Old Methods Used to Detect Liquid Explosives

Bain writes "According to Wired News, the UK fear of terrorists using liquid explosives could be dramatically reduced by the use of some very old tech. Recent events have seen passengers forced to pack only the barest of essentials into clear plastic bags and the restriction on all liquids force even mothers with young children to have to test bottled milk to prove that it isn't a dangerous liquid." From the article: "For a machine to detect explosives in liquid or solid form, it bombards an object with energy -- such as radio waves or neutrons -- and in seconds measures the reaction, a response that differs depending on the material's chemical properties. Software in the machine is programmed to alert screeners if it detects chemical signatures known to match those of dangerous materials. A key question, though, is whether this kind of detection system can realistically block terrorists from bringing seemingly innocuous liquids past security and combining them later to deadly effect."

Comments

Basic Chem Pwns Bin Laden

[Rachel Lucid]

I thought the chemicals involved in the terror plot (including 'pirahna') were entirely too volatile to be mixed on the plane in the first place, and too stinky to even make it past a sniff test (even in precursor form)? Or at least something inane like you'd blow yourself up before you made enough of it to get anywhere...

What about a bottle within a bottle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it detect that a bottle full of milk doesn't contain a hidden bottle of one's chemical of choice?

And with that aside, how are we protecting the nation's railways, malls, gas stations, and all other manner of targets?

Re:What about a bottle within a bottle?

[DrXym]

And with that aside, how are we protecting the nation's railways, malls, gas stations, and all other manner of targets?

Exactly. If you were a terrorist, why go to the bother of smuggling stuff past x ray machines, suspicious security guards, fellow passengers etc. Wouldn't be simpler and just as effective to blow up a truck outside a random office block? Or a cineplex? Or (ironically) right beside the huge snaking queue waiting to go through airport security.

Re:What about a bottle within a bottle?

[theStorminMormon]

also more dramatic

That's the real key. Blowing up a store is not as big a deal. They have store everywhere. Put airplanes are part of the symbol of western technological power. We think very little of getting into a big steel container, then soaring through the sky for a few hundred miles, then landing and complaining about leg room. The shock of having that modern invention reduced to rubble (with a few hundred people inside) is what they are going for.

Although I've always wondered why they didn't go for more of a solo sniping attack. The panic and fear created by Malvo during his sniping spree on the I-95 corridor between Richmond and D.C. was unbelievable if you lived in that area (I live in Richmond). Two guys, one rifle, one car. You could keep that going for weeks or months at a time, never knowing when it's going to happen, have a few operating in different cities... that would really shake things up.

I really just don't get how the terrorists operate.

-stormin

One problem solved, an infinite amount remains

[chriss]

Please remember:

The planes that were crashed into the WTC where hijacked with carpet cutters. The current threat was discovered when "classic police work" lead to an arrest in Pakistan.

The war against terror is not fought with technology and will never be won by technology. There is no way to guarantee safety from terrorists any more than there is a really secure computer system. The only way to live safely would be in a bunker, and that's no live.

Terror has to be fought by international politics. Anything else will fail, because there will always be loopholes left.

Re:One problem solved, an infinite amount remains

[gbjbaanb]

The planes that were crashed into the WTC where hijacked with carpet cutters

Yes, heaven knows what would have happened if they'd smuggled the soft cushions aboard. :-)

ok, serious point: every time a terrorist plot is foiled with a particular type of weapon, that is blocked so no-one can do it again. Yet they always think up new ways... perhaps we should be looking at ways to detect new weapons and stop the shoe-checking, the milk-checking, etc etc, which only serves to inconvenience the 99.99999% of people who are legitimate travellers. Its like we're trying to stop the symptoms but ignoring the cause (and I don't mean the palestinian problem, I mean we're looking at it very reactively). One day a terrorist is going to smuggle explosives in, not in his shoe, but up his ass. What kind of security measures will we see in airports then?

Re:One problem solved, an infinite amount remains

[Chris Burke]

You know that never made sense to me.

It would make perfect sense if you knew anything about hijackings pre-9/11.

