It's liquids and gels because there are dangerous, inflammable, and even explosive materials that come in liquid or gel form. It's not like it's that far off the mark. Ever seen nitroglycerin? Nice and liquidy until you bounce it about too much and it blows.
Sometimes the rules really do seem arbitrary, but it's based on risk assessments.
That's kind of my point. You need to choose which laws and precautions to put in place, and you need to do so intelligently. A lot of what we have so far seems to be more theatre - the illusion of safety - than actual protection.
I think we would all need to get jobs at the upper levels of TSA or work for DHS before we could really determine how they came about making these decisions. While I don't have a ton of faith in the people who work at the decision-maker levels in some of these government agencies, they aren't all just a bunch of idiots. These rules were decided on for a reason.
I'm of a different opinion than many, though. I don't really care about airport security regulations. I've flown plenty and never had a problem. I get more annoyed in security lines with the people who make a big deal about throwing out a tube of toothpaste than I do at the TSA screeners. And so what if they miss something now and then, they're just human. Give them a break.
Really can't say anything other than to find... alternatives to the body scans and pat downs. Yes, the need for security is vital, but maintaining that fine line between security along with decency and respect can be a tricky task, considering there are so many unknown variables. Although the security is a nuisance, at least they're not going this far:
I agree with you on this issue. Reactionary overbearing security precautions that violate civil liberty shouldn't be used. The TSA is a joke, and an expensive one at that.
Some of the comments on that. People should not be allowed to make references to 1984 if they haven't actually read and understood the fucking book.
Seriously people, cameras in the streets, or advanced detection tools in public areas are not fucking Orwellian! If that shit was in your home, it would be Orwellian, that was the point.
People reference 1984 from the simple phrase "big brother is watching you". Most people have probably not actually read how big brother was watching. I loved that book
The whole point of references to 1984, at least I feel, is the direction society heads when the body politic allows invasions of privacy, frequently for the sake of the illusion of safety and security. 1984 is one of my favorite books. However, people make references constantly to things they don't understand a la Fight Club. I've learned to start ignoring what most people say when they make references they are clearly uninformed about.
But the things is a lot of this stuff is not an invasion of privacy. Your right to privacy ends pretty much at your front door. Once you are out in public, everything is public.
I don't know about that. I'd like to think that the Fourth Amendment should protect us against illegal search and seizure, of our person, vehicle, and possessions. Like cell phone conversations. Yes, I know they can be intercepted, and courts have upheld that any wireless transmission is considered "free domain" or whatever the term is -- but do you feel comfortable with the possibility that any cell phone conversation you have can be tapped and recorded? That all private conversations you have can be recorded? Any web surfing you do can be logged and used against you? There's a line.
I am not willing to agree that cameras everywhere are acceptable, and that in public every move you make, every word you speak, can be watched, recorded, and used against you. Many frequently state "if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to hide." I am not a criminal under current laws, but as "democracy" frequently changes, the laws tend to be written by whomever is in power at any given time. (And one of the reasons democracy doesn't work.) What is legal one day may be illegal the next.
