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

[bicker]

We are just going to disagree on this one. But history is on my side.

Are you saying that we would be better of without any government agencies doing anything to protect the flying public? That's the only context that matters short of accepting some random individual's personal assertions that following their personal determinations on national security will be better than duly empowering individuals selected on their qualifications. Again, if we are always duly emplowering stupid people, then that is the focus on the fix. Fixing a third-order by-product of a "problem" is a useless gesture, because the "problem" will just happen over and over again.

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?

I think your question is too narrow to include the scope of all the considerations that are important in implementing national security.

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.

You already mentioned that it does ("...and the government finally came around to admitting it"). Now you're saying that it doesn't. Which is it? Why is your timetable for remedying this sort of thing more appropriate than the one that the government uses? Why wouldn't we elect officials and have them appoint officers who would implement things as you suggest?

and people blindly supporting every action of the government - are obstacles that prevent the government from fixing its mistakes.

People blinding attacking every action of the government that they don't want to be effected are obstacles that prevent the government from doing its job as well as it can.

 

[salmoneous]

Bicker,

Let me give you two views of how TSA works. In all honestly, which do you think is closest to the truth:

1) There is a guy a TSA. He was hired after a careful review because of his expertise in predicting the likelihood of a shoe-bombing attempt on any given day. On 8/9, he went over all the factual information and calculated the probably of a shoe-bombing attack. He also analyzed all the inconvenience caused by required all shoes to go through metal detectors. He weighed the costs and benefits and determined that it wasn't necessary to require all shoes go through the scanners.

Then on 8/10 he went through the same calculations. Based on new information, he recalculated the probability of a shoe-bombing attempt. The new calculations tipped the cost/benefit analysis in favor of requiring shoes go through the scanner. So the requirement was put in place.

Each day since 8/10 the calculations have been diligently redone and continued to show the need for shoe-scanning. But the moment the expert analysis shows the probability of a shoe attack going down, the TSA will quickly revoke the rule.

2) A lot of great people work at TSA, but they haven't a clue what the probability of a shoe-bombing attack is. Nobody does.

On 8/10, there wasn't any new information on terrorist activities. However, the media was about to report some information the experts had known for over a year. In an effort to be seen as "doing something" the TSA changed the color code and required shoe inspections.

 

[salmoneous]

Are you saying that we would be better of without any government agencies doing anything to protect the flying public?

Of course not. I've never said anything close to that. Decisions should be made by the appropriate government agencies. But we shouldn't just blindly accept the rules. The rules should be continuously challenged and reexamined. The rules that make sense should be kept. Those that don't should be changed.

I think your question is too narrow to include the scope of all the considerations that are important in implementing national security.

Huh? Your big words confuse my caveman brain - what are you saying here? Or, let me try the question again leaving it open ended....

Right now we have a rule that doesn't allow people to bring a contact case with saline on board an airplane, but does allow you to bring an orange. I personally can't think of any good reason for such a rule and don't think anyone else can either. Thus, I am questioning the rule.

Your argument in this thread is that the government knows what is best for us and we should accept their rules. When the rules don't make sense, it is probably because they have some secret information we don't know about.

Deep in your heart, why do *you* think the government has imposed a rule allowing oranges on airplanes, but not contact cases full of saline?

As for you final point, governments as well as people fess up and correct mistakes much faster when pushed. Some of the current TSA results are mistakes. We should push the government to fix them.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

This has turned into an interesting discussion about the government, rules, and how people feel about the government's rules — but please allow me to return to the OP's original question:

I understand the precautions, and totally accept that fact that none of us can pack liquids....but "yes" to scissors??? "Yes" to nail files? "Yes" to screwdrivers???!!

Sorry, just venting. I'm no scientist, but I think scissors could cause alot more problems that a tube of Maybelline mascara.

The answer is that nobody thinks that a terrorist will blow up a plane with Maybelline mascara — or with Dasani water or Crest tothpaste.

However, it is now recognized that terrorists could (and actually planned to) refill fluid or gel containers with materials that could be combined and detonated to bring down aircraft. Such refilled containers would pass the x-ray screening. It's still a real threat, even though a couple of dozen people have been arrested.

So it makes sense to eliminate liquids and gels from all passengers' carry-ons. There's no way to know who are bad guys are. Considering the catastrophic consequences if explosives make it onto the plane, all passengers now have to put up with the inconvenience of not carrying on fluid or gel containers. There are a few reasonable exceptions, such as baby formula for people traveling with a baby.

On the other hand, the chance of another 9/11-style cockpit takeover has been largely eliminated. Cockpit doors are locked and reinforced. There are air marshals aboard many flights. And, perhaps most importantly, passengers and crew would immediately tackle and beat any terrorist who takes any action that could be viewed as an attempt to initiate a 9/11-style cockpit takeover.

