TSA's Instagram Account Full Of Confiscated Weapons Photos Only Looks Like 'Safety'
from the appearances-still-preferred-to-results dept
News of the TSA's new Instagram account has been pinballing around the net. It's a violent hipster's dream, filled with heavily-filtered photos of confiscated weapons. One might be tempted to buy into the TSA's unspoken narrative that all these confiscations are making flying safer, but Cory Doctorow points out where that thought process hits a logical dead end.The TSA has launched an Instagram account, showing all the "dangerous items" theyThis is undeniable. If attempting to carry a weapon onboard is evidence of a true threat, we'd expect to see more would-be fliers headed off to prison, or at least arraigned on terrorism charges. But that's simply not happening. Instead, the weapons are confiscated and they face, at most, a felony charge for attempting to board a plane with a weapon.stealconfiscate from air travellers. The message is clear: we are keeping you safe from in-flight danger.
But what they don't show is all the grand-jury indictments for conspiracy to commit air terrorism that they secured after catching people with these items -- even the people who were packing guns.
That's because no one -- not the TSA, not the DAs, not the DHS -- believe that anyone who tries to board a plane with a dangerous item is actually planning on doing anything bad with them. After all, as New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler said (quoting Tom Wolfe), "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." So if there was any question about someone thinking of hurting a plane, you'd expect to see indictments.
This sort of thinking falls right in line with the TSA's liquids policy. Prohibited liquids are tossed into nearby trash receptacles, giving lie to the reasoning that the questionable liquid could be some sort of explosive. Throwing away potential bomb components a few feet from a frequently-crowded TSA checkpoint right on the concourse seems incredibly irresponsible if you truly believe the fluid is dangerous. The fact that this happens several times a day in hundreds of airports across the US proves that not even the TSA agents believe the confiscated liquids pose a threat.
The TSA agent Doctorow spoke with about these seizures said he didn't believe the people who'd had their weapons confiscated posed a threat. But he did come up with a rather novel theory as to why these confiscations took place.
"But," he said, "maybe someone who did want to crash the plane might take the bad thing away from them and attack it."Doctorow responded that this scenario seemed way too far-fetched to mesh with reality.
"That doesn't sound like a very reliable plan," I said. "If you were a terrorist and that was your plan, you'd have to spend a lot of time in the air waiting for someone to open his laptop bag and show you that he forgot to take his handgun out of it before he boarded."Based on recent history with would be terrorists, it's more likely the smuggled weapon would be used by passengers against the terrorists, rather than the other way around. This new Instagram account is just the TSA soft-selling its brand of "safety," but the implied narrative doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: confiscated items, instagram, security theater, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TSA's policies are effectively making airports less safe, which is the really scary part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Guess we need to have pre-security to get into airports now. But wait, what if we have someone intend to attack the massed people at THAT security point? Then I guess we just need another security checkpoint before that for THAT security point, and another for that, and another for that, and...
Oh shit, why not just install cameras in all our heads and monitor what we do all the time? Then they can DEFINATELY keep us all safe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's disappointing that a TSA spokesman, knowing that he's gonna be interviewed about seized items can't prepare a statement even half as reasonable sounding on the subject of seized items.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That or a baggage handler. Throw a Bad Thing(tm) onto many different airplanes and not even have to be there for the Bad Thing(tm) to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obedience Training
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obedience Training
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't worry
After all, how else are they going to catch terrorists ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know why they confiscate liquids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I know why they confiscate liquids
Never heard that one before. But it raises the obvious question: if that's true, why do they allow liquids to travel in checked luggage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I know why they confiscate liquids
Takes less than 10 seconds, and if they immediately start having a fit or object strongly, probably a good indicator that it's not a harmless liquid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I know why they confiscate liquids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I know why they confiscate liquids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I know why they confiscate liquids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I know why they confiscate liquids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many of the European air ports don't do this. Because it is easier with less hassle to go spend their money at resorts and tourists places around Europe, the US is loosing much of this holiday money. No matter, whether the flights leave the US or not, supposedly we are safer. /s
So how many more will now dodge the flight to the US rather than deal with all the privacy breaks now revealed the NSA does?
