Asymmetrical Information

My favorite loophole to this bullshit is that containers well over 3.5oz fit in ziploc bags.

Of course, if they'd asked me to discard my 5oz Clinique moisturizer, I would have told them they could pry it from my cold, dead, incredibly soft hands.

I had a travel screener lecture me because I used a sandwich baggie instead of a quart size bag. What bothers me more is that I have forgotten to take my clear baggie out of my suitcase several times and the x-ray person has caught it only once.

Isn't it obvious that this is just (in both senses) punishment for slowing down the security line? I wish they'd also confiscate anything that sets off the metal detector.

Profiling: You look like one of the evil overgrown wood-elves from the haunted forest eager to do the bidding of the Dark Master.

My best friend just traveled to Europe with her 5 month-old. The TSA screener asked her to pull out all the bottles of formula and juice she had. She said she didn't have any. He repeated the question. She repeated her answer. Then asked how she would feed her son during the flight. She said, "I supply what he needs." The screener was still completely confused until she broke it down: "I breastfeed my son. All the liquid is in my breasts."

These are people who are paid to follow The Rules above all else. They aren't paid for independent thought, so they put their brains on auto-pilot.

I've had several debates as to whether the critical variable is how much is left in the container, or how much the container could ideally hold. Usually they enforce the latter, even if it is virtually empty. It is your modal carry which matters, not what you actually have.

As post-9/11 security measures go, the most that can be said for it is that it's considerably less dumb than invading Iraq.

My personal gripe is that I am not aware of any contact lens solution or shaving cream/gel that is packaged to fall below the 3.5 oz. cutoff.

But is that really so unfair? Sure, the reason for the ZipLocs is to make it easy to inspect, and the reason to make it easy to inspect is to keep the line moving.

But if TSA inspectors are allowed to make exceptions, I would believe that they will be spending a great deal of time digging out loose bottles of shampoo from clueless people's bags and arguing about whether something is safe or not. The result would be the entire line moving more slowly.

BTW, you'd have had better luck asking one of the other passengers in line if any of them had a spare ZipLoc bag. I usually travel with couple, and I have been happy to give one up if it meant getting the inspectors back to inspecting instead of arguing with passengers.

I second gk's comment. It takes the inspector 1 second to say it has to be in a Ziploc bag. If one person in a hundred has an exception, people will soon learn of it and then it will be one person in fifty and so on. Also if you make an exception you have to have an appeals process and then you might as well bring a lunch to the screening proccess.

See I rather disagree with the sentiments here, but let me say right off that I fly rarely and probably earn considerably less (and have more time on my hands) than many people here, so some ignorance can be bliss (for me).

While I disagree with most of the screening rules, I think they are all well posted and when not, it is rather easy to find out exactly what they require, and the time to find the needle of logic in the haystack of rigidity is not at the airport.

The reason employees in jobs like that are rather automotons is that they are not necessarily inclined to want to get fired just to show what a great guy they are or prove they are actually smart. That is kind of the situation in most low level jobs.

The people further up the chain impose some rule, and sometimes (because you are not a moron) you do want to offer flexibility, or make exceptions for obviously benign situational variations, but that means violating what you are paid and often monitored to do. Further, when you make the exception once, you often end up having to make the exception thrice.

I do customer service and run into the same sort of situations, where my company has some semi-inane manner of doing things and my task is to not bend. The person on the other end of the phone pleads and points out the obvious stupidity and I am left with several choices: 1) Follow the rules for which I am paid and monitored, and ultimately see my salary go up maybe by 2% a year if lucky 2) ignore the stated standard, use my judgement and risk getting reprimanded or fired, or 3) give in, hope nobody notices, only to have the same person ask for the same request in their next dealing with us, and referring back to me as an example as to why everyone should now do our job according to their inclinations.

The place to protest is not standing in line. One should actively be writing the corporate heads of the airlines (who can then raise hackles with their government overlords), one's congressional representatives and certain other industry or lobbying groups.

As for babies and not carrying formula, I don't know that I would necessarily jump to the idea that a woman might be choosing to breastfeed on the crowded germ filled plane, but then again, I am not exceptionally bright either. Saying, "I supply his needs" can still be a cover for carrying hidden bottles, and if one is too uncomfortable saying, "Oh I'm sorry, I am breastfeeding" at the start, then one probably ought not to be dispensing milk in public.

I am making certain assumptions here about people's education and income status, but I just think people sometimes don't realize the absolute rigidity of the environment in which workers at the lower end of the employment scale are made to function.

While I agree that many people in these jobs are not intelligent, no ivy between the ears, that may not at all be the deciding factor in how they respond in certain situations, and obviously we refuse to pay people more in order to attract the types that would make us all feel more comfy.

Jane, I like your blog(s). And for that reason I'm going to have to strongly advise you not to debate the merits of various security procedures with security personnel. Explaining what is wrong with various procedures creates an unacceptably high risk that you'll say something that will be interpreted as evidence you are a threat. ("Come on, it's not like you can't fit explosives into a 2-oz bottle!")

And that could lead you to an unacceptably long hiatus from blogging.

The reason it has to be a one-quart zippered bag is because they want to make sure that the little bottles of liquid that you are bringing in are no more than 1 quart in total volume.

And I agree it's a stupid, stupid rule.

I so totally agree with this. ARGH!!! I hate it so much. I use Frizz-Ease cream on my hair, and it is in a 4 oz bottle...confiscated every time! Duh, why do I ever think it will get through? Hopefully the manufacturers will get with the program soon and start making 3 oz travel sizes of everything.

The most annoying thing is when I check my tolietries but still have to have the damn ziplock for my chapstick and eye drops. Ridiculous.

And yes, the TSA people are like zombies...total idiots with no ability to interpret the rules with some common sense.

And yes, the TSA people are like zombies...total idiots with no ability to interpret the rules with some common sense.

As opposed to the hyper-intelligent people who can't be bothered to pay attention to rules that are clearly posted and have been in effect for months who demand that THEIR exception be made, at the expense of the time of everyone else in line who, out of common courtesy, follow the damn rules.

Are the rules stupid? Yes. No question.
Do the TSA folks have any authority WHATSOEVER to disregard them? NO.

I second the folks who say that the ire should properly directed at the idiots who make the rules, not the poor guys who are just trying to do their jobs to feed their kids, said job largely consisting of being hassled and yelled at by inconsiderate people who are ticked off for having their $1 worth of shampoo confiscated because they couldn't bother to read the stupid rules.

