TSA Agents: That Dumb Or They Know They're Providing "Security"?
At Consumerist, on Mary Beth Quirk blog item about the ridiculous cupcake confiscation by TSA workers (remember...they're not officers), commenter Dr. Shrinker gets it right:
There were a lot of comments on that TSA blog pointing out something that I never thought about, but that shows what a charade this whole thing is. They confiscate our shampoo, toothpaste, KY jelly, cupcakes, etc. because they might be deadly explosives, right? So what do they do with them? They dump them in an open trash can right next to where they're standing. If any of these workers thought for even a second that the products posed any actual threat, would they stand there next to that trash can? We know it's bulls--t, THEY know it's bulls--t, and yet, the biggest change so far is allowing us to bring on 3.4 oz of liquids instead of 3 oz.
Loved this Consumerist commenter Crackpot's security diagram: "How much icing is dangerous to the well-being of the American people?"
Ever wonder what happens to those trash cans full of "dangerous contraband"? At MSP one morning a couple of months ago I'd gone through TSA checkpoint #6 and was walking through the mall concourse behind checkpoint #3 when I passed a TSA working pushing a cart.
The cart was full of the discarded "dangerous contraband".
In the "secure" area.
Scott_K at January 13, 2012 3:34 AM
I've been saying this exact same thing since this stupid liquids ban started.
And if they're all dangerous, let's mix them all in a trash can, right next to a heavily populated area of the airport!
Hint to 'security'...why bother trying to blow up a plane, when the 'terrorists' could easily kill thousands in the airport???
DrCos at January 13, 2012 4:03 AM
This is why I recommend lacing stuff you know the TSA will steal with cyanide
lujlp at January 13, 2012 1:05 PM
To be fair to them, what they're paranoid about is disguised binary explosives.
Which would be perfectly safe in the trash bin in their closed containers.
(And contra DrCos, it's hard to "blow up" an airport, compared to making a plane crash.
A few ounces of high explosive can do the latter. It'd take a ginormous bomb to do the former.
Not saying DHS isn't stupid - it is. But it's important to use good counter-arguments.)
Sigivald at January 13, 2012 2:55 PM
Don't forget to find the facts about aircraft vulnerabilities. See this link.
NO commercial airliner has ever been downed by small-arms fire to the airframe. Several have survived SAM strikes and made controlled landings.
Do not mistake a directed result - in other words, the "test" was set up to show that the plane is breached - for an objective test.
Radwaste at January 13, 2012 4:58 PM
Sigivald, it not that hard to have a third container with a strong enough acid to eat thru the plastic to act as a time dely mechanism.
And this all assumes the people leaving components arent willing to acctually sacrifice their own lives, becuase that opens a whole other can of worms
lujlp at January 13, 2012 8:48 PM
"And contra DrCos, it's hard to "blow up" an airport, compared to making a plane crash."
Not at all. When "blow up an airport" means, "kill people in line waiting to be patted down", it's very easy. One grenade could get 20 people, and the resulting knee-jerk would close airports for days.
Radwaste at January 13, 2012 9:51 PM
And in fact, it's been done.
But not in the USA. Someone other than the TSA is doing a helluva job.
Radwaste at January 15, 2012 8:32 PM
Leave a comment