On the surface, this cartoon resonates with many passengers who’ve had to abandon their liquids or adjust their travel to adhere to TSA’s 3-1-1 liquid policy.This cartoon compares the allowance of laptop batteries with a bottle of water. It leads the reader to believe batteries are more dangerous than the water. While that might be true, it leaves out the reasoning behind 3-1-1. The batteries may be more dangerous than a bottle of water, but they are not more dangerous than a water bottle filled with liquid explosives.
When you show us a bottle of liquid, we can’t tell if it’s a sports drink or liquid explosives without doing a time consuming test on it. We’re developing the proper technology to allow us to expedite the screening of all liquids, but in the meantime, to screen everybody’s various types of liquids over 3.4 oz. would cause gridlock at the checkpoints.
Why is 3.4 oz. and below OK and what’s up with the baggies? To date, I think those questions were answered best in an interview with Ars Technica’s Jon Stokes. I highly suggest you read it to get the big picture of what lead to 3-1-1.
Additional information on Lithium (laptop) batteries: They’re permissible in checked and carry-on luggage when they’re in the devices they are intended for. Spare batteries are not permissible in checked baggage, but they can be transported in your carry-on luggage if they are packaged properly.
You can read more about the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) rules on traveling with batteries at the SafeTravel web page.
(Cartoon Courtesy of XKCD)
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
255 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 255 of 255Can the TSA detect explosives carried in one's intestines?
Dear TSA,
So far two commenters have pointed out the problem with the liquid policy. If the liquids are as dangerous as the TSA claims, then disposing of them in a general waste bucket is dangerous. The Hydrochloric Acid and Ammonia example and the Bleach and Ammonia example both show how a terrorist could use your general waste bucket against the American people.
If the liquids are as dangerous as you claim (and I have already shown that the liquid explosive threat it nonsense) then you must treat them as dangerous at the point of disposal.
If the liquids are so harmless that you do not have to treat them as dangerous at the point of disposal then you have absolutely no reason to not allow them past the checkpoint. If they are safe then they are safe.
This has been pointed out to you before, but all of your rebuttals are already answered. Two commenters have shown the danger of treating the general disposal bin as safe. I have shown your liquid explosive threat is bogus in both the forms you use to argue in favor of the ban.
You are out of excuses. The only options left to you are to pretend that none of this dialogue has taken place or to change policy to match the real world.
West writes:
The shoe screening for most people [...] removes the chance of that method being used against aircraft.
Reduces, not removes. Unless you're claiming 100% infallibility for shoe screening procedures? :)
"However it removes the chance of that method being used against aircraft."
The chance of that method being used is so close to zero as to be effectively zero, given that no one, anywhere in the world, has tried that method since Reid's failed attempt in 2001, regardless of whether or how their shoes were screened. TSA is wasting everyone's time "protecting" them from an imaginary phantom.
"TSA does not make the rules they just enforce them."
Nonsense. TSA made the shoe carnival rule and then made it mandatory nearly five years after Richard Reid's failed attempt at a shoe bombing. TSA made the 3.4-1-1 that applies to some liquids carried by some people, and made another rule that its policy is to post deliberately inaccurate signs about this policy in airports. Much of what TSA does it does by its own rulemaking authority, not because legislation has mandated it.
"I find the whole shoe bomb discussion silly. HE GOT THE EXPLOSIVES ONTO THE PLANE!!! And that's NOT good enough for you?!?"
No, it's not. Especially not after nearly eight years without another similar attempt anywhere in the world, regardless of whether and how shoes were screened. TSA needs to calm down and get over its hysteria and form a sensible policy about shoes to replace its current hysterical one.
"I dismiss your idea that "no one has tried it again, so let's let them by NOT screening shoes". There are enough holes in security. Let's not open one that has been plugged."
There's no hole to plug. No one's trying to use shoes to harm aircraft, and TSA's policies have nothing to do with that. We have eight years of evidence to prove it.
Questions Bob has yet to answer about TSA's liquid phobia:
Why does TSA toss these dangerous explosives into open containers in the middle of airports?
Why does TSA dispose of these dangerous explosives as if they were exactly what is indicated by their labels?
Why does TSA treat a bottle of Pepsi like soda when it's time to dispose of it, but as a dangerous explosive when it transits the checkpoint?
How does TSA screen the liquids sold past its checkpoints?
