not always ... liquid restrictions very similar (if not the same) to the US are enforced in Brazil (for example) no matter where you are flying.

Right in my experience. The shoe carnival had been in place during some time at the UK's request, but was dropped anywhere else. Though some shoes still can set the alarm off.

Care to expand? The regulation say you have to keep your liquid in a kip-compliant bag. Within France, I had a problem with a large bottle of aerosol I had to check, but I usually have my kippie bag inside the rest of my carry-on and they don't appear to care. So it might be more relaxed, but there is liquid idiocy...

They also enforced recently laptop out-the-bag harassment, even though it was deemed not useful by the EU authorities (there was some measure of hope they would drop it, but no news ever since).

On the other hand, there are some airports that pat everyone, even if you don't alarm the detector. But I think it's pretty specific to some airport (mostly a reason for me to take the high speed train to get on a plane instead of flying out of my home airport).

One thing I have never witnessed is the kind of attitude people here atttribute to TSA employees.

Indeed harassment is more strict when flying to the US.

New Zealand, for example, does not have liquid idiocy on flights within NZ, but does on flights to the Land of Paranoid Idiots. :(

I flew domestic in Brazil last week, the regulation were printed everywhere: restriction on liquid for international travel, restriction on explosive and pointy object for domestic travel.

In fact, I found the regulation spelled on Gol's website :

OK, I thought you were speaking about the EU area. I'd have loved to know one of the EU countries was not following the liquid ban...

I took my shoes off in England, Japan, Korea, France and Germany, although I was flying to the US each time.

Bullied how? I can't imagine they let the US get away with telling them how to run security in their own country.

And yet they do, for flights to the US. The "security" harassment technically takes place in the departing country.

Seeing my seething look of contempt in one country at a gate harassment, I was told "your country makes us do this". :td: :td:

USA, the bullies with asinine "security" directives. Screw the TSA. :td:

No, but nothing forces them to accept US-bound aircraft and not divert them to Bangor because they were not screened enough to enter US airspace safely.

Except for a short time following the apparition of the shoe craze, I was only required to take off my shoes when flying to the US. Even in airport that practice systematic groping. :mad:

Same is true for Brazil, Argentina (where I asked about liquid restriction to get back to Europe, and was told I could take liquid, "only the US makes us check for liquids", so it's widely believed...).

I have different experience with frequent travel through/to Brazil. I find that they fairly strictly enforce US-like liquids policies even when flying to countries other than the US.

I quoted the rules provided by airline: liquid for international, and national that use the intl departure area, are dangerous. Liquids for domestic travel are not dangerous and could be carried on.

It's not the proof that the US is involved into the appareance of this ban, though. Was your experience of domestic BR flight long ago? The rules might have changed recently for all I know.

I haven't taken a purely domestic Brazil flight in quite some time so I shouldnt comment on that. I fly GRU to many different countries iternationally (North American, European, South American) and even inside Brazil (but from the international terminal) and I almost always run into the liquid ban.

I thought you were saying in your last post that you were told in Brazil that liquids were only a problem if flying to the US ie: " ...... maybe I misunderstood you?

That is consistent with my experience.

[quote]

No, it was in Argentina that I was told about US involvement in it. I spoke of Brazil because they exempt pure domestic travel from the liquid ban.

Because I want them to leave me alone.

There is nothing interesting in my briefcase, just a bunch of computer junk I need for work. I don't have any tools, I don't have any hidden lip gloss, I don't have anything of interest. It's annoying as all heck when they dump my bag, and I have to repack it. I resent it on principle.

I try to look like what they like and ignore -- former military, straight arrow, by the books, etc.-- and not look so much like what they want to harass (big ol' pinko dyke).

After giving it some thought, I think it all comes down to this:

I am so hostile to the concept of BDOs because I don't believe it will work. I don't think that someone with 4 days training is going to detect lurking terrorists. I do think that, just like other aspects of TSA's security theater, this one is going to cause a lot of problems for a lot of innocent travelers, without the slightest bit of gain.

TSA, do you want to do something that will add to the safety and security of flying? START INSPECTING ALL COMMERCIAL CARGO AND MAIL THAT IS LOADED ON BOARD COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT. START INSPECTING CARGO CONTAINERS THAT COULD HOLD ENTIRE ARMIES OF TERRORISTS AT U.S. PORTS.

Leave the rest of us alone.