> He didn't just mouth off, he claimed that he could use the device to circumvent their access badge control system through cloning.
It doesn't matter.
What is allowed inside and what is not allowed inside of an airport should not be a matter of personal discretion.
Either a thing is permitted or it is not permitted. There should be no room for interpretation. If the airport has a problem with these devices, they can damn well write a policy that is observable for anyone prior to visiting the airport.
You can try mental gymnastics to justify this all you want, but the fact remains the device not being permitted is not policy, and the decision to confiscate it was made at a personal level.
> If I casually mention to the cabin crew that my mealtime knife could, technically, be used to stab them, should they also let that slide since I'm just stating the capabilities of the knife?
See, like this sort of mental gymnastics. You wouldn't have the knife confiscated, you would have yourself detained and possibly arrested for demonstrating signs of mental instability. The knife would remain on the aircraft and undergo its normal lifecycle. This really wasn't a difficult situation to theorycraft out, so I'm not sure why you thought it'd support your position.
> If I mouthed off and said I can use it for all sorts of stuff, like jamming security frequencies, I would expect to lose cus
See, that's what's so dim about this logic; you've been so programmed to accept the dick that you think it's totally normal that discussing the capabilities of legal objects is valid grounds for intervention that you honestly think this shouldn't be allowed.
You are part of the problem.