Terrorists Evolve. Threats Evolve. Security Must Stay Ahead. You Play A Part.

5.05.2008

So What Exactly Happens To All Of That Stuff?

As every passenger and visitor to this blog probably knows, hundreds of thousands of items are identified each year by our security officers that are prohibited from being carried onto an aircraft. Of course, occasionally, items get through, but that’s a whole different post.

There are two classifications of items, prohibited and illegal. The prohibited category includes things like knives, scissors (larger than 4 inches), some tools, chain saws, swords, boulders, replica guns, bottled water, soda, toothpaste, hair gel, snow globes and on and on.

Illegal items are obviously guns, brass knuckles, switch blades. When discovered at the checkpoint, we contact law enforcement and they do what they need to do, maybe arrest, maybe a citation,…. it really depends on each jurisdiction.

We often refer to prohibited items internally as Voluntary Abandoned Property. Passengers call them confiscated…, either way; these items become possessions of the federal government, and are deemed excess government property.

While it may seem like we enjoy taking this stuff, the fact is passengers have choices. A passenger can go back to the airline and place the item in his/her checked bag. Some airports have mailing facilities or mail back programs so travelers can mail the item home. The item can be given to a loved one seeing you off at the airport or, if you drove yourself to the airport, you can go place the items in your car. Or for that matter, a passenger can go throw the items away in a nearby trash can. If they decide to do none of these and "surrender" the prohibited item to a security officer, they are considered excess government property.

Now before you go and post a comment about the options, I’m not saying they are good or bad options, I’m just pointing out that there are options. I know if someone is late for a flight, the last thing they are going to do is go back to their car, and wait in line again. Can we just agree these are options? Of course, the best option is to know what is in your bag and not bring a prohibited item to the checkpoint to begin with, but that’s not the point of this post

Of interesting note, of all the items I have seen, most, almost all, could have made it from Point A to Point B, had the passenger simply taken the time to place it in a checked bag.

Depending on the size of the airport, each day, week or month, the items are picked up. Because the items are excess government property, we must follow General Services Administration guidelines for the disposition of the material. Many airports use a TSA-provided contractor who collects the “stuff” and disposes of it….. quite literally, throws it away. Or, as some airports do, we donate items to approved, non-profit organizations in accordance w/GSA regulations.

We have heard of local schools receiving the scissors. We have heard of local police departments training with the mace. Some VA hospitals sell some of the items to help make ends meet. Some non-profits, including several state surplus property divisions, sell the material on the auction web site eBay, and put the profits in THEIR coffers. TSA does not sell or profit in any way from the selling of this voluntarily abandoned property.

There have been references to this practice on this very blog, but the fact is, those news reports are plain wrong. Again, we are required to follow GSA guidelines for the disposition of this property and we do.

Now liquids are another story. As you can imagine we have voluminous amounts of liquid items surrendered daily and from airport to airport the disposition is different. Some airports have the local janitorial staff pick up the trashcans. Some are collected and picked up by our contractor and in some airports, both can happen, depending if a passenger throws the item away prior to screening or in the security checkpoint. Either way, it’s disposed of … that goes for liquor, water, lotions and everything in between.

Early on, there was a move to donate the liquid items to local homeless shelters but we were forced to suspend that practice after the determination was made that there is a liability risk. We couldn’t continue to donate items and not know if the if the water was truly water or if the shampoo was truly shampoo. While unfortunate, the litigious world in which we live forced the abandonment (pun intended) of that process. So now, those items are tossed out.

It is important to note, that currently there is a California state senator-sponsored bill that would require all California airports to donate these liquid items to homeless shelters. While it is unclear exactly how that would work, an effort to actually put these items to use is in the works; at least in one state.

A question raised many times on this blog is how can we justify throwing all of these liquids away in a trash can near the checkpoint if they are such a danger. While a fair question, the answer has been available in many different threads though not directly answered, so here it goes.

We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb. Take one component away and you have a collection of harmless items. Of course we don't want liquid explosives anywhere near us but without the other components, they're not causing catastrophic damage.

That’s why it is safe for us to store the items together in a trash can near the checkpoint and that's what we do with prohibited items.

Nico

TSA EoS Blog Team

Labels: ,

126 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A passenger can go back to the airline and place the item in his/her checked bag."

HA!!!

I can't believe this line keeps getting used whenever the TSA ties to spin that you have options when you bring a prohibited item to the check point. You do of course realize that by the time I arrive at the check point my bag is already back in the baggage handling section of the airport. How am I supposed to put my prohibited item in it?????

May 5, 2008 8:35 PM

 
Anonymous Abelard said...

Please provide links to peer reviewed research showing how a feasible liquid explosive could be constructed inside an airplane without access to a lab.

May 5, 2008 8:48 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm, how about just removing the cap/lid to the 'donated' liquids prior to 'donating' those liquids?

May 5, 2008 8:54 PM

 
Blogger Bob said...

HA!!! I can't believe this line keeps getting used whenever the TSA ties to spin that you have options when you bring a prohibited item to the check point. You do of course realize that by the time I arrive at the check point my bag is already back in the baggage handling section of the airport. How am I supposed to put my prohibited item in it?????
May 5, 2008 8:35 PM


I've talked with passengers after they returned from checking prohibited items. They have told me if you don't have a bag, the airline will often provide a box of some sort. I'm sure it varies by airline.

Bob

TSA EoS Blog Team

May 5, 2008 8:55 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, isolated HAZMAT items - as long as they are not combined - are okay to give to the homeless?

Either they ARE a danger, or they are not... combined or uncombined, it makes no difference... you cannot have it both ways. If it truly IS water, then let me through the checkpoint. If you suspect that is isn't then confiscate it and handle it like the HAZMAT you have just declared it to be.

