Problems with the TSA

I think it's safe to say juice is traditionally not considered a medical liquid. In that situation, he is asking for an exception. It is his requirement to justify the request that his juice should be considered a medial liquid. It's unreasonable to say that he shouldn't have to justify its reclassification as a medical liquid without a few facts and disclosing a few details of his situation. Otherwise, every person would claim their soda/juice is a medical liquid and say they don't have answer questions because it is a medical thing.

Airports generally are privately operated, but it's not about that. Air travel is federally regulated, so the situation isn't even addressable on the ground. For instance, you can't build your own runway, pile 50 people onto a plane, and be free and clear of FAA and DHS.

I have a prosthetic leg and travel weekly. Apparently, the TSA's official policy is (or at least was) that, if asked my me if I am allowed to remove my leg and place it on the x-ray conveyor belt, they are to tell me doing so is forbidden. However, if I simply do so, they are not to stop me. I presume the theory to be that travelers might somehow mis-understand and create a PR disaster by claiming that an amputee was forced to remove his leg.

If I leave my leg on and walk through the metal detector, I must wait around until a male agent is available to swab me, check for explosive residue, and determine that I am not carrying a weapon. It's much more efficient to take the leg off and waddle on my knees through the metal detector.

Most of the TSA agents know me at this point, but occasionally a new person will be caught off guard. Usually, they are speechless in fear of breaking two seemingly conflicting rules: (1) don't offend, humiliate, etc. and (2) don't allow passengers to do stuff they aren't supposed to do. I see some panicked motioning to a supervisor and hear, "Oh, he comes through here all the time! ...Yes, it's allowed." Occasionally, a new agent will tell me, "You can't do that, sir!" When I reply that I've done so well over a hundred times in the past couple years, they defer to a supervisor who informs them of my "rights." [Quotes to convey the absurdity of the situation, of course.]

It is because of my experiences in hearing TSA agents make-up a rule out of thin air that I do not doubt the author of the blog posting. Interestingly, I suspect that my notoriety actually has lead to less scrutiny over time -- the frequency at which my carry-ons are hand inspected has decreased over time.

To those thinking that he's just causing a fuss for no reason. The same could be said of Rosa Parks. We need people like him to move our rights forward.

The problem is not with the TSA per se but with the representative democracy. Every elected official that has a choice to repel some stupid rule or law is present with the following game-theoretic matrix:

repel then some incident happens that can be somehow associated with this - it's a catastrophe even if the association is completely superficial, the media will manage to spin it to cause enough damage.

repel then nothing happens - there is a minor positive outcome but incumbents already have an overwhelming advantage.

don't repel - there is a minor negative outcome but incumbents already have an overwhelming advantage.

Until incumbents start routinely losing elections repelling any "safety" regulation is the worst move you could make. There is very minor upside and a huge downside. So we will have to keep our kindles showing the splash screen while the plane is waiting at the gate and throw out toothpaste at the TSA checkpoints. Any possible relief will come either from the money pressure (e.g. confiscation of lighters apparently had been interfering with the airports operation so much that it had to be repelled) or political stunts (e.g. Obama showing the terrors of sequester by allowing pen knives and hokey sticks on-board).