Economist Explains How Much Innovation Is Being Held Back: Says We Need To Fix The Patent System

TSA's Instagram Account Full Of Confiscated Weapons Photos Only Looks Like 'Safety'

from the appearances-still-preferred-to-results dept

Tue, Jul 9th 2013 12:04pm — Tim Cushing

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" they ~~steal~~ confiscate 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 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.

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

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 12:13pm

Isn't the point the attempts that aren't made? Meaning the potential terrorists who are are intimidated, knowing how paranoid the regulations are?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord Binky, 9 Jul 2013 @ 12:17pm

I would think the most likely thing for a terrorist to do is become a TSA agent.

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 thread ]
Applesauce, 9 Jul 2013 @ 12:33pm

Obedience Training
By now, we should all understand that the TSA's purpose is not air travel safety but is obedience training for the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Brand, 9 Jul 2013 @ 12:41pm

Don't worry
I'm sure the FBI have plenty of people flying around, carefully opening their bags so that their Muslim neighbors can see that they are carrying weapons. They probably make a point of saying things like "I sure nobody on this plane tries to force it to fly into a major tourist attraction, don't you ?".

After all, how else are they going to catch terrorists ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 12:49pm

it's just more of the same old shit trying to legitimize a process that does nothing except delay both people and flights. if the sophisticated scanners etc that are already being used to eliminate terrorist attacks dont work, i very much doubt that all the TSA officers on duty at any one time is likely to eliminate an attack either. more than anything, in true USA fashion, it's a show put on to demonstrate that it can do it (waste time and money, find non-dangerous items and delay flights), so it will do it! what other airports world wide have gone to these lengths and found them to be productive?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 12:50pm

Re:
The regulations aren't even paranoid, they're just braindead. As mentioned, confiscated liquids are just tossed into the trash with no attempt made to determine if they actually are dangerous. If I was a potential terrorist, taking out a single plane is small-time. At the most I'd be able to get air traffic grounded for a short time, but more than likely it'd be treated as any other plane crash. If I wanted to do damage, I'd target the airports themselves. Air traffic definitely would be grounded for a longer period of time, and, if it's a large enough airport, a huge volume of traffic would be impeded as the airport was undergoing reconstruction. To top it all off, I'd probably be able to get away with it scot-free if I knew what I was doing: since everything is just tossed in the trash, they'd have no way of knowing what among it was responsible.

TSA's policies are effectively making airports less safe, which is the really scary part.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 12:57pm

Re: Re:
That is exactly what I was thinking as I read this article. With all these regulations and slow security checkpoints, it's reasonable to think that there are now more people crammed into a small confined area BEFORE security (such as the line for security) that would be a prime spot for an explosion. It could cause more human life damage than a single plane falling, isn't currently preventable, and would shut that airport down for months.

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 thread ]
Rob, 9 Jul 2013 @ 12:59pm

Re:
That would certainly be a better response to Doctorow's question than the cockamamie theory that terrorists are just waiting for someone else to accidentally get on a plane with something dangerous.

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 thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 1:09pm

The filters make the weapons look scary, therefore we all must fear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 9 Jul 2013 @ 1:15pm

I know why they confiscate liquids
I saw an episode of Locked Up Abroad where they liquified heroin and smuggled it in water bottles. They got away with it for years before being caught. It has NOTHING to do with airline safety and everything to do with stopping people from smuggling more than 3 oz of heroin.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 1:21pm

With all this business of trying to make it look like all the stage theater of security is doing it's job, no one is talking about how the US is becoming a place tourists don't want to visit by choice. Thus dodging all the crap with the TSA.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 1:39pm

Liquid explosives
Prohibited liquids are tossed into nearby trash receptacles, giving lie to the reasoning that the questionable liquid could be some sort of explosive.