Litigious? You bet! I would be too if you gave me some "donated" HAZMAT.

May 5, 2008 9:08 PM

 
Blogger DoogieSD said...

An anonymous Coward said..

Either they ARE a danger, or they are not... combined or uncombined, it makes no difference... you cannot have it both ways. If it truly IS water, then let me through the checkpoint. If you suspect that is isn't then confiscate it and handle it like the HAZMAT you have just declared it to be.

Tell you what complainer.. talk to Dean Florez (D-Ca)

Discarded checkpoint items sent to local homeless shelter

You whiners need to remember Bob and Crew are following orders, you got a problem go talk to your congressmen...or AT LEAST provide constructive "peer reviewed" input not just bitching for the sake of bitching...

May 5, 2008 10:24 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Sorry, Bob ... forgive me, but I can't resist ...

Of interesting note, of all the items I have seen, most, almost all, could have made it from Point A to Point B, had the passenger simply taken the time to place it in a checked bag.

Except that, of course, I'd have to put that item in an unlocked suitcase, which anyone between Point A and Point B could open in order to steal the item in question.

I suppose it's better to take the chance on the baggage handlers being honest than the absolute certainty of having the item denied by the TSA in my carry-on. But let's be careful not to claim more certainty than exists in the system as it currently is executed.

May 5, 2008 10:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reply Bob. But now that more and more airlines are charging for a 2nd bag I'm not sure that checking a box will be a viable option.

I'd rather just see some sanity brought back to security.

I'd also love to see the economic cost of people loosing their purchased property.

May 5, 2008 11:00 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

So all one has to do is throw away one bottle of each of the liquids at once and DUH! you have the exact same problem that we've been asking you and you almost answered.

So yes, one half of the mythical binary liquid explosive in a trash can is safe. What about both halves, brought in by two people, disguised as water?

May 5, 2008 11:01 PM

 
Blogger CBGB said...

so how are the puppies? How bout the baggies? are those to related?


on a more relevant note (trying to bring your blog back on track). Care to expand on discipline policy for those TSO's found in violation of the flight safety rules?

May 5, 2008 11:02 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Sorry, Bob, but I have to chime in again ...

I've talked with passengers after they returned from checking prohibited items. They have told me if you don't have a bag, the airline will often provide a box of some sort. I'm sure it varies by airline.

Ahh, but notice ... "often", and "it varies" implies uncertainty. You said "A passenger can go back to the airline and place the item in his/her checked bag", not "A passenger often can go back", or "In various airports, a passenger can go back".

Call me a stickler for accuracy ... but if there isn't a universal rule that all airlines have to give me a box for my prohibited item, then I can't count on it as an option.

May 5, 2008 11:02 PM

 
Blogger Darrien said...

I wonder how much a confiscated MacBook Air would go on eBay? :D

Keep up the good work guys. I know alot of times it seems like all you people do is make us late for out flights but in the end I think its worth it.

May 5, 2008 11:09 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Bob, see your hanging out in this thread instead of your Blog Post on Privacy and Safety. So Bob, when will you address the remarks you made about the images from the MMW WBI being ok for pre-schoolers? When will you post these images that are ok for Readers Digest?

Got all the time you need Bob. Not going anywhere!

Oh, the explanation for combined liquids in the common trash bin, just pure rubish. If the liquid is flammable or has dangerous fumes then the material should be treated as hazmat. Otherwise it should be safe to pass. Just a 3rd rate theater production.

May 5, 2008 11:10 PM

 
Anonymous Nico said...

Jim,
There is also uncertainty in the options if you don't have a car in the parking lot, if your loved one didn't see you off, if there isn't a trash can near the checkpoint. Certainly you aren't suggesting the TSA implement all the tools necessary to make each option a reality. The point is, there are options, whether or not they are viable, is another question given each travelers unique circumstances.

May 5, 2008 11:18 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"So What Exactly Happens To All Of That Stuff?"
The stuff that goes missing? You know, stolen?

May 5, 2008 11:26 PM

 
Anonymous Abelard said...

Hmmm, how about just removing the cap/lid to the 'donated' liquids prior to 'donating' those liquids?

Which liquids would those be? It just can't be that difficult to provide links to research showing that someone could take down a 757 with some sort of liquid that could be detonated on board a plane.

As has been pointed out over and over again, there is no evidence that the London bomb plotters had a snowball's chance in Phoenix of ever getting their "liquid bomb" to detonate and, in fact, the idea that you could construct a liquid TATP bomb on the airplane is so absurdly laughable, it is a wonder it keeps getting repeated over and over again.

So, again, I ask: where is the evidence that a feasible liquid explosive could be constructed inside an airplane without access to a lab.

Show your work.

May 6, 2008 12:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In some other comment thread, wasn't there some thought that the liquid ban is really a reaction to the potential of a nerve or other chemical agent? That since the binary liquid issue does not seem to be actually feasible, the TSA must be reacting to the idea of another threat that they are not currently revealing? In this view, these open dumping bins become much more nefarious. And surely there's no rule as to opening containers right before you throw them in. As others have said: treat 'em like they're the HAZMAT you say they are or revise your policies.

May 6, 2008 1:25 AM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

Where are the MMW frontal images?

May 6, 2008 7:14 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You do of course realize that by the time I arrive at the check point my bag is already back in the baggage handling section of the airport. How am I supposed to put my prohibited item in it?????

Fantasy is part of theater.

May 6, 2008 7:58 AM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Nico,

The point is, there are options, whether or not they are viable, is another question given each travelers unique circumstances.

An option which isn't viable isn't an option at all, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Look, don't get me wrong. While I'm not a "frequent flyer", I do fly about 3-4 times a year. I've never had a problem with stuff getting confiscated, because I know not to bring the items in question to the checkpoint in the first place.

