Making sense of the new TSA liquids policy
First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!
“I just want to say one word to you - just one word. Plastics.”
Zipper-top plastic bags, specifically. The TSA’s new rules for carrying on liquids were officially released yesterday, and while I’m happy to see any relaxation in the policy, there are still a number of questions that remain.
Echoing Chris Elliott’s commentary on Marketplace, I don’t see how the continued prohibition of liquids, except when they’re carried on board in absurdly small bottles that are subsequently re-wrapped in a 1 quart plastic Ziploc bag, is really making anyone safer.
If liquids were ever a threat, then the ban on liquids would have remained in place, regardless of size. The ban on firearms applies to a starter pistol as well as a Kalashnikov. Why should size matter for shampoo?
Assuming that a liquid threat were possible, terrorists who wanted to blow up a plane with liquids could band together, each one carrying small quantities of liquid aboard (in a 1-quart Ziploc bag, of course; 1-gallon bags are a threat to security.) So the slippery-slope argument is fair game. If some liquids are permitted, why not all of them?
And besides: How are the TSA inspectors going to know if something in your Ziploc bag is actually a dangerous substance or not? Have chromatographs been installed at airports overnight?
The fact that any liquids are being permitted through security just demonstrates the bankruptcy of the policy.
Lift the ban.
tags: travel | liquids | airport security
RSS Feed / Subscribe
Subscribe to Posts by Email
September 26th, 2006 at 3:29 pm |
Yes - I was flying from Singapore to SFO through Hong Kong on United this weekend. I was security checked at SIN, then once more as we got off the plane in HKG before going to the transit lounge. I bought three small packs of Tiger Balm at duty free, and then 10 minutes later had them taken off me at the second HKG security check, in the departure lounge. There was a final security check at the end of the jetway.
Sheer madness. Luckily I only wasted about $10, but what if I’d decided to splash out on a bottle of whiskey at either SIN or HKG? I understand the issues, but how I could have blown a plane up with an ounce of sealed Tiger Balm, bought after going through two security checkpoints is just insanity. Thanks also to HKG duty free for letting me buy it.
April 15th, 2007 at 3:21 am |
It all boilds down to the fact that there isn’t a way to tell if something is water or if it is a clear explosive (gasoline).
It also boils down to explosives. Normally liquids are ignored and unquestioned. But after the bombing attempt in the UK, the TSA decided to ban liquids in large amounts. Even if the Office looks inside the bag and removes the water, the bag has gone under more scrutinty than before.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:43 am |
[…] describes his experience in passing through security yesterday. The TSA’s new regulations require you to include small bottles of liquids in a one-quart plastic zipper bag, so MKEbound did […]
November 21st, 2007 at 10:42 am |
to ‘anonymous’ above:
Your argument might ‘hold some water’, so to speak, except that there was no ‘bombing attempt’ in the UK. There was a terrorist cell who came up with the idea of a liquid bomb, but had no idea how to do it.
Subsequent tests have indicated that there is no reliable way to make this so-called ‘liquid bomb’.