think the bad attitude toward TSA screeners sort of fits in with Frau's personality. I think XQ's comment also still stands pretty well.
posted by hifiparasol at 12:45 PM on June 18, 2007

Even if you buy the liquid ban in general, it is crap that kids' water is banned. We experienced this very thing when travelling with our infant. We had two bottles - one with breastmilk and one with water. The breastmilk got through but they made us throw away the water. They said if it was juice we could have kept it. (TSA.gov agrees - "milk, formula or juice" are okay, no mention of water). Given the arguments against juice for babies, forcing juice instead of water seems a particularly arbitrary - even harmful - exclusion.
posted by AgentRocket at 12:46 PM on June 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

I mean that any reasonably intelligent high school chemistry teacher should be able to see more holes in this stupid policy than in a plate of Swiss cheese.

Obligatory SNL skit.

Crazy big URL. I make no promises it will actually work.

Or a gel...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:47 PM on June 18, 2007

Nitroglycerin: you can't be serious. Anyone that manages to smuggle a useful quantity of that aboard an aircraft practically deserves to succeed.

There are several ways to stabilize nitro. Besides, do you think someone who plans to go down in the plane they blow up really cares about safety beforehand?
posted by IronLizard at 12:47 PM on June 18, 2007

Yeah, OK, batmonkey, now my face is even redder, because I conceded your point when I could have taken the opportunity to buffet you about the head with your faux pas, in the true style of the Internets.
posted by hifiparasol at 12:47 PM on June 18, 2007

Obligatory SNL skit.

That'd be a double (see above). ; )
posted by ericb at 12:50 PM on June 18, 2007

In January, I flew out of San Diego coming back from a tradeshow. I had what's called a knitter's loom with me, in its original box, which is open on top. Said piece of equipment is chock full of dangerous, spiky, could-put-your-eye-out stuff. It was with me as a carry-on.

I got pulled out of line, hardly surprising.

THEY LEFT THE POINTY METALLIC STUFF ALONE, while rifling through the deepest depths of my bag to find a tiny Kiehl's squeezy-style lip balm I didn't even know was there.

And you're telling me the TSA has even an ounce of sense? Screw that.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 12:56 PM on June 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

I think, in general, that is a bigger problem than people realize. Not just with the TSA but almost all forms of authority in the States are now under constant suspicion. Cops, doctors, judges, priests, politicians... you name it. Everyone we are suppose to trust to operate for the common good is under suspicion. Part of the problem is a perception of different levels of accountability, part of the problem is high profile cases of abuse of power. There is no easy fix, but I can't help think it poisons our society.

The reason people are distrustful of cops, politicians, and TSA agents is not because of the individual cop or politician or agent but because (especially in the case of police officers) those individuals represent a power structure that many people feel is not to be trusted. I don't mind the cop on the beat - in fact, I'm grateful that he or she is out there protecting me and mine. At the same time, when one also recognizes that the police officer is the most visible agent of the state's capacity for violence, a certain wariness is more than reasonable.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 12:57 PM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I confess to not having flown since Sept.11 for several reasons, not the least of which is the TSA idiocy at airports that I hear about day after day after day. Part of my resistance is due to the fact that even before Sept.11, I was frequently singled out to have my purse searched after going through the metal detector.

I would start out asking nicely why, be fed the line that it was just a random choice, to which I would reply that if I was searched every single time I went through, it was no longer random.

Finally one screener told me that there was indeed a list.

Why I would be on it was never explained. I've traveled to the Middle East a couple of times, but also to Mexico and to London. Why would I be picked out? No one could explain why a white, middle-aged woman with a regular Anglo-Saxon name would raise suspicions. (And no, I'm not saying that having a different name SHOULD merit extra scrutiny).

But I don't cope well with crap and stupid-assed bureaucracy, so I've done my best to avoid having to do so.

I have had a metal pin in my neck from a car acccident though that doesn't seem to have affected anything in the old days. And now I have a metal screw in my ankle from surgery, so I'm sure I'll set something off.

I have a coupleof really basic questions, though:

I thought thh nail clipper rule had been tossed out?

EVERYONE removes shoes, regardless?