Do you really think that the TSA folks think the rules make sense? Please. Do they really think that making an exception for you is worth losing their job? I'd say no.

I second gk's comment. It takes the inspector 1 second to say it has to be in a Ziploc bag. If one person in a hundred has an exception, people will soon learn of it and then it will be one person in fifty and so on. Also if you make an exception you have to have an appeals process and then you might as well bring a lunch to the screening proccess.

I have to agree with GK and Blaine. It’s not up to the TSA Screener to create “exceptions,” it’s up to passengers to learn in advance what the rules are and to follow them. If you think the rules should be changed, then the person to take that issue up with is the person whose job it is create them – not the person who doesn’t make the rules but could get disciplined or fired if s/he’s caught bending or breaking them.

I second gk's comment. It takes the inspector 1 second to say it has to be in a Ziploc bag. If one person in a hundred has an exception, people will soon learn of it and then it will be one person in fifty and so on. Also if you make an exception you have to have an appeals process and then you might as well bring a lunch to the screening proccess.

I have to agree with GK and Blaine. It’s not up to the TSA Screener to create “exceptions,” it’s up to passengers to learn in advance what the rules are and to follow them. If you think the rules should be changed, then the person to take that issue up with is the person whose job it is create them – not the person who doesn’t make the rules but could get disciplined or fired if s/he’s caught bending or breaking them.

I agree with GK and Blaine.

Shortly after 9/11 the airport security personnel confiscated a 3-inch long GI Joe rifle from my 5 year old. My husband just about had a fit b/c it was so stupid that ALL toy guns, even impossibly tiny GI Joe guns, were banned.

But I couldn't help thinking that it was good thing they were making no exceptions - not b/c of the terrorist issue but b/c somewhere out there there's a jerk lawyer with a kid, and if my kid gets a pass for his GI Joe toy, that guy will sue the pants off the airline if they don't also let his kid on with a realistic-looking, almost full-size replica.

Not the best use of your intelligence, Jane. An uncle of mine did that once, and somebody got even by putting him on a watch list. Now, every time he goes through the airport, there's no such thing as a walk-through; his screening procedure always takes about 15 minutes. That's how people in bureacracy get their kicks, and it's a good idea not to give them additional fodder.

At any rate, a simple fact of air travel in the post-9/11 world is, you will be better off checking at least one bag.

This is not as convenient for same-day and overnight commuters who are accustomed to living out of their carry-on luggage, and it increases one's time in the airport. But the upshot is that you can get that extra pair of shoes, an out-of-season change of clothing (just in case), and a couple spare sets of undergarments (for worst case) in the bag along with your toiletries -- which no longer have to be exactly 3.5oz or less. Still a good idea to bag them, though, just in case of a pressure-differential leak or a TSA screening check during bag handling.

Of course the rules are stupid, but you're pretty foolish for trying to think you could get around them. Just check your bag. Is all the hassle *really* worth the extra 15 to 30 minutes you've to wait in baggage claim? What's more likely, that your bag will be lost or that you'll have hassle going through security?

Face it, the TSA screening process is one place to create jobs for those on the left half of the bell curve. Therefore, rigid rules (and a union to protect them). The people manning the lines are not abstract thinkers who can figure out what rules to bend when. The process is structured to pass the maximum number of people through per hour.

Note to all of you with bottles of stuff that are too big: The Container Store and similar shops sell small empty bottles.

No argument that the rules are stupid--as Bruce Schneier calls it, "security theater"--but I'll jump on the bandwagon by observing two problems with allowing TSA employees discretion in the application of the rules:

1. Imagine the five people in front of you in line having a politely reasoned debate with the TSA screener about why a rule doesn't apply to them.

2. Imagine the guy behind you talking his way past security when he actually has something else in his luggage he doesn't want inspected. Fast talking a low paid employee is a common scam, like confusing a 16 year old trying to count your change; heck, it's a magician's tradecraft to misdirect your attention with their patter while they're palming a card or sneaking something out of your pocket.

If we allow TSA screeners to use their discretion, we make the whole process slower and more aggravating, and open up another security hole. The proper response to idiot rules like this is public pressure to do something real to secure us.

I see a business opportunity selling ziploc bags, 3.5 ounce bottles and little funnels at the airport.

BTW, you can thank those damn metric-system-using Europeans for the 3.5 ounce rule. It probably would have been 4 oz., except the Euro's all went with 100 ml, which is roughly equal to 3.5 oz.

Interesting. Yesterday, I traveled from SFO to DCA and had eye drops, shampoo, and lotion (all under the 3 oz limit) scattered about in my carry-on, not in a zip-loc bag, and TSA didn't flag the bag. Lindsay Lohan was in front of me, so that might have messed up the screeners. Maybe you looked shifty.

When I flew out of Palm Springs two months ago, the TSA had set up a table in front of screening with clear signs and demonstrations for correctly packaging liquids, and offering free Ziploc bags to any who needed them. The table was also manned by a TSA employee who watched the line and asked people if they were prepared to go through security per the rules.

Part of the problem with the TSA is that, on an airport level, there's discretion about the application of resources, so Palm Springs had a sane solution to the problem, and L.A. didn't.

The last few times I've travelled, there as been a kind and polite TSA screener at the beginning of the line to remind me about the liquids rule. They were also handing out 1 qt ziplocks to those who needed them.

Agree with gk. It's much better for everyone to have a rigidly followed rule than to have every other person ask about exceptions, dig through their bags for that loose bottle of shampoo, etc.

If I had been behind the person behind Jane in that line, I would have said to her... OK, I wouldn't have said anything TO her because I am non-confrontational, but I would have complained about her bitterly once I was safely away from her.

Erm, whilst the rule is stupid, I thought all airports provided plastic bags before security? I've travelled from and to a few European airports within the UK in the last few months and all the airports I've been in have people standing there practically forcing you to take the bag whether you already have one or not.

I'm surprised that the US, with it's normally far higher standard of customer service, doesn't do this too?

Gee Jane, rather than coming off reasonable, you sound more like a jerk for complaining about a minor rule to people who have as much control over their work environment as you do over UK foreign policy.

Aren't you just a little ashamed?

