Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Government Security Transportation United States Your Rights Online

Hockey Sticks Among Carry-On Items TSA Has Cleared For Planes 276

coondoggie writes "As of April 25th the Transportation Security Administration will let a bunch of previously prohibited items such as small pocket knives and what it calls 'novelty' or toy bats to be taken on aircraft as carry-ons. The idea the agency said was to let Transportation Security Officers better focus their efforts on spotting higher-threat items such as explosives and guns."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hockey Sticks Among Carry-On Items TSA Has Cleared For Planes

Comments Filter:
  • by lseltzer ( 311306 ) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @08:47PM (#43099771)
    It won't fit under the seat in front of you or the overhead bin.
  • by CncRobot ( 2849261 ) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @08:48PM (#43099791)

    The TSA is now allowing the actual types of things used on 9/11, but still banning shampoo and bottled water?

    If there is ONE THING the TSA should ban is small knives (not that I agree with that), since they are now allowing those shouldn't they just admit they shouldn't need to exist?

  • by lazarus ( 2879 ) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @08:55PM (#43099873) Homepage Journal

    Let's face it. The reason people drag all of their worldly possessions with them as carry-on is because we don't trust the baggage handlers to not destroy/steal/lose our stuff. I see this every time I fly. People don't actually want to lug a 49.9 lb wheeled bag onto the plane and then try to find/lift/get help to put it in an overhead compartment.

    The carry-on problem is being caused by the baggage problem. If you solve the baggage problem, TSA security would be checking small handbags or pocket change not hockey sticks, LAN party servers, thirty pairs of shoes, etc.

    Oh, and charging people for checked bags is making the problem worse, not better. What is it about the airline industry that has made every decision maker involved utterly stupid? The only aspect of air travel I can think of that doesn't operate in a wrong-headed way are the mechanics who keep the planes from falling out of the sky.


  • Re:we're nerds (Score:5, Insightful)

    by funwithBSD ( 245349 ) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @08:56PM (#43099875)

    If you can't tell them "This is not the lightsaber you are looking for." and make it it stick... you don't deserve to carry a lightsaber.

  • by loganljb ( 1424009 ) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @08:57PM (#43099887)
    This is a fairly typical way to permanently take away freedom. Take away a LOT of freedom during an 'emergency', then later give back a small portion of that freedom. People will be so relieved by the small concessions that they forget the larger liberties that they no longer enjoy.
  • by Xanthvar ( 1046980 ) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @09:06PM (#43099975) Journal
    The ban on knives was cosmetic at best, so the lifting of this ban will not result in any decrease in safety.
    Q: "But wait, didn't the terrorists on 9/11 use box cutters to hijack the plane? Couldn't they do it again?"
    A: No. The reason that they were able to hijack the plane before, is the "rulebook" basically said to go along with the hijackers, you fly off to some other destination, there is a negotiation that drags things out, and eventually everyone leaves alive, with stories to tell their grandchildren... Only, on 9/11 they changed the "rules".

    Today, it doesn't matter what kind of weapon is used to hijack the plane, the bulk of the passengers will use whatever is at hand to beat down the hijackers, because they know they are fighting for their lives now, and if you are going to die, you might as well go down swinging. Coupling this with the _1_ security measure that actually improved airline safety, putting locks on the cockpit doors (which does nothing if they don't actually lock them of course), the chance of hijacking a passenger airliner successfully is almost nil. Maybe a small puddle jumper commuter craft composed of all terrorists would be successful, but in that circumstance, they wouldn't need weapons either.

    Yes, someone can still get hurt, and even killed, but you could do that with a pen/pencil or some other pointy object stabbed into the appropriate place. Now maybe someone from the UK will have a different take on this, as they seemed to fear bladed objects, as they appear to be the primary homicide weapon of choice since the general populace doesn't have access to firearms. As an American male, with military training I am not terribly afraid of knives being used to subdue a a plane full of passengers, whoever foolhardy that may be, as I believe that sheer weight of numbers would incapacitate or kill any would be hijacker in this. For most Americans, a knife is a tool, and not a weapon, and while it can be used as such, so can just about anything else, to include bricks, shoes, rocks, sharp sticks, and harsh language.

    Just my $.02 worth.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @10:09PM (#43100487)

    Uh, no.

    The real threat isn't another 9/11-type event. They can no longer hijack an airplane with a box cutter, even if the plane is filled with nothing but girl scouts and smurfs. They will be dead before you reach the ground, mission unaccomplished. At worst, one or two people will be stabbed. No one is going to cooperate with these guys for fear of their own lives, because in they will be dead anyway.

    But there is still the threat of someone sneaking a bomb on board to kill all passengers and destroy the aircraft when it is over a city so the debris hurts people and buildings on the ground, etc.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @10:18PM (#43100557)

    Yeah! Like the liberty to be killed by well armed suicidal terrorists who've hijacked my airplane...

    And anyone with basic knowledge of the mechanics of folding card stock could kill you by way of the little boxes of snacks they sell on the flights that used to offer meals.

    Life is dangerous. Deal with it. Or not, I guess - if you're that concerned about a false sense of safety, surely you're for in-flight anesthesiologists? Passengers who are knocked out surely can't hurt anybody. Sure, you'll have to sign a disclaimer because of the risk of death - but hey, my life shouldn't be in danger because you supposedly want to look out the window.

    Keep living on your knees, but please do so on a plastic sheet - the piss running down your legs is getting everywhere.

  • by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @10:21PM (#43100595) Homepage Journal

    I may be wrong, but I think that problem was partially solved.

    Remember, for at least 20 years, passengers had been instructed over and over to just cooperate with hijackers. The plane that went down in Pennsylvania, diverted from it's intended target, is proof that the conditioning can be broken.

    All we need to do, is to stop being victims. Fight back, and win or lose, you won't be a hostage.

  • Re:about time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:20PM (#43112357) Homepage Journal [] [] []

    The story was carried on a local television news segment, and in the segment, they were stopping automobiles, at random, as opposed to checking the trucks at the weigh stations. Those three links were among the first hits on a google search - there are lots more.

What is algebra, exactly? Is it one of those three-cornered things? -- J.M. Barrie