Hey, there! Log in / Register
TSA to fliers: Stop packing cupcakes in jars, you morons
By adamg on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 7:09am
The TSA breaks its silence on Cupcakegate (and mad props to them for calling it Cupcakegate and getting in a Wile E. Coyote reference); notes the cupcake in question wasn't just some delicious pastry on a napkin but a suspicious looking wad in a jar filled with icing - with a spoon attached.
So stop trying to sneak jars filled with icing onto planes:
If you're not familiar with it, we have a policy directly related to the UK liquid bomb plot of 2006 called 3-1-1 that limits the amount of liquids, gels and aerosols you can bring in your carry-on luggage. Icing falls under the "gel" category. As you can see from the picture, unlike a thin layer of icing that resides on the top of most cupcakes, this cupcake had a thick layer of icing inside a jar.
In general, cakes and pies are allowed in carry-on luggage, however, the officer in this case used their discretion on whether or not to allow the newfangled modern take on a cupcake per 3-1-1 guidelines. They chose not to let it go.
Every officer wants to finish their shift and go home with the peace of mind that they kept potential threats off of airplanes. They're not thinking about whether their decisions will go viral on the internet – they’re thinking about keeping bombs off of planes. This incident may seem like a silly move to many of our critics, but when we can't be exactly sure of what something is, every officer has the discretion to not allow it on the plane. This is done purely for the safety of everyone traveling.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
"This is done for the
"This is done for the security theater of everyone traveling."
Fixed that last sentence.
Cripes.
TSA is a joke
It should be eliminated. Save some money for the Tea Partiers and save some liberty and dignity for the rest of us. They ever figure out how that kid got in the wheel well? But they saved us froma newfangled modern cupcake attack. Congress, Obama, Bush- a bunch of losers for letting this agency continue to embarrass themselves and everyone else.
Every officer wants to finish
Translation: TSA management fosters a culture where there will be serious repercussions if an individual officer lets through an item that ends up being used in an attack. It also fosters a culture that leads to intense power trips on the part of officers who are told they are the last line of defense in keeping this great nation safe from catastrophic attack, even if that means stealing from a passenger an item that the rest of the world can clearly see is meant to be eaten.
If the cockpit doors remained hardened and the passenger mindset of resisting any attempt by a passenger to hijack or attack the plane remained, I maintain that flying would be just as secure today if checkpoints returned to their morning-of-9/11/01 state and 65,000 TSA employees were given pink slips.
We're lucky it wasn't pancakes
Pancakes can be dangerous. Just ask the Japanese about their WWII experience with the "Aunt Jemima" explosive (HMX):
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/HMX
I think you should all go easier on the TSA people. They are trained by experts. Many of them are experts. Sometimes, it's better for them not to
communicate exactly why an object was suspicious/rejected. For example,
maybe because the jar could have been intended to keep HMX from being
detected by a swipe or sensor test. Or, because a number of explosives
can be in gel form.
After all, two people were arrested for attempting to board US domestic
plane flights with plastic explosive just in the past few months.
this is still nonsensical. i
this is still nonsensical. i know rebecca, and the cupcake was in a jar layered with icing, yes, but not entirely icing... and still far less icing than a cake, which is.... allowed through, according to the TSA.
Directly related to the UK liquid bomb plot...
A "bomb plot" over five years ago that involved a specific combination of liquids (not gels), an explosive compound masquerading as a AA battery, a disposable camera, and a powdered drink mix that all had to be mixed on board then wired up...that has been deemed by multiple security specialists as "not likely to succeed as planned".
Furthermore, it wasn't stopped by making everyone throw away all of their cupcakes in a jar. It was stopped by police work OUTSIDE of the airport...far away from any terminal. Why was the response to initiate the "3-1-1" protocol for liquids and gels instead of acknowledging that current police efforts were sufficient? As a response to 9/11/2001, cockpit doors were bolted shut. Good. That was an example of where current measures were NOT sufficient prior to the attack. We also ramped up surveillance (often in ways that have gone too far into monitoring innocent people). But 2006's UK bomb plot investigation is an example where the SYSTEM WORKED and the response was to INCREASE the system again as if they'd not been ready and able! Where is the end point on logic like that?