Does TSA test a random sampling if confiscated liquids to determine how many liquid explosives people are attempting to bring through checkpoints?
Why can't TSA point to a single piece of independent, peer-reviewed research to support its liquid policies?
Why does TSA continue to post inaccurate signage about the liquids policies in airports?
Why do you keep lying to us, and how stupid to you think we are?
OK, crawl out from under your desks, and tell us why Britney gets special treatment at LAX. What makes her Big Gulp harmless?
We need a new cartoon in which Britney Spears convinces the TSO to let her take her over-sized drink in by clicking the heels on her magical shoes.
Anonymous said: "It is also an incontrovertible fact that no one has tried to drop a nuclear device from a plane on to another country since the U.S.A. bombed Japan. Does this mean that nuclear controls have nothing to do with this because there is no real threat to deter?"
Apples and oranges. Besides, that's a straw man argument anyway.
Look at the scientific method. You have an experimental group and a control group. If you want to test a hypothesis, you have the two groups, and conduct the experiment on the experimental group. You compare your results to the control group. If there's a difference, there may be something to the hypothesis that warrants further investigation. Or the hypothesis may be found to be junk.
Let's apply this to TSA and the rest of the world.
TSA states shoes are a threat, and cite Richard Reid. I'll even ignore the fact that Alvin Crabtree can be cited with the same logic as to why all screeners should be screened, but I digress. Regardless, TSA has measures in place to check for shoe bombs.
The rest of the world, the control group, thinks it's not worth scanning for.
So looking at the facts objectively, we've had one shoe bomb since Reid. We haven't had a shoe bomb since. Fine.
The rest of the world hasn't had a shoe bomb either. Planes don't fall out of the sky with regularity at all in other parts of the world, let alone from shoe bombs.
So we pretty much have identical results. Now, looking at it objectively, can we conclude that the lack of shoe bombs comes from TSA's measures, or that shoe bombs aren't the threat that TSA makes it to be? Looking objectively, I know where I come down.
What evidence does TSA have that shoe bombs are a threat? The fact that it happened once? By that logic, why don't we see more stringent employee screening (Alvin Crabtree bringing a gun to work, and he still works at DEN), drug running, and so forth? After all, all those things happened once. Some of them have happened multiple times. What makes Reid so special?
Remember, Reid started in Paris. You don't have to remove shoes in Europe.
It is understood that the recent explosion of the Sony are used lithium-ion batteries, and this technology in the battery industry professionals seems inherently potentially dangerous. "As long as production of lithium-ion battery is also estimated that none of the manufacturers guarantee that their products will not be an explosion problem." This is the one in the battery industry for many years the technical staff of the thesis is given.
Anonymous said...
I would love to see a detailed response to this person's concerns: http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/10/15/. Specifically, is there a right to refuse a search? Are TSA agents properly trained for a full-body pat-down?
-------------------------------
Yes, there is a right to refuse a search. One can do so by not approaching the checkpoint. Even if they choose to enter the checkpoint and then refuse, they have that right. If they enter the checkpoint and then refuse there WILL be a response, usually its gong to involve a Law Enforcement Officer, but at the very least the passenger would be refused access to the sterile area.
Are TSO’s properly trained for FBPD’s? Yes, per TSA directives. Some could use more training, but they all get the training. They are also tested on these procedures annually. Fail the test and you are decertified as a Checkpoint TSO and must undergo retraining on the weak areas.
The worst thing about the nonsensical shoe policy is that innocent citizens are forced to walk through the disgusting muck of thousands of nasty people's feet, exposing them to risk of athlete's foot fungus or worse. It is unsanitary, demeaning, and completely useless. This rule could probably be defeated by a class-action lawsuit quite easily, but of course the TSA is deemed above scrutiny for some bizarre reason.
In response to an anonymous comment:
"No, West, it's a completely accurate way of looking at it. Shoe screening doesn't matter because no one's trying to blow up planes with shoes. We know this for a fact because we now have three years' and counting's worth of comparative data that show no one is using shoes to blow up airplanes anywhere, regardless of whether or not there's a shoe carnival in airports."
TSA blogger GSOLTSO West wrote:
"Again, not a reason to ignore a threat vector that is simple and relatively inexpensive.... Unless we are talking about some Bruno's, have you seen what a pair of those cost?"
