
TSA Response to XKCD “Bag Check” Cartoon - MikeCapone
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/response-to-bag-check-cartoon.html
======
inerte
Funny. (you probably know this but) The cartoon isn't about if batteries are
more dangerous than water bottles or even a jab on the TSA policies about
grading the danger of stuff, it's about how nerds will dig their own graves
because it's on our nature to point flaws, to improve a system/process, and
how detached from the way relationships work (specially these of power, like
employer/employee) we can be. In other words, how reason and logic tramples
everything else.

At least this is how the cartoon resonated with me.

But hey, we all look at our own bellies.

~~~
codexon
We may all be thanking Randall in the near future for being unable to use
laptops while flying.

~~~
notauser
Our only hope is that someone uses the TSA to blow up an aeroplane - the
resulting paradox should cause them all to vanish in a puff of logic :-)

------
khafra
Direct link to Randall's comment: [http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/response-
to-bag-check-cartoo...](http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/response-to-bag-check-
cartoon.html?showComment=1256333115980#c9173728821851325302)

~~~
lbrandy
Randall's comment is simultaneously correct and misleading on a particular
point. A laptop battery may have quite a bit of energy density, but that's not
entirely relevant, as he points out in the next sentence. The speed at which
the energy is released is far, far more important.

I provided that remark just so I could repeat this awesome factoid: a stick of
butter has more energy than a stick of dynamite.

~~~
camccann
_A laptop battery may have quite a bit of energy density, but that's not
entirely relevant, as he points out in the next sentence. The speed at which
the energy is released is far, far more important._

Remember all those news stories a few years back about Dell laptops bursting
violently into flames?

~~~
electromagnetic
Assuming you could sneak a supercap onto a plane (roughly 30Wh/kg), using the
maximum of your carry-on-weight and not exceeding it (usually ~10kg), you can
easily have an energy potential equivalent to ~1/2 a stick of dynamite. How
much you'll get out in the form of explosive force is debatable, but is
certainly to be an order of magnitude above a battery as the discharge rates
are several orders of magnitude faster.

However, the expected explosive force of home made liquid explosives is only
on the scale of a stick of dynamite, it's certainly less obvious though.

Both explosions randomly placed are unlikely to down a plane, and are likely
to be better used breaking into the cockpit than actually downing the plane.

I believe almost a 1/3 KWh high voltage power source could be of much more use
than in its explosive force for an organised terrorist attack. However, most
anti-terrorism procedures aren't designed to prevent organised terrorists,
they're designed to prevent the many more morons with access to explosives.

------
gort
Good grief, could they miss the point any further?

"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."

The relevant question is whether the batteries are enough to cause an
explosion that could bring down a plane; not whether batteries are more
dangerous than water.

~~~
tlrobinson
I feel like TSA must _know_ they're running a security theater operation, and
this post was to defuse (no pun intended) any public concern about laptop
batteries so they don't have to go and ban them too...

~~~
ars
They for sure know.

What would you do if you were charged with preventing someone from smuggling a
weapon onto an airplane, while at the same not not inconveniencing people, and
also while being denied, as illegal, the only tool that actually works
(profiling)?

They are being given an impossible job. Not hard. Impossible. They don't have
a choice except to do security theater.

~~~
jfager
I would install metal detectors, x-ray luggage, randomly search people and
bags as often as my resources reasonably allowed, use bomb-sniffing dogs, and
use law enforcement and intelligence agencies to try to prevent terrorist
groups from showing up at the airport in the first place. I would train my
security personnel to be on the lookout for suspicious behavior while
recognizing that most acts of terrorism in the United States have been
committed by white males, and that terrorism is a statistical outlier in every
demographic.

That's just me. You're right, though, institutionally mandated racism would
probably be way more effective.

~~~
ars
And I'll bring a flour bomb on board, and your detectors will never find it.
Or I could replace half the batteries on my laptop with a bomb, then seal it
so the dog can't smell it, and the searcher will never realize it's there.

You are far overestimating how good detectors and searching is. They are
already doing all your suggestions, so I guess you are happy with them.

Profiling is effective. Israel does it. If you are a family traveling with
kids, they just ask you some questions. Alone? They check more. Arab an alone?
Be prepared for a full search. Arab, but with a family? Not as much of a
search.

Yes it sucks for the Arabs, no question about it. But it works. And it would
never fly in the US. There are many things that work, but have enough
drawbacks they will never be used.

You can say profiling has too many drawbacks, and I'll agree with you. But
don't say it's not effective.

~~~
jfager
_You are far overestimating how good detectors and searching is._

No, I'm not, which is why I'm doing all the other stuff, too.