Pre-9/11, SOP for hijackings was to cooperate so as not to be hurt until the plane landed, when negotiators would take over. That was the way things worked. On three of the flights, that's what the passengers did, expecting that by cooperating they would escape unharmed. Clearly they were wrong. The fourth flight was behaving similarly, until the passengers discovered what the fate of the previous three flights were. Realizing the rules had changed, they took matters into their own hands.

Which is what would happen in any post-9/11 hijacking. Personally I think hijacking a plane now with anything less than a fully automatic or a passenger crew full of geriatrics would be impossible. I think pretty much everyone realizes this, which is why the main tactic/concern has been explosives designed to destroy a plane in flight, not take it over.

BTW, I thought the hijackers used the box cutters to fashion larger shivs.

Re:One problem solved, an infinite amount remains

[enjo13]

I couldn't disagree more.

You are absolutely right, there is no way to 'guarantee' safety from terrorists anymore than you can't 'guarantee' I won't die in a car wreck. However, I certainly won't buy a car without seatbelts, crumple zones, and airbags. Each of those technological innovations gives me a much better chance of surviving. In the same way, technology is an absolutely essential part of fighting the war on terror. One important part of fighting terrorists is ratcheting up the costs and the difficulty of being a terrorist. You certainly won't get rid of the terrorists, but you can definitely make them less effective. You do this by going at them on all possible fronts.

We have to make the costs of terrorism higher. We do that by (i:

1) Police work: Make it more difficult to succesfully PLOT acts of terrorism. This is what the case in the UK did, terrorists now have to think more carefully about who they surround themselves with. This isolates terror groups, and limits the resources they can leverage to kill people. While this makes it harder to find these groups, it also makes them greatly less effective. It limits how well they can share knowledge and evolve their tactics.

2) Technology: Make it more difficult to EXECUTE acts of terrorism. Facial recognition, bomb detection, etc... are all important tools in combatting terrorists (disclaimer: It is definitely important to balance privacy and security, that's not what this post is about). By increasing the costs of subverting the technological barriers to terrorism, we can eliminate a HIGH percentage of potential terrorists. Most terrorists lack the money or the smarts needed to subvert technological solutions. Not all, but the goal here isn't total elmination but simply thinning the herd of potential terrorists.

3) Politics: Make it more difficult to WANT to be a terrorist. Do this by working with other governments to crack down on terrorist cultures within their borders (which the U.S. has done fairly effectively) and create a geo-political climate which removes the incentive to be a terrorist (whith the U.S. has failed miserably at).

Terrorism has been with us since the dawn of man, and its not going anywhere. There is not solution that guarantees our safety, but a variety of solutions that can help to minimize the danger.

Re:One problem solved, an infinite amount remains

[Elminst]

Iranian nuclear program has to be stopped, Iranian terrorist support has to be stopped, Iranian leaders must be killed, those who support them must be killed.

Go back about 4 years, change Iran to Iraq, and you end up in the exact situation we have now.
And that's turned out SO well, hasn't it. Is that you GW?

Re:One problem solved, an infinite amount remains

[SpecTheIntro]

Aah, Islamist terror has to be brought back to the doorsteps of Iran. That's where the legs are growing from, that's where we have to hit hard.

Right, because Iran is teeming with terrorist training camps... oh shit, wait, that's Pakistan.

Iranian nuclear program has to be stopped, Iranian terrorist support has to be stopped, Iranian leaders must be killed, those who support them must be killed.

So you are in favor of killing roughly a quarter of the Iranian citizenry. (Assuming you define support narrowly. If it's a question as simple as: "Do you like America or Iran more?" then we up that to about 95%.)

Look, it's no secret that Iran hates Israel. It's actually pretty illogical for them to do so, but no one claimed that Khameini was a level-headed kind of guy. But if you had any grasp of world politics or history, you would know that part of the reason Iran hates America so much is because America has been a complete asshole to Iran since, oh, the day the two countries were formally introduced. To date, Iran has had its oil fields exploited heavily by foreign powers (early 20th century to 1953, and then again until 1979), was occupied by the Allied forces to serve as a supply depot for the African theatre (all of World War II), had its democratically elected prime minister and its first truly democratic government overthrown by CIA and BIS forces (1953), watched the Shah grow increasingly repressive while supported by American advisors and money (right up to 1979), was the victim of chemical warfare during the Iran-Iraq war thanks to the European and American financial support of Iraq (1980-1988), had a passanger airliner downed by American gunships without a formal apology ever issued (although America did pay for the damages) (1988), and has been the recipient of embargoes, fiery rhetoric, and widely publicized support for resistance groups by America. (1979-2006.)

