[strela]

You're missing the point. Had it been a cheap lighter, it wouldn't have been a problem.

And I think you're missing my point - the author essentially accused the airline droid of arbitrarily and capriciously confiscating his lighter. I say nay, that the droid was only following the publicly stated policies of his/her employer, said policies being available for the author's perusal as well.

It might be interesting to follow the paperwork trail and demand that the airline show where and how the lighters were destroyed, if indeed they were. If the author could do this and show that the droid was lying to him and pocketed the lighter him/herself, then I think he has a valid point. Otherwise, as they say on Perry Mason, "The burden of proof is on the accuser."

[KCmark]

We just aren't going to see eye to eye.

[T]he author essentially accused the airline droid of arbitrarily and capriciously confiscating his lighter. I say nay,...

If you have flown, you have seen this. This isn't an isolated story.

[T]hat the droid was only following the publicly stated policies of his/her employer, said policies being available for the author's perusal as well.

If those are the policies, then why did he get through so many other airports? And it is a large assumption to think this employee confiscated every item of this nature. They are selective. We've all seen it several times.

You want the paper trail? Try to get anything from an airline. If you have ever worked around people, then you know they exploit the system. I wouldn't trust their explanations of destruction anymore than I trust Saddam's. The system needs to be reworked with some common sense.