But when TSA officials say to passengers, "Look at all these options you have to abandoning your property", and then give a long list, it makes it look like every passenger has 5-6 alternatives to abandonment ... when, in reality, most don't have that many options.

If I take a taxi to the airport by myself, and the airport doesn't have a "mail-it-home" service, and my airline won't give me an extra box to check my prohibited item, then my choices are down to just two: abandon my property, or miss my flight. This is mostly my fault, of course, because I brought the item in question. (Except, of course, when the item in question really isn't questionable, but a rogue TSO doesn't understand the rules. But we've beat that issue to death already in other items.)

I'm just asking that we all be realistic about what the chances are of a passenger being able to find an alternative to not-flying or abandonment. Some passengers will be lucky enough to find easy alternatives. Others won't. IMHO, the latter is more likely.

May 6, 2008 8:52 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abelard said...
Please provide links to peer reviewed research showing how a feasible liquid explosive could be constructed inside an airplane without access to a lab.

Please see GAO report 08-048T Vulnerabilities Exposed through Covert Testing of TSA's Passenger Screening Process which reads in part
Using publicly available information, GAO investigators identified two types of devices that a terrorist could use to cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers. The first device was an IED made up of two parts—a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator. Although the detonator itself could function as an IED, investigators determined that it could also be used to set off a liquid explosive and cause even more damage. In addition, the second device was an IID created by combining commonly available products (one of which is a liquid) that TSA prohibits in carry-on luggage. Investigators obtained the components for these devices at local stores and over the Internet for less than $150. Tests that GAO performed at a national laboratory in July 2007, in addition to prior tests in February 2006 that GAO performed in partnership with a law enforcement organization in the Washington, D.C., metro area, clearly demonstrated that a terrorist using these devices could cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers.

Signed - A TSAer involved with the report.

May 6, 2008 9:09 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Huggins said...
Sorry, Bob ... forgive me, but I can't resist ...

Of interesting note, of all the items I have seen, most, almost all, could have made it from Point A to Point B, had the passenger simply taken the time to place it in a checked bag.

Except that, of course, I'd have to put that item in an unlocked suitcase, which anyone between Point A and Point B could open in order to steal the item in question.


That hand lotion is the first thing the baggage handlers are going to slip out of your luggage. Black market for your bottle of after shave can keep those thieves rolling in the green for decades.

By the way, for all the people accusing TSA security personnel for luggage theft, did you know that anyone can use a pen to open up your locked luggage?
Go to youtube, the title of the video is How to have access to any luggage with a pen, just type that in the search window and you will see how easy it is.

May 6, 2008 9:16 AM

 
Blogger Brett said...

I was not offered any of these alternatives to confiscation when I forgot to remove my multi-tool from my backpack. I was told, "No, it's gone" even as I requested to take it outside of the secured area. My mistake and your employee's apparent lack of training cost me a favorite tool.

May 6, 2008 9:27 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:09 am said:
Please see GAO report 08-048T Vulnerabilities Exposed through Covert Testing of TSA's Passenger Screening Process ...

See? That wasn't so hard. And the document is available to the public by Googling the title.

May 6, 2008 9:42 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do adore good theater, especially when it is just so funny.
True, options are not options unless they are viable, and stupidity is still stupidity no matter who causes it. But for crying out loud, can we get both sides of the aisle to start thinking instead of just bickering back and forth? Hrm.. for a second there I thought I was talking about politics.

May 6, 2008 9:59 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You had to have known this would come up. You're providing the same answer and that answer has already been shown to not be good enough. At least to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

You're declaring these liquid items too dangerous to take on an airplane, so how is it that they are safe enough to be thrown out, donated, or treated in ANY way other than as the highest potential threat? So what there aren't detonators? What if the bottle had liquid sarin in it? Or pesticide? Or any number of dangerous chemicals that aren't explosive? The way these liquids are treated proves that TSA is perfectly aware that they are harmless, yet they are still taken. Talk about security theatre, I call this security farce. It's pathetic, and so is the way you guys continually repeat the party line over and over. What do you take us for?

Nico, Bob, whoever, will you please actually answer this question? And just in case the question isn't clear enough, here it is again:

You're declaring these liquid items too dangerous to take on an airplane, so how is it that they are safe enough to be thrown out, donated, or treated in ANY way other than as the highest potential threat?

I have asked this question at least 3 times on this blog, the first time I was given the same answer you gave on this entry, only it was a weak analogy involving slingshots. Try again.

May 6, 2008 10:14 AM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

That hand lotion is the first thing the baggage handlers are going to slip out of your luggage. Black market for your bottle of after shave can keep those thieves rolling in the green for decades.

Ahh, nothing like the bait-and-switch.

What about the $80 multitool I have to check, because it contains a knife blade? What about the $300 bottle of cognac I have to check, because it's a liquid? What about the $300 cordless drill I have to check, because it might be used as a weapon?

This isn't just about $0.99 bottles of aftershave, my anonymous friend.

May 6, 2008 10:26 AM

 
Anonymous Abelard said...

Please see GAO report 08-048T Vulnerabilities Exposed through Covert Testing of TSA's Passenger Screening Process which reads in part

That is NOT a peer-reviewed study. That is a GAO report. They cite doing their work in a "national lab" and never name the names of the researchers or the names of those involved in a peer review. There are no links to the actual data showing the exact steps needed to reproduce their findings.

Did they need a Bunsen burner? Were the liquids required to be kept at a specific temperature? Would the detonator work in a pressurized cabin.

Again, where is the peer-reviewed research showing taking down an airplane with a liquid explosive is feasible?

May 6, 2008 10:29 AM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Anonymous, May 6, 2008 9:09 AM, (aka. A TSAer involved with the report.)

Please see GAO report 08-048T

Actually it is 08-48T which is why my initial Google search came up empty.

