A herd, not a pack

Thoreau:

All I ask is that the bureaucrats paid to harass me and violate my privacy do it with a bit of irony, and I’m willing to play ball. Irony about the crappitude of the situation gets me in a good mood. Giving orders and pulling the loyal citizen BS gets me in a bad mood.

Still, the good worker and peasant wasn’t as bad as the guy a few years ago who thought that he was apologizing when he said that it’s Richard Reid’s fault that I have to take off my shoes. Look, I’m not generally a fan of going batshit over terrorism, but even I would have to draw the line at letting Richard Reid give orders to the TSA. Yes, his IQ is well above that of most TSA employees, but I still think it sets a bad precedent to let him set policy.

Having a ridiculous reaction to something is not the fault of the person who did it--even if that person is a terrorist attempting horrific acts. I don't mind removing my shoes, particularly--indeed, my parents will testify that they had quite a problem teaching me to keep them on. I achieve minor renown in college for walking around Philadelphia barefoot all summer. But the act of moving in compliant herds through the TSA lines, mindlessly adhering to the most ridiculous procedures the government can think up, contributes to making us what Joseph Schumpeter called "state broken". Citizens should not acquire the habit of following orders with no good reason behind them.

My current obsession, however, is with the bizarre precision of our directives. This weekend, I contrived to accidentally fly to California sans luggage. Upon arrival, I had to spend an outrageous sum of money at Sephora (there being no nearby drugstore) replacing things like moisturizer, in which I was only comforted because the containers were all under four ounces. When I got to the airport to fly home, however, I was informed that the limit was 3.4 ounces, and that my expensively acquired toilette items were destined for the bin. I could, I was informed, check my bag--a suggestion that was made without much hope, since my new carry-on was a Macy's shopping bag.

How, exactly did we pick 3.4 ounces? What substance, exactly, will detonate at 3.5 ounces, but not 3.4--and also not when multiple 3.4 ounce containers are poured into a large receptacle? Such thoughts occupied my mind as I ruefully surrendered my contraband. Which I did not because I am state-broken, but because there was a gun behind the request.

Comments

I think it's because 3.4 ounces = 100 ml.

Posted by eh | April 18, 2008 10:58 AM

The liquids ban became particularly galling after we learned that the terrorist plot actually involving liquid bombs had no chance of ever succeeding, and in fact the Al Qaeda-wannabes in question had never developed anything close to an operable liquid bomb.

Posted by Freddie | April 18, 2008 11:05 AM

Thought experiment:

Go see some investment bankers. Tell them you raise money for a new airline that doesn't employ security measures, except when Megan McArdle and thoreau think they're appropriate.

Go see some insurance companies. Tell them about the airline you are starting, and line up property and casualty insurance for any losses to terrorism.

Set up an on-line ticket site. Note prominently that this airline doesn't have security measures, thus the lines are shorter plus you don't have to deal with high school graduates performing routine tasks.

Does anyone seriously think that you could get financing, insurance and customers on this basis? Are you crazy? So why this whining about the government?

Posted by y81 | April 18, 2008 11:17 AM

Presumably, y81, the bankers, insurance companies and passengers would care whether effective security measures are in place. The liquids ban and taking-off-your-shoes farce do nothing to make anyone safer. I don't mind doing things before getting on a plane that make us all safer; I mind doing things for no reason but appearances.

Posted by Freddie | April 18, 2008 11:22 AM

I don't know about financing and insurance. Companies tend to be super risk-averse due to law suits over evenything and nothing.

But if you advertised that your security measures were limited to a) reinforced cockpit doors, and b) the occasional presence of armed air marshals, plus maybe a visual check for rifles, etc.? Oh yes, she'd get passengers. Me, for one.

Posted by wj | April 18, 2008 11:26 AM

Also, I can't, because FAA regulations would forbid it.

Posted by Megan McArdle | April 18, 2008 11:28 AM

"Which I did not because I am state-broken, but because there was a gun behind the request."

