The TSA is on Instagram - and the results are alarming

Why are hundreds of firearms being discovered each month in carry-on bags – and why are the majority of these weapons loaded?

Intimate snapshots of human life filtered to fit the mood or a pseudo-artistic tool nurturing the “selfie” and other types of narcissistic behaviour? However you feel about Instagram, it is a window into the fishbowl of modern culture.

With 130 million users, and 16 billion photo shares, Instagram is the place to “share” – or show off. In fact, the photo sharing phenomenon became so popular and powerful that Facebook desperately bought it for $1bn. And now it’s introduced advertising-friendly, 15-second videos to compete with Vine – or, should it be “Vain”? – to help it cover the cost.

But could it be that the power of sharing images through Instagram could actually communicate something truly valuable? Something that is actually worth more to the follower than the user?

The TSA (the US’s Transportation Security Administration), with its switched-on social media strategy, is about to turn the traditional Instagram experience on its head.

Recently, the TSA has been making more headlines than usual with its foray into Instagram social sharing. The controversial security agency has been linked with Instagram before, when rapper Freddie Gibbs posted an image of a bag of weed which the TSA allegedly found in his checked luggage, with the message: “C’mon son” allegedly written on accompanying official documentation by a TSA officer.

This story broke when it was Instagrammed by Gibbs, and whether it was the 402 likes or the comments that it prompted, or both, the TSA – to even more controversy – has finally opened an Instagram account itself.

With a relatively popular blog, which was started in 2008 and a Twitter account that has amassed 32,000 followers, the agency has been using social media to spread its safety message for some time.

A regular blog feature has been the Week in Review where images of firearms and prohibited items are displayed, evidencing shocking discoveries made at airports each week. On 5 July, for example, 30 firearms were discovered – from stun guns to credit card knives – and 27 of these were loaded.

For the average European citizen, the prospect of guns on planes is alarming, but most of the states in the US uphold the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although different states have different rules, generally it is not illegal to travel with a firearm, but passengers must put unloaded firearms in a locked container or checked baggage, which is very clearly stated by the TSA.

So why, then, are hundreds of firearms being discovered each month in carry-on bags – and why are the majority of these weapons loaded?

The account already has 11 images posted – each with hundreds of shares – and more than 40,000 followers, a number that has outdone its Twitter following in a matter of weeks. And its photo-sharing strategy is hitting headlines, prompting user communication and, by using different filters, creating a visually striking record – which users want to share – of illegally-stowed weapons.

One of the most shocking images is a cool-looking Marlboro red packet, on an arty sepia background, that is actually a stun gun. One user, pafford, commented: “Close call. Imagine if he stunned someone on a plane. Imagine the devastation.” Another disturbing photo shows a credit card knife, discovered at Miami Airport.

By tapping into Instagram’s visual voice, the images of these firearms are not only more provocative, grainy and real, but they are being exposed to a whole new audience who wouldn’t necessarily be subscribing to the blog or following on Twitter.

But where will the daring TSA go next on social? Will it naturally progress to Instagram's 15-second films or to Vine? Right now there doesn't seem to be any medium the agency wouldn't take a shot at.

The Transport Security Administration's account on Twitter - a volatile place to be.

Frances Cook is a freelance energy, transport and lifestyle reporter. She has worked for NRI Digital.

GETTY
Show Hide image

The post-Brexit power vacuum is hindering the battle against climate change

Brexit turmoil should not distract from the enormity of the task ahead.

“The UK will not step back from that international leadership [on clean energy]”, the Secretary for climate change, Amber Rudd, told a sea of suits at Wednesday's summit on Business and the environment.

The setting inside London’s ancient Guidlhall helped load her claims with a sense of continuity. But can such rhetoric be believed? Not only have recent events thrown the UK's future ability to lead on climate change into doubt, but a closer look at policy suggests that this government has rarely been leading to start with.

Rudd’s speech came just 24 hours before she laid the order of approval for the UK’s fifth Carbon Budget. This budget will set our 2028-2032 emissions target at a 57 per cent reduction on 1990 levels – in line with the advice of the independent Committee on Climate Change. And comes amidst a party-wide attempt to reassure green business that Britain is open as normal: "I think investors now should feel they have a very clear path ahead," Andrea Leadsom has insisted.

In some respects, those wanting to make the case for an independent UK, could not have wished for a better example than the home-grown carbon budget. The budget is the legal consequence of the UK’s ground-breaking domestic 2008 Climate Change Act, which aims to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. And the new 57 per cent interim target also appears to put the UK ahead of European efforts on the matter - exceeding the EU goal of a 40 per cent emissions reduction.

The announcement will thus allow David Cameron to argue that he has fulfilled his husky-loving promise to provide leadership on the environment. He may even make it the basis for an early ratification of the Paris Climate Agreement, ahead of the European bloc as a whole.

Yet looked at more closely, the carbon budget throws the UK’s claims to climate leadership into serious doubt.

In the short term, its delayed, last moment, release is a dispiriting example of Westminster’s new power-vacuum. Business leaders, such as those at yesterday’s conference, are crying out for “consistent, coherent and predictable national policies” on climate change and emissions reductions. Yet today’s carbon budget can only go so far to maintaining the pretence of stability.

Earlier this week, Amber Rudd responded to a parliamentary question into how Brexit will effect the UK’s climate ambitions with a link to none other than the Prime Minister’s resignation speech. And while concrete progress on policy will have to wait for party-political power struggles politics to run their course, historic Tory hostility to green policy makes progressive change far from certain.

Supporters of Brexiteer Boris Johnson may have played down his opposition to action on climate change in recent days, quipping that he would sooner be “kebabbed with a steak knife over the dining room table” by his environmentalist father. But the recent appointment of UKIP’s Mark Reckless, from a party notorious for its climate scepticism, as the new chairman of the Welsh committee on climate change has sent shock waves through the environmental community and will do little to help allay investor fears.

More concerning still is the 47 per cent shortfall between emission targets and present reality. A progress report released today is damning evidence of the Conservative's long-term neglect of the underlying issues.

Such censure builds upon the findings of a recent study from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit. Far from leading Europe’s major nations on issues of energy and climate change, their research finds the UK to be distinctly middle of the pack. “Of the ‘Big Five’ economies with comparable levels of population size, GDP, ect., Britain ranks third, behind France and Spain but ahead of Italy and Germany”, write authors Matt Finch and Dr Jonathan Marshall.

A significant number of incentives for government action – such as fines for not meeting interim targets on energy efficiency – would also be nullified in the instance of Brexit. And it cannot even be claimed that our long-term ambition is greater than Europe’s: the UK’s target is an 80 per cent cut between 1990-2050, and the EU’s is 80-95 per cent.

News that the manufacturing giant Siemens is suspending new investment into its UK-based offshore wind operations could thus be set to prove symptomatic of a wider trend. And ministers must act fast to turn promises into policy.

Even  Michael Gove - the man who once wanted to take climate change off the curriculum – now describes as one of the world’s greatest challenges. While according  to the new shadow secretary for energy and climate change, Barry Gardiner: “The government can no longer wait until December to publish its Carbon Plan. It must do so now.”  

Included in such a plan should be clarification of the UK’s relationship to European emissions trading, the development of a Carbon Capture & Storage strategy, and urgent action on heating and transport efficiency. The 5th Carbon Budget is an important step towards this process but Brexit turmoil should not distract from the enormity of the task ahead. Nor from the damning fragility of Cameron’s environmental legacy to date.

 

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.