Iran is not going to trust America, period. And really, I don't blame them. But from a purely realist standpoint, Iran is not the biggest threat in the Middle East. Israel is. To date, Israel has caused more instability in the region than any other nation, and its destruction would probably do more to stabilize the region than anything else would--in the short-term. (Realistically, it would only take a few years before radical Muslims found an excuse to begin killing again.) But even if we remove Israel from the "threat" list, the next up are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is by far the largest source of terrorism in the world. Every crazy fuck we hear about on the news has trained in a madrasa in Pakistan--and they get their funding from rich Wahabbis from Saudi Arabia. Iran is a Shi'a nation; take a look at Iraq to see how much Islamic terrorists like Shi'a Muslims. These people are not going to work together. And besides aggression against Israel (thanks to Hezbollah), Shi'a Muslims are, by and large, not the people blowing themselves up. Iran funds Hezbollah, but it's not a terrorist breeding ground, not in the same sense that Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria are--and all of the terrorists from those areas pretty much hate Iranians.

I agree with you that the Iranian regime needs to change. But you're making it out like they're the puppeteer of all the evil Islamic thugs in the Middle East--and they're not. They don't even really get along with those evil Islamic thugs. This is not to say Iran isn't funding its own evil Islamic thugs, but if you want to take out the bulk of terrorists, start with Pakistan. It's the source.

Re:One problem solved, an infinite amount remains

[egburr]

2) Technology: Make it more difficult to EXECUTE acts of terrorism. Facial recognition, bomb detection, etc... are all important tools in combatting terrorists (disclaimer: It is definitely important to balance privacy and security, that's not what this post is about). By increasing the costs of subverting the technological barriers to terrorism, we can eliminate a HIGH percentage of potential terrorists. Most terrorists lack the money or the smarts needed to subvert technological solutions. Not all, but the goal here isn't total elmination but simply thinning the herd of potential terrorists.

This is the part that I haven't figured out. Why do they keep attacking planes? Wouldn't it be smarter to attack the technology? Blow up all the security stations; by the time they detect the bomb, that's the same time it blows up. With the crowds waiting to get through the security stations, you'd probably injure quite a few people, too.

If that happens often enough, it won't be long before you can't find anyone willing to work anywhere near the checkpoint. And it would have the added benefit of completely shutting the airport down for a significant time (how long does it take to cleanup the mess and install a new security station?).

The technology is only good for preventing passage of material through the checkpoint. It won't do any good if the material is destined to end there.

I am not advocating doing this! I am just curious why all the focus is on the plane itself. I would be more scared to stand in the line at the security station than I am of getting on a plane.

I can't think of any solution to that, though. After all, are you going to add a security check to process people so they can go stand in line at the next security check?

Re:One problem solved, an infinite amount remains

[AK Marc]

You know that never made sense to me.

You know what never made sense to me? The security changes after 9/11. The reason that the planes were hijacked was policy. The policy was to essentially encourage hijackers, do whatever they wanted, then negotiate later. Hijackings would be nearly impossible if the only change was to make the policy "never let anyone hijack a plane, and never do anything they ask if they do manage to hijack the plane." We'd still have pocket knives, scisors, nail clippers and such. And there'd be no fear of hijackings. There are enough people like you out there that if a group of 5 were to try to take the plane, they would be taken down before they could get control.

But the problem was never the weapons that were allowed on, it was the tactics. So why not just change the tactics and nothing else? (oh, and I'd personally install a separate bathroom just for the pilots and make the cockpit inaccessable from the cabin so that no one could ever get in there - sure one out of every 1,000,000,000 flights they'll both eat the fish, but that's so rare I'll take that chance with my flights)

Re:One problem solved, an infinite amount remains

[mpe]

Technology: Make it more difficult to EXECUTE acts of terrorism. Facial recognition, bomb detection, etc... are all important tools in combatting terrorists (disclaimer: It is definitely important to balance privacy and security, that's not what this post is about). By increasing the costs of subverting the technological barriers to terrorism, we can eliminate a HIGH percentage of potential terrorists. Most terrorists lack the money or the smarts needed to subvert technological solutions.