GAO investigators identified two types of devices that a terrorist could use to cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers. The first device was an IED made up of two parts—a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator.

We know that binary liquid explosives exist. We also know that they are difficult to manufacture in a fully equipped laboratory, much less an airplane.

Look, actual non-government Chemists have examined the TSA's claims, and found them wanting. That is why all the reports of exactly which chemicals you are talking about have been classified as "just trust us you don't need to know if we tell you we are also telling the terrorists."

According to the report you are citing, all you need to do is ban detonators. According to the report, a detonator can function as an IED. All the liquids do, providing that you can actually assemble them in an airport or on a plane (which you can't) is amplify the already destructive force of the detonator.

Those of us with a background in intelligence know the reasons something gets marked SSI. The only reason, of course, is that you don't want people to see what is being so marked, but there are many reasons why you don't want people to see. Sometimes revealing vital information is dangerous, but that is not the case with the TSA and 3-1-1. Sometimes revealing what is marked secret would be embarassing, because the secret is "we were wrong."

That's the case here. If people with PhD's in Chemistry actually know Chemistry then the big secret on the SSI for 3-1-1 that contributed to your report is "we were wrong but don't want to admit it so we will mark it secret."

How much contempt do you have for the public?

May 6, 2008 11:10 AM

 
Anonymous Marshall's SO said...

to: Signed - A TSAer involved with the report responding to Abelard.

Unfortunately, your quote doesn't answer Abelard's question as it does not name the liquids and above all it says:

"Using publicly available information, GAO investigators identified two types of devices that a terrorist could use to cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers.

No mention of bringing down a plane, just "severe damage" - which is relative.

Further, if tests were done in February 2006 why was it not until August of 2006 that liquids were restricted?

About those MMW images..........

May 6, 2008 11:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TSA is pathetic -- the liquid policy is pointless and unnecessary and the fact that you keep piling lie on top of lie is one of the many, many reasons no one trusts you.

May 6, 2008 11:29 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Make a few more blog posts and that pesky MMW issue will be pushed off the front page. Then maybe it will go away.

NOT

I am sure most of you have heard the parable about the widow and the judge, if not I have included it below. If you are familiar with the story feel free to skip over it.

Luke 18:1-8
Then Jesus told them a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart. He said, "In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people. In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, 'Grant me justice against my opponent.'

For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, 'Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.'"

And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?"


The TSA is the Judge, we are the Widow. The opponent we are seeking justice against is lack of disclosure.

As you may have noticed there is a growing number of "widows" on this site that refuse to go away until we get justice.

Judge TSA you have two choices, either wait until us widows wear you out, and we will, or just show the image.

May 6, 2008 1:16 PM

 
Blogger CBGB said...

what do you do with confiscated puppies and duty free bags?

May 6, 2008 1:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They've already claimed (more or less) that the frontal MMW images are SSI, so we're never going to see them. Doesn't mean I think we should stop asking though.

It's amazing how much you can get away with when you get to respond to every criticism or question you get with "that's SSI", or "that's classified", and there's no way for us as the public to confirm such.

May 6, 2008 2:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of my co-workers, a very frequent flyer, had an interesting experience yesterday at the checkpoint for Airtran at LGA. He had an odd object (a bathroom scale) in one of his bags, so it was given swabs for ETD. It came up positive. And did so multiple times. The screener said that it was likely due to some cosmetic. However, he nevertheless couldn't take the bag as a carryon, but would have to check it. Unfortunately, the line to check the bag was such that he wasn't able to catch his flight, but that's not the point of this post.

My question is: if the bag was ETD positive so that there was a question of whether it was an explosive device, wwhy was the suggested approach to check the item? It would seem that either it's dangerous or it isn't.

May 6, 2008 3:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PUT YOU PROHIBITED ITEM IN YOUR CHECKED BAGGAGE BEFORE YOU GET TO THE AIRPORT!!!!!!!!

K.I.S.S.

KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID

May 6, 2008 4:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For TSA's liquids policy to make sense every single bottle of water and every single tube of toothpaste would have to be shipped in hermetically sealed containers to a lab where each would be identified and properly disposed of, whether it was the quite possibly fictional liquid binary explosive component or a bottle of coke. If you can't let it on an airplane, how can you justify exposing anyone to it at all?

Of course I understand that TSA doesn't have the budget to send everything it confiscates off to a lab, but how is it an acceptable alternative to expose both your staff and the traveling public (and potentially people in homeless shelters) to potentially lethally toxic materials? How are these deadly beverages any safer on the ground than in the air?

The answer is of course that they're not. The potential threat level in a bottle of coke is the same whether it's on a plane or on the ground -- extremely low. The resources you guys put into inconveniencing us and stealing our personal items in service of a rule that doesn't stand up to even the most basic amateur scrutiny... it's insulting. It's laughable that this 3-1-1 thing got off the ground. The fact that you guys won't even admit this or engage in meaningful dialog about the rules just proves what everyone here's been saying all along... it's time to rescind the liquid rules and admit they were a mistake. I doubt we'll ever see the TSA admit to a mistake on this spin-blog though.

Also, when do we get frontal MMW images?

May 6, 2008 4:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what do you do with confiscated puppies and duty free bags?

Confiscated puppies are sent to Asian eating establishments.

Open the bottles, keep the caps, lids, covers, then give the open container to TSA to properly dispose of as they see fit..

May 6, 2008 5:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Post other subjects as much as you like. I am still waiting for the front and back images!!!!

May 6, 2008 6:54 PM

 
Anonymous Eli said...

Disregarding airline policy regarding walking back to put something in a checked bag, etc.:

This post makes the assumption that the traveler *has* a checked bag. I am a frequent flyer and I'm often happy that I can fit three days of clothing and essentials into a carry-on so that I don't have to wait for my checked baggage. No bag to go back to, in my case.

