• Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    368
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    The TSA is something that shouldn’t exist in its current form. They very often fail their audit checks and normalize invading your privacy to an extreme degree like body scanners and pat downs. If water bottles are considered potentially explosive then why dump them on a bin next to a line of people where they can go off? This is low grade security theater that inconveniences passengers at best.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      109
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s security theater through and through.

      Apart from the obvious failings of these checks, think about what kind of damage a single backpack of explosives can do to a packed airport during holiday season. You can literally put a ton of explosives on one of those trolleys, roll it into the waiting area and kill 200 people easily. No security whatsoever involved.

      Reality is, most security measures are designed to keep the illusion of control. Nothing more. Penetration testers show again and again that you can easily circumvent practically all barriers or measures.

      • Tamo240@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        The goal is not to stop the people in the queue being attacked, its to stop someone boarding a plane with the means to hijack it

        • nednobbins@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          50
          ·
          3 months ago

          They fail gloriously at at that too.

          Whenever they get tested the red teams manage to smuggle in everything needed to hijiack a plane plus a kitchen sink.

          The few times that terrorists tried to board planes, they made it through security and were caught by other passengers.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, and you don’t need the TSA for that. Just do as they already do: lock the cockpit.

          • w2tpmf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            Little known fact: many of the pilots behind those locked doors are armed as well.

            The Flight Deck Officer program allows pilots to volunteer to become deputized Air Marshals. They receive training and are issued a badge and a gun.

              • w2tpmf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Police officers are mentally ill? Interesting take.

                Also, we’re talking about pilots that you are already trusting with you’re life and the lives of hundreds of people with you. If they were mentally ill they could just crash the plane and kill you.

                These guys are genuinely invested in maintaining the safety of human lives.

                • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  They should continue focusing on that instead of gun politics and their farcical contrived scenarios to have guns on a civil plane.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Ah yes, it’s okay if we die, just don’t take the corporate infrastructure with you when you go…

    • psivchaz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      97
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s basically the only type of jobs program that both sides of our broken government can agree on: petty nonsense that looks like it might do something useful, but really doesn’t, and only inconveniences the poors.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      The main reason that rule still exists is to sell overpriced water. Otherwise they could just ask you to drink some of it to prove it’s water.

        • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Some airports have no place to refill and have only hot water in the toilet sinks. It’s inhumane.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          This happened to me after a lunch break going back into the court room for jury duty. Didn’t think about my soda until I got to the checkpoint, used to the TSA’s mentality so figured the rest of it was forfeit. She just tells me to take a drink to show it’s valid. Respect for people doing their job correctly, and using common sense.

    • fermionsnotbosons@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      3 months ago

      According to the story I heard as to the origin of the “no liquids over X amount” rule, years ago there was a terrorist that tried to smuggle hydrogen peroxide and acetone - which can be used to rather easily synthesize triacetone triperoxide (TATP, a highly sensitive explosive) - onto a plane in plastic toiletry bottles. They got caught and foiled somehow, and then the TSA started restricting liquids on planes. This was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, if I recall correctly.

      And I happen to know, from a reliable source, of someone who accidentally made TATP in a rotary evaporator in an academic lab. So it seems plausible.

      Not that the rule is actually effective prevention against similar attacks, nor that the TSA even knows what the reason is behind what they do at this point, haha. I just thought it was an interesting story.

      • m4xie@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        hydrogen peroxide and acetone

        So there are worse cleaning chemicals to mix than bleach and vinegar

        • fermionsnotbosons@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Requires an acid catalyst for the reaction to actually proceed, but yeah, could definitely ruin your day - although a lungful of chlorine gas is nothing to sneeze at either.

          • SgtStrontium@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            No, acetone and peroxide, and generally a small amount of HCl as a catalyst. Makes triacetone triperoxide (TATP). It’s a primary explosive, but far too sensitive for real legitimate work. It’s primarily used by terrorist organizations because it’s easy to acquire the material and easy to make. The infamous shoe bomber had TATP in the soles of his shoes, fortunately the TATP wasn’t completely dry and that’s why he had trouble getting it to go off.

            • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Dry ? How is anyone going to dry this much liquid to make an actually dangerous amount of explosive while on a plane and not getting detected ?

              Sounds highly implausible

              • SgtStrontium@lemmus.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                In flight, yeah totally impractical and not worth even trying.

                Theoretically, if I were to attempt it, I’d get my liquids through the checkpoint, mix them together and then wait the few hours for the precipitate to fall out. Then go to the bathroom pour that through a handful of paper towels, or even some coffee filters I brought in my carry on. Then, put that into some type of confinement like a metal water bottle. Lined with paper towels to pull the last bit of moisture out of the crystals. A couple more hours later and there’s a pretty sensitive device that could be set off dropping, throwing, hitting, or whatever.

                That’s a way. There’s many, many ways that someone could go about it. Also agree with the sentiment that the TSA is complete theater and doesn’t actually do much to keep anyone safe. But they’re working government jobs, getting paid ok-not great, with decent benefits and can get a retirement out of it.

                The shoe bomber had what was probably good quality stuff, but he was missed his flight due to looking suspicious and being pulled for questioning, he stayed the night at the airport all the while walking around with these shoes that were hollowed out on the bottom. Probably nervous as hell and sweating all this time, plus walking through puddles and such. He managed to dampen the crystals so the next day when he got on his flight they were too desensitized to detonate.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      The main reason why it exists is to provide jobs. The number of people who work at the TSA at every airport in every state…no representative wants to cut those jobs.

      • AltheaHunter@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        3 months ago

        I fucking hate that this is a thing. “We can’t stop doing this useless and/or detrimental thing, look at all the work it makes for other people to do!!!” Absolutely bonkers that it’s just a standard political argument.

        • not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Same thing with medical insurance. It shouldn’t exist but it pays a lot of people’s salaries.

          • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            3 months ago

            The worst part is if people only worked two or three days a week corporations would still be profitable and everyone would have a job.

            • smb@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              i once heared something like this:

              “the idea of having more than those who have nothing is the very only reason shareholders can ever imagine someone would work for at all, thus they also falsely believe they would do something good when enforcing this by removing everything from those who already are vulnerable and thus create a living example of how you would end when you don’t help them rob even more.”

          • vonxylofon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            It shouldn’t exist? I’d like to see you pay for your medical expenses out of pocket.

            P. S. No, I am not American.

            • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 months ago

              Here in the states when we say “medical insurance shouldn’t exist” what we mean is “the medical insurance industry shouldn’t exist”

              Basically the cluster fuck of insurance companies we have now shouldn’t exist, we should just have a single payer type system where medical expenses are paid for through our tax dollars. In its current state it’s a nightmare to deal with.

            • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              A lot of private insurance in the US amounts to paying a couple hundred monthly to have the insurance and then they deny payment for basically anything and everything. So you pay them to pay out of pocket anyway.

              Just got state insurance which covers everything, but very few offices accept it.

              So yeah. Insurance in the US is super fucked up and people go without healthcare, even if they have insurance because they simply can’t afford it.

            • not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah I guess the kind of Single Payer model I prefer can be conceptualised as “insurance.” But it feels more like health care is taxpayer funded. The similarity to insurance is just details for the detail nerds.

      • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean if a state removed the TSA and spent the money on something else, surely they could use the money to create as many jobs as they removed but in an actual useful field.

            • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I don’t mean to be ungrateful, but I wouldn’t vote for a republican who got me a job, and I probably wouldn’t vote for anyone who got rid of my job (unless they were otherwise really great). So at least for me, getting rid of the job means you lose my vote and replacing it doesn’t necessarily gain my vote.

