flyrad

As much as I appreciate the sentiment of civil disobedience, I hope to find more personally meaningful ways of making a statement over smuggling liquids past the TSA. My opinion only, not criticism of others.

breny

Between my boobies is my preferred smuggling spot. Second is a pocket.

VPescado

Dang, I need to *stop* going to the gym.

bocastephen

Just use tape...non-metallic, of course

doober

And what might those meaningful ways be?

Howie721

This past weekend I smuggled a 6.1 oz of hair gel in my back pocket. I got a little nervous when they called me over to check my bag. Luckily I had it in my pocket.

On the other hand, they did a pretty poor job since I mistakenly left a normal size tube of toothpaste in my carry-on.

TSA-0 vs. Howie721-2..

SRQ Guy

I have yet to use a Comrade Kip Freedom Baggie or switch to small containers of gels, and have never yet been caught. The War on Liquids is an abject failure.

lewisc

The lines at security are long enough without passengers playing games. Check your hair gel, find another brand or transfer some to a smaller container and put it in your baggie.

There are enough delays with infrequent fliers that still don't understand they have to take their change out of their pockets. There really isn't any reason for frequent fliers to add to the mess.

Like it or not TSA has rules. I don't see the point in intentionally breaking the rules slowing down your screening and slowing down everyone in line behind you.

honeytoes

Call me petty or immature, but it pleases me to sneak things past the TSA. They can go suck a tree if they think that I will travel only with my teeny KHIAI bag.

DL4EVR

Why shouldn't we mess with the TSA? They make insane rules that in no way improve security (and in many ways DECREASE it...focusing on toothpaste instead of guns and bombs). They make traveling miserable for us, why can't we give it back a little bit??

Points Scrounger

[QUOTE=lewisc;8168228 I don't see the point in intentionally breaking the rules slowing down your screening and slowing down everyone in line behind you.[/QUOTE]

I do for (at least) two reasons:

a) the longer the lines get, the more folks will grow to resent them.

b) more folks will be later at the gate for flights - an situation that might cause the airlines to actually complain.

flyrad

Why should that matter? I'm not trying to act superior, just pointing out that silently smuggling liquids past the TSA isn't a meaningful act of civil disobedience for me.

essxjay

I've been waiting for just the right post to ask about a specific principle of liberty: At what point is it ethical to disobey a law when it violates one's liberty?

This thread is, I think, a good example of how people begin to think about whether and/or where to draw the line w/r/t to their personal liberties.

What I ask of those that hold a "rules are rules" position is this: Are we not even at liberty anymore to object to the wanton confiscation and wasting of our property -- property that was paid for by the fruits of our productive efforts, e.g. money? To deny that this is not what is fundamentally at the bottom of a rules-qua-rules stance, is to be in willful opposition of the reality of what's at stake.

Even more fundamental than the collective notion of national security -- or, specifically at hand, air travel safety -- is whether those whose safety and security being provided for by the transfer of wealth via taxes have any right in the say of how the funds are spent to achieve such a common goal. Without such liberty, an aspect of democracy is compromised.

To have no rights over our property, when that property is no intrinsic or contextually credible threat to others, is a violation of liberty.

If someone can reasonably explain why a 3.4 oz. tube of hair gel is an acceptable risk to air travel safety while a larger one is not, I'm all eyes (and ears). Otherwise, I've yet to see a valid justification for the violation of one's liberty to carry a tube of hair gel in one's cabin luggage.

Furthermore, the administrative costs incurred to enforce this blanket of protection is, I strongly suspect, probably not worth the payoff in terms of real safety.

It is easy for individuals to forget that there are two sides to every balance sheet (fiscal or otherwise): liability and asset. It's even easier to forget the fiscal context when a given balance sheet one at hand has little or nothing directly to do with one's own checkbook. Administration costs incurred by the TSA are paid for by taxes, which like money does not grow on trees. Those entrusted with tax funds to administer the TSA needed to be reminded (as often as necessary) of their obligations regarding this trust of fund.

flyrad

I have no objection to people expressing their free will/opinion by smuggling liquids past TSA. However, when and if they get delayed for some "quality" time in TSA land, they have nobody to blame but themselves. (Also one might argue that this potentially uses TSA resources and makes these lines slower for everyone. I don't see this in any way as proven, only potential.)

The above is kind of like getting a speeding ticket in a zone with an absurdly low speed limit.

gfunkdave

I'd like to know exactly how people are getting away with putting those pernicious liquids and gels in their pockets - I tried it once and the damn metal detector went off. Maybe it would be helpful if we started a list of brands that don't contain lots of metal.

From my experience, at least some Kiehl's products (moisturizer and shaving cream) do contain some amount of metal.