Assuming that that it isn't possible for them to trivially choose another target. When employing "technological barriers" it is important to ensure than you don't do the equivalent of putting a bank vault door on a tent. (Or even the lock from a bank vault on a tent...) It is all to easy for designers to technologically sophisticated systems to fail to consider "low tech" counter measures. e.g. it's a good idea to talk to a makeup artist before spending too much time and money of computer based facial recognition. It's also only going to be of any use if you know exactly who you are looking for in the first place.

Politics: Make it more difficult to WANT to be a terrorist. Do this by working with other governments to crack down on terrorist cultures within their borders (which the U.S. has done fairly effectively) and create a geo-political climate which removes the incentive to be a terrorist (whith the U.S. has failed miserably at).

This really should be the first item on the list.
Also when it comes to cracking down on "terrorist cultures" governments tend to be highly selective about exactly which terrorists they go after. In the case of many countries (definitly including all five permenant members of the UNSC) some terrorists are actually supported. This weakens any kind of "crack down". Especially when law enforcement happens to capture the "wrong" type of terrorists.

Re:One problem solved, an infinite amount remains

[G-funk]

"They" Don't really exist, not in the numbers we're constantly being warned about by our glorious protectors. It's so obscenely trivial to make a car bomb it's not funny. Even if you only killed 5 people with each one, I assure you 10 of those in a year would have a bigger impact on day-to-day life in New York than the WTC. If there were that many would-be terrorists out there, we'd be attacked all the time.

But you know, pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into local security firms makes everybody feel safe, because politicians can say "$X million is being spent on airport security" and for large enough values of X, TV tells Joe Sixpack to be happy.

Lousy society, so quick to be scared and browbeaten into acceptance by those in power, we deserve everything we get. When the government can usurp power and money simply by declaring "war" on an concept such as "terror" or "drugs", it's a sure sign we're on our way out unless some serious changes come along.

Entirely new risks

[Riding Spinners]

The risks still add up, even when you use this machine:

1. If the rate of false positives is low, a lot of people will get through quickly, but if you are one of the false positives, you may well get a very bad deal at the airport. Having been singled out on one trip to the U.S. for no apparent reason (Probably because I took a "one way" flight so maybe they thought I was not planning to return!) I can assure you its no fun if you end up on the wrong end of a statistical test.
2. If there are too many false positives, people get angry. After all, how many people in the history of all plane flight have put explosives on a plane? A few dozen maybe, probably less than 100 in all, but any test will likely have many more false positives, and this will mean that these people get ignored.
3. You may still be using the wrong test, and get falsely reassured. After all, the 9/11 hijackers would have passed a chemical detection test, so they would have been fine to board, no? Again, the real problem here wasn't that the test systems failed, it was the human management of the system - people weren't serious enough about the tests that were already in place.

So, you end up putting a lot of money into doing something that will help very few flights, incovenience a large total number of innocent people, and possibly not protect the public at all.

Technology can't solve a people problem

[From A Far Away Land]

This is all a red herring anyway.

"A key question, though, is whether this kind of detection system can realistically block terrorists from bringing seemingly innocuous liquids past security and combining them later to deadly effect."

The answer to that is of course, no. You can't design an idiot proof system because they keep coming up with better idiots. No only that, I believe some hacker guy called Kevin hypothesized that you can't firewall a system to be 100% secure, because social engineering is the exploit to overcome any hole in a system.

I know this isn't a political discussion about the matter of liquid bomb sniffers for airports, but we should be crying bloody murder that the government is letting the terrorists win this time without them firing a shot. Mothers tasting their baby formula again? I recall an airport employee doing that years ago to a mother with breatmilk in a bottle, and she sued didn't she?

Re:Technology can't solve a people problem

[Zathrus]

Mothers tasting their baby formula again? I recall an airport employee doing that years ago to a mother with breatmilk in a bottle, and she sued didn't she?

I don't recall that particular incident, but this is utterly and completely absurd.