May 6, 2008 7:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"A passenger can go back to the airline and place the item in his/her checked bag."

HA!!!

I can't believe this line keeps getting used whenever the TSA ties to spin that you have options when you bring a prohibited item to the check point. You do of course realize that by the time I arrive at the check point my bag is already back in the baggage handling section of the airport. How am I supposed to put my prohibited item in it?????

May 5, 2008 8:35 PM

wait a minute....you really thought that gun was ok to go on the plane right ?? a gun in your handbag ?? ok lets rewind. aaah ok. how about when you get the bag...ever notice its kinda....heavy when you havent even begun to pack ?? hmm. you forgot your blade or hunting knife was in your bag from years ago ? where is this bag kept ? hope you dont have kids with imaginations and find that bag within arms reach. and YES if you have a bag thats able to be zipped up you can go back and check that bag... you cant help but to clean your gun or shine your knife while flying in the air for 2 hours....give me a break and check your weapon.

May 6, 2008 8:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abelard said...
Please provide links to peer reviewed research showing how a feasible liquid explosive could be constructed inside an airplane without access to a lab.

May 5, 2008 8:48 PM

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PUT LIQUID PLUMBR IN A SODA BOTTLE AND MIX IT WITH WATER AND SHAKE IT UP ??? dont need a lab for that one.

May 6, 2008 8:01 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Jim Huggins said...
Sorry, Bob ... forgive me, but I can't resist ...

Of interesting note, of all the items I have seen, most, almost all, could have made it from Point A to Point B, had the passenger simply taken the time to place it in a checked bag.

Except that, of course, I'd have to put that item in an unlocked suitcase, which anyone between Point A and Point B could open in order to steal the item in question.

That hand lotion is the first thing the baggage handlers are going to slip out of your luggage. Black market for your bottle of after shave can keep those thieves rolling in the green for decades.

By the way, for all the people accusing TSA security personnel for luggage theft, did you know that anyone can use a pen to open up your locked luggage?
Go to youtube, the title of the video is How to have access to any luggage with a pen, just type that in the search window and you will see how easy it is.

May 6, 2008 9:16 AM

i have flown and never had my liquids taken out of my bag. i dont carry what i dont need. vacation ?? whats a vacation without a firearm ?? lmao. oh my.

May 6, 2008 8:08 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
You had to have known this would come up. You're providing the same answer and that answer has already been shown to not be good enough. At least to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

You're declaring these liquid items too dangerous to take on an airplane, so how is it that they are safe enough to be thrown out, donated, or treated in ANY way other than as the highest potential threat? So what there aren't detonators? What if the bottle had liquid sarin in it? Or pesticide? Or any number of dangerous chemicals that aren't explosive? The way these liquids are treated proves that TSA is perfectly aware that they are harmless, yet they are still taken. Talk about security theatre, I call this security farce. It's pathetic, and so is the way you guys continually repeat the party line over and over. What do you take us for?

Nico, Bob, whoever, will you please actually answer this question? And just in case the question isn't clear enough, here it is again:

You're declaring these liquid items too dangerous to take on an airplane, so how is it that they are safe enough to be thrown out, donated, or treated in ANY way other than as the highest potential threat?

I have asked this question at least 3 times on this blog, the first time I was given the same answer you gave on this entry, only it was a weak analogy involving slingshots. Try again.

May 6, 2008 10:14 AM

but you make it seem like the people on the checkpoint are the ones coming up with this stuff. if you think thats the case then you are sadly mistaken.

May 6, 2008 8:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Huggins said...
That hand lotion is the first thing the baggage handlers are going to slip out of your luggage. Black market for your bottle of after shave can keep those thieves rolling in the green for decades.

Ahh, nothing like the bait-and-switch.

What about the $80 multitool I have to check, because it contains a knife blade? What about the $300 bottle of cognac I have to check, because it's a liquid? What about the $300 cordless drill I have to check, because it might be used as a weapon?

This isn't just about $0.99 bottles of aftershave, my anonymous friend.

May 6, 2008 10:26 AM


oh my ?? cordless drill ??? what could you possibly need a cordless drill for.... on a plane ??? i mean seriously. you wanna talk about unanswered questions... someone please answer that one.

May 6, 2008 8:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abelard said...
Please see GAO report 08-048T Vulnerabilities Exposed through Covert Testing of TSA's Passenger Screening Process which reads in part

That is NOT a peer-reviewed study. That is a GAO report. They cite doing their work in a "national lab" and never name the names of the researchers or the names of those involved in a peer review. There are no links to the actual data showing the exact steps needed to reproduce their findings.

Did they need a Bunsen burner? Were the liquids required to be kept at a specific temperature? Would the detonator work in a pressurized cabin.

Again, where is the peer-reviewed research showing taking down an airplane with a liquid explosive is feasible?

May 6, 2008 10:29 AM

answers to those given to the public would lead to maybe...a copycat ??? those answers are indeed the exact information needed to duplicate what tried to happen.

May 6, 2008 8:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
TSA is pathetic -- the liquid policy is pointless and unnecessary and the fact that you keep piling lie on top of lie is one of the many, many reasons no one trusts you.

May 6, 2008 11:29 AM


the hardheaded never learned. i bet if i told you i could hijack a plane (rip to those that did lose their lives) with a BOXCUTTER. would you believe me ?? no fancy answer. no derogatory response. be straight up. would you believe me ? ok so you never know what someone can do until their sitting next to you doing it and the first thing that comes out of your mouth while you are about to kiss your bottom goodbye is "why didnt tsa stop it"

May 6, 2008 8:20 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
One of my co-workers, a very frequent flyer, had an interesting experience yesterday at the checkpoint for Airtran at LGA. He had an odd object (a bathroom scale) in one of his bags, so it was given swabs for ETD. It came up positive. And did so multiple times. The screener said that it was likely due to some cosmetic. However, he nevertheless couldn't take the bag as a carryon, but would have to check it. Unfortunately, the line to check the bag was such that he wasn't able to catch his flight, but that's not the point of this post.