I responded:
"West, what's the reason for ignoring the threat vectors that are armpits, rectums, mouths, pants pockets, and all the other places that someone could hide anything that fits in the sole of a shoe?
"Also, surely you'll admit that there is great cost to the cumulative time lost due to removal and X-raying of every single pair of shoes worn by commercial airline passengers."
West responded:
" I have nothing on that other than the best tech we have that screens some of the areas you mention is WBI. It allows the entire outside of a person to be screened without placing hands on them. Internal screening is just not possible at this time."
You're mistaken. Internal screening is possible at this time. TSA have chosen to ignore some threat vectors.
West continued:
"The shoe screening for most people (some have trouble removing them, and require additional time) is not much more time consuming than taking the laptop out of a bag."
That's a straw man. I wrote nothing about laptops or the cost of searching a single pair of shoes with X-rays. You implied that your shoe carnival is relatively inexpensive. I claimed that the cumulative cost of removing and X-raying the shoes worn by every single airline passenger is large.
Anything that can be hidden in the sole of a shoe can just as easily, if not more easily, be hidden in armpits, rectums, mouths, pants pockets, and other places. Yet TSA places extra scrutiny on shoes. When asked about this, TSA claims that shoes are a known threat. I and others have repeatedly pointed out other threats, so they are now known as well.
At a cost of forcing every single airline passenger to remove his shoes and run them through an X-ray machine, you have foiled the suicidal criminal who can't think of any place to hide his contraband other than in his shoe. West, how many of those do you really think exist? Is it really worth this cost? Of course not. This is security theater: a security countermeasure that makes people feel secure but provides little or no improvement to security. Your agency is a joke.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Anonymous said...
Dear Blog Mods,
"He'll have one water bottle full of bleach, and one full of ammonia. He'll open them before throwing them in the general throw away area for the water bottles. The checkpoint is now being attacked by chlorine gas."
Thank you for posting things like this so that perhaps someone who didn't already know this basic chemistry lesson now would. Sort of like the guy who was encouraging people to bring their haz-mat to the checkpoint for free disposal, not every little thing has to be posted.
Your comment policy should be updated to take into consideration the spreading of anarchistic ideas or this blog may end up being used against you.
-----
Terrorist or not, EVERYBODY should know it is dangerous to mix those two common household chemicals.
It is more dangerous (to the general public) to suppress that information.
One year (1997) at Cadet Camp Vernon (paramilitary in Canada) one of the dormitories had to be evacuated twice because of such a reaction. The second evacuation happened because the toxic gas got into the blankets making people sick again. The next year there was a ban on "all cleaners." I felt the need to ask for permission to bring in dish washing liquid.
Jim Huggins sez - "Reduces, not removes. Unless you're claiming 100% infallibility for shoe screening procedures? :)"
I stand corrected sir, nothing is 100%, but it does sorely limit the options of Joe Terror using shoes as an explosive transportation device!
West
TSA Blog Team
Where's the video, Bob?
Why did you post nine videos of the woman in Atlanta quickly, but refuse to post the videos of Britney, Bob?
Had enough yet, Bob?
"it does sorely limit the options of Joe Terror using shoes as an explosive transportation device!"
The nearly eight years since Reid proves conclusively that Joe Terror is not trying to use shoes as an explosive transportation device, and that shoe screening has absolutely nothing to do with that. Please stop lying.
Anon sez - "The nearly eight years since Reid proves conclusively that Joe Terror is not trying to use shoes as an explosive transportation device, and that shoe screening has absolutely nothing to do with that. Please stop lying."
Wow. What is the quote? Never argue... Anyway, still viable and cheap = fairly easy way to create a bang = something we should be screening for. Next.
West
TSA Blog Team
Phil sez - "That's a straw man. I wrote nothing about laptops or the cost of searching a single pair of shoes with X-rays. You implied that your shoe carnival is relatively inexpensive. I claimed that the cumulative cost of removing and X-raying the shoes worn by every single airline passenger is large."
It was not a straw man at all, merely a comparison of time allotted for removing shoes and a laptop.
Cumulative cost is something above my paygrade, but I can tell you it doesn't take a majority of the flying public but a few seconds to remove their shoes, and it only takes a few seconds to remove a laptop from a bag, hence the comparison.