I remember a story when the liquid bans went into effect, where one of the airlines posted an employee outside the security check, handing out ziplock baggies and letting everyone know of the new rules.

At least one airline still remembers the concept of customer service. Lord knows the TSA never will.

ech said: Face it, the TSA screening process is one place to create jobs for those on the left half of the bell curve. Therefore, rigid rules (and a union to protect them).

I don't think there is a union involved. Didn't the administration resist that? Or have Reid and Pelosi added that to the mix as well?

They don't need a union...no matter how abrasive or incompetent the civil service rules provide iron-clad protection.

My biggest complaint is the variation in rule interpretation from one airport to another; while that is still pretty bad, it is, in fact, better than in the pre-TSA days of contract screeners.

Two reasons not checking luggage makes sense.

1. Travelling a long way, say five airports and halfway around the world? Checking baggage in that situation is a good way to be without a change of clothes when you arrive at your work location.

2. It lightens the baggage handling load on the airlines and makes it more likely that those who check luggage will get it returned to them on time and at the right airport.

The last couple of times I travelled this year the airline urged you to carry on if possible and had tips for making sure you were in compliance with the luggage screening regulations.

TSA = Thousands Standing Around.

I've got the distinct impression that if it weren't for their cushy taxpayer-funded* jobs most of them would be flipping burgers for a living.

With any luck, the government will come to its senses and repeal this idiotic liquids ban.

* = technically, passenger-funded, via the security surchages on airline tickets.

Jane, solution: CHECK YOUR LUGGAGE!

Yes, I know their rules are ridiculous, but frankly, I'm tired of people complaining about this huge inconvenience impacting their lives. Just don't carry your luggage onto the plane. Those of us who like to have room for our little laptop bag in the overhead instead of jammed up against our feet will thank you.

Are the rules dumb?

Yes.

Are they as dumb as a supposedly educated but unprepared person arguing about them with someone who has no (and should have no) discretionary power and holding up other, better prepared, passengers?

No.

If you want, more motivation to not repeat this little performance:

The rules may be dumb, but they sure outsmarted you.

I always follow the rules, but I sure bitch about them as I comply. I have zero use for the TSA, so as I walk through the machines and put my belt and shoes back on and refill my pockets I usually remind them how useless they are, and how un-American it is that we have to go through their bullshit.

Usually they ignore me. A few of them try to argue with me, and seem perplexed when I won't agree with them.

I never use any of the words that could get my name on a list, and I never stop the process during my lecture. But the only way I can stay sane during this BS is if I vent a bit.

Zero Tolerance rules are stupid. But unfortunately, they scale really, really well.

At PHX, they supply clear bags for such a purpose, but they ARE NOT ziplock, rather they have a drawstring. Interesting (but not surprising)to see the selective interpretation of the rules.

I not only agree with GK, Blaine and everyone else who is disagreeing with Megan, but I have to say a word on behalf of the higher-ups who make the rules and establish personnel policies (like the policy that screeners who make exceptions get fired). Imagine that you are the new director of airplane security at the TSA, and remember that (i) whatever rules you make will be implemented by people with GED degrees earning $10 per hour and (ii) if an airplane is blown up or hijacked, you will probably go to jail. Now make up of a set of rules to deal with the threat of liquid explosives. The rules can be as complicated and contain as many exceptions or areas where the employee is directed to use discretion as you like, as long as you remember point (i) above. I seriously doubt that the rules you come up with will be much different from the rules we have.

And btw, clear rules, clearly spelled out in advance, with clear penalties (but modest and appropriate ones, i.e., you have to throw out the shampoo), are not exactly what is usually called "Kafkaesque."

Why the surprise? This is what bureaucracies do - create and enforce rules. Don't be angry at the low paid, low skilled TSA employee, they are simply doing their job (which they will lose if they don't).

If you want to be angry about something then how about the idea that the best way to protect us from a terrorist attack today is to design a anti-terrorism system that focuses on the attack that happened yesterday.

I travel a lot and agree that the best thing you can do to speed the process is to follow the rules. If it says "zip-lock" then use zip-lock. If it says 3.5oz then stay below that limit. Pick a fight at your own peril - in fact, if you want to maximize your discomfort then behave in a loud, obnoxious way with as many people as possible.

I recommend using a bag with the phrase "Kip Hawley is an idiot" written on it.

Will there ever be a time when people won't feel smart to complain about the indignity and inconvenience of flying? You have to get into a short metal hallway with 200-400 possibly untrustworthy strangers in under 40 minutes, and sit patiently with them in mid-air for 1-36 hours. 9/11 slightly raised the level of distrust among the passangers and these stupid rules are there to alleviate some of that. But it's no different than it was in 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970...

It sucks. It always has. Get over it or invent something cheaper and faster.

I think what grates the most with the intelligentsia is just how obviously stupid and non-helpful the rules actually are -- at least by their lights.

i love reading smarmy people whine about being inconvenienced by the so-called stupidity of others, when they can't even follow simple rules themselves.

I love reading all the comments from the good Germans ridiculing those who ridicule the inane rules.

Maybe we need to put airline passengers into suspended animation (ala The Fifth Element) for flights. It would cut down on the number of drunks climbing on and crapping on the beverage carts.

I love reading all the comments from the good Germans ridiculing those who ridicule the inane rules.

I generally avoid Nazi references, and stick to Soviet references. At the airport I generally grumble about how the Russians had to stand in line at checkpoints and show their papers and submit to searches and hope their name wasn't on any lists.

You're not the only one frustrated:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/28/nrage28.xml

You got off easy. You could have had your discussion with weapons aimed at you, after a strip search. Depending on who was jerking chains among supervision, staff, false threats, etc.

What you ran into is call 'restrictions of liberty'. Rules that hinder the law abiding like this have several problems. For one, they create new organizations and bureaucracies, each having an assigned mission in addition to their reason for existing (the reason all entities in government, business, and societies exist is to continue existing. Anything else is gravy.) A second reason for concern is this increases the number of persons with authority over citizens of the US. And every system has failures, especially human systems.

I imagine the Zip-Loc(tm) bag has been tested and is an *Approved Container*. The issue isn't about whether other plastic is as effective, only Zip-Loc(tm) has the certificate making it's use valid. Your baggie didn't have the certificate, that was the problem.

Luck in flying next time!

