Airport Security

Tester46 · 20-08-2010 8:43am #1

I was recently passing through security in Dublin Airport. Good boy that I am, I had all my toiletries in small containers of less than 100ml in a clear sandwich bag. When the nice lady at the security desk saw my see-through sandwich bag, she told me it was the wrong size and I would have to buy a slightly smaller one from the vending machine behind her and transfer my shower gel, toothpaste, etc. into the new bag. There was no problem with the actual toiletries, just the see-through bag.

After much sweating and frantic searching, I eventually found a 2 euro coin to use in the vending machine. Out popped 2 see-through sandwich bags (only slightly smaller in size than my original bag) and I dropped my shower gel, etc into it. At that point I was legal and was allowed through security by the nice lady, but only after I had held up everyone in the queue and been made to feel like I had been caught just in time before I had committed a horrendous crime.

It got me thinking. Is there any clear legal basis for airport security in different airports operating different rules? Is there any requirement of reasonableness and proportionality or does, ehem, "national security" and "public safety" trump all other rights?

How is it that my slightly larger sandwich bag was deemed an unacceptable security risk, but not the glass bottle of flammable brandy and the cigarette lighter that I could have bought in duty-free?

Just curious.

Grawns · 20-08-2010 8:54am

Sounds like a money spinner to me.

XxMCRxBabyxX · 20-08-2010 9:00am

I'm pretty sure that there is no rule on size. How could the size of a bag be an issue? No one stopped us with our own bags the last time we went away anyway.

As the above poster said, it just sounds like a way to make more money off you!

FreudianSlippers · 20-08-2010 9:03am

Tester46 wrote: »

I was recently passing through security in Dublin Airport. Good boy that I am, I had all my toiletries in small containers of less than 100ml in a clear sandwich bag. When the nice lady at the security desk saw my see-through sandwich bag, she told me it was the wrong size and I would have to buy a slightly smaller one from the vending machine behind her and transfer my shower gel, toothpaste, etc. into the new bag. There was no problem with the actual toiletries, just the see-through bag.

After much sweating and frantic searching, I eventually found a 2 euro coin to use in the vending machine. Out popped 2 see-through sandwich bags (only slightly smaller in size than my original bag) and I dropped my shower gel, etc into it. At that point I was legal and was allowed through security by the nice lady, but only after I had held up everyone in the queue and been made to feel like I had been caught just in time before I had committed a horrendous crime.

It got me thinking. Is there any clear legal basis for airport security in different airports operating different rules? Is there any requirement of reasonableness and proportionality or does, ehem, "national security" and "public safety" trump all other rights?

How is it that my slightly larger sandwich bag was deemed an unacceptable security risk, but not the glass bottle of flammable brandy and the cigarette lighter that I could have bought in duty-free?

Just curious.

I've never heard of that before and I go through security quite often. My girlfriend, in fact, uses a more rigid clear bag with a slide zip on the top and they have never mentioned a thing to her once they can easily see that everything is the right size (after all that is the point of the clear bag)

seamus · 20-08-2010 9:05am

The EU rules state that the bag cannot be more than 1L in maximum volume. Now, that's a bit silly because any bag made of plastic could expand to fit more than it's rated maximum, but anyway.

Unless you have proof that you have a 1L sandwich bag, then it's your word against the security officer's.

Whatever about the legality here, this is similar to nightclubs operating a search policy for people entering the nightclub. You have the option to be searched and use the nightclub, or don't be searched and denied access.
Likewise, you follow the Airport's rules and get your flight, or you can choose not to follow the airport's rules and not fly. Nobody's forcing you to do anything because you have alternative methods of travelling internationally.

I imagine the IAA & EU rules regarding security have some legal backing and all Irish airports are required to implement those rules. However, there is nothing stopping them from adding discretionary rules (within reason).