I have to put a kid on a plane in a few days and want to make sure she's ready.
posted by etaoin at 1:00 PM on June 18, 2007

That's right. I said "no scientific basis." And when I say "no scientific basis," I mean that any reasonably intelligent high school ...

... rhetoric teacher will tell you that you're conflating the issues into a useless munge. I didn't say there weren't holes in the policy. There are. Holes big enough to drive a truck through. But you said there's no scientific basis for a ban, as if never, ever, ever could there be an explosive made to look like toothpaste or hidden in a shampoo bottle.

Catastrophic, all-or-nothing language like "no scientific basis" doesn't help anyone.

Rail against the policy. Hell, I'll help you. Just don't try to beam sunshine up everyone's asses that there's an army of truthful Galileo's out there being oppressed by the Pope of TSA.
posted by frogan at 1:06 PM on June 18, 2007

10 hours of driving is better than a one hour flight? What the hell?

Where I live we have a really shitty airport, with frequent delays aand/or lost luggage; very few people use it uless absolutely necessary. That means a 1 hour drive to the next nearest airport, another hour at the airport before the plane leaves, since there are few direct flights another hour in the air and another hour layover in Atlanta, then you can finally get to your destination, where you will spend an hour getting your baggage and a rental car; so 6 hours spent so far, assuming no foul-ups along the way. Meanwhile I could be driving, stopping whenever I want, with whatever baggage I want immediately accessible and have transportation with me to use at my destination. Throw in the added hassles of flying versus driving with a toddler as well as the expense and inflexiblilty (e.g. the only flight to my destination doesn't leave until 1 PM but I could be driving at 8 AM) and our recent trips to Maine and Chicago from GA via car make a lot more sense.
posted by TedW at 1:07 PM on June 18, 2007

Finally one screener told me that there was indeed a list.

More Than 500,000 Names On FBI Terror Watch List .

Even Senator Ted Kennedy is on the list and has been "flagged" by the secret "no-fly" list.
posted by ericb at 1:08 PM on June 18, 2007

frogan - ahem. the alledged threat isn't a liquid explosive. The alledged threat is a liquid explosive mixed on the plane form seemingly innocuous liquids. That's your scientific imposibility right there.
posted by Artw at 1:09 PM on June 18, 2007

Rail against the policy. Hell, I'll help you. Just don't try to beam sunshine up everyone's asses that there's an army of truthful Galileo's out there being oppressed by the Pope of TSA.

Dude, you're being a deliberately obtuse troll, here. I'm perfectly happy to say that there is "no reasonable scientific basis" instead of "no scientific basis" if that will satisfy you. I thought that the word "reasonable" was implied when I said "no scientific basis." Your rhetoric about Galileos and the Pope of TSA is just a whole lot of straw men, smoke, and mirrors.
posted by jonp72 at 1:12 PM on June 18, 2007

CBS News | 60 Minutes: Unlikely Terrorists On No Fly List -- "Steve Kroft Reports List Includes President Of Bolivia, Dead 9/11 Hijackers." [video]
posted by ericb at 1:16 PM on June 18, 2007

I think the ban is nonsense too- in fact I seem to recall on MeFi we addressed how virtually impossible it would be to carry any reasonable quantity of liquid material onto a plane in a way that it could discretely be used as an explosive that could bring the plane down (start a fire, make lots of painful smoke, yes, but blow up the plane, no).

That said, I really think the people watching from the internet have a lack of perspective here. When I'm on a line at the airport a hundred people deep, and it's taking longer because someone's bitching with the TSA about the size of their hair gel bottle, the TSA person isn't the guy I want to strangle at that moment.

I don't understand how and why we live in a culture where people gets instantly pissed off at people doing shitty jobs and we cheer on the abusers instead of sympathize with the target of that person's personal stress. Yeah, there are shitty TSA employees- but they also have a terrible job. And most often they do it because they have to- we won't and they can't do ours, but no matter why I doubt any of them woke up one morning and thought, "man, I really want to scan luggage for a living."