I recently had to undergo a lecture from a power-mad TSA representative when my traveling party headed for the first open checkpoint only to be rudely herded back because that was for handicapped access. All of the other lanes were backed up. There were no handicapped patrons in the line behind us, suggesting that the special lane wouldn't be needed in the near future. However, we were forbidden to use it, and then the uniformed drone in charge proceeded to harangue us for not being considerate of the non-existent handicapped people by not moving quickly enough.

The only thing worse than arbitrary rules mindlessly enforced is when they become a power-trip for the drones that enforce them.

And let's hear the TSA supporters in this thread come down hard on me for trying to speed up the process the way they've been ripping into others for theoretically slowing down the lines. Sheep.

well, looks like everyone brought their whuppin' sticks, didin't they?

I'm not sure what you're intent was with this question, whether general annoyance of something you have to put up with, or specific anger... I'm going to take general annoyance for $5, Alex... and tell you this is the reason I'm not interested in flying. The rules is rules, but they are significant window dressing. The future profiling questions about people acting nervous that will be implemented this summer, are stupid, given there are many people that hate flying anyway. Removing your shoes to make sure your name isn't reid, so what ARE the odds that will be tried again? These things don't prevent the next one, as somebody mentioned before. Things need to be overhauled, sure, but how much are you as the flying public willing to do? If you want to feel protected and ALSO NOT inconveninced, you will have to settle for window dressing that is mildly inconveneint but also of no value...

Can you carry a framed picture on in your bag? Or a pencil. Both potentially deadly objects, in trained hands. If boxcutters are handy, they are still far from the only thing that can be used to inflict harm. You can still take liquids with you, just how is a screener going to know it's explosive or not by looking? Is there a yellow tag on the bottle that gives a warning? How long before the bad guys figure out how to make a mixable device that has 3 - 3.5 oz. containers?

If we want to get past window dressing, we will have to be ready for some inconvenience that is different. Like checking luggage at the plane when you get on. That would require that you have hich capacity sniffers in the security line, AND many more security people. Still at least that way, checked luggage is matched with a person at the plane, and then is taken into a secure custody then. AND inportantly, all bags are sniffed and xrayed.

Most importantly to me is this. The old security system wasn't so good, but we thought it was. It was an illussion. The new one no different. We have to accpet that...

Security itself is an illusion. Nothing is ever perfect.

Maybe we need to put airline passengers into suspended animation (ala The Fifth Element) for flights. It would cut down on the number of drunks climbing on and crapping on the beverage carts.

HEY! It was just that *one* time and I wasn't *that* drunk!

"I generally avoid Nazi references, and stick to Soviet references. At the airport I generally grumble about how the Russians had to stand in line at checkpoints and show their papers and submit to searches and hope their name wasn't on any lists."

Yikes, have you ever flown internally in Russia? I WISH you had to stand in line at checkpoints and show papers. When I was there just before 9/11, it was basically a big room where a mass of people congregating around had to trickle through a door with a metal detector in no discernible pattern or organization.

For me, the hardest part about the new carry-on restrictions is convincing my fiance to forgo the very large can of hairspray she normally takes everywhere.

Oh, and alkali? Target sells acceptable sizes of both shaving cream and saline. I have them in my ziploc baggie right now.

One last thing: the limit is not 3.5 ounces. It is 3.4 ounces -- although the printed regs put it at 3.0 ounces, a phone call to TSA in DC will confirm that the rule screeners apply is 3.4 ounces. And using generic containers (i.e., unmarked containers, or containers marked with amounts but not the name or brand of the substance inside them) is a hit-or-miss proposition.

Or maybe if they let YOU and your party use the handicap lane, then they would have to afford the same rights to everyone else in the backed up lanes, thus creating an additional backed up lane?

Gee how stupid of them not to let Zadig have special consideration.

Has anyone in this thread actually supported the TSA? All I'm seeing is a lot of people acknowledging that arguing with drones is futile, and the alternatives are worse.

Like a poster above, I've almost eliminated flying, to the point that I lost a grade on my performance review for last year because of what my boss termed as "pushback" against business travel.

I so totally agree with this. ARGH!!! I hate it so much. I use Frizz-Ease cream on my hair, and it is in a 4 oz bottle...confiscated every time! Duh, why do I ever think it will get through? . . . And yes, the TSA people are like zombies...total idiots with no ability to interpret the rules with some common sense.

I have zero use for the TSA, so as I walk through the machines and put my belt and shoes back on and refill my pockets I usually remind them how useless they are, and how un-American it is that we have to go through their bullshit.

I love reading all the comments from the good Germans ridiculing those who ridicule the inane rules.

Maybe we need to put airline passengers into suspended animation (ala The Fifth Element) for flights. It would cut down on the number of drunks climbing on and crapping on the beverage carts.

I recently had to undergo a lecture from a power-mad TSA representative when my traveling party headed for the first open checkpoint only to be rudely herded back because that was for handicapped access. All of the other lanes were backed up. There were no handicapped patrons in the line behind us, suggesting that the special lane wouldn't be needed in the near future. However, we were forbidden to use it, and then the uniformed drone in charge proceeded to harangue us for not being considerate of the non-existent handicapped people by not moving quickly enough.

Maybe it really isn’t the TSA that’s causing the problem . . .

Or maybe if they let YOU and your party use the handicap lane, then they would have to afford the same rights to everyone else in the backed up lanes, thus creating an additional backed up lane?

Gee how stupid of them not to let Zadig have special consideration.

I'll say it was stupid. It would have made more sense to let the handicapped lane take up the overflow until some actual handicapped people showed up, and then move them to the front of that lane.

But instead, the TSA bozo got to harass me and some old people into toeing the line and acknowledging his superiority and power over us all. Is that what you're suggesting was the right way for this situation to go?

Defending the stupid people, their stupid bosses, and their stupid arbitrary rules seems like an odd hobby, but as long as you enjoy it, that's the important thing.

Defending the stupid people, their stupid bosses, and their stupid arbitrary rules seems like an odd hobby, but as long as you enjoy it, that's the important thing.

Whenever I’ve seen an able-bodied person park in a handicapped spot, I’ve often wondered how they could rationalize it. Mystery solved.

Thorley, you're being ridiculous, which is (usually) unlike you.

An able-bodied person in handicapped parking spot is not present to move his car when a handicapped person appears, unlike the people in the TSA queue.

This is obvious on its face.