So scissors with blades shorter than four inches in length are no longer banned. Screwdrivers and other hand tools seven inches or less in length are no longer banned. Nail files are no longer banned. But knives, crowbars, larger tools, and many other articles that could be used as weapons are still banned — weapons large enough and dangerous enough that a terrorist might have an edge over someone trying to subdue him.

Are we 100% safe? Of course not. Aircraft are vulnerable by their very nature.

Are we safer than if fluid and gel containers were still allowed? I think so.

The most important security work is the work that we don't see.

 

[salmoneous]

However, it is now recognized that terrorists could (and actually planned to) refill fluid or gel containers with materials that could be combined and detonated to bring down aircraft. Such refilled containers would pass the x-ray screening. It's still a real threat, even though a couple of dozen people have been arrested.

There is a huge difference between what terrorists planned, and what they could actually have done. Combining materials while on the plane into something that could bring down the plane is near impossible.

Also, you want to be careful with the phrase "now recognized". It makes it sound like we have some new information. Neither the good guys nor the terrorists know anything today they didn't know a year or more ago.

For those who think the new rules necessary, a few things to ponder...

Why wasn't the rule necessary a year or more ago? What has changed to make it necessary?

Why have most countries - including the ultra-strict Israelis - not implemented the ban?

 

[HayGan]

Why have most countries - including the ultra-strict Israelis - not implemented the ban?

The Israelis have not implemented it because they already have a screening process above and beyond what any other nation does.

Air travel is a privledge not a right. Measures are put in place to protect the safety of all and not to cater to the minor inconveniences of some.

 

[erikthewise]

Thanks to Horace for a well-reasoned response.

I think to a certain extent it's a matter of addressing the "currently visible threat", but not entirely. They still do shoes even though the event motivating it goes back several years.

I for one welcome the clarification of the shoe situation. It used to be the signs would say they "suggest" removing shoes. But boy did they get nasty when I once declined to follow their "suggestion"! If they want shoes off, I much prefer they say so clearly.

When a threat does become highly visible, TSA has to put restrictions in place before there is time to carefully reason what is truly necessary and what it not. After the nature of the threat becomes clearer and there has been more time to consider appropriate procedures, things may change. There have already been reports in the media that TSA may be lifting the ban on bottled water soon.

It's been suggested that TSA needs to concentrate more on people than on objects, and hopefully that will happen.

 

[NotUrsula]

Ya know, I was OK with the gel/liquid ban initially, until TSA and local law enforcement had time to scrub the airports. I figured it would take about a month, and that we would then see new rules that took the possible into account, in terms of quantities that present actual risk, and procedures to assess risk of tampering. The month isn't up yet, so I'm still waiting to see what happens. However, I see no adequate justification for a permanent ban.

Any chemist will tell you that explosions are all about the force generated. For the amount of money that DHS collects from us, they should be able to run tests on possible gel/liquid explosives to determine how much is a safe quantity, and then limit container size on that basis. There are only about 25 possible improvised liquid/gel explosives that could be concocted this way; doing the testing is not all that difficult, and I'm sure that the Army's folks at Aberdeen could handle it. Some types of clays that look like C4 would probably remain banned, but mascara tubes, I am sure, would be cleared.

The shoe thing as it currently stands simply makes no sense. DHS has admitted that x-rays won't reveal plastic explosive built into a shoe. If they insist on examining everyone's shoes they should be swabbing them.

 

[dance2874]

You can bring scissors on as long as the blades are less than 4 inches according to that TSA site. And you can wear a gel filled bra too, just in case anyone was wondering

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

There is a huge difference between what terrorists planned, and what they could actually have done. Combining materials while on the plane into something that could bring down the plane is near impossible.

You think it would be "near impossible" for terrorists to replace the contents of consumer liquid containers with liquid explosives (or ingredients that would be poured together) and to detonate those explosives in flight? Unfortunately, it would be relatively easy.

The threat to commercial aviation has shifted from preventing 9/11-style cockpit takeovers to preventing in-flight explosions. This shift didn't occur exactly on August 10, 2006. You can debate or speculate about the timing of the new rules. You can debate about the need to fine-tune the new restrictions and exceptions. But that doesn't change the fact that explosives hidden in consumer packaging are a real threat because the airport x-ray machine can't differentiate between the original contents and explosive substances.

Again, the answer to the original question is that nail files, short scissors, and screwdrivers are no longer viewed as serious potential threats to aircraft safety — but that liquid and gel containers are.

