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

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

[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

[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

[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.

"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.

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: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: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"

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.

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

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.