According to the TSA, Hand Grenades Are 'Not Carry Ons'

Surely there's no reason why the TSA Blog (yes, they have one) needs to explain that hand grenades are not valid "carry-ons" right? Wrong!

They do. And they did -- yesterday in fact, when "Blogger Bob" of the "TSA Blog Team" outlined why grenades are not acceptable items for carrying on an airplane. Of course, most of the article focuses on the fact that people routinely bring different "novelty hand grenade items" into airports and onto airplanes.

So why is it such a big deal if the grenades are inert or just a novelty item? Well, that’s why passengers usually don’t think twice about bringing these items. They know inert grenades or novelty grenade shaped items can’t cause any harm. However, we don’t know that. All we see on the x-ray is a realistic image of a grenade complete with pin and spoon and we have to go through the motions.

People: stop being so stupid. Seriously. You (yes, you, guy with a belt buckle shaped like a hand grenade and the haircut that makes Joe Dirt look like Don Draper) seriously caused our government to pay Blogger Bob and the Team TSA $19.50 -- standard blog pay + government inflation -- because you won't stop walking into the airport with items shaped like hand grenades.

Typically, I am loathe to credit the TSA for anything (although I do have a long overdue story about a TSA agent in Boston who saved my computer's life that is forthcoming), but gracious. This is on the collective genius of the American people.

(Ed. Note: For those so persnickety about the spelling of grenades, please note we were using the Southern phonetic spelling. Thanks much.)

Privacy Groups to Protest Creepy Airport Security Measures

The TSA, everyone's favorite shining beacon of national security, announced recently that they plan to employ "full body imaging" for airports in the future. It's a notion that seems, well, horrible.

No one in their right mind wants to see America naked one person at a time, even for the sake of safety. Oh, right. And it's a total and utter violation of privacy. At least that's what various "privacy protest groups" are claiming.

"People need to know what's happening, with no sugar-coating and no spinning,"
said [Lillie] Coney [associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center].

Which is why the EPIC is banding together as many people and organizations as possible in order to keep the TSA and the government from moving forward with the permanent placement of these full-body imaging machines in airports.

Chris Calabrase, an ALCU attorney, echoed similar feelings and also brought up one of the most important points: misuse of these images.

"A choice between being groped and being stripped, I don't think we should pretend those are the only choices," he said. "People shouldn't be humiliated by their government" in the name of security, nor should they trust that the images will always be kept private.

"Screeners at LAX [Los Angeles International Airport]," he speculated, "could make a fortune off naked virtual images of celebrities."

Now, certainly all of the TSA employees are upstanding citizens sworn to protect America's safety one hassled traveler at a time, but Calabrase is being realistic here -- everyone has their price, and if that price happens to be $15,000 for a slew of shots of Justin Timberlake "naked" (as naked as he can be in an x-ray machine) from TMZ, well, let's just say that said TSA employee would probably fall closer to the median American person than the one with high standards.

But that's not to totally bemoan the TSA's attempts to keep us safe; it's just that when you're dealing with privacy -- just as with, conveniently, naked pictures of yourself on the Internet -- once that line is crossed, it's hard to turn back and go the other way. So in that frame of mind, I fully applaud the kind people of these protestacularly caring institutions.

Steve Bierfeldt Detained by TSA for Carrying $4,700 in Cash, Records the Conversation

Steve Bierfeldt was detained by the TSA while leaving from St. Louis on an airplane for carrying $4,700 in cash. He was smart enough to record the conversation with his phone (insert collective traveler fist pump ... here). And, naturally, it's made its way onto the interwebz! Here's audio/video, followed by an interview with Bierfeldt:

Can't see how this ends poorly for the TSA, at all. I mean, no chance, right? Exactly. As noted in the interview, he was employed by Ron Paul's campaign and had a bunch of bumper stickers, and apparently the Mizzou police issued an order that Ron Paul supporters are "militia members" or some-such. Anyway, the greater point is that the TSA needs to realize that they can't just flex their muscle whenever they want, and threatening travelers is just going to blow up in their face.

Via Mark Ashley at Upgrade: Travel Better

Full Body Scans at Airports Seem Creepy, Show Underwear

There's absolutely nothing worse than the security line at an airport. Because of the events surrounding 9/11, it is completely impossible to slide through in any sort of expedient manner. However, the notion that airports could introduce "full body scanners" (yes, Total Recall style) might speed things up. 

Or make things really, really awkward.

The new technology, developed by New York based L3 Communications, has raised concerns after it was revealed that underwear is visible in the scans.

The scan blurs out the face of the passenger, and the image is not stored. However, the American Civil Liberties Union said the body scanning technology could be too intrusive as it could project images of mastectomies and catheter tubes.

Yeah, so, really, there's no reason to get this party started ... unless you're really, really thrilled about the prospect of seeing someone heavily embarrassed every time you get in line at the airport.

And yes, that might actually be kind of fun, but at the same time, this (currently voluntary) test is almost guaranteed to actually slow things down, even if it manages to somehow make airports safer.