If a terrorist is so intent on killing people that they would lace breast milk/formula with the requisite chemicals then it's fairly clear that their family's immediate welfare is not of particular concern. Do you honestly think they would blanche at sipping a little bit of the crap to get past security? It's unlikely to kill them (or even cause vomiting) instantly after all. And acting a bit strange about having to do it isn't unusual either.

Who thinks this stuff up? Honestly. It's not just pointless -- it's bad security since it creates a false sense of something being done.

"Old tech" for sure

[andrewman327]

There is a reason that this technology has not been adapted years ago for airport use. It is not practical to deploy at every checkpoint in the world. TFA isn't nearly as bullish on the potential of the technology:
"One big reason is that it is not easy to integrate the explosive-detecting machines, some of which can cost $250,000, into existing security checkpoints. Because each briefcase, purse or other carry-on bag has to be put in a special drawer for analysis, using the detectors could significantly bog down passenger screening. [...] the technology still produces a relatively high number of false alarms."

Chemistry is capeable of some fascinating things. Two extremely dangerous and deadly chemicals combine to make a tasty food additive (salt). Still, I am not aware of any liquid explosives that are completely invisible to explosive detection in component form.

It's not just explosives

[Riding Spinners]

Let's review some notably successful attacks and see if we can learn something...

• In the destruction of the WTC, they used airline tickets and box cutters to commandeer commercial airlines and crash them into buildings having significant economic and human impact.
• In the London tube bombings they repeated a tactic already proven in Spain, to use relatively small amounts of common explosives to wreck mass transit facilities.
• In other parts of the world (including a prior attempt on the WTC) they have used car and truck bombs made of kerosene and fertilizer to achieve frighteningly effective results.

There is an awful lot of effort being expended protecting us from complex high-tech attacks, when the demonstrated pattern has been for Al Qaeda to use relatively low-tech methods and strike at targets that are easy to hit and achieve significant headlines. If we should learn anything from this, it is that Al Qaeda spends its terrorist money well, getting maximum effect for a minimum of resource.

What we need is more thought and less hasty action, so that we too, might be capable of effective action in return. Pointless blustering actions like this, intended to reassure the public and sustain existing administrations' terms in office, do more to aide and abet the enemy than to frustrate them. We need reason and logic as our allies, instead of keeping them locked in the basement.

What about our canine companions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't dogs already trained to sniff out innocuous chemicals during their drug sniffing training?

I've seen dogs in O'Hare for sniffing out imported fruit/veg pick up people who've eaten a bananna.
Surely these are better than any mechanical screening device.

"Old tech"

[sammydee]

From TFA: "Rapiscan is developing four kinds of devices -- some based on technologies more than 10 years old". My car is based on technology more than 10 years old. In fact, the tech is more than 10,000 years old. They're called wheels. How does this make it newsworthy?

I wouldnt mind flying

[WormholeFiend]

without any carry-on luggage, as long as they increase the security checks on the luggage handlers and improve the luggage sorting technology to prevent my stuff from being "lost".

Re:I wouldnt mind flying

[syousef]

Okay how about you have a bit of a think before you speak. My fiancee has extreme food allergies. Not only does she carry a pair of adrenaline injectors, but a policy of buying only sealed foods and checking each ingredient has reduced her incidence of ending up in hospital from once every few months to none in the last 3 years. Do you have any idea how hard it will be to explain why the food you bought from your usual supermarket is needed, or what the restrictions are like if the only airline food you can have excludes a large list of ingredients and must come in a sealed bag? (Before you ask we don't do restaurants period).

Granted she's not the typical case but I'm so goddamn sick and tired of cowards and fools who don't have a need for carryon suggesting getting rid of carry on is a good idea. People live with conditions and have needs that differ greatly from your own. Just because you'd be fine with it doesn't mean everyone else is going to be okay. Tell me do you have kids (or young cousins or neices/nephews)? When's the last time you took them on a 20 hour trip without a goddamn toy? What about disabilities. Ever had to travel without crutches or a wheelchair when you depend on them? A wheelchair's got plenty on it that would make a fantastic weapon if you're a terrorist.

Re:Is it THAT big a problem??

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people like to keep some necessities on them in the event that their checked luggage gets lost.

The ban on liquids seems a bit silly

[DrXym]

What's to stop a terrorist walking straight through the X-Ray screener with the liquid swallowed in a condom? Or just a conventional sold explosive shoved up his backside?

