Why can you pack scissors in your carryon, but not mascara?

[SuzanneSLO]

There was an article in USA Today on Thursday saying that there are concerns that watching out for all these new items and a 20% increase in checked luggage may be distracting screeners from looking for the items that are more likely to bring down a plane. That's scary.

I flew Northwest this week and on both flights a pilot or flight attendent got on carrying a liquid beverage. Who is to say someone couldn't have handed them something explosive?

I fly weekly and only once since this started did a see a "spot check" at a gate. I was chosen and my bag was given about the same scruitiny that the WDW gate security gives (not very thorough). I also had a bag check on Wednesday at MSP security because I mistakenly left a half bottle of water in my carryon bag. He did a swabbing of the handle for explosives and just glanced in the bag.

I'm all for security but I have concerns about placing a high priority on items like mascara perhaps at the expense of something more dangerous.

I agree with DebbieB

If our resources were unlimited, then checking every item going onto every plane might actually make us safer. But with limited resources, we need to be smarter and focus on that which is likely to give us -- parden the phrase -- the most bang for the buck.

With rules that make no sense and aren't really enforced, I am afraid what we are doing is telling everyone that its ok to bring contraband on board, just don't get caught. It's the "don't ask, don't tell" version of airline security. I think that message is a very dangerous one.

-- Suzanne

 

[bicker]

I'm sorry I quoted GEM, especially since my reply wasn't actually directed at GEM's words. I'm not sure why that quote got in there, really.

 

[bicker]

With rules that make no sense

I think that whatever rules were put in place, and whatever explanations were provided, you'd have a substantial number of people saying that they make no sense, simply because they either disagree with the inferences provided or don't care about the evidence presented enough for that to overcome their innate annoyance at being inconvenienced.

Also, it is important to understand that explanations may be counter-productive to either of two objectives of the rules (security and calming public fears).

 

[cslittle999]

The real problem is that the travelling public won't accept the inconvenience total security so the TSA has to find some kind of compromise. The rules don't always make sense but it is easy to see how they arrived where they are.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

I think that whatever rules were put in place, and whatever explanations were provided, you'd have a substantial number of people saying that they make no sense, simply because they either disagree with the inferences provided or don't care about the evidence presented enough for that to overcome their innate annoyance at being inconvenienced.

Also, it is important to understand that explanations may be counter-productive to either of two objectives of the rules (security and calming public fears).

I take from this that you think that the rules do make sense?

What part of the following makes sense to you:

eyeglasses confiscated from a pilot flying from the UK?

shoe removal mandatory so that all shoes can be x-rayed but none are swabbed for explosives?

water prohibited from being taken OFF a plane?

oranges and juicers allowed, but not orange juice (except 5 oz. if you are a diabetic)?

gummy bears prohibited but creme filled candies allowed?

mayonaise packets prohibited but mayonaise on sandwiches allowed?

solid and powdered cosmetics may be prohibitted at the discretion of the agent?

The rules need to make sense to the travelling public because it will lead to consistent enforcement. As a result, travellers can plan what to pack in the carry-on and what to leave behind or check.

As I said before, I think the likely result of unresonable/incomprehensible rules will be that usually honest law-abiding people will think it's okay to smuggle aboard contraband. It is already happening and that, indeed, makes this a sad time in the history of our country.

-- Suzanne

 

[bicker]

I take from this that you think that the rules do make sense?

I wouldn't project any specific perspectives until they're explicitly stated. If I feel something strongly enough to discuss it, I'll make my position painfully clear!

The point I'm making is that regardless of what rules were put in place, and whatever explanations were provided, you'd have a substantial number of people objecting, practically solely for the sake of objecting.

The rules need to make sense to the travelling public because it will lead to consistent enforcement.

Sorry, but there is no causal relationship between "the rules making sense" and "leading to consistent enforcement". The rules need to be fair: People need to be able to understand they are allowed to bring on board without having to worry about it being confiscated. The converse is not true.

As a result, travellers can plan what to pack in the carry-on and what to leave behind or check.

Precisely. Again, the the converse is not true.

As I said before, I think the likely result of unresonable/incomprehensible rules will be that usually honest law-abiding people will think it's okay to smuggle aboard contraband. It is already happening and that, indeed, makes this a sad time in the history of our country.

I think that's backwards: I think ethics are simply becoming more proprietary: Many people are getting to the point where they are willing to live up to values that they care to live up to, and nothing more, not because of anything other than personal self-interest. Entitlement Mentality. That's what accounts the vast majority of situations where people think it is okay to violate rules.

 

[Simba's Mom]

Just remember that AstroGlide - which is a personal lubricant - has other uses.

Jeff Foxworthy in his comedy act talks about putting it on the bird feeder pole so the squirrels cant climb up. Cant remember what else and I dont have the CD with me right now. Its funny stuff.

Not to hijack this thread, but thanks for the tip! We love to feed the birds. Now you can carry on.

 

[GEM]

I'm sorry I quoted GEM, especially since my reply wasn't actually directed at GEM's words. I'm not sure why that quote got in there, really.