Phil sez - "At a cost of forcing every single airline passenger to remove his shoes and run them through an X-ray machine, you have foiled the suicidal criminal who can't think of any place to hide his contraband other than in his shoe. West, how many of those do you really think exist? Is it really worth this cost? Of course not. This is security theater: a security countermeasure that makes people feel secure but provides little or no improvement to security. Your agency is a joke."
I already told you, Ihave nothing firther on the internal screening capabilities/plans of the organization, but the best way to clear external hiding places is WBI.
I think that there are more people that think of hiding things in their shoes than you do, Here is a review of one item -
http://www.gadgetreview.com/2008/03/hidden-compartment-shoe.html
These shoes come ready for handy dandy shot or two of Wild Turkey or the explosive du jour :
http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=flask+sandal
These are simple products with a basic usage intended that can be used at any time to create something that cna damage or destroy. Of course there is my favorite kind of boot with liquid in it at this page :
http://www.truebeer.com/Beer-Boots_c_7.html
Not theatre at all, merely screening shoes (among other items) to help keep the traveling public safer. Is it 100%? Nope, you are safer flying with us here, than you would be with no screening. Until we come up with better methods to screen the shoes, and the liquids, this is the system we currently have.
West
TSA Blog Team
"Anyway, still viable and cheap = fairly easy way to create a bang = something we should be screening for."
Why? No one anywhere has tried to use shoes as a delivery device to harm an aircraft in nearly eight years. The one attempt failed completely.
"Not theatre at all, merely screening shoes (among other items) to help keep the traveling public safer. Is it 100%? Nope, you are safer flying with us here, than you would be with no screening."
The record shows that TSA's shoe carnival does nothing to make anyone safer. We know it, you know it, stop lying.
Oh come on, you can't even tell pure water when you see it, smell it? Lame...
Anon sez - "The record shows that TSA's shoe carnival does nothing to make anyone safer. We know it, you know it, stop lying."
What record is that? Was it put out by Slipknot or someone else I would have heard? I will refer you to my previous posts. Thank you for your commentary and please post again!
West
TSA Blog Team
"What record is that?"
The record of no plane, anywhere, being harmed by a shoe-bomb, regardless of what screening protocols (if any) were in place. Also known as the record TSA, and you, keep lying about.
Liquids don't trip metal detectors. Stick your water bottle in your sock and walk right through. It doesn't have to be 3.4 ounces. It could be gasoline. Voila, TSA defeated.
I've also had entire pockets full of coins and fairly large metal belt buckles that haven't tripped the metal detectors. I sure hope they detect guns.
The real situation is that if someone tried to light his shoe, or start mixing up an explosives cocktail, the other passengers would doubtless beat the prospective perpetrator half to death. The TSA ignores the very effective security of all those annoyed passengers. Nobody has ever harmed a plane using shoes. Sane countries do not make you take off your shoes. So there are going to be many people in international airports with unscreened shoes.
The gross foolishness of the TSA process, from the repeated checking of boarding passes every five feet while in the cattle chute, to the endless whining by TSA agents who should be able to recognize a scuba regulator as a scuba regulator. I separate all my stuff into clear plastic bags, lay it all out in bins for the TSA to x ray, and still, it's ring around the security line. Then, when the agents have scanned my bags two or three times, I get the bum's rush from the TSA crew who have spread my stuff all over and they start to paw my gear when it has been screened and cleared. Once you folks have performed your security theatrics, keep your hands off my stuff.
I could walk into ANY US airport armed to the teeth with hundreds of people/potential victims around me. I mean, seriously. You wonder why we question these security policies.
Anon sez - "The record of no plane, anywhere, being harmed by a shoe-bomb, regardless of what screening protocols (if any) were in place. Also known as the record TSA, and you, keep lying about."
Point out a lie for me. I merely recite facts to the posters here and correct myself if I am wrong. I have indicated that no plane has been reported to have had a shoe bomb go off and take it down or cause damage since Reid tried it. I also indicate that it is a fairly easy and relatively inexpensive way to damage and or injure people in the enclosed space in a plane - hence the screening protocols in place now. If technology allows us to change the policy, I will be the first one to applaud. Until then, this is the process we have in place to screen shoes.
West
TSA Blog Team
"Point out a lie for me."
This one, right here, West:
"I also indicate that it is a fairly easy and relatively inexpensive way to damage and or injure people in the enclosed space in a plane - hence the screening protocols in place now."