When will the U.S. join the rest of the world and give up those confusing "ounces"?! Ounces are used in the U.S. for two entirely different purposes: as a unit of weight (metric: grams) and as a measure of fluid (metric: liters). The sooner we complete our in-progress conversion to metric and join the rest of the world, we won't have these silly problems with outdated units.

---When will the U.S. join the rest of the world and give up those confusing "ounces"?! -- John A.

er, yeah, I'm pretty sure that units of liquid volume isn't the problem...

The sooner we complete our in-progress conversion to metric and join the rest of the world, we won't have these silly problems with outdated units.

I wouldn't mind converting weights and volumes to metric, but units of temperature and distance are another matter. For better or worse, the foot correlates reasonably well to units of human perception (by design) and the Farenheit scale correlates rather well to units of human perception (inadvertantly...it's a scale based on the physical properties of salt water).

The SI units for distance and temperature are designed to be easily divisible by ten for calculation purposes, but offer no convenient relationshihp to human perception, making them somewhat arbitrary for daily use.

Don't know if anyone mentioned it yet, but it's insanely easy to walk past security with a single 3.5 oz (or even slightly larger) bottle - just put it in your pocket. I wear semi-baggy cargo pants and I've done it once before - shhh... don't tell anyone ;)

Of course as soon as they have those body scanners in place this won't be an option.

Anyway, I do agree with the others, the TSA agents really can't make any exceptions otherwise the line times would skyrocket.

Your subordinates don't know what they want. But they know what they don't want.
--Murphy's Laws of Combat

I've seen plenty of complaining about the security procedures. What I don't see are alternatives.

Jane, what do *you* think the procedure should be?

Now, that we shouldn't in any way restrict liquids is a defensible position. However, there is an identified threat for liquid explosives. Maybe it's overblown, I don't know. But if you accept that there's a reasonable risk of this type of attack, then you have to have a procedure for it. Like it or not, this is a bureaucracy, and bureaucracies live and die on standard operating procedures--because that's the only way that can even come close to the appearance of fairness. (That's why courts use precedent. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the U.S. Justice System, it'd be the U.S. Random Punishment System, even moreso than it is today.) The only way to ensure a modicum of fairness across a large, diverse group of people trying to enact a policy is to have a--fairly arbitrary--standard.

You need to have a rigid procedure down to move people through a standardized system efficiently. I'm in a training unit, and we move 300 Soldiers through our dining facility in 20 minutes. Thats 20 minutes between the time that the first person walks in the door to the time the last person walks out, everbody with food in their belly. The only way that this works is if everybody goes along with the procedure and moves the f*** out. Security checkpoints have a similar constraint.

Besides, I can think of a good reason that they want them is a ziploc baggie. If the bottles happen to come open, the ziploc is less likely to spill and get all over the screeners' hands, who then have to stop what they're doing to wash it off and clean up the table. And before you object that *your* stuff wasn't open, if they don't punish noncompliance, nobody will comply. Now, if they don't publish what they expect, than they're wrong, but if you walked by a sign and didnt' follow it, you're wrong.

Also, I'd caution people about assuming that the screeners are "silly" or "the left half of the bell curve" based on this by itself. (That's not to say that there aren't a lot of people that fit that description) But perfectly intellegent people who realize how stupid the rules are will probably still enforce them. I'll use myself as an example: today I just got an order to have myself and my subordinates use different spaces than our regular (reserved) ones for a day or two. The stated reason is to try to shake people out of their routines as an anti-terrorism measure, since learning the routine of a target is an important part of planning an attack (There's more than just parking spaces to this. I'm just using this one element as an example). I disagree with the rationale, and so do my subordinates. But do you know what? They and I are going to do it anyway, since I'm not going to get dismissed for sending up a false report to save them or me about a minute of walking. Similarly, I wouldn't expect that TSA screener to risk her job to save someone else a minor inconvenience, especially if there's a sign before the checkpoint. And if you think that she should, then I'd like to use your economist.com e-mail address to ask a few top generals what they are thinking with some of these anti-terrorism policies, and they're more likely to explain themselves to a reporter. C'mon, letting me use your username and password once or twice would really help me out.

I'm with Thorley on the handicapped rant.

Zadig's proposal is to have a line that everyone can use but where everybody is supposed to get out of the way if a handicapped person shows up. What's the point of that? D'ya think it'd actually work? The point of providing access is to provide access, not make the handicapped ask for special treatment every time they want to use the same facilities able bodied people do. Should able bodied people be able to use handicapped parking spots, but leave a note with a cell phone number so theyu can move their car if a handicapped person wants to use the spot?

And mark me down with those that have defended the process (stupid as it is) rather than the prima donna in the security line who needs to debate the efficacy of the policy. The options are:

a) a bunch of stupid processes most of which have little to do with actual security, but that give the appearance of security, but do have a remote chance of actually screening out big clumsy threats, which are adhered to inviolably by staff in order to get the largest volume of people through as efficiently as possible

b) a bunch of stupid processes that (most of which, yadda yadda) where staff (with a broad range of qualifications and talent) have a great deal of discretion in administering so that there's less fairness and lengthy debate with each customer thus making check in a 3 hour time waster

c) no stupid policies, in fact few policies whatsoever. But minimal security and you take your chances.

I opt for a. Annoying, but predictable. Some safety benefit. Best trade off between fairness, security and efficiency. Feel like your liberties are constrained by bureacrats? Exercise your personal choice and take the Greyhound.

I'm a little confused about the handicap access, were TSA agents standing around waiting around for a handicap person to come by for screening while all the other lines were backed up. If so, then that does seem pretty wasteful.

As for what to do. I would vote for a presidential candidate that would promise to go back to the old system. I also think some laws that allowed arbitrary inspections (even if racially biased profiling was involved). Perhaps it makes me a non-libertarian to grant the state such power, but I gotta be honest, I would definitely do it...

Or option d) Just use the security processes used in Singapore, Japan and other developed countries, which are perfectly sensible.

As noted, the new "visible" security since 9/11 does nothing to protect passengers. If you ban boxcutters, you could still use a sharpened belt buckle, or a pen, or a broken glass frame, or any number of equivalent items. The "liquid exposive" threat was, afaik, deemed impossible by experts who looked at the rudimentary planning of the English wannabe terrorists.