What's disappointing is that you think there's a difference between the two.

Posted by mith | April 18, 2008 11:31 AM

Back when this policy was new, I asked a screener, "volume or weight?" He said, "Huh?" I answered that "ounces" in English units were both a measure of volume and weight, and for most substances these two numbers would be different.

The screener looked more puzzled, but then eventually answered "volume." I believe this was the correct answer, because the rules talk of "3 oz containers" which only make sense in the context of volume.

So, having gotten the "volume" answer I expected (though with more puzzlement than I anticipated) I then pointed out that the toothpaste he was attempting to confiscate for the good of the Republic was actually measured in ounces of weight. The toothpaste was "net wt. 4 oz." So I Observed that the volume was much less than 4 ounces, so I should keep it.

After staring at me, and I think wondering if he could shoot me, the screener gave an answer right our of Spinal Tap: "But it says 4 ounces." (But it goes to 11!)

Anyway, I let him have my contraband toothpaste and moved on, not wishing to get detained or make the no-fly list. But it was absolutely clear that whoever crafted and disseminated the policy did not know the difference between weight and volume. I still to this day meet screeners who don't understand the difference. Though since then I have seen airlines amend their web sites to say "weight or volume" thought the department of Homeland security has never added any such clarification to their web site.

Posted by coyote | April 18, 2008 11:32 AM

I would imagine, FAA allowing, an airline with otherwise customer-friendly security measures, with the exception of close scrutiny of manifests via very IT-intensive passenger profiling, plus heavily reinforced cockpit doors and trained marshals, would get plenty of offers for financing and insurance. They'd probably become the preferred carrier for business travel, and thus command greater revenue per seat mile than competitors.

Posted by Will Allen | April 18, 2008 11:38 AM

At JFK this winter, they confiscated a near-empty tube of toothpaste from me because the tube had originally had a capacity greater than 3.5 ounces.

It was funny, because when they started clustering around the machine and tut-tutting over my bag, I figured it was my Zippo they were after. But it seems that naphtha's no big deal, when democracy is threatened by the ghost of 3.6 ounces of toothpaste.

To be fair, it was baking soda toothpaste. God help the Republic if I'd contrived to get my hands on some vinegar...

Posted by McNamara | April 18, 2008 11:39 AM

What I find especially unattractive is a bunch of rich and well-educated people mocking and deriding the high school graduates who have been hired for the rather boring work of airport screening.

In fact, here's a solution that actually could be legally implemented: start an airline and hire only top ten law school graduates to man the security lines. Run advertisements assuring the customers that your screeners can make witty ripostes to "good German" slurs, engage in banter about weight versus volume, will have done the reading such that they can explain that 3.4 oz. equals 100 mll., etc. You'll have to pay these people $200,000 a year, which will add $100 or so to the price of each ticket, and the lines will be actually be slower as each prima donna seeks his or her own explanation of the rules, but with an assured customer base among snotty libertarians, you'll be rolling in dough.

Posted by y81 | April 18, 2008 11:44 AM

y81, you misunderstand me. I'm not mocking the TSA people . . . though now that you mention it, Thoreau kind of is in a way that I don't like. I'm mocking the people who make the rules and force the TSA people to slavishly follow them. I'm generally in favor of more bureaucratic discretion, and I think that most TSA people can be trusted to allow .1 extra ounce of moisturizer on the plane.

Posted by Megan McArdle | April 18, 2008 11:50 AM

y81, what I find especially unattractive is an entire apparatus constructed for purpose of giving the appearance of security, as opposed to actualy security, thus employing people to engage in useless tasks, as opposed to productive labor. On the ol' unattractometer, I'd say my peeve moves the needle further to the right than your peeve.

Posted by Will Allen | April 18, 2008 11:50 AM

I don't mind doing things before getting on a plane that make us all safer; I mind doing things for no reason but appearances.