My question is: if the bag was ETD positive so that there was a question of whether it was an explosive device, wwhy was the suggested approach to check the item? It would seem that either it's dangerous or it isn't.

May 6, 2008 3:40 PM

*shaking my head* yet again

bathroom scale on the plane.. wait wait... i wanna see how much i weigh at 30,000 ft. in the air. i cant check this scale I SIMPLY MUST have it on the plane with me. because i never know when i will check my weight on vacation.

May 6, 2008 8:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...
Make a few more blog posts and that pesky MMW issue will be pushed off the front page. Then maybe it will go away.

NOT

I am sure most of you have heard the parable about the widow and the judge, if not I have included it below. If you are familiar with the story feel free to skip over it.

Luke 18:1-8
Then Jesus told them a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart. He said, "In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people. In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, 'Grant me justice against my opponent.'

For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, 'Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.'"

And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?"

The TSA is the Judge, we are the Widow. The opponent we are seeking justice against is lack of disclosure.

As you may have noticed there is a growing number of "widows" on this site that refuse to go away until we get justice.

Judge TSA you have two choices, either wait until us widows wear you out, and we will, or just show the image.

May 6, 2008 1:16 PM

so hold up... ALL OF TSA NEITHER RESPECTS PEOPLE NOR FEARED GOD ??? are you serious ? you have taken a job with security WAAAAAY out of hand with that comment and im suprised that the blog team actually allowed that.. all of tsa does not fear God ? wooooow. we are all a cult and satanic and we do this and we do that. oh come on people ....

May 6, 2008 8:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you know.... i seriously do not understand why are we going back and forth about liquids...bringing your personal water bottle through the checkpoint is that important ??? you have to bring that $1 dollar bottle of water through the checkpoint or else you are gonna just die right in front of stores that also sell water

May 6, 2008 8:34 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

And from TSA's office of Falsehood and Fabrication comes this pile of putresence the likes of which I haven't smelled since my days living in farm country right after they spread the fresh chicken manure:

A question raised many times on this blog is how can we justify throwing all of these liquids away in a trash can near the checkpoint if they are such a danger. While a fair question, the answer has been available in many different threads though not directly answered, so here it goes.

We have said since the institution of the liquid ban that the fear or threat is the combination of items, including liquid explosives while in flight to create an improvised explosive device. That combination means explosives, detonator and other components to have a fully assembled bomb. Take one component away and you have a collection of harmless items. Of course we don't want liquid explosives anywhere near us but without the other components, they're not causing catastrophic damage.

That’s why it is safe for us to store the items together in a trash can near the checkpoint and that's what we do with prohibited items.


Nico, there are any number of common household chemicals that typically come in liquid form and when mixed together can create noxious and even deadly gases. Some of these could conceivably show up at the checkpoints (and given Americans' obsession with sanitation it would not surprise me if they were to show up fairly often). Now were some of these chemicals to be tossed carelessly into the bin and leak out of their containers and mix together, you could have one helluva lawsuit on your hands were someone to get a whiff of the resulting gas and end up either in a hospital or a morgue as a result. Explosives risk aside (which is a crock -- you know it, I know it, and hiding behind SSI does not change that), there can be a risk of tossing a bunch of random liquids together -- certainly at least as great or greater than someone actually managing to manufacture a sufficient quantity of liquid explosives mid-flight to bring down an airliner.

3-1-1 may have made sense at one point while people were checking out whether it would really be feasible to create liquid explosives on board a plane in flight. So far no credible evidence has come forth from any corner (except the super secret behind the curtain labs of the TSA) to suggest that this would have been possible. It is time to call 3-1-1 an interim step, say that we have found no threat, and to go back to the way things were.

Now moving on to other steaming piles of TSA leavings, whole body imaging. Perhaps people might be interested in taking a look at the following link to the TSA's very own website regarding backscatter imaging systems. We have front and back views of both a man and a woman there. That's not SSI. So what gives with the MMW images guys? The backscatter "cartoon" drawings are already pretty detailed -- far more so than I'm pretty sure most people would be comfortable with were they to realize what some stranger in a room would be looking at. If you'll show us those and not the MMW, what exactly are you hiding?

May 6, 2008 8:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re: Anonymous said...
They've already claimed (more or less) that the frontal MMW images are SSI, so we're never going to see them. Doesn't mean I think we should stop asking though.

-----------------------------------
When and where? Don't recall seeing a claim of SSI.

Thanks

May 6, 2008 9:20 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

ALL CAPS ANONYMOUS May 6, 2008 4:18 PM

It's not about keeping it simple. Why should we bear the burden of TSA incompetence? You are yelling at us, yet the complexity comes from their nonsensical rules.

The best way to keep things simple is to make sure the rules make sense.

May 6, 2008 9:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Sorry, Bob, but I have to chime in again ...

I've talked with passengers after they returned from checking prohibited items. They have told me if you don't have a bag, the airline will often provide a box of some sort. I'm sure it varies by airline.

Ahh, but notice ... "often", and "it varies" implies uncertainty. You said "A passenger can go back to the airline and place the item in his/her checked bag", not "A passenger often can go back", or "In various airports, a passenger can go back".

Call me a stickler for accuracy ... but if there isn't a universal rule that all airlines have to give me a box for my prohibited item, then I can't count on it as an option.