Who will have the courage to put a leash on the TSA, MBTA Police, and all of these other "security" measures that have stripped us naked, bombarded us with irrationalities, and made us throw away our freedom? I'd honestly rather take my chances with there being terrorists on my next flight.
Hey guys!
You call it security theater, but seriously, even security theater is better than no security at all. The fact remains that it is SECURITY. Oh no, you almost missed your flight because you were arguing with the TSA over your Costco-sized tube of toothpaste. Too bad, you shoulda read the f***ing rules before you packed.
Put yourself in their shoes: It's a cupcake in a jar. Is that a threat? Maybe. There could be some really unpleasant things in that jar...acids, mercury, poisons, lighter fluid. A cupcake on a napkin is just "Oh, it's a cupcake, okay, here ya go." In a jar, it's a potential threat. They probably sniffed the cupcake on the way through Logan to make sure it didn't smell funny.
I'm so effing tired of people complaining about the TSA.
Is it hard living a life
Is it hard living a life where you are scared of even your own shadow?
No not really Saul.
I don't like having to throw out my coffee at the TSA gate though. That kind of sucks.
Don't make me quote Ben Franklin at you
There could also just be sugar, chocolate, milk, and eggs. Is that a threat? Maybe to her waistline...but she was controlled enough to only eat one on her trip and bring the other back with her.
Besides, what good is 3-1-1 that you so cling to as "security"? Three years later, this guy was able to get on board an aircraft, mix together a liquid explosive and attempt to detonate it (didn't work...just like the security experts said it wouldn't). The people on the aircraft stopped him from giving it another shot.
So, what are you defending?
Fine
You pay for it.
You want to spend trillion of dollars for politicians to give themselves someone to throw under the bus instead of taking responsibility, go for it.
You call it security theater,
No, it isn't, and no, it isn't.
Security theater doesn't stop plots (good detective and police work does) and it doesn't stop attacks (if it had detected even one, don't you think the TSA and the rest of the fear industry would be shouting it from the rooftops and/or Fox News?). It does waste resources (how much money do the scanners cost again?) and time.
In 2009, there were 769 million passengers on US airlines and on foreign carriers' US flights. If each of those people wasted an extra 5 minutes due to security theater, that's 7,310 person-years or about 2 1/2 years per life lost on 9/11. Per year.
Then why does the stuff they confiscate go into a giant trash barrel and not a hazmat container?
You call it security theater,
Only in name. Not in practice.
I'd rather take my chances with no passenger screening than with a checkpoint whose officers' thinking is so rigid and inflexible to deny access to a food item.
The same could be said for any carry-on item. Medicines in labeled bottles are allowed in any quantity. How do you know that bottle really has medication and not liquid explosives? I suppose all medications should be banned too, huh?
You'd make a great TSA employee.
I would never have let that cupcake through
I just don't have the will power. I would have gobbled down that cupcake within five minutes of getting it.
TSA is a billion dollar waste
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haEyId7jHss
Twin Tubes of Terror
Will Cannoli in tupper containers still be permitted? Or is ricotta filling not a gel of dooooooom?
Peabody pronunciation
I like that the AP story includes a pronunciation guide for Peabody:
Accept the risk and the "theater" goes away.
I'll say it again. All of this will go away when and if we decide that we are willing to lose a couple of hundred or thousand people a year to terrorist events in the name of preserving our civil liberties. (Presumably people still want to make sure that things like radioactive materials or bioterroist materials will still stay off aircraft, as airborne distribution of those could cause much higher casualty counts.)
I presume that everyone mocking TSA on this thread is prepared to make that trade off. I, am still undecided on the matter.
Numbers from where?
Enquiring minds want to know where this comes from:
We seem to be willing to accept the loss of tens of thousands of people a year in order to have people drive everywhere.
Those are numbers from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables...
Now you tell me - where did your "couple of hundred thousand people" estimate come from? Because gross exaggeration is a HUGE part of the security theater problem. Movies showing whole cities being destroyed is scary, but it isn't the same as real risk analysis and actual probabilities.
Each of the most notorious of sentinel terrorist incidents cost only a few thousand lives, which is an order of magnitude less than yearly road carnage. Even the worst years for terrorism barely came close to the pedestrian deaths in the US alone. Perhaps priorities are misplaced, no?
Don't forget about the 15,000
Don't forget about the 15,000 or so homicide victims last year.