Someone asked for Jane's suggestions. Here are mine: Lock the cockpit door, and use the metal detectors to keep guns off planes. Some type of explosives screening for luggage would also be sensible. Anything else is really providing only minor benefits at significant cost.

I also highly recommend the "Kip Hawley is an Idiot"/"First Amendment" plastic baggie. Google it if you don't know the story.

Oh, come on, the handicapped thing is simple:

You have a machine that can accomodate handicapped or non-handicapped people.

If there's a handicapped person approaching the checkpoint, that person gets to use the machine as soon as the person in it gets through. That's usually 30 seconds or less. (Closer to 30 seconds if you have to go through the blowers as well as the metal detector, significantly less if it's just the metal detector.)

Otherwise, the next person in line uses it.

This means that the handicapped person has to wait less than a minute.

It's not that hard. And I say this as somebody who has worked in situations where I have to manage long lines of people. (Polling places, soup kitchens, and cafeterias, at different times in my life.)

Some rules that might make your life easier:

1. There are people in this world who get paid to make decisions, and there are people who get punished for making decisions (yes, I know that's an oversimplification).

2. There's no point in reasoning with someone who falls into the latter group, as TSA employees dealing with the public clearly do. From their perspective, a complete stranger is asking them to get themselves in trouble solely for the personal convenience of the stranger; a request I think even you might agree is unreasonable.

"The "liquid exposive" threat was, afaik, deemed impossible by experts who looked at the rudimentary planning of the English wannabe terrorists"

Perhaps they should have looked into Korean 858 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19871129-0) in which a binary liquid explosive was used.

brent:"But it's no different than it was in 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970..."

That's the sad part. It IS different than it was it was in the 1970's, 1980's, etc. Believe it or not, it used to be FUN to fly. Partly it's the airlines shrinking space to maximize their passenger load and keep their profits up. But it's also post-9/11 paranoia and the need for "security theater" so we can all pretend that there could not possibly be a threat to our flight. How could the Bad People escape all those layers of security? They'd have to imagine something that hadn't been done before, and no one can imagine like that.

Perhaps we should let Disney manage our airport security?

Say what you want about the Magic Kingdom, but they do their best to keep those lines moving and the people on them happy. If we had a contractor that was that dedicated to high quality but low impact security flying would be a lot easier.

Certainly would be more pleasant than our current low quality, high impact government security.

Flying will get very interesting in the days and weeks after the Underwear Bomber is apprehended.

We'll all be flyin' "Britney Spears" style.

"Perhaps they should have looked into Korean 858 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19871129-0) in which a binary liquid explosive was used."

Nothing about a liquid binary explosive there, it just said that the bombers left a whisky bottle and a radio in the luggage rack.

In flight explosion of a time bomb.

Feel like your liberties are constrained by bureacrats? Exercise your personal choice and take the Greyhound.

Best comment yet. Nothing like seeing the libertarian bromide used against a libertarian.

"I second the folks who say that the ire should properly directed at the idiots who make the rules, not the poor guys who are just trying to do their jobs to feed their kids, said job largely consisting of being hassled and yelled at by inconsiderate people who are ticked off for having their $1 worth of shampoo confiscated because they couldn't bother to read the stupid rules."

If it wasn't for the scum enforcing stupid and evil rules, the politicians and bureaucrats could say anything they want without actually harming anyone.

Only stupid people conform mindlessly to stupid rules.

Now that I think about it, my travel experiences would be greatly improved if all you amateur travelers yielded to your professed anger at the so-called arbitrary rules & inept TSA employees and traveled by bus, train, or car instead of plane.

There are a few hundred people who made rather hard landings on 9/11 who might, if able to be questioned, agree that some minor inconvenience would have been worth it.

There are people out there who would cheerfully die to take a planeload of infidels with them.

The rules are a minor inconvenience. A few thousand dead people and a ruined economy is not so trivial.

Never before in history has a war had so little impact on the average citizen.

"Nothing about a liquid binary explosive there, it just said that the bombers left a whisky bottle and a radio in the luggage rack"

Oops. Not much detail at link. The whisky bottle contained PLX, a liquid binary explosive, presumably used as a detonator for C-4. Here's a link with more detail: http://en.allexperts.com/e/k/ko/korean_air_flight_858.htm

anon:
"If it wasn't for the scum enforcing stupid and evil rules, the politicians and bureaucrats could say anything they want without actually harming anyone."

Well, I can certainly believe that the rules being discussed here are stupid, but I think "evil" is probably a bit of a stretch for someone losing a bottle of shampoo.

"Only stupid people conform mindlessly to stupid rules."

I think that the rationale that the courts used to declare flag-burning constitutional is phenomenally stupid, and that flag burning is wrong. I would laugh really, really, hard to watch riot cops beat the hell out of people doing it--if I could trust that the cops not conforming "mindlessly to stupid rules" would only apply in this particular case. However, I think that allowing police to do their own thing, regardless of the rules, is likely to result in more harm than good.

Remember, the majority of bureaucratic rules aren't stupid. We just don't think of them as "bureaucracy" when we agree with them. For example, I'm sure that there's a TSA regulation somewhere that declares that people performing personal searches be the same sex as the person they're searching. I know for a fact there's probably more than a few male security screeners who would love to "search" that hot chick coming through the line. However, they don't have the ability under the regs to do so. Remember that it's harder for supervisors to nail someone for following rules you like if they let rules you don't like slide. Also, see http://www.radix.net/~bbrown/amfas.html.

Thanks for the link J. Picatinny Liquid Explosive - sounds positively homely. I'd so much rather be blown up by a good British liquid bomb than some modern, anonymous explosive, frankly!

Flag burning is political theater, which explains why some people hate it a lot and also why it must be protected. It's an act designed to tweak mindless patriots into a fury, so it's genuinely useful.

Mass defection from TSA procedure (can you imagine a few hundred people in an airport refusing to take off their shoes?) is the only thing that will cure the stupid rules.

Unfortunately, like everyone else, I'm in no mood to do anything at airport security but try to get through it.

One is tempted to sabotage the whole process by donning a blue uniform, standing before security, and handing out little pamphlets that say, "Rules limiting liquids to 3.5 oz have been repealed. Also, please keep your shoes on. Inform TSA personnel of these rule changes if any seem unclear on them."

