TSA Metaphysics
 

Scientific American had an interesting article about the TSA in its January issue: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=not-a-close-shave that poses a metaphysical conundrum.

The writer reports that his father had a 3.25 ounce bottle of aftershave confiscated by the TSA. However, the clear bottle was only 1/4 full, so it contained only about 0.8 oz. The author proposes a thought experiment:

"Feeling curiouser, I did a gedankenexperiment: What if the bottle had been completely empty—would he have taken it then? No, I decided. When empty, the bottle becomes just some plastic in a rather mundane topological configuration. Not to mention that if you really banned everything with the potential to hold more than three ounces of liquid, you couldn’t let me have my shoes back. You also couldn’t allow me to bring my hands onboard. I kept these thoughts to myself, of course, because I wanted to fly home, not spend the rest of the day locked in a security office explaining what a gedankenexperiment was."

Also, the author points out:

"It used to be that you could bring shaving cream with you when boarding a plane, but they would take away your razor. Now you can carry on a razor, and they take away your shaving cream."

Oh gurus of the forum! Explain the logic of these conundrums to your humble servant. If you can, I have a question about angels and pins that perhaps you may also care to elucidate.

Ok, I admit, I had to Google it.

Arnt passengers allowed to bring empty containers? I fail to see the logic in this guys argument. Now if he said that they allowed him to bring in shoes or other items filled with liquids....

Wow he couldn't fly with a shaving razor. Waite weren't box cutters and carpenter knives allowed a few years ago? Yeah they were, until those guys did that thing with the planes and those buildings. So why isn't he questioning that logic?

First, you obviously don't understand the point of the empty container at all.

Second, he isn't questioning why box cutters aren't allowed because he did not have one taken. We question the knife ban because, after cockpit doors were secured and passengers learned to fight back, there is no way you can take a plane down with them.

If you read the post, you'll find that he reports he CAN fly with a shaving razor. His question is why you can fly with a razor now but not with shaving cream, whereas right after 911 you could fly with shaving cream but not with a razor. If that makes sense to you, please tell me why.

Oh from reading the snippet I assumed he meant being able to bring the razor pre-911. Thanks for clearing that up.

I've got more nonsense:
Knives are not allowed, but ice skates are.
Lacrosse sticks are not allowed, but bowling balls are.
10 inch screwdriver is not allowed, but 10 inch knitting needles are.

If you can find a way to reconcile these in your mind, you may be ready for a new, exciting career in airport security! :p

If you can find a way to reconcile these in your mind, there's a nice padded cell somewhere with your name on it. :D

And for the person who made up this nonsense, there's a not very nice, non-padded cell somewhere with your name on it. :(

Last time I checked, my hockey skates had to be mailed to my destination because there is no way I would check them. I carried on my gear and got a new stick at my destination.

My theory is that if I keep hitting my head against that wall, it will eventually stop hurting. :D

I apologize. I just checked the website, and ice skates are apparently not listed as permitted or prohibited. As such, individual results will vary widely for people attempting to take these items in carry-on.

(At my airport, there are several noted figure skating and hockey groups that make yearly trips. Management puts out an announcement every year to remind us that ice skates are not prohibited, in order to avioid problems.)

More nonsense: snowglobes, even under 100 ml, are not allowed. Can anyone explain that??

The similarity to an IED when viewed on the X-ray.

The TSA's philosophy in recent years seems to be to prohibit things that LOOK like bombs, apparently in the hopes of making real bombs more recognizable.

It's a nice idea, but fails to take into account the fact most passengers don't bother to check the prohibited-items list before packing, and I for one can hardly blame them for not intuitively sensing that a snowglobe might pose a problem.

Hopefully, we'll see a change in policy soon.

So the "typical" IED is spherical? :confused: Or are cubic snow "globes", if there is such a thing, permitted?

And prohibiting such alleged benign look-alikes stops the real IED makers (whenever they do start challenging TSA style security) how exactly?

Brings up the laughable concept of a TSA policy maker with a cartoon vision of an IED actually thinking, well, if we ban snow globes, no-one will try and bring one through the check-point, and the spherical IED will be obvious even to the X-Ray operator chatting on their cell phone. These guys would give the addled a bad name. :rolleyes:

You know the rules are idiotic when an honest attempt to explain them makes them appear even more moronic.

I'll take a stab at it even though I am not TSA. But attempting to use TSA logic I suspect;

Snowglobes do not list how much liquid it contains.

TSO's are incapable of making judgement calls in this case although they apparently can tell how much LGA a tube of tube paste could contain since they are packed by weight.

See it's all about consistency!:confused:

Boggie Dog, I suspect you are pretty close to the mark on this one. Snow globes, before the blanket ban and after the LGA limitations, were the source of a lot of passenger complaints. Some passengers couldn't understand that a miniature snow globe, contains a different amount of liquid than one the size of a basketball. This seemed, to me, an example of TSA overreacting to public complaints. (and also not getting the point of the public complaints)