It's government-sponsored art, Freddie. The TSA is exploring the ambiguities surrounding the exchange of liberty for security, and seeking to provoke a reaction and start dialogue. Your reaction is the performance.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 18, 2008 12:01 PM

Man, I'm bored at work today. So I googled a bit about this. Did you know there is a TSA blog? And they write about Megan's very question: here. Here's an excerpt:

We reduce risk by deciding what we believe is necessary for a completed bomb -- the core of the 100ml (3.4 ounce) limit. Extensive testing began the morning of August 10, 2006 -- the day the liquids plot was made public -- to determine if there is a level at which any liquid brought onboard a plane represents little risk.

Posted by Al | April 18, 2008 12:10 PM

Will said

"I would imagine, FAA allowing, an airline with otherwise customer-friendly security measures, with the exception of close scrutiny of manifests via very IT-intensive passenger profiling, plus heavily reinforced cockpit doors and trained marshals, would get plenty of offers for financing and insurance. They'd probably become the preferred carrier for business travel, and thus command greater revenue per seat mile than competitors."

This exists, it's the charter bizjet industry, also spinning off into fractional ownership deals (see dayjets, netjets, etc.). And as you expect it is the preferred mode of travel for anyone who can remotely justify the expense.

Unsurprisingly the major airlines are trying to get it legislated out of existence which is why you may have seen adverts and editorials about how "general aviation" is causing the airline delays and how the government needs to levy fees and beef up security requirements on charter flights.

Posted by BladeDoc | April 18, 2008 1:11 PM

Bravo, y81.

I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person, but too much invective is directed at the TSA screeners who are just trying to do their jobs in the face of weisenheimers like Coyote. I'm disappointed that Ms. McArdle has chosen to highlight Coyote's comment on the front page of her blog.

If you're so clever, then you should be able to find your way to your local chain drugstore and buy products or containers from the "travel size" section, or buy what you need when you get where you're going. Then you won't have to show off how much better-educated you are than the screeners, or expect them to guess exactly how much toothpaste is left in your tube, while everybody else in line behind you is just waiting to get on the frickin' plane. You're not making the flying experience any better for anybody.

Posted by MTS | April 18, 2008 1:30 PM

"The TSA is exploring the ambiguities surrounding the exchange of liberty for security, and seeking to provoke a reaction and start dialogue."
--Rob Lyman

RL,

I hope you know, whether you were being flippant, or not, that, you are, indeed, correct..

Posted by MEH | April 18, 2008 1:33 PM

y81 and MTS -

Gotta say that you're wrong here.

I think that having guys in line asking trick questions and being dicks is actually a positive.

If the TSA's regulations are unreasonable, the best thing anyone can do is make sure that they are as unpleasant for everyone as possible.

There will be no incentive for anyone to not issue foolish regulations if citizens exert themselves to find a way to make those regulations work. By thinking hard about finding ways to comply with the TSA for the sake of the guy in line behind you, you are enabling the TSA in its foolishness and in the long run fucking over everyone in every line everywhere.

Posted by Brian | April 18, 2008 2:02 PM

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/

For those of you unaware of their blog...they actually had a great discussion on their reasoning behind the 3oz rule awhile back. Some insight into their thought processes.

Comments are hilarious.

Posted by Geoff | April 18, 2008 2:16 PM

For those of you unaware of their blog...they actually had a great discussion on their reasoning behind the 3oz rule awhile back.

Uh, which discussion I linked directly to above.

Posted by Al | April 18, 2008 2:30 PM

To those of you scoffing at the possibility of terrorists detonating a bomb, made from liquids brought on-board a plane:

On December 11, 1994, Ramzi Yousef managed to detonate just such a bomb on Phillipine Airlines flight 434. It killed one passenger, reportedly ripping his body in half. It seriously damaged the plane, but did not bring it down. Although this bomb did not accomplish the goal of destroying the plane, it clearly IS possible to do so, with large enough quantities of liquids.