They have to deal with this eight, ten hours a day in shifts that start at four in the morning. The government refused to make them union or give them extra for overtime (which is forced- in fact, they have to work extra on weekends, nights, and holidays to help all of us trying to see our families), and they are paid shit- I mean, literally, a handful of Republicans in Congress tried to see if they could just be paid in feces. ("what do you mean you need money? Do you WANT terrorists to kill us?")

And as this thread shows, they are among a unique culture of workers who, like McDonald's cashiers, meter maids, bank tellers, and if you're in some really elite Republican circles, public school teachers, have the "people person" part of the job defined by meeting a couple thousand people a day who hate them- almost always because they are doing their job- which is to follow the instructions given by the people who actually made the rules, but you'll never meet because unlike the TSA worker, they can afford first-class tickets.

I dunno, maybe just once I'd like to see a stand-up comic do a routine about what the deal is with the people who write the employee training manual, but I guess I'll keep dreaming.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:16 PM on June 18, 2007 [9 favorites]

By the way, if some terrorist malcontent wanted to do a replay of 9/11, all he would have to do is buy a private plane (which is often unregulated), load it up with chemicals and explosives purchased from chemical supply houses and other commercial sources (which is also often unregulated), and then fly the plane into an unsecured chemical plant in a high-population area (which often goes unregulated because of the Bush Administration's reluctance to regulate the chemical industry). No interactions with TSA security personnel would be necessary for a terrorist to pull this off, which makes much of our debate in this thread almost totally beside the point.
posted by jonp72 at 1:19 PM on June 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

I don't know what it is about my looks or maybe my demeanor, but I'm always That Guy who's getting double- and triple-checked by sixteen levels of bureaucracy. I'm used to it, it doesn't even phase me anymore and you can be damn sure that there's nothing even remotely eyebrow-raising on my person 100% of the time. (I've been told that It's my don't-ask-me-for-directions face)

As such, I get checked at the airport every time. I'm unfailingly polite and courteous to those doing the checking, I know the drill and keep my hands visible, make eye contact (but not too much eye contact!), speak slowly and carefully, no sudden movements, etc. I could defend a dissertation on dealing with The Man. Generally, once the cops realize that I'm not going to panic and bolt to keep from having my joint or whatever discovered, they're equally nice and we go through the motions together with no stress or raised voices.

The NYPD/Port Authority PD, cops in bad parts of Jersey City, "Random" bag screenings in the subway, paranoid guards at federal buildings, speeding tickets, even getting ticketed for "jumping" the turnstile and never anything but a businesslike transaction. Somehow, the TSA (and whatever subempire of DHS is in charge of land border crossings today) are unfailingly the most unkind, looking-for-trouble asshats I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with.

It can't be the "stress" of having potentially lethal consequences of failure, the screeners at other high-traffic international airports manage it. The thing it puts me in mind of is a visa clerk at the French embassy in NYC. After standing on line for a few hours, I was next on line. Eagerly, I stepped forward and provided him with all the required, signed in triplicate documentation that was required. He took it in the grumpy manner of civil servants everywhere, leafed through it for a bit, and proceeded to pick up the cellphone and make a personal call (In French, but even I could follow it). I can't think of another way to interpret that interaction except that he was begging me to get angry so he could turn me away. Maybe there's a lot of paperwork involved in a student visa, maybe his wife left him.

That's the attitude I see from, literally, 100% of my interactions with the TSA. It's because they're in charge of security theater, we know it and they know it. Their job is to keep mothers from bringing sippy cups on planes, and there's no pretending they're not full of shit. (The rules, not the sippy cups). When no right thinking person will judge a rule to be sane, no right thinking person will respect it, and how could you respect yourself enforcing such a rule?
posted by Skorgu at 1:24 PM on June 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

I'm not saying the rules make any sense. I think it would make more sense to try to detect these substances then ban all liquids, but the idea that there are no liquid that could possibly be used is kind of silly.

Nitroglycerin and other liquid explosives have been banned from planes for as long as there's been airport security. Gaseous, solid, liquid -- no explosives on the plane. It's pretty simple. They even have machines now to detect trace explosives on materials. This is not what the liquid ban is about.

The liquid ban was put in place specifically when it emerged that some people in Great Britain were planning on bringing stable liquids on a plane, then combining them in flight to make an explosive. As many people have pointed out, this is nearly impossible.