 _They are already doing all your suggestions, so I guess you are happy with
them._

Yeah, actually, I think a lot of what the TSA does is completely reasonable
and, when executed properly, effective. The fact that some policies are stupid
theater does not mean all are.

 _Profiling is effective. Israel does it._

The United States isn't Israel, we have extremists of all colors and creeds,
and terrorist acts here by any one group are rare enough that particular
instances can't really be taken as indicators of who will be exclusively
trying to do it in the future.

------
nostrademons
There is such an easy way to get around the "well, it might be a liquid bomb"
problem...

Have people drink from any water bottles they're taking on board.

If someone managed to make a liquid that's simultaneously explosive and non-
toxic enough to be ingested, we have bigger problems, namely ingested bombs.
Heck, I can just imagine some terrorist swallowing a condom full of
explosives, then lighting the detonator wires hanging from his butt.

Maybe then they would have to ban assholes on planes.

~~~
mbreese
This isn't a good option either. It would be possible to have a bottle that
was lined in such a way as to have drinking water and an explosive in the same
container. Or, perhaps the explosive is denser than water and non-polar... if
this is the case, you could add enough water to make it drinkable, and still
have the explosive available.

~~~
nostrademons
Hence the asshole comment. You can _always_ find a way to smuggle a bomb onto
a plane. Limiting case: swallow a condom full of plastic explosives and shit
it out in the restroom, the same way drug mules carry cocaine or heroin.
There's no real way to stop this short of X-raying every traveler.

The questions the TSA _should_ be asking are:

1.) What is the likelihood that a potential terrorist will use this means of
smuggling weapons on board?

2.) How effectively can our screening procedures catch weapons, given that
they exist?

3.) How much inconvenience does this cost passengers?

People had little problem with metal detectors and X-rays, because 1.) your
clothes and carry on luggage are the natural hiding places for a bomb 2.) the
machines will catch most of these instances and 3.) they're not a huge hassle
for travelers. But by the time you get down to chucking water bottles because
there _might_ be a liquid explosive in them and it _might_ be denser than
water and it _might_ be non-polar - really, what are the chances that a
terrorist will use that means of smuggling? Compared to, say, overvolting a
laptop battery?

For that matter, I think metal detectors may also be obsolete, now that it's
fairly easy to make plastic/composite knives and guns.

~~~
ensignavenger
"1.) What is the likelihood that a potential terrorist will use this means of
smuggling weapons on board?"

Indeed, someone apparently did try just this in August of 2006 in the UK-
<http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/311_intl_acceptance.shtm>

~~~
NikkiA
Actually, no, they didn't.

If we believe the official story 100%, then they merely plotted to do so, but
never actually attempted it (they did, however, according to the official
story, 'smuggle' non-volatile liquids on in a dummy run, without actually
risking taking anything they'd be in serious trouble being caught with).

So, the best case scenario is that no-one 'did try just this'.

That's ignoring all the many holes with the case (that ended up requiring
using a legal backdoor to convict them without a unanimous verdict.

~~~
camccann
"That's ignoring all the many _holes_ with the case (that ended up requiring
using a legal _backdoor_ to convict them without a unanimous verdict."

Your choice of terminology here makes me a little uncomfortable.

------
ajross
FTA: _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._

Right. Which is why all self-respecting terrorists won't bother to show you
the dumb bottle in the first place. Am I the only one who has, on multiple
occasions, checked my bags through the scanner to realize that I'm technically
in violation of the "no liquids" rule because I'd forgotten something?

The rule is ridiculous. Just live with it.

~~~
shpxnvz
On one occasion I accidentally passed through security with with a Swiss Army
knife in my backpack.

What's funny to me is that upon discovering so after getting to the gate I was
much more worried about someone finding out I accidentally brought a pocket
knife with me, rather than the possibility of someone else with nefarious
intentions having also gotten past security with one.

~~~
bbb
Same thing happened to me; I had the Swiss Army knife in my backpack between a
whole bunch of CDs. I wonder if the edges of the CDs somehow concealed the
knife, or if the security person simply wasn't paying attention.

By the way, what's the likelihood of TWO people bringing a knife/bomb on board
the same plane? Pretty small, huh? Hence, you should always bring your own
bomb to fly safely! ;-)

------
bonsaitree
As great as XKCD is, seeing the TSA respond to this cartoon is just as bad as
CNN fact-checking the SNL sketch.

As someone with more than a casual familiarity with man-portable explosives
(some R&D work on remote land mine detection), nobody with any modicum of
sense would EVER confuse a bottle of drinking water with a bottle of liquid
explosive. The latter have a very low vapor pressure, very different
viscosity, and give off very distinctive odors. The most commonly obtained
ones are also NOT transparent.