 

[bicker]

Let me give you two views of how TSA works. In all honestly, which do you think is closest to the truth:

I think we're talking past each other. I'm not talking about what's closest to what. I'm talking about respecting the institutions of government, and therefore willing to accept that some things are deliberately kept from the public in the public interest or in the interest of efficient operation of costly government operations. I don't feel folks can legitimately have their cake and eat it too: That's intellectual dishonesty. Don't get me wrong: People can say whatever they want. They just need to acknowledge, when they're not in a position to prove that their assertions are correct, that their assertions could be wrong, even if the reason they cannot prove their assertions is because of restrictions they object to.

Decisions should be made by the appropriate government agencies. But we shouldn't just blindly accept the rules.

Folks should "blindly" comply with the rules. To withstand being discounted out-of-hand ("you could be wrong -- experts with access to better data than you feel differently from you"), their expressions of lack of acceptance should be based on facts, facts that they may or may not have access to. The lack of access to facts is no defense against those assertions being discounted out-of-hand.

So in many cases, people just have their own gut feel that they don't like the rule -- it doesn't make sense to them, based on the limited information available to them and based on their own limited scope of concern. They can express that to their elected officials, who, if enough constituents express the same concern, can express that to their colleagues with specific oversight, if they see fit. However, the crux of the issue is that "this is not necessary" (because you don't know -- again we're talking about the cases where you don't know because the evidence isn't available to you) but rather "we don't like this; is it really necessary?"

The rules should be continuously challenged and reexamined. The rules that make sense should be kept. Those that don't should be changed.

Understand that every operation, whether commercial, non-commercial, or governmental should continually review their operating parameters. The level of annoyance, however, is a really bad prioritization mechanism for this continual review, when it comes to matters of safety.

 

[bicker]

salmoneous: Here are specific examples of things that you cannot possibly know for sure, that are critical for defending your assertions in this regard:

Combining materials while on the plane into something that could bring down the plane is near impossible.

Neither the good guys nor the terrorists know anything today they didn't know a year or more ago.

And here's one from NotUrsula:

For the amount of money that DHS collects from us, they should be able to...

I doubt anyone here has a full understanding about where all the money DHS collects from us go, with sufficient depth to state categorically that it is "enough" to apply specific (unproven? unsecured? unqualified? expensive? ???) technologies. Imagine the public outcry if it is found that a significant amount of money is diverted to apply a technology that hasn't yet going through sufficient review? Even if it is good technology, DHS will still be ripped apart for gross negligence with regard to oversight of its budget.

For those who think the new rules necessary, a few things to ponder...

I actually haven't said the new rules are "necessary." My feeling is that you cannot possibly know that they aren't necessary and/or you could be applying too narrow of a set of criteria for determining necessity.

 

[tracys2cents]

"Air travel is a privledge not a right. Measures are put in place to protect the safety of all and not to cater to the minor inconveniences of some."


We don't put seatbelts into school buses, because it's not financially warranted. There are so few school bus accidents that it is considered unnecessary.

Why are AIR TRAVELERS so special? We're not protecting our citizens who drive across bridges every day.......and there are far more of them than passengers in the air. We're not protecting our schools and churches, our trains or subways in the same manner.

The reason is simple, because an AIR DISASTER is what is on people's minds right now. They are calming fears, not protecting anybody. If protection was their main goal they'd protect us ALL, not just AIR TRAVELERS.

 

[NotUrsula]

You think it would be "near impossible" for terrorists to replace the contents of consumer liquid containers with liquid explosives (or ingredients that would be poured together) and to detonate those explosives in flight? Unfortunately, it would be relatively easy.

Replacing the contents would be relatively easy, but actually getting those substances to explode with a big enough bang to bring down a plane, and controlling the explosion so that it happens at the right place/time? Not so easy.

According to technical reports I have read, the explosive the London bombers were apparently planning on, triacetone triperoxide, has to be prepared in an ice bath, and the final ingredient must be added one drop at a time. By all accounts, it would take hours of continuous careful mixing to create enough to bring down a plane. I think that folks would be likely to notice if one person kept a plane lav occupied for hours on end, don't you think? (Not to mention the fumes ... )

Getting a finished explosive onto the plane would be more practical, but the finished products are VERY volatile, and it is my understanding that the odds against getting safely all the way to the airport, through security, and onto the plane without getting it found or setting it off are fairly high.

 

[bicker]

How about biological agents?

 

[tracys2cents]

It would be plenty easy to detonate explosives from your airplane seat even if the explosives were in your CHECKED BAG in the cargo section instead of your carry-on bag. And half the checked bags in this country still go onto planes without ANY SCREENING WHATSOEVER.

So can you spell F A R C E ?