_________________________________

Good lord, how much hand holding does TSA or any other have to do for you to "make it fair"? I believe that pre 9-11 there were still DOT rules but bassically no one gave a damn. Now TSA is supposed to look only for prohibited items, ignore firearms & ammo, drugs, and anything else which isn't specifically mentioned on their prohibited list. Get real - life isn't that cut and dry. If you have items in question you might want to call the airline prior to arriving. I have been the airline industry for over 20 years. It is really turning into something I no longer like but it really isn't TSA doing it. Prior to deregulation we had great service, and oversight although 9-11 would have likely happened anyway. But from a passenger point of view life was so much better before everything came down to profit and stockholders.

As for TSA, if it isn't illegal then you can return it to your car, have someone take it home, mail it or simply say to heck with it and abandon it with the TSA. I don't see why it is their fault if the carrier will not get you your bag back that is half way across the airport or if there isn't time. Remember - prior proper planning prevents p--- poor performance.

May 6, 2008 10:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Responding to - Anonymous said...

One of my co-workers, a very frequent flyer, had an interesting experience yesterday at the checkpoint for Airtran at LGA. He had an odd object (a bathroom scale) in one of his bags, so it was given swabs for ETD. It came up positive. And did so multiple times. The screener said that it was likely due to some cosmetic. However, he nevertheless couldn't take the bag as a carryon, but would have to check it. Unfortunately, the line to check the bag was such that he wasn't able to catch his flight, but that's not the point of this post.

My question is: if the bag was ETD positive so that there was a question of whether it was an explosive device, wwhy was the suggested approach to check the item? It would seem that either it's dangerous or it isn't.

__________________________________

Now without saying where I am or what I do this is a good question and I'm sorry to give the answer. The ETD you refer to is using a mass spectrometer plus a bunch of other stuff to ionize molicules and get a time of flight then compare them to a known data base for a result. I could go so deep into this that we would all fall asleep but won't, I think you get the drift. The alarm threshold is in the PPM range and the only thing an ETD hit indicates is that whatever the item is, we need to be extra careful in searching it and maybe other items you are carrying. It in no way is a bomb detector.

I would love to give you an answer where the requirement to place a bathroom scale in baggage was written but I am afraid it was simple a decision made without REALLY understanding the equipment and the threat. In a threat based decision making matrix I would have to place your scale pretty low, maybe DDOT (Don't Drop On Toe:). It should have been resolved and if not then not allowed to go. Sounds like someone just wasn't 100% sure. Sorry about that.

May 6, 2008 10:14 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AYN

DO YOU NEED A BABYSITTER?

TAKE CARE OF YOU AND YOURS, THEN YOU WON'T HAVE A PROBLEM AT THE CHECKPOINT!!

THE RULES ARE IN PLACE. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FOLLOW THEM!!

May 6, 2008 11:33 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Anonymous writes:

oh my ?? cordless drill ??? what could you possibly need a cordless drill for.... on a plane ??? i mean seriously. you wanna talk about unanswered questions... someone please answer that one.

See, you missed the point entirely.

Of course I don't need a cordless drill on the plane. But if I'm a mechanic, taking my tools with me because I'll need them at my destination, then I need to get it to my destination somehow. I can't put it in my carry-on, where I'd know where it is at all times, because it might be usable as a weapon. But if I put it in my checked luggage, and TSA requires that my luggage be unlocked, then any number of people have the opportunity to steal my drill before I get to my destination.

The TSA and the airlines say they can't be held responsible for stuff being stolen out of my checked baggage, so I'd better keep my valuables in my carry-on. Except that there's all sorts of valuable stuff I can't put in my carry-on because it might be usable as a weapon. So ... I can't put it in my carry-on, and I'm foolish to put it in my checked bags. What should I do?

May 6, 2008 11:42 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are people still asking about MMW frontal pics? Stick to the topic. Other than that, keep up the good work

May 6, 2008 11:43 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Anonymous writes:

As for TSA, if it isn't illegal then you can return it to your car, have someone take it home, mail it or simply say to heck with it and abandon it with the TSA. I don't see why it is their fault if the carrier will not get you your bag back that is half way across the airport or if there isn't time.

I NEVER SAID IT WAS TSA'S FAULT. Sheesh.

All I'm trying to say is that TSA shouldn't be flippantly saying "gee, you've got five options other than abandoning your property" when most of those options aren't applicable to most travelers. Saying that I can have my Model-T in any color I want, as long as that color is black, ain't much of a choice. And so it is with most travelers.

Yes, prior planning picks a peck of pickled peppers (or something like that). I'm trying to address an issue of tone and attitude, not policy.

If the original article had said something along these lines, I'd have been completely content:

"We at TSA recognize how uncomfortable it is when we have to deny you bringing an item past the checkpoint. Sometimes you may be able to retrieve your checked bags and put your item in there. Some airports have mailing services. Or if someone brought you to the airport, you might be able to give them the item. But even if all of these options aren't available, we're obligated to keep certain items out of the secured area. This isn't enjoyable, either for you or for us, but it is required."

Of course, this is probably too subtle a distinction, and I should probably just give up ...

May 6, 2008 11:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

an anonymous troll said in response to my post about TSA treating potentially deadly coke bottles far too casually:

but you make it seem like the people on the checkpoint are the ones coming up with this stuff. if you think thats the case then you are sadly mistaken.

---

Re-read my post. I never implied any such thing. I know that it is the higherups coming up with this mumbo-jumbo and that is why I am addressing them. Read some of the links in the comments. These confiscated potentially explosive or toxic liquids are being mixed together in large bins, donated to homeless shelters... we don't know where all of it is going, but I doubt any of it is heading for "safe disposal of hazardous material"

Of course, my argument is kind of a red herring because we already know that it's perfectly fine for TSA to donate the shampoo and lotion and whatnot. Why? Because these items don't pose any threat to anybody. The crux of my argument is, if these items are safe enough to be given to the homeless, why aren't they safe enough to fly with me?

