September 11, 2007 3-1-1: Reviewing the rule, good & bad
The NYT has an excellent overview of the 3-1-1 experience.
It mentions a trick I’ve found to be very effective with getting my bagged liquids past arbirtray and rule-ignorant screeners:
‘Not wanting to have her toiletries tossed out, she assembled some generic three-ounce containers and assiduously spent time pasting manufacturers’ labels on them.
“It was a little insane, but still, I couldn’t believe how the labels stuck,” she said. “If you looked closely you could tell the labels weren’t exactly straight and there was missing information. But I thought, like, who’s going to know from a label anyway?”
Nobody. Actually, despite what a few uninformed checkpoint screeners might say, there is no requirement that a container carry a manufacturer’s label.’
Actually, I just refill containers with similarly-colored liquids - like clear hand soap (for laundry) in empty two-ounce hand sanitizer bottles.
Reader Comments (5)
"Chillingly real"? Personally, I'm convinced that the liquid explosive threat is a bunch of crap. What liquid explosive could someone use that is either A) stable enough to be premixed and carried aboard, or B) doesn't require complex procedures to prepare? I imagine someone holed up in the lav trying to titrate chemicals into a beaker in an ice bath. Not too likely. I just don't see the risk being significant.
Like most TSA rules, this one is pretty lame, and easy to bypass. All you have to do is slip your toothpaste into your pants pocket before you go through the metal detector.
So tell us Mr Maharashii, do you have anything besides 'lame' posts such as this to offer ... ? Like, for instance, a working knowledge of liquid explosives? I thought not, based on your 'beaker' comment.
I'm no fan of the TSA rules, and I do not have any knowledge of liquid explosives (for that matter, ANY explosives), so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this (so, it seems, do many worldwide agencies tasked with airliner security, since it seems similar 'lame' rules have been adopted in many parts of the world).
As long as there exist those who are willing to violate the rules (such as "slip your toothpaste into your pants pocket " or bring weapons upon aircraft) then these sort of rules will continue
to be put in place.
I'm asking the question, is there such a thing as a viable threat from liquid explosives? The TSA says yes, but without any evidence. Seems like a bunch of fear-mongering to me. Besides, if 3.5oz of shampoo is really so dangerous, then why is it so easy to bring on board? Why aren't liquids being screened from checked bags? What about gels in your clothing?
If there were a way to destroy an aircraft with liquids/gels carried on one's person, the current rules would not be an obstacle.
Personally I'd feel a lot better if the TSA money were being spent on intelligence and investigation, rather than shampoo detection.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
I believe we're angered by the arbitrary nature of the rules' enforcement. On the flyertalk.com forum there's a famous post by a Heathrow employee who admits that most liquids are easily sneaked through and everyone knows it. But then sometimes even allowable things are confiscated or people are hassled. Consistency would help.
"I'm asking the question, is there such a thing as a viable threat from liquid explosives?"
I certainly am not privy to the intelligence gathered on what prompted this 'shampoo detection' as you pithily refer to it. But, SOMETHING prompted it, and the basic event that brought all this on was reported on in the news. Do you want the intelligence community to broadcast all the intimate details of their findings, just so you can determine exactly how much liquid explosives it takes mixed together to destroy a airliner?
"Why aren't liquids being screened from checked bags?"
How many times have you accessed your checked luggage in flight? As I remember, it was a issue with a number of different chemicals (I do not recall if the quantities involved were reported in the media) being mixed together in the cabin that prompted this whole thing. I was actually in Mexico in a beach resort without access to the TV when it all came about and had to deal with it on my return flight, so I missed the initial news reports.
"If there were a way to destroy an aircraft with liquids/gels carried on one's person, the current rules would not be an obstacle."
Perhaps so, perhaps not. So far, I haven't seen any aircraft brought down with liquid explosives since this rule was put in place (by other countries, as I mentioned, not just the US TSA). Again I ask: Are you a expert on liquid explosives?
"Personally I'd feel a lot better if the TSA money were being spent on intelligence and investigation"
TSA stands for 'Travel Security Administration'. Last time I looked, "intelligence and investigation" was handled by intelligence agencies (read: CIA) and investigation agencies (read: FBI), not the TSA. I do hope, though, that they are talking to each other ....
Finally, Brad, I totally agree with you on the consistency aspect. I don't like any of this any more than anyone else. But it gets tiring to hear constant bashing of the TSA for the sake of bashing. I'm more than willing to question the status quo - but not being the one who has to make the decisions based on the gathered intelligence, I choose to work with what we have to deal with when we travel.