Thanks.

 

[cslittle999]

I think that's backwards: I think ethics are simply becoming more proprietary: Many people are getting to the point where they are willing to live up to values that they care to live up to, and nothing more, not because of anything other than personal self-interest. Entitlement Mentality. That's what accounts the vast majority of situations where people think it is okay to violate rules.

I agree with this.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

I think that's backwards: I think ethics are simply becoming more proprietary: Many people are getting to the point where they are willing to live up to values that they care to live up to, and nothing more, not because of anything other than personal self-interest. Entitlement Mentality. That's what accounts the vast majority of situations where people think it is okay to violate rules.

May be I am just a cockeyed optomist, but I like to think that people are more likely to follow rules when they understand why following them is important. For example, although laws were passed in most states requiring the use of seat belts, PR campaigns were also undertaken to explain that wearing seat belts saves lives.

With the carry-on restrictions, I think that people are less likely to bring lighters aboard a plane (even though if you are a smoker this is a VERY inconvenient restriction) because they understand that lighters are an inherantly dangerous thing.

Bringing this back to the original post, I don't think people perceive mascara (or water or toothpaste) to be an inherantly dangerous item. As a result, IMHO, more mascara (and water and toothpaste) will be intentionally carried aboard a plane than lighters.

-- Suzanne

 

[bicker]

May be I am just a cockeyed optomist, but I like to think that people are more likely to follow rules when they understand why following them is important.

For many folks, rather, they'll follow rules if they understand why following the rules is important to them. I think everyone understands the importance of queuing politely at a busy highway intersection: It helps prevent a worse traffic situation. However, there are some drivers who will still ride the shoulder from Burlington Mall to the US3 on-ramp, then cross the two lanes of traffic on that on-ramp, and ride the shoulder to the next overpass. It saves them about 5 minutes of waiting in traffic.

For example, although laws were passed in most states requiring the use of seat belts, PR campaigns were also undertaken to explain that wearing seat belts saves lives.

To the extent that that was applicable, keep in mind that you're talking about something that happened over 30 years ago. Most folks peg the beginning of the Entitlement Mentality problem in this country to the Reagan administration.

With the carry-on restrictions, I think that people are less likely to bring lighters aboard a plane (even though if you are a smoker this is a VERY inconvenient restriction) because they understand that lighters are an inherantly dangerous thing.

I have met a number of folks who don't bring lighters on-board solely because they don't want them confiscated. I've also met a number of folks, including a DIS member, who has brought a lighter on-board (for reasoning that escapes me).

 

[salmoneous]

I think that whatever rules were put in place, and whatever explanations were provided, you'd have a substantial number of people saying that they make no sense, simply because they either disagree with the inferences provided or don't care about the evidence presented enough for that to overcome their innate annoyance at being inconvenienced.

I give people a lot more credit than you. I've never heard anyone complain about, say, the ban on transporting fireworks on an airplane. OK - maybe you'll write that off by saying people don't complain because so few people want to transport fireworks. Well, how about rules requiring everyone to go through security? That inconveniences everyone. Greatly. Yet nobody says that requiring detectors makes no sense.

People aren't stupid. They understand that some rules are necessary. But they also understand the current rule banning almost all liquids and gels - like earlier bans on nail clippers and knitting needles - don't make us safer. If the rule is in place temporarily to make people feel safer, fine. But the rules needs to be continually reviewed. Those that inconvenience people and distract the security screeners without actually making us safer need to be removed.

But I guess what bothers me most in this thread is the suggestion that we shouldn't question the government. That we should assume they know what is best for us. That's a frightening attitude. Question all authority (but be nice to folks like the TSA agents who have to enforce the rules they didn't make).

 

[bicker]

I give people a lot more credit than you. I've never heard anyone complain about, say, the ban on transporting fireworks on an airplane. OK - maybe you'll write that off by saying people don't complain because so few people want to transport fireworks.

And the fact that the danger is so painfully obvious. I don't want to trivialize the discussion for making exceptions for explosives, wild animals, cadavors, pianos, etc.

Well, how about rules requiring everyone to go through security?

Go back and read messages from two weeks ago. There were complaints about that, complete with claims about all the contraband they were able to sneak past the security checkpoint.

But they also understand the current rule banning almost all liquids and gels - like earlier bans on nail clippers and knitting needles - don't make us safer.

OR: They don't understand the important public interest served by the bans on liquids and gels, and nail clippers and knitting needles, nor understand why sometimes we, the public, aren't privvy to such explanations for important security reasons.

Furthermore, many people think that everything done must specifically and solely be for the purpose of making their own selves safer, rather than considering the bigger picture.

But I guess what bothers me most in this thread is the suggestion that we shouldn't question the government.

Question the government, fine. My objection is to assuming the government is wrong. Furthermore, in the interest of national security, each and every citizen is not entitled to a full accounting by the government for every action, decision, policy and practice. I think a lot of people have a hard time accepting that they're not in the loop for everything, and don't like the idea that this system works via a trusteeship established from voters to elected officials to operatives and officers.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

In the interests of national security...