Wikipedia has a fair description of the event, but you can probably find more details elsewhere.

I think that the attitude of people who want to simply pretend that these risks do not exist is appalling. The security measures may not be absolutely the best that could be devised, but they are not without basis. And railing at the workers who are simply trying to enforce the rules to protect you is disgusting behavior.

Posted by UncleBill | April 18, 2008 3:19 PM

But if you advertised that your security measures were limited to a) reinforced cockpit doors, and b) the occasional presence of armed air marshals, plus maybe a visual check for rifles, etc.? Oh yes, she'd get passengers. Me, for one.

Me as well.

Posted by Dan | April 18, 2008 3:59 PM

Megan, when was the last time you posted about infringement of liberties such as the prevention of gay marriage? You have THREE posts today about how airport security = big brother when all it does is possibly waste some of your time.

God, your priorities are so warped.

Posted by NutellaonToast | April 18, 2008 4:13 PM

infringement of liberties such as the prevention of gay marriage

You must be going to one of the lefty "reframing the issues" seminars which attempt to redefine common words so people will vote for Democrats. Good luck with that. (And mind, I favor gay marriage. I just don't confuse the unavailability of a benefit with the infringement of a right)

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 18, 2008 5:11 PM

when was the last time you posted about infringement of liberties such as the prevention of gay marriage

Since when is the refusal of church or state to pay any mind to the pretensions of a subset of the homosexual population an 'infringement of liberties'? You can have all the camp ceremonies you want in your backyard. The state is under no obligation to append enforceable entitlements to them and your neighbors are under no obligation to invent terminology to describe the participants afterward.

Posted by Art Deco | April 18, 2008 5:26 PM

Rob, I'm not arguing the airline security issue. I'm arguing the Megan has warped priorities issue.

Art, unequal treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals is homophobic. Glad to hear you're homophobic. Alternatively, glad to hear you're too stupid to realize what homophobia is.

Posted by NutellaonToast | April 18, 2008 5:36 PM

Art, unequal treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals is homophobic.

And not an infringement of your liberties or anyone else's.

Posted by Art Deco | April 18, 2008 5:42 PM

Nut,

why not dial-up H.R. 1955 or S. 1959

or, try (877)RENT-A-CLU: http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=H.R.+1955

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955

if 'homophobia' was the extent of what could be concerning us, we'd think we were back in Eden..

Posted by MEH | April 18, 2008 5:48 PM

Art, except for, of course, those homosexuals, who I guess don't count?

MEH, you're retarded. I never said only focus on gay marriage. I am saying that the importance of gay marriage >> waiting in line at the airport.

For fuck's sake, how do you people even breathe?

Posted by NutellaonToast | April 18, 2008 5:53 PM

The liquids ban became particularly galling after we learned that the terrorist plot actually involving liquid bombs had no chance of ever succeeding, and in fact the Al Qaeda-wannabes in question had never developed anything close to an operable liquid bomb.

Really, it's not a question of whether the common ingredients they attempted to use were capable of producing a bomb; it's a question of whether someone could disguise usable chemicals as something else. UncleBill, above, referenced PA434. From Wikipedia:

"United States prosecutors said the device was a 'Mark II' 'microbomb' constructed using Casio digital watches as described in Phase I of The Bojinka Plot of which this was a test. On Flight 434, Yousef used one tenth of the explosive power he planned to use on eleven U.S. airliners in January 1995. The bomb was, or at least all of its components were, designed to slip through airport security checks undetected. The explosive used was liquid nitroglycerin, which was disguised as a bottle of contact lens fluid. Other ingredients included glycerin, nitrate, sulfuric acid, and minute concentrations of nitrobenzene, silver azide (silver trinitride), and liquid acetone. The wires he used were hidden in the heel of his shoe. At that time, metal detectors used in airports did not go down far enough to detect anything there."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434

What's that, you say? 3.4 ounces and take off my shoes? Sure, why not.

