An idea for liquids
 

It would be nice if the TSA had a machine where you put your liquid can in a machine that would read the RFID or Barcode of liquids to say that it has not been tampered with. Companies such as Coke could put something along the lines of a TSA approved seal. If you want to bring that coke through security or Starbucks the store could affix a TSA sticker to say that it has not been tampered with.

The same goes for Shampoo of any size. If you want to bring a large shampoo more than the 3 -1-1 it could have a TSA approved seal and if its not present its a no-go but if its present you can take it through security. If the shampoo has been used you can take it to the airport security desk and they can run a sample and seal the bottle shut with a sticker saying its TSA approved liquid.

The same goes for Duty Free after you exit customs you are presented with a booth and you show the agent your receipt and he or she will affix a sticker on the bottle of wine etc. Then you can take it through security.

In theory, it would work but......

How do you handle generic travel size (i.e. <3.4oz) bottles such as the one I use to put hair gel and dental rinse or a small bottle of cologne which I bring only when I travel. These bottles have either been used or have been opened so no "manufacturer's seal".

Also putting a safety strip/seal on a cup of coffee won't work either as it's the store that's placing the seal on the item and (imho) that would mean there would have to be a TSO at every store to oversee the operation and that would just increase the numbers of "thousands standing around" ;)

What would the cost implications be for these products? Would non-flying people simply trying to purchase the product have to pay the price increase? Who would fund this scheme? What about products purchased outside the US? Would Americans really permit the spread of TSA outside airports and transportation and into their daily lives in the shops?

I can come up with half a dozen reasons in second why this is not a viable or logical idea.

A better course of action would be to repeal these useless restrictions.

This is a half baked, poorly thought out, expensive the implement, and inefficient solution to a non-existent threat. Billions of taxpayer dollars would be wasted on thousands more standing around. In other words the TSA thinks it's a great idea.

Based upon TSA logic (dont start anyone), your idea has no logic. So Starbucks puts a sticky on the cup? How does the TSA know that what is in the cup was really Starbucks and not something tampered with? The purpose is to limit the liquids so if you are trying to do something, your impact is low or non existent cause you could not bring quantities through, Why bring a big bottle through when you leave home, then remove the seal? How do you get the bottle back? Somewhere someone has to test the contents and prove that you did not do anything to it, add the seal again, and let you through with it.

I have an idea for liquids... do away with the stupid rules!

Considering you can now buy tamper resistant caps for water bottles to smuggle your vodka on cruise ships in unopened water bottles (or so they think at the ship) I don't ever see them going to a sticker, seal, etc as a way to show something has not been tampered with. It's just too easy to get around them.

That would be the best solution. Everything that I've read said that the liquid bomb plot was unlikely to succeed due to the instability of the chemicals or the prep time required.

I've always wondered how they came up with the 3-1-1 idea anyway. I know the TSA said they tested it, but it always seemed made up to me.

One day the TSA will realize that blood is a liquid and we have far more than 3 oz in our bodies. Then we are well and truly...

Agreed.

OP: that is kind of silly; if there were a threat somebody could just take a needle+syringe and replace the contents of the bottle without altering the seal. A small pinprick in a shampoo bottle could be resealed and almost impossible to notice.

But, as others have said, the whole rules are nonsense. Most sources believe there was never even an especially credible risk of liquid bombs, and there are still huge holes (powders, body cavities, etc.) that allow such substances on board.

The agency just needs to come to a sensible security compromise, as security always involves compromises of cost, convenience, and privacy.

I have an even better idea.

Let's have Big Sis and Pistole demonstrate on live TV exactly how one can pack in a suitcase, transport, and then mix the ingredients required to make the dangerous bomb we are so concerned about and then detonate it without blowing themselves to bits.

No way this would work. The stickers themselves could easily be duplicated and/or stolen.

Doing away with the liquids ban, and while we're at it the whole DHS/TSA monster, would be much more logical and workable.

Any solid, heated to the right temperature, becomes a liquid. Perhaps we should ban solids?

Mike

I was with you right up to the last few words; I wouldn't mind if these two idiots blew themselves to bits. In fact, in this forum, you could probably sell tickets to that. ;)

Similar machines already exist - they have them at domestic terminals in Japan. They have one slot for cans and one slot for PET bottles - you just put it on the machine when going through security and it scans it in about 5 seconds - I'm guessing they measure resistance or something.
Here's a picture