Perhaps random rectal and mouth exams are in order. Also passengers should sedated and cuffed nude with their arms outstretched for the duration of the journey.

Applying the Squeeze

[RyoShin]

For a machine to detect explosives in liquid or solid form, it bombards an object with energy -- such as radio waves or neutrons

What are the chances that, if the machine malfunctions and throws out too much energy, it causes an actual liquid explosive to, you know, explode?

Because each briefcase, purse or other carry-on bag has to be put in a special drawer for analysis, using the detectors could significantly bog down passenger screening.

You could always have two lines- one for those who want to bring in beverages, one for those who don't.

A major problem is that the view is so powerful that an individual's private parts can be seen, which forced the TSA to delay tests while vendors tweaked the machines' programming to distort or mask bodily images. And backscatter systems still leave it up to a human screener to recognize a suspicious item.

But how exact would the masking be? Would a man be able to strap a small vial to the underside of his genitals, or a woman hide something in her cleavage (and, uh, other places)?

Something I've been wondering as we ramp up security to make flying a nightmare for everyone- aren't many of these processes making investigation work harder? We keep instituting new restrictions, and the terrorists would just find a way around them. We're playing a reactionary game, putting systems in place only after something happens (no more small knives after 9/11, check all shoes for bombs after that one guy, no more liquids after this foiled attempt), and all it's doing is slowing down everyone.

Not that we should remove all security checks- heaven forbid someone is able to walk onto the airplane with a kilo of C4. But if we keep making our security tighter, then so will the terrorists, and that means less of a chance messing up, which is usually how detectives/investigators find out about stuff and catch them. If the terrorists have a lax atmosphere, then they will be more lax, and more prone to mistakes.

How does the saying go? "The tighter you squeeze the more they will slip through your fingers"?

Re:What's sad...

[badfish99]

You're assuming that the purpose of the airport security checks is to prevent terrorists from taking bombs onto planes.

If that were the case, why were the current restrictions only put in place last week, when the existence of liquid-based bombs has been known for years, and the police claim to have been following the people they have now arrested for some weeks? Any why are the restrictions now being relaxed, if there is a danger from other unknown groups of people using the same methods?

I'm sure airport security deters a certain number of unintelligent crackpots, and it certainly shows the travelling public that "something is being done". But the ultimate answer to the problem is a political one, not technological.

Re:No outside food or drinks

[poot_rootbeer]

How about this -- treat the airplane just like a movie theater: no outside food/drinks allowed. We need to dispense with the high gadgets and just say you can't bring anything on board except the clothes on your back.

Right, because no one ever smuggles contraband food or drinks into a movie theater.

And how would you feel if you went to the movies and then once it let out, you went to pick up your car from the mandatory valet parking only to find out that they misplaced it, and would bring it by if and when they ever find it again? People don't bring huge carry-ons into the cabin because they need two changes of clothing and a full toiletry kit during the flight; they do it because they don't trust the airline to have their checked luggage ready for them when they arrive.

I'd rather sacrifice my precious water bottle on a long flight than end up crashing into a building any day.

That's a false dichotomy.

Re:No outside food or drinks

[MrSquirrel]

You do realize a terrorist with a bomb isn't going to try to fly the plane into a building -- he's going to try and blow the plane up, right? Hijacking the plane to use it as a weapon is NOT going to work in the post-9/11 world because the other passengers are going to say "Hell no, Mohammed" and kick his ass. There are many things a terrorist could do to evade your "no food/drinks" policy. Terrorists are going to kill people as long as they have a cause -- no matter what you do to deter them, they will not simply go "Oh, I guess we can't blow up planes".

This is STUPID -- the risk vs. benefit of a terrorist going on a plane with explosives which he then has to mix (what passengers are going to allow a guy to mix two liquids now that everyone's scared about being explodified) is astronomical to terrorists simply sitting around an airport and blasting planes out of the sky with rockets. That is a hell of a lot more likely than some terrorist trying to sneak on specialized explosives and then mixing them and successfully demolishing the plane.

Taking away laptops, food, water, etc... from flights is giving in to the fear that the terrorists are trying to instigate. Cautious safety is one thing -- overzealous stupidity is another.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Re:Is it THAT big a problem??