Here's the problem:

Most of this is just security theater. It doesn't actually make you any safer (as measured by reports of undercover inspectors getting all sorts of truly dangerous things past TSA screeners) but it does subject you to lots of hassle. Meanwhile, the security apparatus at the airport has metastasized, from a short line and a couple of metal detectors to a massive complex that's far larger than it was before, with far more people and machines. And they have the power to subject you to all sorts of secondary screening, they can put your name on a list, and if you're on that list your life will be hell when you try to travel.

So, basically, we have a security apparatus that is growing rapidly (it seems like every time I fly, which I do a few times a year, the process is even more intricate) and becoming far more intrusive and obnoxious, without actually stopping truly dangerous items.

Given all those facts, can you see why some of us are resentful?

Don't worry, all you Loyal Workers and Peasants of the People's Security State, I don't do anything that would slow the line down: I don't try to smuggle any bottled water past them, or argue about a large tweezers, or whatever else. I just complain quite a bit as I go through the process (moving as rapidly as the efficiency of a government agency will allow), in hopes that a few people will realize that this is very un-American.

thoreau,

I think that you misunderstand what many of us are saying--I think that the security around airports is probably useless and should be cut back. I'm pushing back against what I perceive is the idea that the screeners and thier higher-ups are total retards who cackle madly in the break room at the thought of inflicting pain on innocent American citizens trying to travel. (Incidentally, complaining about the procedures while in the line probably doesn't help. A good portion of the screeners probably agree with you on the faults of the system. I can speak from experience that enforcing a standard you think is stupid is aggravating. Enforcing it while listening to people whine the same complaints over and over is damned near intolerable, and likely contributes to the mentality of the screeners. Call or write letters to complain to the people making the procedures, not enforcing them. Be polite and present alternatives.)

I've not dealt with anybody in the TSA bureaucracy, but I'm willing to bet that they're the same as the Army bureaucracy: a few malicious or stupid people here and there, but for the most part people of average intelligence trying to do the best job that they can within the limits that they're given, and not get fired while doing it. Now, even smart people can be incompetent, and God knows that there's plenty of that to go around, too. But to solve a problem, you have to identify it, and assuming evil and low intelligence on the part of individuals within the organization is probably misidentifying the real issue, and won't lead to a solution.

A story about military bureaucratic stupidity I've heard before is a good illustration:

A person got an interoffice memo. She acknowledged that she read it by initialing, then passed it on to the next person. It came back to her later with a note attached telling her that she wasn't on the distribution list, and that she should erase her initials, and then initial the erasure.

Now, this is phenominally stupid. But the person who sent it back with the instructions to erase the initials was probably trying to deconflict two different sets of rules. One is that *any* change to a document is to be initialed by the person making the changes. The other is that the memo shouldn't go to people who aren't on the distro list. Of course, I'm not going to defend the person who perpetrated this, since they should have just disregarded the second rule, since the person had already read it.

This does help to illustrate how not-stupid people can end up creating and enforcing stupid policies. They're often trying to comply with a bunch of conflicting rules and interests, and unlike the case above, all but one of them probably can't be disregarded as trivial.

Some of the things that security screeners have to satisfy:
1. Any application of policy has to be substantially the same for every single person who comes through the lines at every single airport in the Nation. This is why you run into the blind inflexibility that is the major gripe here. If you want the screeners to use broad powers and a lot of discretion to make independant case-by-case judgements, you had better not point to someone else in the next line over and whine "but that guy was allowed through and he has the same item/did the same thing/the only difference between us is race." Well, that guy was done by a different security screener, who used his decision-making capability to come to a different conclusion about what constitutes a threat, and reasonable people do differ. (Or your screener might be racist/sexist/dumb. But you can't tell easily, because there's no consistant procedure from which they deviated when denying you.)

2. A policy has to deal with a reasonable threat that can be forseen, and--this is the kicker--you can argue after an attack that your policy was a reasonable attempt to stop that attack. Note that this is different than your policy was effective. This is a feature of bureaucreacy that's not going to disappear as long as bureaucracies are staffed by and serve human beings, because the guy writing airport security policy doesn't want to get fired any more than the guy working the counter at McDonald's.

3. You have to be able to implement the policy. People actually need to be able to board their plane, with stuff that they need. Note that shampoo in your carry on isn't necessarily a need. How many of you really wash your hair in the airplane lavatory? You can put it in your checked luggage, and "I don't want to check luggage" is an argument that this policy is inconvenient, not that you can't fly with the stuff you have to have. Also, you may not get all the resources you want, either because you can't get an appropriation for them, or because you can't procure them before having to implement.

Now, to bring it back to the original point of Megan's post, and the question I asked earlier: You're setting airport screening procedures. What would you do to minimize the risk of a terrorist carrying on a binary liquid explosive? Note that "I don't think that it's that big a threat, so don't worry about it" isn't an answer here. That argument has been settled by the media. If you say "do nothing" and there is any incident whatsoever on a plane involving binary explosive, you're looking for a new job. Even if the guy get's beaten into a coma by other passengers, or even if his bomb doesn't do anything other than kill himself. Even if the someone holds up a bottle of shampoo and claims it's binary explosive. Because of the public furor over this threat already, there is a public expectation that you're dealing with it.

I do customer service and run into the same sort of situations, where my company has some semi-inane manner of doing things and my task is to not bend.

It sounds like you do customer dis-service. Not blaming you, if that's the way the company insists you do it... But (assuming this is a business in a competitive market, not a government agency or a utility with a government-protected monopoly), expect to be looking for a new job sooner or later. Customers will discover that there are other places they can shop that don't give them trouble like this, and then there will be layoffs...

But with the TSA, we don't have that choice of taking our business elsewhere.

Now, to bring it back to the original point of Megan's post, and the question I asked earlier: You're setting airport screening procedures. What would you do to minimize the risk of a terrorist carrying on a binary liquid explosive? Note that "I don't think that it's that big a threat, so don't worry about it" isn't an answer here.

Actually, it is an answer. Otherwise, you wind up responding to any imaginary threat that somebody comes up with, and eventually the terrorists will be able to shut down aviation by starting rumors of all sorts of improvised weapons that don't actually exist.

They won't even have to attack, or even plan an attack, they'll just have to start a rumor that fabrics make great bombs, and the TSA will order us all to fly naked. And I'll say "That's absurd! You can't make a bomb out of cotton!" And you'll say "It doesn't matter that it's absurd. What matters is that people are afraid of it so they have to cover their asses."