Tester46 · 20-08-2010 9:08am

OK, say you're right. Say it is just a money spinner. In my scenario above, if I had
1) not had a 2 euro coin to buy the new sandwich bag or
2) had politely refused and insisted my existing sandwich bag was sufficient,
could they have refused to allow me through security and therefore prevented me from boarding my flight? Could they have deemed me to be a "security risk" because I dared to challenge them and arrest me (or worse - think latex glove)?

I only mention the above because of the climate of fear and subjugation which exists in airports these days. It seems no one will dare challenge the authorities, no matter how ridiculous the rules appear to be.

Tester46 · 20-08-2010 9:20am

seamus wrote: »

The EU rules state that the bag cannot be more than 1L in maximum volume. Now, that's a bit silly because any bag made of plastic could expand to fit more than it's rated maximum, but anyway.

Unless you have proof that you have a 1L sandwich bag, then it's your word against the security officer's.

Whatever about the legality here, this is similar to nightclubs operating a search policy for people entering the nightclub. You have the option to be searched and use the nightclub, or don't be searched and denied access.
Likewise, you follow the Airport's rules and get your flight, or you can choose not to follow the airport's rules and not fly. Nobody's forcing you to do anything because you have alternative methods of travelling internationally.

I imagine the IAA & EU rules regarding security have some legal backing and all Irish airports are required to implement those rules. However, there is nothing stopping them from adding discretionary rules (within reason).

1. You say the EU rules state the size limit of the bag. If that's the case, so be it. It is stupid though. I thought the size limit was meant to be on the containers in the bag, not on the bag. How are 2 x 100ml shower gels in a 1 litre bag any safer than the same two gels in a 1.5 litre bag? Still, if those are the rules...

2. I wouldn't agree that airports are similar to nightclubs. They are usually controlled and policed by the State and are subject to national and international law and conventions. For example, a nightclub could operate a policy that said that only those in suits and shiny leather shoes could enter through the front door. I don't believe an airport would be allowed to operate a similar policy.

3. You last comment is really what my first question is about. Are airports really allowed add "discretionary" rules? What is "within reason"? What I mean is that if the EU imposes a Europe-wide set of rules, then I guess we will have to live with them. The fact they are Europe-wide means they probably won't be entirely stupid (or maybe not?). But if every airport can operate its own rules, then you might have to strip buck naked and dance the Macarena in Dublin Airport, and have to dress up in a gorilla suit and sing God Save The Queen on the return journey from Heathrow.

(and neither of those examples are any sillier than my plastic sandwich bag being slightly over the regulation size);)

seamus · 20-08-2010 9:33am

Tester46 wrote: »

1. You say the EU rules state the size limit of the bag. If that's the case, so be it. It is stupid though. I thought the size limit was meant to be on the containers in the bag, not on the bag. How are 2 x 100ml shower gels in a 1 litre bag any safer than the same two gels in a 1.5 litre bag? Still, if those are the rules...

Because a 1 litre bag limits the maximum amount of stuff which can be packed. A 1.5 litre bag allows you to (theoretically) bring 1.5 litres of liquid on board. A 1 litre bag limits you to 1 litre. If you start applying different rules depending on what the passenger is carrying, then you start getting headaches people challenging you. For the sake of efficiency, hard-and-fast rules are the only way to go.

2. I wouldn't agree that airports are similar to nightclubs. They are usually controlled and policed by the State and are subject to national and international law and conventions. For example, a nightclub could operate a policy that said that only those in suits and shiny leather shoes could enter through the front door. I don't believe an airport would be allowed to operate a similar policy.

No, see below about "reasonable".

What is "within reason"?

Anything which the establishment can show is necessary for the operation of that establishment. In the case of a nightclub, they can insist on a suit and shiny shoes because they can show that they're trying to maintain a dress policy in line with the class of the club. They couldn't have you dance around like a monkey and pin a tail on you unless they're running a club solely for the benefit of monkey-fanciers.

