TSA terrorizes the homeless!
#91
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: CO Plat, Priority Club Plat, HH Diamond, Avis First, Hertz #1Gold
Posts: 720
It would be even nicer if TSA would stop confiscating personal property that is safe enough to either go to the homeless or send to a landfill but cannot be taken on a plane. Maybe they should put the volunteer idea to work at checkpoints and let passengers keep what they paid for.
#92
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,441
Nobody knows what they are . . . even though they were sealed," says Nico Melendez, spokesman for TSA's national office. "You are talking about thousands of items collected each day. If we could continue it, we certainly would. But all it would take is just one item that could be a harm to somebody that would be a huge liability to this organization and the taxpayers."
Herein lies the issue, and the PR is correct. Even if something is inherently safe, but "injures" a person, the lawsuits toward the TSA will fly. One trial with a punitive award of $10,000,000USD in taxpayer monies will make people even angrier. It would be nice if they could get some volunteers to check the items or come up with some process to ensure their safety.
#93
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Catania, Sicily/South Jersey (PHL)/Houston, Texas/Red Stick/airborne in-between
Programs: United Global Svs, AA PlatPro, WN RR, AZ/ITA Freccia, Hilton Diam, Bonvoy Gold, Hertz Prez, IHG
Posts: 3,541
It is not an excuse, though you might view it as such, it is is a fact in the United States' lawsuit prone society. Under the current rules a lawsuit is not only feasable but likely if one gets hurt from those products, and the case is very easily won.
Changing the rules for carry-ons and the current lawsuit chances are two unrelated items.
Ciao,
FH
Changing the rules for carry-ons and the current lawsuit chances are two unrelated items.
Ciao,
FH
#94
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
It is not an excuse, though you might view it as such, it is is a fact in the United States' lawsuit prone society. Under the current rules a lawsuit is not only feasable but likely if one gets hurt from those products, and the case is very easily won.
Changing the rules for carry-ons and the current lawsuit chances are two unrelated items.
Ciao,
FH
Changing the rules for carry-ons and the current lawsuit chances are two unrelated items.
Ciao,
FH
#95
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Catania, Sicily/South Jersey (PHL)/Houston, Texas/Red Stick/airborne in-between
Programs: United Global Svs, AA PlatPro, WN RR, AZ/ITA Freccia, Hilton Diam, Bonvoy Gold, Hertz Prez, IHG
Posts: 3,541
True, but not impossible, and in fact happens often.
Ciao,
FH
Ciao,
FH
#97
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SQL
Programs: SPG Platinum; Hyatt Platinum; UA 1K
Posts: 3,170
I don't think the argument "If its unsafe for the plane, it is unsafe for anywhere else" is compelling.
First, there are all sorts of things that are believed not to be appropriate for a carry-on bag, yet are considered reasonable outside the sterile area (e.g. a box-cutter).
Additionally, and perhaps more to the point, the liquids rule is supposed to keep terrorists from attempting to get hazardous materials on the plane (admittedly this presumes a level of effectiveness that doesn't appear to be exist). If the terrorists believe that there is no way to get their dangerous liquid on the plane, there is no reason that they would bring it to the checkpoint to get confiscated.
Obviously they might be using the TSA as unwitting dupes to get their radioactive/biohazard shampoo to homeless people, but there would seem to be much more direct ways of introducing dangerous substances to consumers (e.g. just return tampered product to a store).
Finally, both sides of the binary explosive debate befuddle me.
On one hand we have the TSA that behaves like a prepubescent saying "Oh there is a threat, but its a secret and we wont tell you. . .nyah, nyah" and can't produce anything that exhibits critical thinking or intellectual honesty.
In the other corner, we have the TSA attackers who point out that it would be impractical to rely on TATP or similar and ignores other more reasonable threats such as nitroglycerin.
Incidentally the 3-1-1 nonsense does nothing that I can see to inhibit mixing up a batch of nitroglycerin. So we are left with the worst of both worlds: A costly and annoying security process and no mitigation to a real threat.
First, there are all sorts of things that are believed not to be appropriate for a carry-on bag, yet are considered reasonable outside the sterile area (e.g. a box-cutter).
Additionally, and perhaps more to the point, the liquids rule is supposed to keep terrorists from attempting to get hazardous materials on the plane (admittedly this presumes a level of effectiveness that doesn't appear to be exist). If the terrorists believe that there is no way to get their dangerous liquid on the plane, there is no reason that they would bring it to the checkpoint to get confiscated.
Obviously they might be using the TSA as unwitting dupes to get their radioactive/biohazard shampoo to homeless people, but there would seem to be much more direct ways of introducing dangerous substances to consumers (e.g. just return tampered product to a store).
Finally, both sides of the binary explosive debate befuddle me.
On one hand we have the TSA that behaves like a prepubescent saying "Oh there is a threat, but its a secret and we wont tell you. . .nyah, nyah" and can't produce anything that exhibits critical thinking or intellectual honesty.
In the other corner, we have the TSA attackers who point out that it would be impractical to rely on TATP or similar and ignores other more reasonable threats such as nitroglycerin.
Incidentally the 3-1-1 nonsense does nothing that I can see to inhibit mixing up a batch of nitroglycerin. So we are left with the worst of both worlds: A costly and annoying security process and no mitigation to a real threat.
#98
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Incidentally the 3-1-1 nonsense does nothing that I can see to inhibit mixing up a batch of nitroglycerin. So we are left with the worst of both worlds: A costly and annoying security process and no mitigation to a real threat.
And even then, I believe it still has to be mixed in very controlled condtions ... ones likely not to be found on board a plane or in an airport.
#99
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SQL
Programs: SPG Platinum; Hyatt Platinum; UA 1K
Posts: 3,170
My understanding is that producing it does not require very controlled conditions - other than temperature (and the big issue here is to keep the product cool enough so it doesn't go off prematurely - which is likely only to concern a terrorist insofar as if it occurs before enough product has been produced to guaranty the destruction of the aircraft - an further, it doesn't strike me as a major engineering feat to construct an ice bath for cooling).
And if even this is considered too unlikely, how about a terrorist that wears clothes made of nitrocellulose onto the flight?
My point is that there are real threats, but the TSA is failing to protect us from them while inflicting their own damage upon the traveling public.
#100
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
The glycerin is unlikely to be detected as so many products (e.g. soaps) would cause false positives.
My understanding is that producing it does not require very controlled conditions - other than temperature (and the big issue here is to keep the product cool enough so it doesn't go off prematurely - which is likely only to concern a terrorist insofar as if it occurs before enough product has been produced to guaranty the destruction of the aircraft - an further, it doesn't strike me as a major engineering feat to construct an ice bath for cooling).
And if even this is considered too unlikely, how about a terrorist that wears clothes made of nitrocellulose onto the flight?
My point is that there are real threats, but the TSA is failing to protect us from them while inflicting their own damage upon the traveling public.