If it's so easy and inexpensive, why has no one tried it on any plane, anywhere on earth, since 2001? Why has it not been tried in countries that don't have a mandatory shoe carnival? The plain facts are proof that TSA's policy is a hysterical overreaction.
"If technology allows us to change the policy, I will be the first one to applaud. Until then, this is the process we have in place to screen shoes."
And the process is a pointless pile of nonsense based on lies and hysteria.
Why won't you ever answer the multiple questions about how you handle these supposedly dangerous liquids like they aren't dangerous at all?
Anon sez - "This one, right here, West:
"I also indicate that it is a fairly easy and relatively inexpensive way to damage and or injure people in the enclosed space in a plane - hence the screening protocols in place now."
If it's so easy and inexpensive, why has no one tried it on any plane, anywhere on earth, since 2001? Why has it not been tried in countries that don't have a mandatory shoe carnival? The plain facts are proof that TSA's policy is a hysterical overreaction.
"If technology allows us to change the policy, I will be the first one to applaud. Until then, this is the process we have in place to screen shoes."
And the process is a pointless pile of nonsense based on lies and hysteria."
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya "I don't think that means what you think it means...."
There was no lie in the above statements. It is a fairly inexpensive and fairly easy method of producing an explosion. Technically you could make a shoe bomb with all needed elements AND the shoes themselves, for less than $250 (and probably even less than that if you have really good black market contacts). Those are facts, and with a little bit of "google research" you could find all things needed for that amount.
Again with the argument that nothing has happened since Reid, therefore it is not something we need to concern ourselves with. This is a bad argument, simply because of it's stupidity. By using this thought process, we should allow all sorts of things on a plane that have not been used to create damage to people or planes in the last couple of years. The plain facts as you indicate are that a shoe stuffed with plastic explosives and a detonator would make it through the screening in place when Reid has his bungled attempt. More of the plain facts are that the shoe bomb he had would have probably killed a couple of people at least, and if he got astronomically lucky created a catastrophic failure of the aircraft (take into account that the probable outcome would have been himself and a couple of other passengers killed or injured badly, and a handful of other passengers with an assortment of injuries).
The process you refer to is the one that limits the ability of someone to get these items on the planes. Not lies or hysteria as you so wrongly claim.
West
TSA Blog Team
If everybody wants to complain about our incredulous rules and policies we could always just make it so nobody was allowed to bring anything aboard the aircraft while traveling. We could already have everything you need on board...well for a price anyways. I'd suggest the complaining stops before rules just get even more harsh.
I agree with Eric G. Have the passenger drink some. He won't do it if it is liquid explosives.
hello friend ,
in order to celebrate the Christmas coming
our company do promotions: before Christmas ，all bags only 27usd per when ordering 6 pcs items or more for your full order !
do not missing,rush to purchase at once !
look forward to business with you together happily !
www.shopping588.com
shopping588@hotmail.com
best regards
cindy
Internal scanning was mentioned somehwere. Let us revisit that.
X-Ray scanning is currently the best method of penetrating radiation that can be imaged, there is a tradeoff between radiation interaction (too high and you hurt the person) and image contrast. You can play with the voltage on the x-ray to get a more penetrating beam or what have you, but the higher you set it, the less you see. Eventually you balance contrast and interaction somewhere.
Assuming you can manufacture a devince that allows for a 2D projection, with sufficuently low energy to hurt someone, let us recall some physics. Firstly, x-rays interact as a function of density, and atomic number squared. Some pressurised hydrogen or chlorine gas, some finely ground beryllium or similar wont be visible to x-rays. Much less than carbon at any rate. Nor will most carbon containing compounds be visible, at least without significant exposure.
CAT scans work on low-density tissue because of the extremely high dose, which is probably not safe to be giving to everyone.
Internal scanning via X-ray does not work. You can try other radiations, perhaps.
Good on you for at least putting the Bulls Eye on your forehead, Bob. Maybe some of the venting happening here will do people some good... though I really wish they'd write somebody who could do something about it (state reps) instead of you. I think Mr. Munroe put that part nicely.
That said, I think the jig is up: the flying public realizes that a creative bad guy could easily disseminate his explosives through all the 3.4 oz containters then steal one of the airline's big plastic bottles for combinging them... or have his own container... or use something that doesn't need a pressure vessle to incite the blast... or he could get creative with laptop, batteries... or use more solid chems and disguise them as energy bars... or be creative and have somebody in his team of bad guys get a job on the inside to smuggle stuff in... or or or...