Until we have a Congress that views terrorism as merely another form of crime, and not some vaunted behavior, and until we stop having executives and lobbyists of companies in the homeland security industry knocking on the doors of Congress, the DHS and TSA are going nowhere.
Fear is a powerful emotion. And fear is a huge money-maker too.
Reread that
I think the point was a 3 or 4 digit loss of life - not 6 figures swirly.
Let's face it, the terrorists have won. They are still not with us, they are still against us. Mission Accomplished!
Road Terrorists
The traffic death figures are declining, but consistent.
The "terrorist death" figures are sporadic and relatively low.
Again - where do you put our money in response to the ACTUAL risks?
I agree with you
Tongue firmly in cheek above about the terrorists (except for where he says a few hundred to a few thousand - I think you missed the or).
I agree - while some reasonable level of security is probably needed for planes - pre 9/11 plus some of the more effective things we've come up with since - we lose tens of thousands every year from traffic accidents, gun accidents and homicides. Lock up the handguns and the drunks and 20,000 plus people get to see New Year's 2013 - if the Mayans don't get us first.
CIA
was the major problem, and ultimately that was a problem of institutional failure of policing. Long after the fact we know know we had all the puzzle pieces, but the guys in charge of putting them together and getting the logistics going to stop them were on a perpetual coffee break.
Luckily it seems to have been fixed. Unluckily we also got the TSA tacked on as a "solution" to something that was never a problem we could "fix".
Thats part of the problem.
You don't know how many people didn't try to attempt an amateur hijacking or bombing because of the increased security at airports this year. I have to believe there is some copycat wannabe who simply didn't try because he thought twice about his dope plan that had zero chance to work because of the TSA.
I also believe he said hundreds or thousands, not hundreds of thousands. That would mean to me several planes a year getting blown up. I'm going to assume that if you eliminate all security, you are going to see a few planes blow up. How many planes blow up if you eliminate 20% of the security? what about 50%? 80%?
I could be off base, but lets try to compare this to the issue of bank robberies. We know that some people have, and want to rob banks, like we know that people have, and want to blow up planes. After seeing how banks get robbed, several expensive security measures can be put in place. Cameras, thick safes, bullet proof windows and counters, unarmed security guards, armed security guards, armed police, heavily armed police or security guards.
For the most part, US banks with the least amount of security are going to get robbed more. Banks with cops and armed guards don't get robbed at all. Is the insurance risk of the armed guard worth it? Would you end up spending more than you would have lost if you got robbed? Is the guard just there to make customers or workers feel safe? Does it matter that the banks are private?
I'm just throwing it out there but I'm with Issac.
One huge problem with your
One huge problem with your argument.
Terrorism, and the desire to attack airplanes, did not start on 9/11/01.
There were several high-profile plane bombings in the decades before 9/11/01. Where were all those copycat terrorists then, knowing that all that stood between them and an attack were a metal detector and bag x-ray -- the same checkpoint technology that caught nearly all the TSA's "good catches" last year and which has been standard checkpoint technology for decades.
And if there are so many copycat terrorists out there, where are the attacks on buses and trains and malls and the dozens of other places many people congregate?
You are right.
Although we don't know about the desire of terrorists, bombings were an issue before 9/11, but it wasn't the bombings themselves. The attention of 9/11 is what copycats are going to go after.
And that is why we don't see the attacks on buses, trains and malls, and is also why we don't have security agents at those locations.
The wannabe terrorist doesn't care about killing lots of people. The wannabe terrorist wants attention. He doesn't get that by blowing up buses, he gets that by blowing up planes.
A 9/11/01-style hijacking
A 9/11/01-style hijacking will never succeed again.
The attacks didn't succeed because of failures at the checkpoints.
If we had 2012 TSA security at 9/11
Would it have happend? Don't you want to be progressive with security measures?
What, you mean like this?
Why? Is the 2012 TSA any different than the March 2011 TSA that let three boxcutters board an international flight out of JFK in NYC?
Even better? The TSA spokesperson named all of the reasons why the public was not at risk:
So, the public wasn't at risk even though this guy got on the plane as if the TSA checkpoint didn't even exist...because of all of the things that have nothing to do with the TSA. So, even the TSA doesn't think you have a point, Pete.
No the public wasn't at risk in this situation.
