[rymohr]

Others seem to be commenting entirely from their own perspective. Try viewing this from the TSA’s or an attacker’s perspective instead and thinking about boundary layers.

In regard to the comments about disposing potentially hazardous water bottles, a TSA agent can rightfully assume that an attacker could dump the contents of said water bottle at any point before the security checkpoint, including into the public water supply. The fact they don’t attempt to prevent this from happening doesn’t make them full of shit, it actually saves tax payer dollars.

[lucb1e]

> Try viewing this from the TSA’s or an attacker’s perspective instead

Those are two very different ones, though. Of the TSA I hear nothing but "theater", so I don't know if they're a for-profit, an organisation to make people feel safe, or just implementing the letter of the law; regardless, the attacker's perspective would be entirely different.

And if you read a few of the comments, most of them do view it from an attacker's point of view. Nobody is going "my precious water has to be thrown away", but rather arguments about what kind of attacks it stops and doesn't stop.

[rymohr]

Yes they are very separate perspectives.

I’d argue they’re still viewing it from their own perspective, though one where they are attempting to circumvent security measures as an attacker.

I’m not talking about that kind of perspective shift. I’m talking about putting on the hat of a cold blooded killer intent on making as big a statement as possible.