Earlier this month, British authorities arrested more than 20 suspects allegedly plotting to board and blow up a group of British Airways flights. According to the authorities, the suspects planned to get through security by making the explosives from acetone, a chemical used in nail polish, and hydrogen peroxide, commonly sold in dilute form at drug and grocery stores. They would then use an electronic device of some sort, such as a portable music player, to detonate the explosive.
As noted in The Washington Post, Britain’s The Register and other news outlets, the plot as described had very little chance of succeeding. The chemicals involved must be mixed slowly at low temperatures to prevent causing an accident that might kill the terrorist, but do very little else. Even so, the plot shows how potentially easy it is to get aircraft destroying explosives through airport security.
As a result, the Transportation Security Administration banned liquids and gels from being carried onto aircraft, despite the fact that no evidence has been given for a similar plot in the United States. As an explicitly temporary measure to ensure that some of the British plotters avoided capture and were planning on continuing their attacks, TSA’s decision might make sense. However, there is no indication that the ban is temporary. Furthermore, according to the TSA Web site, it is a federal crime to bring any banned items-such as a bottle of water-to a security checkpoint at an airport.
British authorities have gone even further, banning laptops and other electronics from carry-on luggage. Instead, passengers were expected to place their multi-thousand dollar laptops and camcorders in checked luggage, at the significant risk of having them damaged and their potentially priceless data lost forever. Because a large portion of fliers are business people, who either work while in the air or need their laptops at their destinations, it’s possible that this decision may cause significant economic harm in lost labor or contracts.
Both responses are too extreme. Liquids are no more likely candidates for explosives than paper products like books, which can be made into the explosive nitrocellulose or metal toys, which could hide thermite powder from detection or a myriad of other everyday items that can successfully conceal explosives. Banning all of these items will lead to requiring everyone to fly in the nude without any carry-on. Even then, a suicide bomber could conceal the explosives in her body quite easily-she is not likely to mind the discomfort. In reality, as long as suicide bombers attack aircraft, sooner or later one will succeed, regardless of the security surrounding the flights.
Also, the TSA’s policies represent an encroachment on civil liberties and property rights. If a government agent can confiscate your property-be it a pocket knife or a $1,000 bottle of perfume-without the due process of a court trial, you effectively don’t own it. Requiring people to submit to searches without evidence of a crime weakens the important constitutional guarantee that people be “secure in the persons … against unreasonable searches.” Overall, the large power the TSA claims over airline passengers strikes at the fundamental American concept of limited government.
Even so, many people feel that TSA’s policy is the proper one. At least they feel safer with the banned items and, given that not all potential suicide bombers have the creativity to penetrate airport security, they may even be marginally safer. Many others, such as myself, feel that the policy harms the liberties of the passengers, greatly inconveniences them and opens a Pandora’s box of government abuse for little or no increase in safety.
The best solution is to accommodate both viewpoints. Allow flights with full TSA security and flights with reduced security. The government can guarantee that full security flights have the same costs as reduced security costs through subsidies. Passengers should have to choose stricter security measures over freedom and convenience or vice versa, this is the essence of the liberty the government exists to protect-being able to make choices and take risks with one’s life. After all, Americans choose convenience and enjoyment over safety everyday when they get in their cars, play sports or engage in many other everyday activities more dangerous than flying.
The security should only be relaxed regarding attacks against suicide bombers. The practices adopted to prevent turning the aircraft into a weapon-essentially taking over the cockpit and flying the plane as a kamikaze-should remain in place. Cockpit doors should be lockable, flight crew should be trained in dealing with emergencies and, most importantly, federal air marshals should be common enough to have a deterrent effect. None of these, though, is effective against a suicide bomber. Nothing really is.
Allowing passengers to choose also silences the substantial criticism that the TSA’s policies are violate civil liberties and are unconstitutional. In choosing to ride a flight with invasive security over one with less, perhaps 1990’s level, security-the passengers agree that the searches are reasonable. Also, allowing passengers to choose their security level gives market forces the chance to fit everybody’s needs. Some may find themselves uncomfortable on flights where pocket knives are allowed, others may also fear water bottles-with some reason. Myself, I will take the risk of both.
Regardless of our best efforts, no aircraft flight or any other activity will ever be perfectly safe. Balancing freedom, convenience and security is a difficult and a single policy will not satisfy everyone. Thus, why not treat individual passengers as adults, and allow passengers airlines to make the choice themselves?