• Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    359
    ·
    8 个月前

    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
      ·
      8 个月前

      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
        26
        ·
        8 个月前

        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
          52
          ·
          8 个月前

          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.

        • KyuubiNoKitsune
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          8 个月前

          They had to do something about the plague of people hijacking planes with bottles of water.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          8 个月前

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

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 个月前

          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
      92
      ·
      8 个月前

      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
      42
      ·
      8 个月前

      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
          ·
          8 个月前

          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
          8 个月前

          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
      29
      ·
      8 个月前

      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
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        8 个月前

        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
          ·
          8 个月前

          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.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 个月前

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        8 个月前

        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.

          • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            8 个月前

            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
              ·
              8 个月前

              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
            3
            ·
            8 个月前

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              8 个月前

              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
              ·
              8 个月前

              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
              ·
              7 个月前

              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.

        • BurningRiver@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 个月前

          “The government made 25% of my district unemployed, why didn’t I get reelected?”

          Ask it from that side and you have your answer.

          • AltheaHunter
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 个月前

            I wasn’t asking a question. I understand why politicians do it, I just think it’s a sign of a terrible system.

      • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        8 个月前

        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
              ·
              8 个月前

              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
          12
          ·
          8 个月前

          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
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        8 个月前

        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
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      8 个月前

      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
      ·
      8 个月前

      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.

    • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 个月前

      It just hasn’t had the right public messaging behind it. I can think of a few historically recent things that are security theater but have been successfully accepted by the public because of slogans, social engineering and authoritative messaging. TSA just needs their own marketing blitz.

    • Vilian@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 个月前

      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
        7
        ·
        8 个月前

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

    • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      172
      ·
      8 个月前

      Big caveat

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

      • Hegar@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        128
        ·
        edit-2
        8 个月前

        Ah yes, the “rules only apply when I say they do” rule. Much legitimate.

        • bss03@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 个月前

          Inconsistent enforcement of “the rules” is the most common form of systematic marginalization.

          It’s also easy of centrists to excuse, since it could happen to anyone, even when the statistic show to it is overwhelmingly correlated with some protected trait.

        • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 个月前

          I mean sure, but it theoretically stops people arguing and threatening to try and bring stuff they shouldn’t really be bringing through, as being able to point at that will end a lot of arguments… Equally though, it makes a lot of sense as otherwise you’d have “ah yes this bomb isn’t banned because I’ve switched out a molecule in the explosive for an analogue”

          • Hegar@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            edit-2
            8 个月前

            I don’t think they need to make the enforcement of rules ultimately arbitrary to prevent explosives. You already can’t bring explosives. The molecules involved are not relevant.

            • Ziglin (they/them)@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 个月前

              The mollecular structure isn’t the only thing relevant for bombs.

              You could make a bomb out of a pressurized material that you can quickly get to expand, I think that technically isn’t an explosive.

              I get your point but I also think having a catch all is good to prevent things that could otherwise get through by technicality.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            8 个月前

            If there is a list of acceptable things, then those specific things are not things they “shouldn’t be bringing on”.

      • bradinutah@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        8 个月前

        See, flying isn’t for people who plan. It’s for people who roll 20s and not 1s. You know, lucky people. That’s the message here.

    • stalfoss@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      ·
      8 个月前

      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
        14
        ·
        8 个月前

        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
          ·
          8 个月前

          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
        ·
        8 个月前

        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
        ·
        8 个月前

        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
    68
    ·
    8 个月前

    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.

    • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      8 个月前

      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
          ·
          8 个月前

          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
        ·
        8 个月前

        You forgot the most important part:

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

  • hOrni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    8 个月前

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

    • Sippy Cup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 个月前

      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
      ·
      8 个月前

      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
      ·
      8 个月前

      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
      ·
      8 个月前

      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.

  • robocall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    8 个月前

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