You're right -- it would make much more sense to try to detece the explosives substances and let everything else on. That's how it worked before mid-August of last summer.
posted by one_bean at 1:26 PM on June 18, 2007

Finally one screener told me that there was indeed a list.

More Than 500,000 Names On FBI Terror Watch List .

Even Senator Ted Kennedy is on the list and has been "flagged" by the secret "no-fly" list.
posted by ericb at 4:08 PM on June 18 [+] [!]


I'm talking about BEFORE Sept.11. And here's another question: If there's a watch list, why aren't the people on the list getting hauled into police stations for questioning? If they're so dangerous they shouldn't fly, shouldn't something more be done about them? Only slightly facetious.
posted by etaoin at 1:30 PM on June 18, 2007

The government refused to make them union or give them extra for overtime (which is forced- in fact, they have to work extra on weekends, nights, and holidays to help all of us trying to see our families), and they are paid shit-

I think this is a great point, but we also have to emphasize that the poor working conditions of TSA workers are actually a threat to security and not just an issue of labor solidarity. It isn't just the lack of collective bargaining that's a problem; it's the total lack of whistleblower protection for TSA workers, even if they "blow the whistle" on practices harmful to our security. In addition, if TSA workers were unionized, we might have TSA workers who were more well-trained and less understaffed, because staffing and training are two major issues that unions in service industries have experience dealing with.
posted by jonp72 at 1:31 PM on June 18, 2007

Scene: Pre-9/11
A shivering man exits an armored truck and very cautiously approaches a security checkpoint, stinking from 40 feet away like ammonia and sharply refined manure, eyes tearing, lips cracked and nose bleeding, eyes threatening constantly to roll back into a seizure. A chemical shimmer pours out of the top of his remarkably thick non-metal “coffee cup.”
Man: “Hi, I’d like to get on this plane with my cup of ‘coffee.’”
Security guard (suddenly eyes tearing, skin burning): “Sure, go ahead.”
*cough cough* whoops! *BOOM*
----

Seriously though, y’know, there is workable security for aircraft. The TSA isn’t it. Most of it devolves into this type of crap. Any competant security officer wouldn’t waste their time with some woman like this.
But by the same token, what incentive do TSA officers have NOT to waste their time and actually look for probable threats? What motivates those individuals (apparently) is having a job with a uniform, not actually catching bad guys. You can incentivize the behavior you want, but obviously there has been no real desire to form a professional corp of airline security personnel. (Except for, y’know, people with money and bigwig government folks).
Costs too much, apparently. So you get this garbage on the ground.
On the other hand, they can’t all be El Al: undercover onboard agents, steel cockpit door that never opens, frequent schedule changes, questioning, locking the zippers on suitcases with plastic ties, no unaccompanied bags, luggage put in armored box that pressurizes before it’s put on the plane to detonate explosives, etc. etc.
Costs too much, so they make you throw out your bottled water and pretend it’s working.
I think she was being an idiot, but I don’t think being egalitarian is reason enough to follow rules that are stupid - nor do I think the fact that everyone does/should follow the same rules legitimizes them in some respect, particularly when this security theater is being done on the cheap so there’s no real need to actually try to save anyone’s lives. Really, it seems, it’s only there to mollify the lawyers and the insurance companies.
Theater so the insurance company can tell your survivors “Well, we had security in place” and don’t have to pay you as though they were being truly negligent.
Which, in trying to convince us that terrorists are movie cliches and use Die Hard style Hollywood liquid explosives, they are bein negligent in terms of the real threat.
It’s pure fiction. So they don’t have to spend the money to actually protect you. Meanwhile they let the dolts play their little games to keep them happy arguing over scraps of dignity and power and the sword of damocles continues to go unchecked.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:31 PM on June 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

That video is laughable.

Four security individuals responsible for the safety of hundreds of people, waste 11 minutes on a mother and her 19 month old baby's sippy cup.

