Originally Posted by
loops
I'm guessing that since there was no way of verifying that the container held the allowable volume of liquid, despite it's obvious size and the fact that it was in a very small bag with other items, it was at risk for random seizure... er.. voluntary surrender. Sort of like a nearly empty tube of toothpaste that obviously does not contain the original amount (over 3.4 when full) printed on the label is not allowed. Technically, allowing these sort of things through could be considered a screening "failure". Stupidity begets more stupidity, but rulz is rulz!. I used to have a toiletry travel kit that had several small refillable unlabeled plastic bottles for liquids. My guess is that there's be a pretty good "random" chance that these might now end up in the same bin with all the other potentially explosive liquids, for lack of a simple label indicating capacity when full.
Interesting. That particular passage caught my eye because I carry rather expensive shampoo and conditioner (necessary to keep my hair looking like hair, rather than a mass of tangled wire) with me in unlabeled refillable containers. A quick check reveals that both containers are marked as containing 3 ounces of fluid on the bottom, but I suppose it couldn't hurt to write "shampoo" and "conditioner" on them with a permanent marker. Better that than to be forced into choosing between buying small yet expensive containers of my preferred hair products at my destination which I will be forced to leave behind or bearing a striking resemblance to the literary character Rubeus Hagrid until I get back home.
At the time the liquid ban was instituted, my preferred brand of hair products were not offered in 3.4 oz/100 ml containers, but perhaps they are available in those sizes now...