Because the person didn't intend to hijack the plane, and he couldn't have done it anyway because of the new cockpit regulations.
Two different issues with that case.
Cut and dry
Come on. It's cut and dry. The intent of the box cutter owner is completely immaterial to your question.
9/11/2001: guys got on planes with box cutters. No TSA rules at security checkpoint to stop them.
3/2011: guy gets on plane with box cutters. TSA screwed up their own rules at security checkpoint by not stopping him.
Your point was: If we had today's TSA on 9/11/2001, would guys get on planes with box cutters and get a chance to take over the cockpits?
The answer: Today's TSA has directly demonstrated an inability to stop guys from getting onto a plane with box cutters. HOWEVER, other measures that have nothing to do with the TSA checkpoint would stop a repeat of 2001's assault on the pilots.
That's exactly right! It's good; we agree! It's NOT TSA that stops a repeat of 9/11/2001 as you claimed/asked above!
I'm talking about federal regulations.
TSA checkpoints and cockpit protocols coming from the same place.
The reinforced cockpit doors
The reinforced cockpit doors are new, yes. The unwillingness of passengers and crew to go along with hijackers is also new, but was put into place literally within hours of the first hijacking...and while it couldn't stop the hijacking of UA93 at that point, it did stop the airplane from being used as a weapon.
Note that this willingness to fight back was not in any way a TSA initiative (since the TSA didn't exist at the time) nor is there a Federal law saying that passengers must fight back. Unsurprisingly, they've shown that they'll do it anyway.
Note: Several in a DECADE
Not several EACH YEAR.
Even then, we would have to take out 10 to 20 jets to approach the number of pedestrians killed in 2008.
There would have to be 100 - 200 such successful incidents in one year to approach the number killed on highways each year.
Sense of proportion of risk needed, yes.
Speaking of proportion
Even if 100 airplanes were blown up in a year, it would still be about 0.3% of all flights for a SINGLE DAY in the U.S. alone (there are about 30,000 flights a day). There's an exponentially diminishing return on the cost of having the TSA (as if it's the ONLY line of defense) stopping "not even one" terrorist from *attempting* to bomb a plane. Yet, that kind of a mandate is what leads to cupcakes in jars getting turned into national news stories.
Didn't they relax the scissors rule and allow them back on planes starting again in 2005? Where are all the copycat wannabe terrorists using nail clippers and scissors to hijack cockpits and fly the planes into the Empire State Building, Pete?
The cockpit doors changed I believe.
And Pilots have new security measures and protocols of their own in the cockpit.
I mean, you seem to know all the answers, why hasn't 10 years of politicians figured it out yet? You should give them a call.
They're not paid to figure it out
Guys like this are and they're ignored. There's a lot of money corrupting the *right* decisions from being made. Who do you think a politician cares more about? Me or Rapiscan's campaign contributions to their SuperPAC?
They have
Spending money and talking tough = being serious in the eye of the public. And when it fails you have a large amorphous institution to point to to tack the blame on and save your hide.
This isn't hard to understand. The TSA is just serving it's function of the well paid fall guy, since they're not doing any true police or defense work.
The motor vehicle/pedestrian stuff
Is a little different because people are helpless on planes and expect a different level of security there.
People walking and driving on roads with vehicles take a different risk.
And we do provide many regulations for this area. Seatbelts, speedlimits, licenses, registrations, inspections, traffic signals, street lights, lane widths, truck regulations.
Maybe that's part of the problem
People AREN'T any more helpless on a plane than they are in a car that is about to be struck by a drunk driver. In fact, in multiple incidents where the TSA or some other country's agency has failed to stop a bomber from boarding a plane (shoe bomber, underwear bomber, etc.), the passengers stopped them in mid-attempt.
Furthermore, the fact that they expect some higher level of security actually DESENSITIZES them to defending themselves from something like a possible attack.
That's exactly our point. The level of acceptable risk that is required for airline travel is absurdly low and extremely costly as such in both money and freedom. If you required every car and truck to be scanned by a TSA checkpoint for potential bomb material before entering the Big Dig or crossing the Golden Gate Bridge, then we'd see how long it took for people to get fed up of giving away their freedoms and the cost to society of the delayed traffic.
Bingo
You are 100% right. And although people might be upset with the money that goes into the TSA and the potential loss of freedoms, I still think most Americans are ok with this type of security at airports.