The incident is about humiliation, plain and simple. It's about humiliating a mom, desperate to make her flight by repeatedly getting down on her hands and knees and wipe up the floor when a janitor with a mop, could've de-escalated the situation in 30 seconds. But no that would've involved maturity, common sense and decency.
posted by Skygazer at 1:35 PM on June 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

buy a private plane (which is often unregulated), load it up with chemicals and explosives

Hello, FBI Agent Brier, we seem to have a possible incident over at MetaFilter. Check it out. Username is jonp72, stated name is "John Pennington," likely birth year: 1972, likely location: Arlington, VA, right in our backyard. Get me Langley on the line. Over-and-out.

Judge Orders Domestic Surveillance Documents Public.

"The April request from the Electronic Frontier Foundation asked the FBI to turn over documents related to its misuse of National Security Letters, self-issued subpoenas that don’t need a judge’s approval and which can get financial, phone and internet records. Recipients of the letters are forbidden by law from ever telling anyone other than their lawyer that they received the request. Though initially warned initially to use this power sparingly, FBI agents issued more than 47,000 in 2005, more than half of which targeted Americans. Information obtained from the requests, which need only be certified by the agency to be 'relevant' to an investigation, are dumped into a data-mining warehouse for perpetuity."

posted by ericb at 1:37 PM on June 18, 2007

I'm talking about BEFORE Sept.11.

Very interesting. By any chance did you ever piss-off Richard Nixon? ; )

BTW -- the Watergate break-in was 35-years ago yesterday!
posted by ericb at 1:39 PM on June 18, 2007

I'm talking about BEFORE Sept.11.

etaoin, I'm a bit skeptical of your story. It seems like what you're suggesting is that before 9/11 you would go through security and you would get stopped all the time for a more extensive check. Ok, but then you go on to say that you were told there was some list that was making you get checked. At what point would the screener check this list that they had? Did they have your name and face memorized?
posted by OmieWise at 1:40 PM on June 18, 2007

trying to convince us that terrorists are movie cliches and use Die Hard style Hollywood liquid explosives

I sometimes wonder if the only thing needed to be a TSA/DoHS honcho is excessive consumption of action films.

Seriously.
posted by aramaic at 1:41 PM on June 18, 2007

But no that would've involved maturity, common sense and decency.

Purposefully making messes and then lying about it involves no maturity, common sense or decency, either.
posted by 23skidoo at 1:47 PM on June 18, 2007

They even have machines now to detect trace explosives on materials.

Boston's Logan International Airport testing new handheld liquid-explosives detection scanning system made by ICX Technologies Inc.
posted by ericb at 1:48 PM on June 18, 2007

Awesome post on mid-air explosive mixing
posted by Artw at 1:52 PM on June 18, 2007

Dude, you're being a deliberately obtuse troll, here. I'm perfectly happy to say that there is "no reasonable scientific basis" instead of "no scientific basis" if that will satisfy you.

Well reasonable scientific basis for what? The claim that you couldn't bring down a plane with some gel or paste? Even if you had access to a world class lab an any substances you wanted? that seems really implausible.

in fact I seem to recall on MeFi we addressed how virtually impossible it would be to carry any reasonable quantity of liquid material onto a plane in a way that it could discretely be used as an explosive that could bring the plane down

That was in discussion of a specific plot that wouldn't have worked. And I think it would be hard to synthesize an explosive from liquids on a plane. But that doesn't mean you couldn't bring some liquid or gel with you. That already had explosive properties. I bet you could pack Semtex in a toothpaste bottle, for example. I don't think it's a realistic scenario, or that the ban is a worthwhile idea, but to claim it's "scientifically impossible" to bring down a plane with a liquid or gel seems wrong. The specific London plot probably wouldn't work, but that doesn’t mean all gels or liquids wouldn't theoretically work.

You're right -- it would make much more sense to try to detece the explosives substances and let everything else on. That's how it worked before mid-August of last summer.

Yup. The rule is stupid but lets not get carried away about what's "scientifically impossible"
posted by delmoi at 1:52 PM on June 18, 2007

23skidoo writes "Purposefully making messes and then lying about it involves no maturity, common sense or decency, either."

Right, the woman was out of line. But the TSA guards should act professionally. They treat the incident like a tit-for-tat personal exchange; they should be focusing on doing their jobs. This woman was clearly not a security threat, and there was no good reason for devoting as many resources to her as were devoted. Four security personnel? Seriously?
posted by mr_roboto at 1:56 PM on June 18, 2007

So, basically, I get the idea from this thread that sanity < holding up a line.