~~~
vidarh
That misses the point. The rules that are set allows for quick screening
without extensive training. If they were to screen based on appearance and
smell they'd need to study each bottle (what if the contents are hidden?)
and/or open them to smell. The _time_ the extra screening would take would
cause far more of an uproar with people than having to abandon their liquids
now.

I'm sure they know they _could_ allow most liquids on safely if they gave
staff some extra training and put people through enough extra screening. But
would the end result be convenient enough? Probably not.

------
mrshoe
I believe it was Scott Adams who suggested that one woman should take one for
the team and build a bomb into her bra. Once the TSA realizes that they would
have to require each woman to remove her bra while passing through airport
security, the whole thing would unravel pretty quickly.

~~~
mquander
Yeah, or we'll all have to arrive two hours early and get strip-searched if we
want to get on a plane. Think it couldn't happen? I wouldn't bet against it.

~~~
tptacek
You're already getting strip searched before you board planes; they're just
using millimeter wave scans to do it. People really need to start calling
these things what they are: electronic strip search machines.

~~~
Alex3917
"People really need to start calling these things what they are: electronic
strip search machines."

That will never happen. Given the choice between two methods of searches, both
of which have equal safety outcomes, people prefer the strip search over the
non-invasive one.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote an entire book about this phenomenon; the book is The
Naked Crowd. You can read the story, which is on page 1 of the book, via the
Amazon sample:

[http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Crowd-Reclaiming-Security-
Freedo...](http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Crowd-Reclaiming-Security-
Freedom/dp/0375759859/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256670050&sr=8-1#reader_0375759859)

~~~
tptacek
Read it. Response: the same sample of people would support repealing the 4th
Amendment, because "people who have nothing to hide have nothing to be afraid
of" (logic used by the people the author talked to). Meanwhile, their mothers
are being imaged naked when they fly out to see their grandkids. No, I don't
think everyone is OK with this. I think people don't yet fully comprehend what
the machines do.

------
InclinedPlane
I did a little research and discovered that there actually has been a
successful terrorist attack on a plane using mostly liquid explosives, Korean
Air Flight 858:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_858>

Two explosives were used: C4 and about twice as much PLX (a binary liquid
explosive) as C4, totaling about 1kg of explosives. The bomb was powerful
enough to take down the plane and cause the deaths of all 115 passengers. I
suspect C4 was used as a component in order to ensure that the PLX was
detonated, because it appears to be a tricky explosive to set off with just a
blasting cap.

Regardless, the critique that is being leveled against the TSA is not that
such an attack could be successful, but rather that the methods being used to
thwart such an attack are wholly ineffectual, with the side effect of causing
a great deal of inconvenience, wasting a massive amount of effort, and
providing a distraction from more robust methods of solving the security
problem.

------
Semiapies
What a disingenuous defense of a policy enacted in response to a completely
infeasible terrorist plan.

The funny part is that people generally _know_ security theater like this has
jack-all to do with actual security or safety. We just obediently continue to
take off our shoes, surrender our nail-clippers, and buy our drinks at the
stores in the airport.

~~~
tptacek
"Completely infeasible terrorist plan" is exactly the wrong argument to make.
(a) you don't actually know it was infeasible, which costs you credibility
right out of the gate, and (b) you're tacitly accepting that every "feasible"
terrorist plan deserves explicit countermeasures.

Another reason why this discussing annoys me; people always insist on having
it on the TSA's terms. Why? They'll win this argument every time. They have
more facts and their facts are scarier than yours.

~~~
Semiapies
Infeasible, as in their explosives _would not have detonated_. Don't lecture
me about "credibility", educate yourself about the facts of the case.

But yes, I'm sure the TSA and its supporters can devise ever-so-many _facts_
about how we have to be protected from water-bottle bombs that fortunately
don't require any more special disposal than tossing in a garbage can.

~~~
tptacek
No. Not going to educate myself about the facts of the case. Why? Because that
would be retarded. There are millions of ways for terrorists to bring down a
plane, and arguing about this specific one way is exactly what people like the
TSA want you to do.

But I'm glad you've convinced yourself that they're wrong about this one way.
I'm a convicted TSA skeptic, and you haven't even convinced _me_ , but I'm
sure it's fun to be right.

~~~
Semiapies
"Not going to educate myself about the facts of the case. Why? Because that
would be retarded."

Then don't bleat about what I do and do not know or ramble on about
"credibility".