        • nehal3m@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          3 months ago

          No, it’d be more useful just on account of the harm they are not doing. I don’t give a rat’s ass what they do instead, hell, do a huge UBI experiment and just let them chill. Might as well.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If it’s just for the jobs we can put them to work doing something useful like carrying bags for old people in the airport. Literally anything would be more useful.

    • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      They treat people like cattle because they are protecting the airplanes and the airline’s liability, not the people onboard or in line to board.

      If people think it’s unsafe people won’t pay up to fly.

    • akakunai@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      I recently realized that I have been boarding planes for years with multiple boxes of razor blades in my carry-on.

      …Not a single checkpoint picked them up.

    • Vilian@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      To be fair a explosion in a on the side of a line not gonna kill anyone, now a explosion in the airplane windows, maybe?, i get their argument, not that’s a good argument

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The major airports have huge crowds. And we know from unfortunate experience that suitcase bombs can kill hundreds of people.

    • stalfoss@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      ·
      3 months ago

      Notice the footnote on every TSA webpage that their officers can always change the rules on the spot if they feel like it. So it’s always a gamble.

      • fuzzzerd@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is what gets me the most. It’s totally arbitrary, every time it’s a chance for new rules. What you brought one way maybe a problem on your way home.

        • Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Special fuck you to the TSA agents at the Vegas airport, they’ve confiscated my lighter twice even though it’s allowed. Never had a problem at any other airport with them.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Pouring one out for my cordless Black and Decker electric screwdriver.

        Used to travel with it because it was small and light and it worked well for racking network equipment.

        It was a cheap piece of junk. But it did the job. Until one day TSA decided I couldnt bring it any more. It was under 7" but that wasn’t good enough.

        Told me I could check it. It would cost more for me to check a bag than for me to replace it.

        Still upset about it.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is why they created different flying classifications with pre stuff… so now only the poor have to gamble.

  • StThicket@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ve actually done this successfully. TSA agent knocked on it, and said no problem.

    If i somehow would be stopped, I’d love to argue what is liquid or not, and what could be liquid if it’s just hot enough.

  • chakan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s odd…I’ve had TSA agents recommend this to get liquids through security.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I guess he got that one employee that everyone hates for literally following every single tiny or forgotten rule no matter how stupid.

      • kamen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        … doing so because they believe their boss would make a problem if they don’t.

    • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      For the lazy:

      Ice

      Carry On Bags: Yes (Special Instructions)

      Checked Bags: Yes

      Frozen liquid items are allowed through the checkpoint as long as they are frozen solid when presented for screening. If frozen liquid items are partially melted, slushy, or have any liquid at the bottom of the container, they must meet 3-1-1 liquids requirements

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          It is probably intended for ice packs for things like insulin, but worded vaguely to allow ice in a ziplock bag or a frozen water bottle in place of an ice pack. Most of these rules would benefit massively from stating the purpose of the rule too.

      • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        You forgot the most important part:

        The final decision rests with the TSA officer on whether an item is allowed through the checkpoint.

  • robocall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I brought frozen fish with ice packs through TSA. The TSA guy was a fisherman and wanted to talk about fishing.

  • hOrni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 months ago

    Recently, I’m flying quite a lot, so I must try it, just to see if it works.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      On my last trip I had a full water bottle with me and the lady said I had to throw it away, so I looked her dead in the eye while I chugged the entire bottle and stuffed the bottle in my bag.

      Fuckin tell me I can’t bring the water through again.

    • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’ve done it before, it does. Though you could get an employee who doesn’t know this, or won’t accept it anyway.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Last two times I flew I brought a metal water bottle (Hydroflask knockoff) filled with ice cubes. Went through fine. Then I added water at a fountain after security and during the flight I got to have that ice-cold water experience I crave.

    • Damage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Huh, I’d have to fly from an airport with outdated scanners LIKE A PEASANT. The ones near me all let you keep your water and leave the laptop in the bag.