New at Reason

David Weigel | August 16, 2006

Jacob Sullum pores over the new list of banned items for commercial flights and quickly regrets that he can't have a stiff drink.

Comments

SteveInClearwater|8.16.06 @ 3:09AM|#

The various forms of increased scrutiny prior to boarding the aircraft don't improve security one scintilla.
I for one have carried several disposable lighters onto every flight I've been on the past year. I just pack them in a pair of shorts that's in my carry on and they sail right through.

But the plane is still secure from any nefarious plans I might have. Not because of TSA.

But rather because I know that if I were to pull out an oily rag from my carryon and spark it aflame with shouts of "I'm taking over this plane!!!", between 50-100 male (and likely some women as well) passengers would immediately rush me, knock me down and beat the crap out of me.

The only reason dudes got over on the four flights of 9/11 is that the passengers did not IMMEDIATELY kick their ass at the risk of some gashes from a box cutter.

Since 9/11, there's not a man out there in reasonable health who would not now immediately rush a hijacker armed with anything less than an Uzi.

Put 10 or more of us together rushing Hajid from front and back and the plane will be just fine, with or without a special "Air Marshall" and definitely regardless of whether they inspected everyone's Underoos prior to boarding.

|8.16.06 @ 3:41AM|#

That's great Steve, but I'm betting it may already have crossed the minds of some of the people trying to bring down planes after they saw the umpteenth black stand-up comedian saying, "9/11 wouldn'ta happened if there were any black folks on the plane."

The question is, are you or anyone else going to rush the college age guy with the iPod on, or his pregnant wife with the electronic watch as they excuse themselves to go to the john with a bottle of powerade and some contact juice?

Not saying the current steps are surefire, or even reasonable, but I think you and your army of davids may already be accounted for by at least the other side.

|8.16.06 @ 8:14AM|#

I had the joy of flying to Virginia from London on Sunday and found two things amusing about security:

One: the screener who did the second pat down (I'm pretty sure he owes me dinner) checked the full length of my arms even though I was wearing short sleeves just in case I was carrying a knife subcutaneously.

Two: We had to keep our wallets, passports and such items in a plastic bag and they were kind enough to hand us some. Let me repeat that: to make sure we didn't have any weapons, they distributed large, heavy plastic bags perfect for suffocating or choking someone.

|8.16.06 @ 8:48AM|#

chewy-

I agree. Nobody will rush the dude with the iPod and contact lens solution heading to the bathroom.

The solutions:

1) Intelligent inspections that get at the obvious bombs. There's no need to make this TOO easy.

1b) Accept that there's really no way to go beyond stopping the obvious stuff and also get every conceivable piece of bomb-making equipment.

2) Infiltrate terrorist groups, or at least spy on them, like they did in London. That's different from keeping tabs on 300 million phone users.

The hope is that if you stop the obvious stuff you force the terrorists to resort to more sophisticated means, means that require some training and practice. And then infiltrate the groups most likely to provide that training and practice.

|8.16.06 @ 9:42AM|#

If we're worried about nitroglycerin, we should simply ask owner of the suspicious liquid to give it a vigorous shake or two. If it doesn't explode, let it on the plane.

Agitate the bomb materials instead of the paying customers.

Jennifer|8.16.06 @ 9:53AM|#

I've mentioned this before but it's worth repeating (and I'm scandalized the national media hasn't made more of it): in Phoenix, airport officials took all the personal-hygiene items they confiscated from passengers and donated them to the homeless. They didn't scan the stuff first; they just donated it.

So did they know damn well that the stuff they confiscated was harmless, and figured that giving it to the homeless was better than seeing it go to waste? Or do they think the stuff really IS dangerous, and figure they've found a spiffy way to end Phoenix's homeless problem?

And which attitude displays more contempt from the government toward its citizens?

|8.16.06 @ 10:03AM|#

About 2 years ago, two floors of my office building were rented by the TSA as a training facility. Seeing the people coming in and out of there makes me feel LESS secure because my money is obviously being stolen.

|8.16.06 @ 10:51AM|#

Jennifer,

As a resident of Phoenix, and regular reader of the Arizona Republic, I can assure you that they ran an article about. About how freaking kind and generous it was of Sky Harbor Airport. I look forward to my early morning flight from there to CA tomorrow.

|8.16.06 @ 2:43PM|#

From Consumer Affairs, laptops may be the next banned item:

>The use of laptop computers on airliners may be banned entirely because of a series of incidents involving overheated batteries, including a May 15 incident in which a laptop caught fire in an overhead luggage compartment as a Lufthansa airliner prepared to leave Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, The Wall Street Journal reported.

|8.16.06 @ 2:45PM|#

In Ron's article to which the H&R entry links:

allowing each passenger to carry up to four ounces of over-the-counter liquid medication, contact lens solution, nasal spray, or eye drops

I see the exception for OTC meds, but not for lens solution, nasal spray, or eye drops. Would that it were so, as I prepare for my first no-liquids flight tomorrow. If those further exceptions are indeed specified, I'd love to see a specific link or other pointer.

|8.16.06 @ 2:51PM|#

Oops... sorry, Jacob, about the incorrect attribution.

Robert|8.16.06 @ 6:52PM|#

"Since 9/11, there's not a man out there in reasonable health who would not now immediately rush a hijacker armed with anything less than an Uzi."

I wouldn't, because I'm sure someone else would.

Meanwhile, did you hear (as reported Pink Pistol Andrew Greene) about the airport where the containers of liquid (suspected of being binary explosive components) were emptied into a single barrel?