Likewise an airport can impose whatever requirements are necessary for the efficient running of the airport and the security of passengers and flights. I agree that arguing about the size of a small plastic bag is ridiculous, but they're legally bound to prevent you from carrying the bag onboard, so there's no real argument here.

drkpower · 20-08-2010 9:39am

Tester46 wrote: »

I only mention the above because of the climate of fear and subjugation which exists in airports these days. It seems no one will dare challenge the authorities, no matter how ridiculous the rules appear to be.

FFs, just use the bag they tell you to use. Noone is oppressing you because they dictate the type of plastic bag you are allowed to use.:rolleyes:

Are the passport office oppressing me because I cant use a pp photo that isnt exactly regulation size; or that doesnt have a clear background? Why cant I use a pp photo with a red background, or one that is 1 milimetre smaller or bigger? Why? Why? Why? Is there a climate of fear and subjugation in the Dept of Foreign Affairs.

All kinds of beaurocracy involves the implementation of generic one-size-fits-all that are often a pain in the ass and appear non-sensical. If there wasnt such rules, some people will turn up with massive plastic bags, or tiny ones, or ones with a yellow tinge, or ones with holes, or ones that have small bits that arent see through, and the security staff will spend all day debating with themselves an you whether these bags are ok. So to avoid this, they implement a one-size-fits-all rule.

Sadly, this communist fascist totalitarian regime results in incredible injustice (:D) to poor people like yourself who have to, wait for it, get another fcuking plastic bag (oh, you poor thing), and who are traumatised as a result.

Delancey · 20-08-2010 9:43am

Security lady sounds like a Grade A Jobsworth

Tester46 · 20-08-2010 9:44am

seamus wrote: »

Likewise an airport can impose whatever requirements are necessary for the efficient running of the airport and the security of passengers and flights. I agree that arguing about the size of a small plastic bag is ridiculous, but they're legally bound to prevent you from carrying the bag onboard, so there's no real argument here.

Which goes back to my original question. Is there any requirement for reasonableness and proportionality or can, as you say, "an airport [] impose whatever requirements are necessary for the efficient running of the airport and the security of passengers and flights"?

In my original example, I would have thought there is a serious deficit of reasonableness and proportionality if I am stopped because my sandwich bag is the wrong size, but then allowed to buy 2 litres of explosive/flammable liquid in a smashable glass bottle along with a cigarette lighter and a packet of tissues on the other side of the security desk.

Tester46 · 20-08-2010 9:45am

drkpower wrote: »

FFs, just use the bag they tell you to use. Noone is oppressing you because they dictate the type of plastic bag you are allowed to use.:rolleyes:

Are the passport office oppressing me because I cant use a pp photo that isnt exactly regulation size; or that doesnt have a clear background? Why cant I use a pp photo with a red background, or one that is 1 milimetre smaller or bigger? Why? Why? Why? Is there a climate of fear and subjugation in the Dept of Foreign Affairs.

All kinds of beaurocracy involves the implementation of generic one-size-fits-all that are often a pain in the ass and appear non-sensical. If there wasnt such rules, some people will turn up with massive plastic bags, or tiny ones, or ones with a yellow tinge, or ones with holes, or ones that have small bits that arent see through, and the security staff will spend all day debating with themselves an you whether these bags are ok. So to avoid this, they implement a one-size-fits-all rule.

Sadly, this communist fascist totalitarian regime results in incredible injustice (:D) to poor people like yourself who have to, wait for it, get another fcuking plastic bag (oh, you poor thing), and who are traumatised as a result.

You are a Fianna Fail voter I see

drkpower · 20-08-2010 9:54am

Tester46 wrote: »

You are a Fianna Fail voter I see

Is this a FF policy?
Was this in the manifesto?
Is this in the programme for government?
Will FG/Labour/a.n.other change this policy?

Or was that just a throw-away comment used as disguise for your inablility to construct an argument of any substance?

There is no legal issue here; take it somewhere else where your cries of plastic bag oppression and DAA tyranny may be treated with something more than the derision they deserve.

Tester46 · 20-08-2010 10:03am

drkpower wrote: »

Is this a FF policy?
Was this in the manifesto?
Is this in the programme for government?
Will FG/Labour/a.n.other change this policy?