I tend to think the ban on small souvenir knives and such is the more foolish one, because some enterprising terrorist could fashion and obscure a polycarbonate knife the size of a small machette inside of the frame of a lightly modified laptop. And he would still fail at taking down the plane for the same reason as Richard Reid: Dogpile.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | April 18, 2008 5:56 PM

Personally, I think that every single passenger should be issued a billy club when they get on the plane. Or maybe have them drop down out of the overhead bins when someone pushes a button.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | April 18, 2008 6:04 PM

Nut,

bone up on your reading skills, as well.

note: "if 'homophobia' was the extent of.."

it's a conditional phrase..

conditional Of, relating to, or containing a clause that expresses a condition, that is, a circumstance that is necessary for something else to happen. Conditional clauses usually begin with if, unless, provided that, or a similar conjunction. Conditional sentences are sentences that contain conditional clauses: If it starts to rain, we will have to leave. We cannot go to the beach unless he lends us his car.
http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html

Posted by MEH | April 18, 2008 6:07 PM

Rob, I'm not arguing the airline security issue. I'm arguing the Megan has warped priorities issue.

And I'm arguing the abuse of language issue. "Infringement" applies to "rights," which gay marriage is only in the sense that a tax deduction is a "right," ie, not really. But certainly if you can succeed in framing it that way, people will be more likely to support it, because nobody likes to take away rights. Which--and now we come to the heart of the matter now--is the genesis of my comment about Lakoffian language seminars.

I'm sure you disagree with me, and my comment was a little pointless from that perspective. Maybe I was just channeling the mouse for a while there.

Posted by Rob Lyman | April 18, 2008 6:10 PM

I'm sure you disagree with me, and my comment was a little pointless from that perspective. Maybe I was just channeling the mouse for a while there.

I made you say that.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | April 18, 2008 6:28 PM

"Which I did not because I am state-broken, but because there was a gun behind the request."

No, you did it voluntarily. The choice wasn't give up the bottles or get shot, it was give up the bottles, or go on your merry way, but just don't get on the airplane.

If, however, you tried to get on the airplane without giving up the bottles, then there would be a gun to your head.

Posted by Rob | April 18, 2008 6:59 PM

Art, except for, of course, those homosexuals, who I guess don't count?

If you or they are of the view that me withholding my good opinion is an 'infringement of [their] liberties', your point would make sense.

Posted by Art Deco | April 18, 2008 7:15 PM

I think that the attitude of people who want to simply pretend that these risks do not exist is appalling. The security measures may not be absolutely the best that could be devised, but they are not without basis. And railing at the workers who are simply trying to enforce the rules to protect you is disgusting behavior.

The workers are there because they didn't do very well in school so the only jobs they could get were with the government. They're "simply trying to enforce the rules" because they're paid to do it. They're not there "to protect you." If the TSA passed a rule requiring you to hop on one leg and sing Farmer in the Dell, they'd blindly enforce that rule, too.

The liquids ban has nothing to do with Philippine Air 434, as evidenced by the fact that the ban was put in place after a joke of a plot in Britain in 2006, not in 1994. You'll notice that there was no such ban for 12 years after Philippine Air 434, and nothing happened.

Posted by David Nieporent | April 18, 2008 8:15 PM

I flew back from the east coast to California last week, and I simply forgot to gather my "liquid contraband" into a clear plastic baggie for separate inspection. There were tubes of toothpaste, lotion, etc. scattered all through my luggage. The TSA x-ray reader didn't notice any of them.

The thing that really annoyed me was the period (thankfully over) that the TSA wanted to check women's breasts for explosives in the bra. I noticed that the "random" checks ALWAYS selected young, good looking women for that obnoxious experience. (You'd think an overweight woman with large breasts would find it easier to conceal a bomb...)

Posted by Anne E | April 19, 2008 6:03 PM