New TSA weapon policy change is misguided

Following the Transportation Safety Administration’s (TSA) installation of full body scanners and the enactment of limitations on the size of liquid containers, some frequent flyers grumbled about the added inconvenience, but most embraced these precautions for the greater protection they promised to provide. Since September 11, these enhancements of airport and in-flight security and surveillance are part of a concerted effort to safeguard our skies and protect against future hijackings or terrorist attacks.

But on Tuesday, the TSA announced that it will overturn its ban on small pocket knives and certain sporting equipment, allowing passengers to again carry sharp objects and sticks in their carry-on luggage.

A number of high-level officials have come out in support of this policy change, arguing that advancements in intelligence and technology have made cockpit intrusions less likely and have eliminated the threat of hijacking once posed by sharp objects, such as pocketknives shorter than 2.36 inches.

Furthermore, since it is possible to fashion these types of sharp objects from items on board, such as plastic cutlery or aluminum cans, they argue that it is unnecessary to continue to uphold this ban. Other supporters contend that it’s not only unnecessary to ban sharp objects, but it’s also a burden which only exacerbates long lines at security checkpoints and leads to more disgruntled passengers. It seems that the general consensus is that, since these items can no longer lead to a hijacking of a plane during flight, it is prudent to allow them onboard.

There are, however, several logical and intuitive flaws in the TSA’s decision. The first major oversight is that even if the cockpit is indeed secure, these new provisions will still allow items which can be used as weapons onto the aircraft, which have for good reason been deemed unacceptable for stowing in carry-on luggage. Regardless of their size, some of these items such as pocket knives still pose a great threat to the safety of the aircrew and passengers.

It is both counterintuitive and potentially dangerous to allow these objects onboard, even in situations in which there is no threat of terrorism. In an enclosed environment, there is always the potential for violence between passengers or between passengers and the flight crew.

Sharp objects only increase the chance for violence by providing a mechanism to inflict damage. There is no reason to allow these items on an airplane and it is imprudent to provide an avenue for an attack which would have been prevented under the old TSA policies.

The news of this policy decision comes soon after the announcement of furloughs of FAA and TSA personnel due to the recent budget sequestration. The impending decrease in airport and security personnel will inevitably lead to delays at security checkpoints.

The only recognizable advantage of this policy change would be saving the TSA agents whatever time they usually spend confiscating sharp items. Eliminating this task would save the TSA screeners some time, but the same argument can be applied to all the items which violate the liquid limitation. Countless bottles of water, shampoo, cologne and even snow globes are seized due to the possible threat that they may contain explosive material or other dangerous substances. Even though pocket knives and sticks might not pose the same threat as liquids do, it is shortsighted to increase the potential for violence and fatalities simply to shorten lines at the airport.

Krishna Patel is a sophomore Chemistry major from Oakhurst, N.J.