[voice_of_all_reason]

Instead of asking "why don't you just accept this restriction" you should really be asking "why should it exist in the first place"

Land of the Safe, and Home of the Afraid...

[mikelieman]

Could Americans have LOST the Bravery needed to actually BE free, because it seems that we're at a point where you're not even allowed to own and use PROPERTY without approval.

I wonder when exactly the Airlines forgot they needed to obey the Constitution. A State cannot give an artificial legal entity priviledges it doesn't have, such violating the security of our persons, papers and effects.

Re:Land of the Safe, and Home of the Afraid...

[Trailer Trash]

I wonder when exactly the Airlines forgot they needed to obey the Constitution.

Gee, I dunno, maybe when The Airlines quit being a branch of the government?

An airline is a private business. If you don't like the rules, ride a bus.

Re:False positives and common materials

[voice_of_all_reason]

We still allowed fertilizer to be transported by truck after the Oklahoma City bombing.

How else are we going to transport it? The fucking teleporter?

Terrorism (neé Re:Perspective...)

[rjamestaylor]

Terrorism isn't likely to kill anyone. Driving to work is a greater threat; but a more boring one, so it doesn't get the attention it statistically deserves..

You don't understand what Terrorism is all about, evidently. Mass murder, as a different motive from Terrorism, is about killing lots of people. Terrorism is about inducing terror in the masses. Very few, if any, deaths are required to produce terror. In fact, the goals of the Islamofacists are to disrupt our economy and society through acts of terror.

When it comes to yet another highway fatality the cost in terms of human life is measurable, but the impact on day-to-day life in our society hardly sees a blip (unless that fatality closes the 405, 101, or some other major thoroughfare; then it is (sorry to say) a tragedy on a grander scale!).

Reducing deaths in daily life is a different subject altogether from stopping terrorism. Don't you recall September 2001? The month the skies were quiet? Few people died in the planes (compared to the numbers flying that day) but the effect was that all traffic was stopped for days. Our nation was at a standstill. THAT is the intent of terrorism. Remember the stock market crash after 9/11/01? THAT is the intent of terrorism. Remember Spain pulling out of the alliance fighting terror sponsors in the Middle East (e.g., Iraq)? THAT is the intent of the terrorist. Murder is a means to the terrorist, not the aim.

Chemistry is everywhere!

[jedi_chemist]

First of all, there is no such thing as eradicating all possible terrorism in any subject area. Flying? Even if they shipped everyone's luggage is separate planes, allowed no carry-ons, and made everyone wear paper clothes on the plane given to us on the tarmac, a terrorist or group of terrorists could still undertake a suicide bombing of a plane. Second, look under your kitchen sink. All the chemicals (liquid or solid) one needs can be found there. Look in your garage. Ditto. Go to your local megahardware store. Ditto. Go to your local grocer. Ditto. Everyone everywhere has access to everything necessary to be a terrorist. Even if a terrorist mixes pool shock and aluminum foil and makes a whole bunch of noxious fumes over the Atlantic and does not succeed in blowing the plane up, they still have instilled fear and done their job. The answer: live out your life because living in fear of tomorrow is worse than dying today.

Re:Chemistry is everywhere!

[WRSaunders]

Exactly the point!! Liquid constituents are what this particular plot involved. That doesn't make that whole state of matter dangerous. My goodness, they sell scotch on the plane. This is 40% alcohol, the same substance used to power Formula1 cars. You can make heat with water, another substance they provide, and the right metal foil. Where to get the foil? Buy US Army MREs at the local sporting goods shop. Heat, fuel, air, that's all the ingredients for combustion. So, now when you sit in First Class, order a couple of scotches with water, and head to the lav behind the cockpit you're a terrorist?? Sounds like a banker to me.

Re:Chemistry is everywhere!

[ScentCone]

The answer: live out your life because living in fear of tomorrow is worse than dying today.

That's a false choice. Undertaking precautions when stuff three hundred people into a giant flying metal tube that will hurtle over dense population centers is not "living in fear." It's being rational, especially when you're dealing with people who are willing to (want to!) die while killing you. So, you take precautions, and keep working on the deployable tech that will help to mitigate the risks. You make it sound like everyone must either quake in their shoes all day, or simply give up and resign themselves to regularly losing hundreds of people to the Islamist PR machine. There's a middle ground, there, and it involves not being so skittish about paying attention to who's getting on the plane, and with what.