As a last thought on this mock security business, would any self respecting terrorist attempt to fly in anymore with guns and explosives? Why not do as McAfee revealed, fly into Belize, buying a new identity through corrupt officials that says your Bleizain, and go visit the drug lords for the way in. If they can do drugs into the US, they can sure do terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liquid explosives
The particular liquid explosives they're worried about are binary ones -- they come as two parts that have to be mixed to produce the explosive (kindof like contact cement, but with more bang). Throwing the confiscated liquids away doesn't present any increased danger as each individual component is not dangerous by itself.
That said, the whole thing is still a bit silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liquid explosives
Wouldn't it be useful for statistics purposes, or at least for crowing about another foiled plot, to identify these binary liquids anyway?
And are there any liquids that would be dangerous by themselves? If so, isn't it a problem to just worry about the binaries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Liquid explosives
It would be possible, but pointless. Not enough liquid would mix to be dangerous (outside of maybe starting a fire), and the reaction would not be contained in a pressure vessel.
Yes. Interestingly, the last time I flew, I accidentally left a small (6 ml) bottle of liquid in my pocket. Instead of throwing it away, they tested the contents and let me keep it once it passed.
There are such liquids (nitroglycerine, for example). But they tend to be unstable and not safe to carry around -- that's why they're made to be binary in the first place. An explosive is pointless if it goes off before you intend for it to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liquid explosives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liquid explosives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liquid explosives
But they're not by themselves, they're in the same rubbish bin! It's very unlikely any of these containers can be truly called 'leak proof'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liquid explosives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Safety and Convenience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety and Convenience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safety and Convenience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As per the NSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you have half a brain, (if so it's lonely), IF you carry a gun on a plane what fucking purpose is that gun for
why carry a gun on an aircraft, no they are probably not charged for terrorism, they are probably charged for carrying a concealed weapon.
But I will leave it up to you to work out why anyone would carry a gun, and for what purpose. Guns perform basically one function. If you can think of a reasonable excuse to want to carry one, or another function for that gun (apart from KILLING THINGS), you could possibly have a valid argument.
But what your saying is it's ok for people to take gun on planes, as long as they are charged for terrorism if they do.
And if they are not charged for terrorism, then again it's ok for them to carry guns on a plane.
I personally think you should all be issued guns, and the most likely person you will kill with it, IS YOURSELF or one of your family members.
But if it makes you feel like a MAN, it's a small price to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is another purpose for guns. It is called recreation and no that is not an euphemism for shooting at people.
Your next paragraph is word salad that makes even less sense then the preceding (or following) paragraphs.
Your experiment of handing out guns has already been done. Unfortunately the results do not bear out your prediction. Just ask the Swiss who hand out guns to their reserves to keep at home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contraband testing failure rate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have we ever seen a positive test?
Has the NSA ever actually detected and confiscated some liquid explosives?
I remember that a test group was able to get weapons onto the plane at one point, and they figured out how to get plastique past the pornoscan (or a pat down).
Has the liquids thing ever been tested?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is TSA being lobbied by corporations?
I sometimes even wonder if the airlines are in on it too. Come on, is that tiny little glass of water and ice enough to keep a human hydrated for a X hour flight?
The airlines allow cartridge razors, however ban safety razors (double edge). Safety razors provide a close shave and are extremely economical. I highly doubt someone could hold a safety razor in their hand and attack someone. It's almost the equivalent of saying a mechanical pencil could be used as a weapon. Gillette, BIC, etc... are they lobbying to keep old school safety razors out too as it would impact their cartridge razor sales?
Back to water bottles. If they could really contain a threat of explosive liquid lets just screen them. Our government spent millions of dollars on specially developed body scanning technology. How about they create a screening system to detect liquids in bottles. The person who invents it and their lobbyist friends can both get rich, we get to save $$$ brining water back on the plane again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]