A little over a month ago at DTW, I sent my backpack through the machine complete with my Klean Kanteen in the side pocket (visible). After getting to the SC, I noticed that the water bottle was half full.

I can say that I have forgotten to empty my Kanteen in 7 different airports since then without anyone questioning it or even looking twice at it.

Sure it does BD, you are just not looking at it the right way.

TSA's job is to prevent suspect or dangerous items from entering the sterile area. Dumping the bottles into the trash (trash can that is not in the sterile area, checkpoint is not in the sterile area but is the public entrance to same) is well within those duties.

Not correct. “Think” is not enough, one must have proof or be held liable for the repercussions of such an unfounded accusation.

And in the same place one can be held accountable for slanderous statements. Spiff was given the option of keeping his coveted bottle of water, he chose not to. This is not TSA’s fault. He also knows about the LGA rules, he ignored them knowing what the reaction was likely to be. This also is not TSA’s fault. Calling a TSA employee a thief for enforcing the rules that Spiff knows yet chooses to ignore is Slander, an error by Spiff and not that of TSA.

If your going to make an ignorant statement, you might want to take the time.

Yet you packed it in your carryon anyway. Yeah, I’d be thinking something along the line of “stupid” myself.

A lot of it is handled as hazardous material, as it should be. The rest is disposed of, usually in the trash. Depends on what you consider to be “good stuff”. We have a few display cases filled with items surrendered or confiscated by TSO’s that are not allowed through the checkpoint. Knives, fireworks, torch lighters, clubs, saw’s (I didn’t get this one personally), Bow’s, arrows, inert grenades, smoke grenades, all kinds of stuff that folks try and take through. Got a flare gun with flares last week. Go figure.

Is anything additional done to those items in the trash, or do they just end up in the BFI or Waste Management dumpster?

so remove or not to remove? that is the question...guess ill try not to remove tomorrow in SFO.

Ron, if there was any suspicion that the liquids confiscated by TSA were dangerous only idiots would toss them in a trash can.

But we are talking TSA employees aren't we?

Visual volume inspection is 100% accurate in separating "dangerous" liquids from innocuous liquids. :rolleyes:

I went through MHT a few weeks ago and the TSA pulled my 1qt baggie out of the bin and looked in it. I guess my 1.75 fl oz cologne bottle looked questionable to them. After they looked at it, they put the whole baggie back into the plastic bin.

Cologne bottles are usually made from very heavy glass and look far larger than the amount of liquid they can contain. I have pulled quite a few myself because of that. It’s not a big deal, we look, and usually do exactly what the TSO did to you, we put it back.

Not a clue. I am usually not there when they are emptied.

Deciding if the substance in a water bottle is dangerous or suspicious is not really what TSO’s do. The passenger is given a choice, take it back out or leave it with us. Pretty simple choice. If that bottle of whatever is so meaningful or precious to you that you absolutely cannot part with it then we will be happy to walk it and you out of the sterile area so that you can be together. I’d hate to interfere in that type of a relationship, and 3 is usually a crowd.

I'm sure an IED would be kind enough to respect the line between what is a "sterile" area and the un-sterile area.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3...theaterbt8.jpg

Was there a point there?

If an IED does not make it into the sterile area then the TSA has done its job. I understand you might have a problem with that, but the rest of the people I know wouldn't.

Or would you like the TSA to search the rest of the area that passengers have access to in their daily lives for IED's? I'm sure we could do that, but you would not like the expense and I seem to remember you complaining about "mission creep" at one time or another. Have you changed your stand on that as well?

Yes. I will dumb down the verbiage for you.


The point is that if a bomb explodes, at or near the "security" checkpoint, the explosion or shrapnel will not limit itself to the area prior to crossing the magnetometer. In fact, in many airports screeners throw away the liquids in a container that's past the magnetometer.


The TSA has gone well beyond the scope of simply checking for explosives at checkpoints.

In Denver two weeks ago, I saw two of them with green reflective vests wandering around the hotel/car rental shuttle islands, even boarding a couple of rental car shuttle vans to stand up at the front and look inside of them.

Also, they regularly have signs touting "enhanced screening," a carefully-worded sign that, at a quick glance, makes it read that they're doing more work at a checkpoint, but what it really means is that they have those heat-sensing guns pointed at you when you walk into the terminal.

The point here (and to answer your "mission creep" question), is that the TSA has extended its slimy tentacles well beyond the "security" checkpoint. So, there's your answer for "mission creep," my viewpoint has evolved in the same time the TSA overreaches its original mission in an effort to remain relevant.

I think your declaration that traveling with $10,000 in cash is illegal is a prime example of the mindset of the TSA's mission creep.

Now, as for the TSA doing things like like I stated earlier. Actions have consequences, and when you're out there bragging about the effectiveness of the no-fly list and things I mentioned earlier, then yes, simply stated, the TSA's arse should be on the line when its systems fail people outside the checkpoint.

Do you understand?

There's a simple solution to that. Walk up to them and tell 'em that they're "number 1" using sign language on both of your hands. :) Do whatever you can to provoke a response-- and then file a complaint about their response being unprofessional. :)

In the case of the heat sensing guns, I'd also suggest calling the police. It becomes very obvious that one's Fourth Amendment rights are being violated, since TSA's authority is limited only to doing searches in the checkpoint and sterile areas. (Or did I miss some rulings extending it outward?)

No, I think I'm more civil than that. I might smile and shake my head to myself (like I did), but I'm not going to reduce myself like that.


I would get laughed at if I went to the cops.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine the legality is the whole implied consent thing, given that notification is posted (similar to the checkpoints).

So a passenger's carry-on bag is inspected and suspected drugs are found. You have stated this cannot be ignored and a supervisor must be called. Why don't you give the passenger the same choice as with "dangerous or suspicious liquids" and allow them to simply throw away the suspected items?

We also know that if a TSO finds a package with suspected drugs outside of the screening area they are required to notify a supervisor or police. Simply throwing the suspect item away is not acceptable.

Interesting to note that TSO's have greater responsibilities, both inside and outside of the screening area ,when it comes to suspected drugs than they do with suspected "dangerous or suspicious" liquids.

See definition of "security theater" :td::td:

Slander is a crime, my man. Bring charges, I'm begging you. :D :D :D :D (pointing and laughing)

It would be especially funny if such a "crime" went to a courtroom so that the TSA's lies about liquids being dangerous would be exposed at a legal level.

"What are these 'binary explosives'?

"Uhhh... we can't tell you?"

"Get out of my courtroom, Harry Potter!"

Liquids dangerous? LIES :D :D