• breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    178
    ·
    3 months ago

    Big caveat

    The final decision rests with the TSA officer on whether an item is allowed through the checkpoint.

    • Hegar@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      136
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Ah yes, the “rules only apply when I say they do” rule. Much legitimate.

      • bss03@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        Inconsistent enforcement of “the rules” is the most common form of systematic marginalization.

        It’s also easy of centrists to excuse, since it could happen to anyone, even when the statistic show to it is overwhelmingly correlated with some protected trait.

      • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean sure, but it theoretically stops people arguing and threatening to try and bring stuff they shouldn’t really be bringing through, as being able to point at that will end a lot of arguments… Equally though, it makes a lot of sense as otherwise you’d have “ah yes this bomb isn’t banned because I’ve switched out a molecule in the explosive for an analogue”

        • Hegar@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I don’t think they need to make the enforcement of rules ultimately arbitrary to prevent explosives. You already can’t bring explosives. The molecules involved are not relevant.

          • Ziglin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            The mollecular structure isn’t the only thing relevant for bombs.

            You could make a bomb out of a pressurized material that you can quickly get to expand, I think that technically isn’t an explosive.

            I get your point but I also think having a catch all is good to prevent things that could otherwise get through by technicality.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 months ago

          If there is a list of acceptable things, then those specific things are not things they “shouldn’t be bringing on”.

        • redisdead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          What actually happens is that some random power tripping TSA agent decides to annoy the fuck out of people he doesn’t like, and when challenged he is protected by this rule.

    • bradinutah@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      See, flying isn’t for people who plan. It’s for people who roll 20s and not 1s. You know, lucky people. That’s the message here.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      And it’s not the type of crowd that will take a ‘technically correct’ in good sport.