"I'm a convicted TSA skeptic, and you haven't even convinced me"

Yes, you've shown your deep skepticism here, but what made you think I was
trying to convince _you_ of anything? I merely pointed out something perfectly
true, and you appointed yourself my terribly lazy fact-checker and rhetoric
editor.

I'm not going to try to "convince" someone who makes false statements or
implications any more than I'm going to have a meeting of the minds with the
guy quoting Republican talking points on torture.

------
btilly
The next time you're in a security line, turn to the person behind you and
say, "Here's a thought for you. Aren't you glad that the shoe bomber didn't
hide the explosives in his underwear?"

Guaranteed laugh. Try it. You can say it to the screeners as well, and they'll
laugh as well. And it perfectly highlights the absurdity of the security
theater we suffer through. Some guy tries to blow up a plane with explosives
in his shoes, FAILS, and we all have to take our shoes off now.

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater> if you haven't heard the
phrase security theater before. Not only does the term describe the TSA
perfectly, it was actually _invented_ to describe the TSA.

~~~
mcantor
I think your comment is funny, but it's probably also the fastest way to get
yourself a private strip-search if you say it in earshot of a TSA employee!

~~~
btilly
You would think that, but in my experience they laugh harder than anyone else.
They know the policy is stupid, they just aren't supposed to admit it.

However I'd avoid saying it to them when they are busy or distracted, because
then they can't enjoy the humor.

------
ErrantX
2 things.

Firstly; I think XKCD was just being amusing....

Secondly: bullcrap. You can make a bang big enough to kill a plane with laptop
batteries - the fact you can make a _bigger_ bang with liquids is surely
irrelevant. And also it's perfectly possible to change the contents of a
battery - no? So put something more explosive in it....

Batteries are very easy to remove.

The _reason_ liquids were banned is because of the evidence someone came up
with the suggest there were liquid bombs being planned (and I think one failed
attempt) - not a bad response at all! It's the same reason a lot of airports
(especially UK ones) ask you to remove your shoes and Xray them.

At the end of the day they can only respond to the perceived or suspected
risks - if you _really_ put your mind too it it shouldnt actually be too hard
to smuggle a bomb on a plane.

EDIT: by which I mean it is more a case of making people feel safe (by
inconveniencing them, basic psycology) as well as causing more inconvenience
for a small number of possible potential attacks. The actual security effect
is fairly minimal - simply for practical reasons pointed out a billion times
over.

~~~
sh1mmer
But can you make a bang big enough to break into the cabin and crash the plane
into, say, a large building in a major metropolitan city?

~~~
ErrantX
If the plane flies near said metropolitan area at the right angle then,
technically, the rest is just maths and timing. :)

EDIT: damn I thought I was being genuinely amusing :(

------
Semiapies
Tangentially, it strikes me that a lot of people, including the TSA flack,
miss the actual point of the comic. It's _not_ that there are reasonable
arguments against TSA policies. It's that trying to argue the policies _with_
the TSA is futile and probably counter-productive.

~~~
paulgb
This can be further generalized. Trying to argue a policy with a bottom rung
employee at _any_ organization is ultimately counter-productive.

------
viraptor
Unfortunately while people are arguing about the security checks / rules, I
see another danger. Looking at the length of current security queues, it's not
a problem to find a place where ~200-400 people surround you (guesstimate;
assuming one of the "quite large, but not enough to get a new terminal"
airports). My prediction is that the next attack will not be a guy bringing
down the plane, but simply a guy waiting until he gets halfway through the
queue with any bomb he wants (noone will check him before, right?) I wonder
how will they solve that one...

~~~
daemin
Haven't we had these sorts of attacks already in the various hotspots in the
world? Both Israel and Iraq come to mind as examples of where attacks have
been perpetrated against the checkpoints themselves, and the guards and people
waiting there.

------
ax0n
You can get a large amount of almost any liquid onto a plane in your carry-on
so long as the label is somewhat official-looking and identifies the contents
as being medical supplies. Get one of those contact lens caddies and pack it
with a 12oz bottle of ReNu and see what happens at the TSA checkpoint. They'll
likely just set it aside. If not, you're only out $5 or something. That ReNu
bottle could be full of nitroglycerin or kerosene and they'd never know.

~~~
kscaldef
Actually, most of the time they do a trace chemical wipe of the container if
you bring saline or other liquid meds through the security line.

------
InclinedPlane
The response is more than a little weak. Confiscating people's shampoo and
water does nothing to improve the safety of air travel. That's the point
Randall Munroe is making and it's still quite valid.

It's trivially easy to smuggle enough liquids on board an airplane to bypass
the TSA's "security" measures. Simply claim it is saline solution or use
something like a "beer belly".

Similarly, the TSA's ban of knives on planes is equally toothless. Many fliers
(myself included) can attest to having accidentally brought pocket knives on
planes without security screening having noticed them. And even a moderately
dedicated attacker would find it easy to acquire a ceramic knife capable of
passing through a metal detector.

It's a kabuki dance, it's security theater, it increases security not one bit,
but makes it more difficult to fly.