Do you lock your door?

[SuperKendall]

What's to stop a terrorist walking straight through the X-Ray screener with the liquid swallowed in a condom? Or just a conventional sold explosive shoved up his backside?

What's to stop someone breaking into a house through a window? Yet most people lock doors to homes.

Just because there is always a more exteme way to do something does not mean that no precautions should be put in place - especially when precautions are tailored to actual plans found laid out.

You can't get rid of all risk but you can reduce the percentages. Personally if it means only two planes are blown up instead of ten I'd say that's worthwhile.

Re:Trivial solution

[ScentCone]

OK, fine sentiment. Now, do you have any obligation (to your family, for example) to take into account people who expressly say that their objective is the restoration of a multi-contintent Islamic caliphate, and who recruit young suicide bombers from suburbia to make their point through mass murder?

We're not talking about kids from Afghanistan, we're talking about kids raised in, say, suburban London. Should your kids care that those kids are being taught that your daughters should be thought of as property? Or that democracy is "un-Islamic?" Or that sharia law should govern things like your marriage? Because those kids do live in western cities, and are getting that sort of poison poured in their ears.

Pretending that there is no objectively better world view than that which is being crammed into the brains of yet another generation of vulnerable, wound-up young men by the retrograde, mysoginistic theocracy that's running their social life (even in the middle of Amsterdam or Detroit) is a huge disservice to your kids. Lack of perfection in the execution of our every move as a culture and an economy does not make it unwise to deal with a demonstrably toxic culture that actually celebrates the death of people just like you and your kids. It is your freedoms that they hate, because that's not how they want their kids to grow up (literate, thinking, voting, and less inclined to attribute everything to Allah at every turn). The ongoing prosperity of our culture, despite it standing for everything that those mullahs say is the devil's work, makes it very difficult to maintain the status quo - and that means striking at, and making a show of trying to tear down that which they fear continues to attract the younger people in their own society. Should your family operate in the world as if none of that was brewing, and doing so in a part of the world flush with cash because they have a bottomless market for the one exportable asset they have (oil)? If you think we can't and shouldn't do two things at once, or that since there are such things as burglars or rapists living in western countries that we shouldn't sweat Iran saying that Israel should be "wiped off the map" or Zawahiri reminding us that it might still take a few years before they can return Spain to its prior status as a Islamic caliphate... you're just putting your head in the sand.

It doesn't matter if that crap sounds crazy, it's the very stuff that's being used to motivate and recruit kids that actually are building bombs, buying thousands of disposable cell phones, and all sorts of other subtle little things that are exactly the sort of precursors that led up to 9/11. And while you're worrying about your family duty, you're forgetting about the thousands of families that were permanently damaged by the acts of the people you're not so worried about. Actions? Injustices? Injustice is the nature of the people we're talking about - and the last time they had a country of their own to run, it was used as a financial and logistical operating base for the attacks that killed 3000 people and wrecked many times that many lives.

If you're uncomfortable with taking action against the more hardcore nutcase jihaddis because there are identifiable defective people living within our own society, then how can you justify any action outside your own family? Why worry about the people setting up a violent crack-dealing ring a few doors down - that's not your family, right? Or, if that's close enough to worry about, what about the taxes you pay to your state to take care of the crack dealer that's 10 miles away? 100 miles? It's a global economy, and living in a village doesn't work any more.

Re:Is it THAT big a problem??

[mdwh2]

If you don't like it, then don't fly.

Erm - you already have that choice. If you are scared of the minimal risk of terrorism, then don't fly. Leave the rest of us in peace.

(Actually, it would be curious to see what would happen if there were some flights which ran as they used to, and others where you had loads of extra security, you weren't allowed any hand luggage, and you had to pay significantly more to cover this too, as well as a significantly increased chance of flght cancellation or missing your flight due to being kept in security - people would then have the choice, but I wonder what would be more popular?)

Why all the focus is on the plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

An explosion at cruising altitude should cause 100% fatalities, including the heaven-bound perp.