Or was that just a throw-away comment used as disguise for your inablility to construct an argument of any substance?

There is no legal issue here; take it somewhere else where your cries of plastic bag oppression and DAA tyranny may be treated with something more than the derision they deserve.

You are absolutely right of course. It was utterly unreasonable of me to raise an issue of law in the legal discussion forum.

We should not question the rules. We should just accept them. They are there to protect us. The government loves us and knows what is best for us. Anyone who questions the rules must be a devient and a subversive. Kill them all!:D

deandean · 20-08-2010 10:04am

It is my experience that many Airport security personnel are a bunch of limp-wristed egomaniacs on a power trip; their job is the only time they get to boss people around. They must end up as objects of hatred to many due to the way they treat the travelling public.

BUT if you want to get onto your flight: I have found the only option is keep your lip buttoned, be polite and do exactly as they say.

It makes travelling easier if you just accept that you are an object on a conveyor belt being processed once you enter the hell hole that is Dublin Airport.

You could possibly go for a high court review but you'd miss your flight.

drkpower · 20-08-2010 10:19am

Tester46 wrote: »

You are absolutely right of course. It was utterly unreasonable of me to raise an issue of law in the legal discussion forum.

There isnt any legal Q. of substance here; Seamus has pretty much answered your Q. If you were talking about some issue like strip-searching, or something that genuinely invades one's personal rights, you might have something to debate. But, what is your proposed infringement of our liberties? Yes, that's right; the size of your plastic bag.......

Tester46 wrote: »

We should not question the rules. We should just accept them. They are there to protect us. The government loves us and knows what is best for us. Anyone who questions the rules must be a devient and a subversive. Kill them all!:D

No, anyone who suggests that the airport making you bring a uniform size plastic bag is furthering a 'climate of fear and subjugation' must be a child.:D

Tester46 · 20-08-2010 10:28am

drkpower wrote: »

There isnt any legal Q. of substance here; Seamus has pretty much answered your Q. If you were talking about some issue like strip-searching, or something that genuinely invades one's personal rights, you might have something to debate. But, what is your proposed infringement of our liberties? Yes, that's right; the size of your plastic bag.......

No, anyone who suggests that the airport making you bring a uniform size plastic bag is furthering a 'climate of fear and subjugation' must be a child.:D

You are right again! I am withering in the face of your laser-like legal reasoning. I submit. I am 100% wrong. You are 100% right. There are no grey areas. You are indeed a master of the law (albeit one who doesn't understand that reasonableness and proportionality are legal concepts).

I have to go now. May I wish you a pleasant life. :rolleyes:

drkpower · 20-08-2010 10:38am

Tester46 wrote: »

You are right again! I am withering in the face of your laser-like legal reasoning. I submit. I am 100% wrong. You are 100% right. There are no grey areas. You are indeed a master of the law (albeit one who doesn't understand that reasonableness and proportionality are legal concepts).

I have to go now. May I wish you a pleasant life. :rolleyes:

Awww; running off in a huff......:D

And of course reasonableness and proportionality are legal concepts. Well done on that at least. Of course, if you had bothered to google the relevent regulation first, you would have seen that they include references to the measures being relevant, objective, non-discriminatory and proportional to the risk that is being addressed. The point is that your gripe (plastic bag size) wouldnt even come to close to breaching any of those general legal criteria. Not within an asses roar of being close.

But, you dont really care about what the legal answer is; you just want to cry about the 'man' oppressing you, the climate of fear in the airport, whilst 'accusing' anyone who disagrees with you of being a 'FF voter'. And then running off when you are called on it:D;).

McCrack · 20-08-2010 12:07pm

This thread reminds me of one I read in the motors forum recently made by some guy who had a big issue that petrol pumps no longer have the click to hold open and fill mechanism so now he has to stand there continuously sqeezing the nozzle until his tank fills...same with this and when the rationale is explained the OP gets all snotty.

Some people..