~~~
jseliger
I just left this comment on the TSA blog: "To translate:

"Our policy is irrational, but we're sticking to it anyway in the interests of
security theater." "

------
ajju
The TSA has a blog where they reference Ars Technica and XKCD? I am forced to
acknowledge that they are slightly more enlightened than I thought.

Having said that, the arguments in that post are bullshit (as evidenced by
several comments before this one)

~~~
pmorici
"TSA has a blog"

In this day and age that makes them about as enlightened as saying "the TSA
uses electricity". They are just doing it because _everyone_ else is doing it
there's no credit for original independent thought here.

~~~
paulgb
That would be a harder claim to make if you had quoted the whole of ajju's
sentence. I think what's interesting here is not that they have a blog, but
how the blog is run. They respond to a webcomic, they enable comments, they
respond to comments, they write in a human tone, etc.

Sure, most organizations have blogs, but for most they are a write-only place
to put press releases.

------
jimfl
Give me a laptop battery, my belt, and some duct tape, and we'll be talking
about an definition a little further down in the dictionary entry for the term
"battery."

------
NathanKP
Does anyone other than me wonder why TSA is using Blogger for their official
blog rather than WordPress?

Anyway....

------
tvon
_The lady doth protest too much, methinks._

------
tptacek
Jesus. Can we move on, yet? George Carlin nailed this topic over 10 years ago.
xkcdsucks (nb: usually funnier than the comic!) nailed this cartoon: jokes
about airport security are so overdone that there's actually signs at the
airport warning you not to make jokes about airport security.

Yes, the "3-1-1 restrictions" are completely retarded. Yes, people are mostly
liquid. Yes, batteries are dangerous. Hollering about that here isn't going to
help you, because the TSA people live in an entirely different universe than
you do. To them, the 3-1-1 rule is perfectly rational. It's a reaction to an
actual threat they had. To abandon the restriction, they have to accept
responsibility for the next time liquid explosives are used to destroy a
plane. They are never. going. to. do. that. It would be irrational --- from
their perspective --- for them to do so.

This TSA response isn't disingenuous. It's exactly what any thinking person
expects them to say. So what are we discussing here?

~~~
bk
You know that recently a terrorist tried to use a bomb in his intestine to
assassinate a Saudi-Arabian prince
([http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/qaeda_ass_assin_h...](http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/qaeda_ass_assin_hKiF3TDJkgYItnBQkJXmTN)).
(I know, not the greatest source).

As soon as one of those is discovered at an airport, according to your
reasoning about the TSA's rationales, they would have to and should cavity
search every passenger.

The real questions underlying a topic like this are:

Why do the people have so little say in their own security?

Why do people accept being separated, rudely interrogated, strip-searched,
subjected to (unconstitutionally) secret laws and regulations, etc.?

Why are expert opinions completely ignored?

Just because it's "rational" for the TSA/US Government to cover their asses
doesn't mean people shouldn't make a fuss about it. Democracy and liberty
vitally depend on people making a (meaningful) fuss.

~~~
tptacek
You seriously think that reasonable arguments like this are going to get the
TSA to stop supporting policies that cost them nothing but mitigate massive
possible career risks for themselves? Because I think it would be irrational
for this administration to step back even an inch from where security is now.
They'd simply get blamed for anything that happened within the next 10 years.

~~~
Semiapies
"They'd simply get blamed for anything that happened within the next 10
years."

The administration would get blamed anyway by virtue of being in charge.
They've been willing to _announce stopping the use of torture_ (with many in
their opposition howling that this will cost American lives), so it's clearly
not impossible for them to change policy just because security is the claimed
justification for it.

Nobody cares about what the TSA itself supports. The TSA does what it's told
to do. The idea is to get enough people annoyed about what the FAA has the TSA
do to encourage change in policy. This may or may not be doable, but that's
politics for you.

EDIT: emphasis added for the benefit of some poor readers.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_They've been willing to announce stopping the use of torture_

Good grief.

3 people were waterboarded. The former administration refused to rule in or
out any sort of interrogation technique.

They hardly "stopped the use of torture". Made a political statement, sure.
Announced what the limits were, sure. But they didn't stop anything of the
sort.