Let's not pretend like these people aren't assholes. But let's also not forget that these regulations are a terrible affront to freedom, and that allowing them to exist is allowing America to slip further into the ever-advancing shadow of tyranny.

You can't fight totalitarianism at the airport x-ray machine, especially against TSA employees who are just trying to do their job. But that doesn't excuse any of this. One woman being a bitch about her sippy cup does not excuse us from the responsibility of being indignant about the absurd restrictions that have been placed upon what is supposed to be the most "free" nation on the planet.
posted by borkingchikapa at 1:59 PM on June 18, 2007

The rule is stupid but lets not get carried away about what's "scientifically impossible"

All security is based on cost-benefit analysis. You shouldn't make decisions based on threats that are "scientifically possible" in the most narrow, theoretical, non-practical sense of the term, but on actual, plausible threats that exist in the real world. Basing a policy on some sci-fi scenario about a liquid bomb made MacGyver-style out of Gatorade and shampoo takes resources away from implementing other policies that actually could enhance people's security.
posted by jonp72 at 2:00 PM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I thought that the word "reasonable" was implied when I said "no scientific basis."

Funny, when he called you on it the first time, you stamped your little foot and said, "That's right. I said "no scientific basis."'

So which one is the obtuse one here? Where's my scorecard...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:02 PM on June 18, 2007

It's one thing to rail against stupid regulations. It's another to toss around comments like "no scientific basis."

Except that there isn't a scientific basis for fearing that someone could make explosives out of innocuous chemicals in the lavatory of a moving airplane without suffocating themselves first.

Steve Kroft Reports List Includes President Of Bolivia, Dead 9/11 Hijackers

Clearly, al-Qaeda is just waiting to spring its secret weapon on us: zombie Atta!
posted by oaf at 2:03 PM on June 18, 2007

Well, yeah, 23skidoo, but she’s not the one in the position of responsibility here. Certainly we should expect some degree of it from her (being ex secret service apparently) but it’s not her job to keep things moving, nor does she have that power in this circumstance. Whether she’s a hero or villian here is largely irrelevent, the TSA folks have all the cards and control the situation. They chose to spend their time confronting this challenge to their authority rather than using that authority in a more efficient and appropriate manner.
Her actions as a passenger aren’t codified nor do they - by intent - control the actions of other passengers. Indeed, the TSA and other airport officials are vested with authority precisely to prevent unruly passengers from disrupting order. If she chooses to be disruptive, she’s an idiot, not all passengers. It doesn’t lead us to question whether any passenger should ever be allowed to fly. If however the TSA officials choose to allow disruption and abuse their authority it affects all TSA officials everywhere and leads to a questioning of that authority. And clearly one can question: what exactly are theirgoals here?
Their actions don’t seem to be aligned with maintaining either security or order, but in fact inflicting their will on this particular individual. And indeed, she might deserve a kick in the ass, but it’s not their job to give it to her.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:04 PM on June 18, 2007

etaoin, I'm a bit skeptical of your story. It seems like what you're suggesting is that before 9/11 you would go through security and you would get stopped all the time for a more extensive check. Ok, but then you go on to say that you were told there was some list that was making you get checked. At what point would the screener check this list that they had? Did they have your name and face memorized?

I can't speak to her situation, but after 9/11 I was always pulled aside as a result of a code that was printed on my boarding pass. This code "told" the clearing agent to put me through extra-screening. And - I'd always be one of those pulled aside when they were doing the "second screening" at the airline gate, just as passengers were boarding. I eventually asked and a United Airlines gate agent (likely improperly) pointed out the "code" to me and suggested that my travel profile (i.e. numerous and frequent trips to/from Europe, the Middle East, etc. -- particularly in 2001/2002) and other information were probably factors for my being on a list and "flagged." In the past few years, though, I have no longer been singled out for extra screening.
posted by ericb at 2:04 PM on June 18, 2007

As for the toothpaste tube full of toothpaste - I thought this was already detectable? Hence the need for MacGuyver style tactics?
posted by Artw</