Hacker News Reader

Comment by nisse72 | Hacker News Reader

Related, after telling us for years how dangerous it would be if people flew with more than 100 ml of liquid, it's now allowed (i.e. no longer dangerous?) to carry a larger quantity of hand sanitizer because of coronavirus:

https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2020/04/15/tsas-tips...

View on HN

That is a topic in itself - everything the TSA does is pure security theater. There was never any danger from liquids nor any effort to prevent groups of people from coordinating to bring in a larger quantity. There is no explanation why 8oz of milk is dangerous and 8oz of cheese is not, nor why ice continues to be dangerous even though not a liquid, nor any explanation why the bbq sauce on the pulled pork sandwich I’m bringing on is magically not dangerous even though there is more then 100ml of it. I’m convinced it’s more or less a plot to sell $7 sodas in the terminals.

Batteries were dangerous and had to be removed until Apple started making devices without removable batteries then magically they are not dangerous anymore. Next you had to start turning your devices on as-if somehow it was impossible to make something dangerous that didn’t turn on. Security theater.

I used to have to take my belt and shoes off every time I passed through security but because I paid a $120 fee now I’m not dangerous anymore and can walk through security. I get to skip to the head if the line at the security checkpoints and coming back from international flights I get to breeze through the diplomatic lane at JFK (you can too! https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-programs/global-...) Security theater.

I could go on for a while.

TTP is capitalism at its finest. Let's make the normal process so terrible so that we can charge extra for people to be treated normally.

And then you have services like Clear which is basically legalizing corruption. Instead of slipping the agent $20 to go to the front of line, it's legitimized so that you can do it without any stigma.

When circumstances change, risk profiles and trade offs change. News at 11. I mean you can rage about the unlikeliness of people concocting explosives from various liquids, but that is entirely besides the point here.

I, personally, would prefer to rage at the fact that the TSA has managed to export that liquid rule to everyone else in the world. I don't see why, when flying from Ontatio to Quebec, I need to follow the TSA's security theatre.

Though I agree that's also besides the point.

Same deal: Once the US did it, anyone else who didn't do it could now be blamed more.

Also see https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

True, but I think it isn't besides the point - the argument is the (global) risk profile hasn't changed all that much. The risk profile to the rule maker specifically has changed, in favour of them not simply maintaining established process.

Ideally, we wouldn't have to wait for a pandemic or other crisis to overcome this managerial hysteresis. Of course, if the rule is reinstated after a few months, or if a plane is brought down with 125 mL of liquid in a few years, then you're right - it's a rational rebalancing.

In Europe (did a lot of flying lately) the 100ml still stands for sanitizers. You can go over the 100ml only if you got a baby with you and they allow the water/milk for the baby.

Funny thing is: once you travel with a baby, basically anything goes. 1L water bottle? no questions asked. Even though the baby won't drink 1L of water on a 2-hours flight.

The whole restriction on liquids is fairly ridiculous, and even more of a security theater than most of the other checks. And I think the security guards know it, and use any excuse to look the other way.

Most attackers aren't that smart. Rules like this prevent many from trying an attack as it's much harder to perform an attack if you have to take your baby with you. No one ever said the 100ml rule was good, it was just the best alternative they could come up with.

To be fair, traveling with a baby makes you much less likely to attack a plane.

This exception makes the TSA's policy more pragmatic and reasonable.

The harm of denying a baby milk or formula is worse than the risk of terrorism in this case. Not to mention is that it lowers the incidence of crying babies on flight.

The same logic could be applied to hand sanitizer restrictions in a global pandemic. Allowing people to carry a larger size could save more lives than the risk it poses. This is especially true when shortages can make it difficult to buy a travel size.

"traveling with a baby makes you much less likely to attack a plane"

Why would that be the case?

Statistically speaking, most people who travel with babies travel with their own babies, and strong parental instincts prevents most humans from putting their babies into mortal danger. So, traveling with a baby and attacking the plane you're on is very low probability.

As an aside sounds like we would be doing away with the whole bin show, this is great if it stays through:

>Tip 5: Place items from your pockets into your carry-on bag. Prior to going through the security checkpoint, take the items from your pockets and place them into your carry-on bag so that you don’t have to place them in a bin. Remove the keys, tissues, lip balm, loose change, breath mints, mobile phone and anything else from your pockets and place them right into your carry-on bag.

There was always a medical exception, e.g. for lens solution.

However, most TSA agents do not know this unless you tell them it's a medical exception, and then they will ask a supervisor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com