That one's NEVER been abused and certainly hasn't been abused in the last, say, 5 years. It's not a new excuse, just the one we trot out every generation or so, in order to exercise control over the population.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

Question the government, fine. My objection is to assuming the government is wrong.

I assume the government is wrong becuase the application of logic suggests that it is so.

For example, shoe removal was not mandatory on 8/9, but it was on 8/10. Either something changed separate from the threat that prompted the Great Liquid Ban which the government decided not to tell us about on 8/10 or it was wrong in its treatment of shoes before that date or is now wrong after that date.

Even the Great Liquid Ban suffers from the same timing problem. Law enforcement agents knew about the particualr plot for weeks, if not months(and about the possiblility of a similar plot for 10 years) before 8/10. How can such radically different security rules be right both before and after that date?

Another example, since 8/14, my powdered blush may be prohibited from my carry-on based on the discretion of the TSA agent at the screening check point. I find it difficult to beleive that the agents were trained prior to 8/14 to tell the difference between a dangerous blush that should be banned and one that is not dangerous and should be allowed. If they did not receive this training, then if blush may be dangerous, it should be banned; if it isn't likely to be dangerous, it should not be banned.

-- Suzanne

 

[tacomaranch]

Ok back to the first post, can I really bring scissors to cut out LGMHPC? I would love to sit and cut out heads for my entire flight!

 

[salmoneous]

Question the government, fine. My objection is to assuming the government is wrong.

We are just going to disagree on this one. But history is on my side. We can point to many examples of safety rules that people knew were pointless, and the government finally came around to admitting it. Can you think of any safety rule that people thought was pointless that turned out to be necessary due to secret information the government had but couldn't share with people?

Come on - do you really think the government has secret information that explains why a contact case full of saline needs to be banned, but an orange doesn't? Really - deep in your heart - is that what you think?

A government of, by and for the people will be making the same sort of dumb mistakes people make. Fine, I've got no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is a government that won't admit and fix its mistakes. Unnecessary secrecy - and people blindly supporting every action of the government - are obstacles that prevent the government from fixing its mistakes.

PS - LGMHPC??? Scissors - allowed if plastic or with blunt tips or if the blades are less than 4 inches.

 

[twinklebug]

Ok back to the first post, can I really bring scissors to cut out LGMHPC? I would love to sit and cut out heads for my entire flight!

Scissors are not permitted in carry-ons. Many Many eons ago they were, but were disallowed as of 9/11 and have not been permitted since. Now, child safety scissors without a metal blade may be allowed but even this I doubt as plastics can have a very sharp edge, they also don't work well.

I got a laugh wne my carryon was flagged for manual search a few days ago and all the agent could find that was of concern was DS's pound of Goofy Taffy that he'd begged for throughout the trip. You should have seen the look on DS's face when the agent said he'd have to keep it for himself as it could cause a danger to DS's dental health. (BTW - much to my son's relief, we were allowed to keep the candy)

 

[salmoneous]

Now, child safety scissors without a metal blade may be allowed but even this I doubt as plastics can have a very sharp edge, they also don't work well.

If curious about what is and isn't allowed, you can check the TSA website. It isn't perfert, but it does cover a lot of basics...

See: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm

 

[bicker]

I assume the government is wrong becuase the application of logic suggests that it is so.

I don't think you mean that literally, because application of logic, technically, does not indicate "right" or "wrong". Beyond that, remember that reasonable people can disagree about matters of "right" and "wrong".

For example, shoe removal was not mandatory on 8/9, but it was on 8/10.

And clearly the experts at DHS feel that it should be mandatory when
- the risk of a terrorist attack using that mechanism is high and
- the positive mitigating impact from applying that mandate is sufficiently high and
- the negative impact from applying the mandate is sufficently low

They further feel that it shouldn't be mandatory when
- the risk of a terrorist attack using that mechanism is low or
- the positive mitigating impact from applying that mandate is sufficiently low.

That makes sense, doesn't it? So what folks can disagree about is whether the risk is high enough versus low enough, or whether the positive impact is high enough or low enough, or whether the negative imapct is high enough or low enough. These are subjective judgements, and again, reasonable people can disagree about that as well.

Who's determination should prevail? I feel it is clear that the determinations should be made duly empowered officials, selected based on their qualifications, rather than random people. Is there someone else you feel should make the determination instead of duly empowered officials, and if so, who and why?

How do we assure that "We the people" have a means of addressing lack of competence in the decisions made in this regard? That's why we have elections, and we hold elected officials accountable for the actions of their appointees. You can say that you don't like the quality of the people who are getting appointed, but that doesn't address the core of the issue: How do we assure that the best people are the ones making the determination? It cannot be that just because someone is duly empowered they suddenly become inept. If there is something structural about our system of governance that competence is impossible, then we have to fix THAT. The answer isn't to abandon the idea of duly empowering people who are selected based on qualifications, and resort to -- what? -- anarchy? Each person makes up their own rules? Complaining without providing a viable resolution is like trying to get maple syrup out of a palm tree.