But what do you think will happen if we start to see truck bombings? Something will have to be done don't you think?
And I've paid tens of thousands of dollars in government mandated insurance for my motor vehicle in my lifetime. So there is a lot of cost in that area as well (obviously spills into the health care system)
And they are more helpless in a plane. Choosing to drive a car and avoid crashes is still a different risk than being a passanger in a plane.
What I also don't know
What I also don't know is how many tiger attacks my pet rock I carry with me at all times has kept away.
Beyond the silliness about numbers, the point remains
Swirly, I typically enjoy your comments, but your constant demand for numbers, particularly in situations like this where I was clearly trying to illustrate a larger qualitative point and not a quantitative one, has become tiresome.
Firstly, I said a couple of hundred OR thousand, not a couple of hundred thousand, which of course would have been, as you pointed out, ridiculous. (I won't hit you, though I should given your tone, about your frequent demands for better reading comprehension). But that is still not the point. Insert whatever number you want. 10. 100. 1000. The point is, do you really believe that the number would be near zero if there were not such stringent security for air travel? As you and lots of others have subsequently pointed out, there are lots of people getting killed around the country all the time - do you think those numbers would be so high if the government had the authority to inspect people on the street in the same manner that it does at an airplane checkpoint? Of course the numbers would be nowhere near as high. I don't think I want to live in that world, but I think that the point is not credibly disputable (and no, I am not going to search for numbers from countries where such inspections are commonplace and which have substantially lower crime rates than we do, but I won't stop you from successfully doing so).
Getting back to the main issue, you made the point in your example that I was making in my statement. We as a society have clearly accepted the risks that come with driving, and as evidence of that, we do not enforce motor vehicle laws very strictly (if we did, and had better driver training, the numbers of fatalities would be much lower than they are). The point holds in the aviation security realm. If you don't enforce the rules very strictly, some wacko, whether "terrorist" or common criminal, is going to take something onto an aircraft that will enable him/her to kill some people, just people who routinely drive at 90 mph will eventually kill some people, and just as the person entering the mall (no meaningful security inspections) with a bomb strapped to his/her chest will kill some people.
My point was a simple one - the world is a dangerous place that can be made safer, but most of the time, it is made so at the cost of personal freedom. The body politic determines where the balance is, and w/r/t air travel, it has determined (even if the majority in the UH world have not) that it is willing to give up more personal freedom in that realm than in others (e.g., driving an automobile). As I said, I'm not sure that I like it, but its a fair presentation of the issue, which is all that I sought to do.
We lost a few thousand
In New Orleans.
Where was the trillion spent to fix the levees? Why hasn't a trillion been spent since?
Your red herring is redder than our sun Issac... You're arguing billions of dollars in theater is needed to protect "us" from something that is statistically irrelevant.
Britain has had actual subway bombings, and they response wasn't a collective panty wetting. It was to drink a beer and flip off the Islamists.
You also don't seem to understand the greatest sorce of terrorism in the US. It's red blooded American citizens, not people flying in from 1/2 way across the world.
Redder than your face, perhaps?
Nope, Anon2, I'm not arguing that at all. Just merely framing the issue as less chance of being killed on an airplane as inversely related to personal freedom at the airport. No argument there, and I clearly stated that I haven't even decided on which side I come down, so it would have been pretty silly to have argued one or the other.
And where the eff you came up with that last part is completely unknown to me.
Finally, if you think that the UK's response to the Islamists and the IRA has been to have a beer and flip off the Islamists, you need to get to London a bit more frequently. Do you think the NYPD came up with the Ring of Steel?
Sheesh.
Once again the age old American tradition
of displaying overwhelming force as a security measure falls ridiculously short. I'm at Logan every day and I can tell you the majority of the TSA agents there aren't fit to protect a McDonald's.
What we need is a system like the Israelis have. Theirs is a more psychologically based system. I've flown into Ben Gurion and one of the security guys told me you're on camera from the time you pull up to the terminal until you get on the plane. They have no bones about letting everyone know it and that seems to be a better deterrent.
I also believe what someone said recently that TSA jobs should be made available to returning veterans first. They have the discipline, the experience and the respect for people that is sorely missing from our current TSA agents who in my experience only care about their next cigarette break.