 

[NotUrsula]

Well sure, we can substitute anthrax spores for coffee creamer and make a planeload of people sick. You can more easily put biologicals in a water supply or the ventilation system of a large building or subway station to get the same effect, but that's not what we are talking about, are we? The threat that DHS says that it is protecting air travellers from is improvised liquid/gel based explosives that are intended to blow a plane out of the sky.

At minimum, DHS collected at least $2.50 last year from every person who got on a plane. As BTS reported that 745.7 million passengers flew in the US last year, so I'd say that they have enough resources to put a few army ordnance specialists with buckets and radio detonators out in a field and let them find out just how much improvised liquid explosive it takes to destroy the fuselage of a mothballed passenger plane.

 

[salmoneous]

salmoneous: Here are specific examples of things that you cannot possibly know for sure, that are critical for defending your assertions in this regard:

Fair enough - I cannot know these things for sure (side note - can anyone know anything "for sure?")

My language was a bit sloppy. How about this: Based on everything we know, there is no easy way to mix up liquids on a plane and create something that can bring down the plane, and based on everything we know there isn't any new knowledge that necessitated the recent rules.

As you point out, there is a possibility that the government has secret knowledge they aren't sharing with us. That's always a possibility. But I think it not bloody likely for several reasons.

1) The government isn't claiming to have any such secret knowledge.

2) It would be a heck of a coincidence for this secret knowledge to have come into their hands on the exact day arrests were made in the British bomb plot.

3) There has never been a safety rule that seemed unnecessary at first, but later proved to be justified due to secret government knowledge that couldn't be shared, has there? On there other hand, there have been many safety rules that were rushed into place and later found to not be necessary.

Finally, can I try one last time to get you to answer a pretty simple question... what do you honestly think is going on? I know you can make the argument that there always might be super-secret stuff going on to justify the rules. But do you honestly think that's the case here? I've tried a couple different ways to ask the question, and you keep ducking it. Is the question unfair?

 

[bicker]

The threat that DHS says that it is protecting air travellers from is improvised liquid/gel based explosives that are intended to blow a plane out of the sky.

Fair enough. I was just curious about it.

At minimum, DHS collected at least $2.50 last year from every person who got on a plane.

My question was what makes you think that there is money left over available for what you want it spent on? What makes you think GAO and other oversight agencies aren't doing as good a job as we let them do at making DHS as efficient as it can be?

I'd say that they have enough resources ...

Yet, apparently they disagree. You could be right; you could be wrong. :shrug:

 

[bicker]

How about this: Based on everything we know, ... and based on everything we know ....

Who's "we"? How do you know what others know? Y'see -- there is no way of escaping what you referred to as "sloppy language" before.

Furthermore, you're still operating from a very narrow scope of context. There could be a whole host of objectives that DHS is pursuing besides that which you've chosen as the only criteria you measure what they're doing up against.

1) The government isn't claiming to have any such secret knowledge.

The government consistently maintains that there is information about risks that they cannot share publicly, and that in some cases they are deliberately not specific about what information they're not sharing, in the interest of national security.

2) It would be a heck of a coincidence for this secret knowledge to have come into their hands on the exact day arrests were made in the British bomb plot.

Exact days are irrelevant. The arrests could affect the relevance and impact of factors on the determination of the rules, such as the impact on public perception, and such as the fact that applying the new rules prior to the arrests could compromise on-going investigations related to the arrests that, up until that point, represented greater threats than the rules would mitigate.

3) There has never been a safety rule that seemed unnecessary at first, but later proved to be justified due to secret government knowledge that couldn't be shared, has there?

I don't know if there has or hasn't. It's irrelevant. I wouldn't want to be the one holding the bag if this is the first time, so it is unfair to expect anyone else to deliberately ignore information they have because such information has not yet resulted in anything untoward.

On there other hand, there have been many safety rules that were rushed into place and later found to not be necessary.

And how many people have died as a result? One death, even a potential death, out-weight a vast amount of inconvenience, not just on the merits of that life, alone, but on the merits of all the associated impacts of that death, or even on news of the refusal to take action in the information about the potential of death.

Finally, can I try one last time to get you to answer a pretty simple question... what do you honestly think is going on? ... Is the question unfair?

No, I won't answer simple questions about complicated subjects, because that does nothing more than trivialize the important stuff and highlight the meaningless stuff. That is really my biggest concern, about our new "sound-bite" way of thinking about and discussing issues: Let's boil it down and just look at it from the simple perspective, rather than acknowleding that it is a complex beast that has a lot more facets to it than can be explained away so readily.

I've tried a couple different ways to ask the question, and you keep ducking it.

You keep "ducking" my points about it being about more than just direct effects.