Obviously the point about fabric is a tad bit exaggerated, but the point is that if every alleged (but fake) improvised weapon becomes a pretext for additional screening, and "But that can't work!" isn't acceptable because of the "They have to cover their asses!" retort, then the terrorists really have won.

You have to draw a line based on reason, otherwise you'll be so busy responding to imaginary problems that ordinary life becomes difficult yet the real problems are unsolved because all the resources have been diverted to problems that don't exist.

BTW, the fabric bomb scare will be facilitated by bedwetters who remark that (1) You know where cashmere comes from? That's right, Kashmir! Pakistan! OMG! and (2) Did you know that synthetic fabrics are largely petroleum derivatives? And you know where we get oil from, right?

OMG! The terrorists are taking control of our precious bodily fibers!

Um, I mean "body-covering fibers!"

The difference between the "binary liquid explosive" and the "fabric bomb" is that the one exists, and the other does not. I'd cheerfully say "do nothing" about a fabric bomb, because I don't have to trust a terrorist to not attempt to use one. I'm less sanguine about blowing off this particular threat.

Besides, the people that this post is complaining about, the screeners and the people who write the checkpoint SOPs, don't determine what threats they're looking for. That's a political decision made much higher. If you think that they shouldn't worry about this threat, don't get pissy in the security line, write your Congressman.

"Customers will discover that there are other places they can shop that don't give them trouble like this, and then there will be layoffs..."

Or, other customers will appreciate that the semi inane way of doing things does make for some absurdities or annoyances but by and large keeps things ticking along relatively efficiently, and presumably they pass some of the efficiencies on as savings to the customers who put up with something less than perfection. Good customer service doesn't mean gold plated attention all the time. I'd love if the local Boxmart would have a clerk that followed me around the store finding things for me and carrying packages for me. But they don't. I stand in line with the great unwashed, breathe through the top of my head while the teenaged clerk endlessly tries to get the barcode thingy to work, hum a little tune to myself while a price check on aisle 3 is conducted, whatever. Could service be better, oh, perhaps. But then Boxmart would presumably charge department store prices, and I'd find somewhere cheaper.

With airport screening, I'll put up with the fluid thingy, 'cause I have no idea about the threat and am not in a position to set policy (and getting pissy in line does NOTHING), and will operate on the assumption that there is some credible threat, even if minor, there that this does something toward. Even if not, it is part of an array of screening that presumably does SOMETHING, and I wouldn't expect that all threats would be identified or dealt with perfectly, because the bureacrats and screeners don't have the resources or capacity to attain perfection -- and, like Boxmart, they pass the savings from imperfect processes on to the taxpayers who pay their salaries. Complaining about $9 hour automatons? Pay them $20 hr to make nuanced decisions. Want better policies? Hire high paid security consultants, not poorly paid middle managers.

Want better policies and screening procedures, libertarians? Pay more taxes.

and getting pissy in line does NOTHING

1) It makes me feel better.

2) It gives the TSA henchmen a well-deserved bad day.

Addendum:

Granted, I don't think the security screening does much above and beyond making a few people feel better. The difference is that when I grumble I get to feel better without anybody's privacy being violated. Oh, some feelings might get hurt, but those hurt feelings are well-deserved.

Finn,

I'm sure you're right that my friend would have been better off not beating around the bush about breastfeeding, but she was raised by an English mom who encouraged such coy phrasing of delicate subjects.

As to brestfeeding on a germy plane, I don't know what impact that would have. Maybe you haven't witnessed anyone in the process, but it's a pretty close trip from breast to mouth. Not much of a chance of outside contamination. Especially since my friend, like nearly all other breastfeeding women, drapes a blanket over her shoulder and the baby for privacy. Unless you knew what to look for, you wouldn't even know what was going on.

Btw, I'd like to state that I always make it my goal to follow the TSA rules. After 9/11 I was apparently such a suspicious character that I was pulled aside for random extra screening on every flight I took for about 5 years. My friend once complained that she encountered the same random screening a few times and blamed racial profiling (she's half Afghan, as well as half English), until I told her what I went through, and I'm about as white as it's possible to get.

"It gives the TSA henchmen a well-deserved bad day."

"those hurt feelings are well-deserved."

I realize it's a little off-topic, but curiousity demands that I pull on this loose thread.

What are the assumptions underlying this worldview? Do you have some heuristic to determine which screeners get a "well-deserved bad day," or is becoming a security screener itself conclusive evidence of being a minion of Satan?

When they say something to the effect of "Yeah, it sucks, but I'm just doing my job" I leave them alone. Some are surprisingly candid.

When they say something to the effect of "This is for our own good" then I keep going.

2) It gives the TSA henchmen a well-deserved bad day

Boy, you better stay away from my airport. If I'm screening your ass and you start giving me shit about policy I can't control, I'll have Tyrone give you a cavity search with the biggest sausage fingers you've ever seen.

Give me a bad day? Hell, it'd MAKE my day.

Thorley -- it is one thing to complain about normal people parking in handicapped spots to save themselves a little walking.

It's another when there are no open spots in the parking lot... except for the perennially empty 12 handicapped spots in front (because the number of spaces was set by some bureaucrat based on some bureaucratic formula at the behest of a pc politician, rather than someone who knew anything about the customer base of the store).

Remind me why this makes sense? Just in case 11 handicapped people come at once, the 12th one won't have a place to park? And because of this potential handicapped customer, an actual customer shouldn't be allowed to park?

To those of you complaining about the size limits being all wrong because of us "Europeans and the metric system" you might want to bear this in mind - the USA is the only country on the planet that doesn't use metric in airports!

I've travelled much of the world, even outside of Europe and I always have to do baggage weight and size limits in metric, the only place I ever have problems is the USA where you still insist on lbs and inches. Now wouldn't it make more sense if your airports used the same standards as the rest of the world?

Or is there somebody somewhere who has this crazy idea that because terrorists are probably metric, anybody carrying metric-measured products is probably bad?!

my wife had a similar experience - only she argued incessantly with the TSA people. She went back to the airline counter and checked in some perfumes+shampoos.

unfortunately she forget a few bottles in her carry-on.
fortunately, the TSA staff forgot to pull it out the 2nd time around!

they're morons. I'm just happy I'm off their 'special randomized screening' list!!!!!

Comments are Closed.