Why is it, if we are being protected from the dangers of chemicals being mixed together or released aboard a plane, that these materials are mixed together in trash cans, and released to homeless shelters. If TSA can determine these items are harmless after they are taken from their rightful owners, why can they not do so at the checkpoint?

TSA's logic falls apart if you scrutinize it for more than a few seconds, and frankly I expect better from a government agency. I also expect transparency and honesty. TSA provides none of these things, and the blog is doing very little about that fact.

TSA blog team, I applaud your efforts. Truly. You put up with a lot and obviously you're trying to address our questions, but we need you to have more courage. We need you to ask and to answer the tough questions you see in these comments. You want to have a dialog with the community? Fine, here we are. We'll help you make the best damn checkpoint we can. All we ask in return is honesty. No more hiding behind SSI, no more ignoring questions, no more analogies. Straight facts, scientific evidence, candid answers. If you want to spin the issues, make a press release and stop wasting our time. We see through you.

May 7, 2008 12:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon posted:

"That is NOT a peer-reviewed study. That is a GAO report. They cite doing their work in a "national lab" and never name the names of the researchers or the names of those involved in a peer review. There are no links to the actual data showing the exact steps needed to reproduce their findings.

Did they need a Bunsen burner? Were the liquids required to be kept at a specific temperature? Would the detonator work in a pressurized cabin.

Again, where is the peer-reviewed research showing taking down an airplane with a liquid explosive is feasible?"

So, now I'll ask a question. Why the instance on "peer reviewed" studies and a total disregard for the GAO report on LGA IEDs when EVERY GAO report ever published on TSA Red Team results/failures is accepted as pure, unadulterated, consistent as gravity fact and science? Lemme guess...the latter suits the agenda much better huh?

May 7, 2008 12:27 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok so you never know what someone can do until their sitting next to you doing it and the first thing that comes out of your mouth while you are about to kiss your bottom goodbye is "why didnt tsa stop it"

This post is almost as idiotic as the 3-1-1 rule. You're saying that ANYTHING TSA chooses to do is fine if it's remotely possible someone might figure out how to do something bad with it. By this logic, fountain pens should be banned since you could stab someone with the nib, and laptops should be banned because you could hit someone in the head with one.

I hesitate to press "submit" for fear I'll give the buffoons running TSA ideas...

May 7, 2008 12:57 AM

 
Anonymous trollkiller said...

Anonyass said...

wait a minute....you really thought that gun was ok to go on the plane right ?? a gun in your handbag ?? ok lets rewind. aaah ok. how about when you get the bag...ever notice its kinda....heavy when you havent even begun to pack ?? hmm. you forgot your blade or hunting knife was in your bag from years ago ? where is this bag kept ? hope you dont have kids with imaginations and find that bag within arms reach. and YES if you have a bag thats able to be zipped up you can go back and check that bag... you cant help but to clean your gun or shine your knife while flying in the air for 2 hours....give me a break and check your weapon.


If guns and knives were the only prohibited items your sarcasm would be appreciated, as it is it only makes you look like a foolish Troll.

Anonyass said...

i have flown and never had my liquids taken out of my bag. i dont carry what i dont need. vacation ?? whats a vacation without a firearm ?? lmao. oh my.


Great you don't need medicated shampoo or ointments, fantastic your Mom must be very proud.

Anonyass said...

answers to those given to the public would lead to maybe...a copycat ??? those answers are indeed the exact information needed to duplicate what tried to happen.


Or the answers may show the TSA is full of crapola. I am betting on my answer.

Anonyass said...

oh my ?? cordless drill ??? what could you possibly need a cordless drill for.... on a plane ??? i mean seriously. you wanna talk about unanswered questions... someone please answer that one.


Seems to me the person taking the cordless drill on the plane is doing so because most people do not think of a cordless drill as a weapon and they don’t want some slack jawed TSO STEALING THIER STUFF.

Anonyass said...

*shaking my head* yet again

bathroom scale on the plane.. wait wait... i wanna see how much i weigh at 30,000 ft. in the air. i cant check this scale I SIMPLY MUST have it on the plane with me. because i never know when i will check my weight on vacation.


Maybe they need to keep a tight watch on their weight for medical reasons and switching scales at their destination would throw the measurements off. If they are regulation medication by weight a difference of 5lbs could cause some serious complications.

And once again most people would not think of a bathroom scale as being a weapon after all they weigh less than a laptop even though they are roughly the same size. Of course they did not want to check it because they did not want a slack jawed TSO STEALING THEIR STUFF.

Anonyass I remember my first beer too, I hope you don't have a hangover in the morning. Always remember when you are drunk, don't drive, don't post and never call old flames.

May 7, 2008 2:38 AM

 
Anonymous Abelard said...

answers to those given to the public would lead to maybe...a copycat ??? those answers are indeed the exact information needed to duplicate what tried to happen.

What utter rubbish. The London bomb plot never would have succeeded.

There is no evidence that one can manufacture and detonate a binary liquid explosive on a plane. None. The US Government wouldn't have the sole knowledge of this if it were available. This is basic chemistry and there are plenty of articles debunking the idea that you could take down a plane with a liquid explosive because the variables would make it impossible to achieve that goal.

I am sorry that you aren't skeptical, but I am. And you can place that skepticism right at the feet of our government that told us to trust them when they said Iraq was stockpiling hoards of WMDs and that the war would be paid for by the profits from the oil we saved from control by Saddam.

If the TSA can't produce the peer-reviewed studies then they have no reason to complain about the litany of questions they are receiving.

By the way, where are the frontal photos?

May 7, 2008 3:02 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good morning TSA bloggers,

How about listening to all of us and showing us those full body scna images??

Good morning everyone else,