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 thread ]
RP, 9 Jul 2013 @ 1:45pm

Safety and Convenience
It's pretty inconvenient to board a plane with all these checkpoints. It feels like going into a maximum security prison. Flying is just not what it used to be. The terrorists are winning just by costing the government more money in carrying out these security checks. It's a catch 22.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 1:49pm

Re:
That or a baggage handler.
But the background checks are so strict that's impossible!
/sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 1:54pm

Re: Safety and Convenience
Not really a catch 22, since there's not loss of actual safety by dropping these ridiculous policies. None of the post-9/11 policies have made us safer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 1:55pm

Re: Liquid explosives
Would it be possible to set up a couple of bottles to leak after being thrown away and having a sufficient amount of the explosives mix in the trash receptacle?

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 thread ]
Lord Binky, 9 Jul 2013 @ 1:56pm

Re: Liquid explosives
Unless they throw away TWO bottles with each of the liquids in them or two people throw one bottle in each... The bottles could be leaky or whatever is necessary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 2:20pm

Re: Re: Liquid explosives
Would it be possible to set up a couple of bottles to leak after being thrown away and having a sufficient amount of the explosives mix in the trash receptacle?

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.

Wouldn't it be useful for statistics purposes, or at least for crowing about another foiled plot, to identify these binary liquids anyway?

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.

And are there any liquids that would be dangerous by themselves? If so, isn't it a problem to just worry about the binaries?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 2:24pm

Seems about right, I mean the TSA will blow someones head off for trying to board with a pair of clippers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 2:40pm

As per the NSA
The first order of the TSA is the continued survival of the TSA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 2:56pm

This 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.

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 thread ]
Sheogorath (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 3:20pm

Re: Re: Safety and Convenience
Pr�cis�ment. All they've done is allow the terrorists to win by making 'security' personnel terrorise people in their stead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 3:37pm

Re: I know why they confiscate liquids
It has NOTHING to do with airline safety and everything to do with stopping people from smuggling more than 3 oz of heroin.

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 thread ]
Who Cares (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 3:44pm

Re:
Seems you are missing a brain. There is a simple reason to bring a gun onto a plane. To carry it from A to B while it just being of the right size to fit in the hand/carry on luggage class.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 4:18pm

Re:
Just another brainless attack on the Second Amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 6:11pm

Re: Obedience Training
Exactly!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 6:13pm

Re: Liquid explosives
They still aren't being charged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 7:47pm

Re: Liquid explosives
"Throwing the confiscated liquids away doesn't present any increased danger as each individual component is not dangerous by itself."

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 7:54pm

Re: I know why they confiscate liquids
Would think a simple way to counter that would be to make the owner of the container take a sip and swallow it.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 10:50pm

Re: Liquid explosives
Unless there's a container inside a container waiting for a jolt(like tossing it) to break the inner part and mix the 2 components.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andy (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 11:34pm

Re: Re: I know why they confiscate liquids
I'd rather not carry liquids in hand luggage than be forced to sip contact lens cleaner, sun lotion or whatever else I might otherwise carry that might not be drinkable, thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Jul 2013 @ 4:00am

Re: Re: Re: I know why they confiscate liquids
Point, it's not quite a good solution, but it would be better I'd think that the current 'Just dump it straight into the trash' policy they've got now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wolfy, 10 Jul 2013 @ 4:48am

You are under more of a threat from your own government, than you are from a religious idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2013 @ 6:03am

Re: I know why they confiscate liquids
People smuggle things in their rectums. Should we not allow assholes on planes too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2013 @ 10:05am

Re: Re: I know why they confiscate liquids
Define Asshole ..lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Cream, 10 Jul 2013 @ 10:46am

Contraband testing failure rate
Another thing they are tacitly saying is since we fail to find half the contraband items during testing, there are just as many of these things going on-board as not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Jul 2013 @ 11:40am

Have we ever seen a positive test?
A drill, perhaps?

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 thread ]
Nico, 20 Dec 2013 @ 10:55pm

Is TSA being lobbied by corporations?
Have you considered that the ban on liquids, which at the moment really covers bottled water, is really being pushed by airport vendors like "Hudson News"? It would seem these vendors have a significant amount of revenue to lose if our water bottles could make it through security.

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 thread ]