Tester46 · 20-08-2010 12:08pm

drkpower wrote: »

Awww; running off in a huff......:D

But, you dont really care about what the legal answer is; you just want to cry about the 'man' oppressing you, the climate of fear in the airport, whilst 'accusing' anyone who disagrees with you of being a 'FF voter'. And then running off when you are called on it:D;).

Not really. If you had taken the time to read my original post you would have seen that my actual questions were:

"Is there any clear legal basis for airport security in different airports operating different rules? Is there any requirement of reasonableness and proportionality or does, ehem, "national security" and "public safety" trump all other rights? How is it that my slightly larger sandwich bag was deemed an unacceptable security risk, but not the glass bottle of flammable brandy and the cigarette lighter that I could have bought in duty-free?

Just curious."

At no point did I accuse "the man" or anyone else of "oppressing" me. At no point did I claim that the refusal to accept my plastic bag was an egregious breach of my civil liberties. You are the one who is becoming all melodramatic and putting words in quotation marks when I never used those words. You are the one who is misquoting me, Joe Duffy-style, to advance your own argument.

Just because the regulation states that it is "proportional to the risk that is being addressed" does not mean that it is proportional. That is a decision the courts make. That is why there is a separation of powers. Might I hazard a guess from your username that you are not in fact a lawyer, but that you are a medic with an oversized ego who feels his medical degree and his two month course in medical law and ethics qualifies him to comment on legal (and any other) issues? Just a guess. You may think you have a blinding intellect but, on the evidence so far, it is perfectly clear you do not.

As I really do have to go now, Good Day to you. Oh, and I still wish you an adequately pleasant life.

drkpower · 20-08-2010 12:15pm

Tester46 wrote: »

At no point did I accuse "the man" or anyone else of "oppressing" me. At no point did I claim that the refusal to accept my plastic bag was an egregious breach of my civil liberties. You are the one who is becoming all melodramatic and putting words in quotation marks when I never used those words.

Yes; I am the one being melodramatic........:D:rolleyes:;):D

Tester46 wrote: »

I only mention the above because of the climate of fear and subjugation which exists in airports these days. It seems no one will dare challenge the authorities, no matter how ridiculous the rules appear to be. .

Tester46 wrote: »

As I really do have to go now, Good Day to you. Oh, and I still wish you an adequately pleasant life.

Run away; run away....:D

Tester46 · 20-08-2010 12:15pm

McCrack wrote: »

This thread reminds me of one I read in the motors forum recently made by some guy who had a big issue that petrol pumps no longer have the click to hold open and fill mechanism so now he has to stand there continuously sqeezing the nozzle until his tank fills...same with this and when the rationale is explained the OP gets all snotty.

Some people..

My OP was about the legal basis of airport security regulations and their reasonableness and proportionality. Maybe you don't understand what that means, but I suggest you don't display your ignorance here?

If you have something useful to add, please do - discussion and debate are what we are all here for. If you have nothing more to add than your insightful comments above, then you might be better served going back to the motors forum to discuss oily spanners and V8s with other virtual mechanics.

Tester46 · 20-08-2010 12:16pm

drkpower wrote: »

Yes; I am the one being melodramatic........:D:rolleyes:;):D

Run away; run away....:D

So you are a doctor then....

drkpower · 20-08-2010 12:18pm

Tester46 wrote: »

So you are a doctor then....

What does that have to do with anything?

To answer your question: not anymore.

axer · 20-08-2010 12:18pm

Tester46 wrote: »

IGood boy that I am, I had all my toiletries in small containers of less than 100ml in a clear sandwich bag.

The problem is you were not good enough of a boy since it clearly states everywhere that the bag cannot be larger than a 1L bag. The problem is you had full rights to turn around and go back out and purchase a 1L bag wherever you wanted and then come back but they obviously have the €2 1L bags there to make some money which I think is exploiting the situation but the rules are clearly shown everywhere so there is nothing forcing you to purchase their over priced plastic bags.

Maximilian · 20-08-2010 12:31pm

/closing rant thread.

Airport Security

Comments