Anybody who travels often sees the holes, and they're everywhere. I think the point we're making, and we'd like the TSA to back us to the rule makers, is that we're punishing the people who have no ill intent. The laws need to be more reasonable for the travelling public with some realization that stopping these bad guys happens elsewhere than the metal detector.
We've been calling it Security Theater for good reasons.
The rules in airports do not make me feel safer for one reason- they do not work. I'm a grade 11 student, and I can think of at least one way right now to get a handgun onto an airplane in my carryon luggage- has anyone heard of a Farady pouch here? They're reasonably inexpensive, and generally availible. Heck, I could make one, given time and materials. A terrorist (someone with much more time to think about these things than me) could probably circumvent every rule in any given airport- I don't imagine that getting explosives past sniffers is very difficult. Stop making ineffective rules, or at least make them less obtrusive.
what's time consuming about taking a drink from a bottle?
TSORon said...
> Because cashmere sweaters don’t explode. Nor can they be made to, all y themselves.
You must have never heard of pyroxyline.
The rules and the security of getting on a plane has become very hard. You have to go through everything to make sure nothing violates the rules. A bottle of water is not that big of a deal, but it is in place for everyones protection. I travel a lot and I wish that rule was not there as anyone knows, buying drinks in an airport is expensive and over charged.
I believe that some restrictions are necessary. Given that I have family member who flies those planes, I'm happy to have restrictions that help keep him safe.
The restrictions are in place to make it harder to destroy a plane. Personally I would rather have some restrictions than none at all. Yes there are ways to smuggle weapons and bombs and stuff onto planes. The main point is that the FAA has made it harder for terrorists to kill you.
If you hate the restrictions that much, go to the Middle East and be a part of the solution...not just whine and complain about restrictions that are in place to try to save lives. Is five minuets of your time every time you fly really worth increasing the risk of even one person dying from a terrorist action? No. It will NEVER be an equal trade. So stop complaining about it and deal.
And if you think that there is a problem with the FAA trying to save lives, you should check out what the SEC did in 2008...absolutely nothing. They didn't even enforce their own rules against naked short selling until the global economy took a major hit. They just stood by while thousands or millions lost everything. Then they would not prosecute the 5 people in the world capable of the action that systematically decimated the banking corporations because he was "too politically powerful." Nobody should be above the law. Nobody.
I am glad to have read this about the spare batteries, I am getting ready to travel and want to make sure all my cameras and computer batteries have spares for the just in case moments.
"Sorry, but that was pretty much fixed by armoring and locking the cabin door."
Which, of course, also meant that when there was a compression problem on that flight over Greece and the pilots passed out, it was impossible for anyone to get into the cockpit in time to save everyone on board -- and since modern autopilots can even land planes, the steward who was alive could have.
Never forget the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Very cute cartoon. I think a lot of people can relate...
I think that all of this garbage is just to encourage travel so that the transport economy does not go down the toilet.
There is always a way to get around these checks and really the only ones inconvenienced are those that genuinely want to travel.
When a society is scared, no rule seems too idiotic even when it appears to be so.
If a monther can take a baby's bottle on providing she takes a drink to prove that it's OK, surely drinking some water would do the same? Or am I missing something?
Using the rational that someone tried to use some sort of bomb or explosives on a plane and got caught is not enough! These people did NOT succeed before these unconstitutional Orwellian measures were put into place, so I scoff at anybody who has the ignorance to say that these are necessary by any means. Peace.
That's interesting. Hey, how many "terrorists" have you caught? Huh? Anyone?
What sort of screening do you do of the passengers, personal items and cargo that are bound for private jets?
Just curious... what liquid explosive smells like water?
It only takes a "time intensive test" because the TSA refuses to use common sense.
I think that it's good that the TSA can have a sense of humor about it's job. As serious as the TSA's task is, a little laugh is what makes us human. thanks to you all.
The fact that the TSA feels the need to comment about a web comic is telling in and of itself. This is just a joke, poking fun at a policy many people fail to fully understand (myself included), no matter how many times it is insisted to us that it is necessary. Lighten up guys
3 packs of ion lithium battery can deliver an equivalence to a makeshift grenade, without fragmentation.
Tried it, blew my old computer case to pieces. It was awesome.
Are you sure you allow people to bring it on the plane, feds?
Post a Comment