Laser Scanner May Allow Passengers To Take Bottled Drinks On Planes Again

cylonlover writes "Besides having to remove our shoes, the volume limitations regarding liquids and gels in carry-on baggage has become a major hassle in the world of post 9-11 airport security. Hopefully, however, we may soon be able to once again bring our big bottles of water and tubes of toothpaste aboard airliners in our overnight bags. Britain's Cobalt Light Systems has developed a scanner called the INSIGHT100, that uses laser light to assess the liquid contents of containers, even if those containers are opaque."

Comments

Unsafe Bottles

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't we all be really terrified of the massive pile of super dangerous drinks bottles we have to pass on the way through security?

Re:Unsafe Bottles

[SJHillman]

It's ok. The TSA agents will be divying those up and taking them home later.

Re:Unsafe Bottles

[MrLint]

Totally ignoring the garbage cans full of presumed explosives at checkpoints?

Re:Unsafe Bottles

[Wilf_Brim]

This has been pointed out before, and I'm glad you are bringing it up. If these are being taken away because they are presumed explosive and/or hazardous chemicals, shouldn't they be treated as such? At the very least they should be handled as hazardous liquids (like solvents, acids, and the like). Of course, the problem there is that which class of hazardous liquids due you treat them as. Volitile organics (like gasoline, acetone, etc)? Maybe strong acids? Or strong bases? This is, of course, the meat of the matter. In the United States we do not have security. We have security theater. The bottles they are taking away are only props, not the real thing, so they no more have to handle the "explosives" confiscated as you have to handle the fake bomb you made for your high school play as a real IED.

Re:Unsafe Bottles

[cold fjord]

The Science Behind 3-1-1

Even more popular than security theater is civil rights theater.

Re:Unsafe Bottles

[Anonymous Coward]

If a terrorist wanted to blow up the checkpoint itself, they could and would have. No need to have an explosive taken away and then exploded (unless they aren't the suicide bomber type).
No, I think the point is for the explosive to not explode in a secure area (military seem to be all about establishing perimeters) including in the plane. Outside the secure area is outside of their control.

Re:Unsafe Bottles

[KhabaLox]

It's quite amusing to read that blog post while pretending they are talking about the band 311.

Passengers who need to have some small quantities of liquids, gels and aerosols may now do so, and 3-1-1 accommodates those needs while adding a significant level of security designed to protect the flights. Without 3-1-1, we would have had to maintain the total liquids ban ...
You can be sure that we put our very best people on this, as did our Federal and international partners. 3-1-1 was the result of some excellent research by some of the best people our country has to offer.

Re:Unsafe Bottles

[berberine]

Sometimes they don't even wait until later. I had a new bottle of soda that I bought in Dublin after going through security and being corralled into the waiting area at my gate. I was saving it to drink for my layover in Philly. I figured that, since I had already cleared customs in Dublin, I'd be fine. Well, we ended up going through security again right after we landed and they took my soda. I wasn't even 10 feet away and the TSA agent gave it to another one, who promptly opened it and started to drink it. My husband had to pull me away from the area because I was so pissed and he knew I was going to make a scene. I was mad at him at the time, but he was right, it wasn't worth being arrested over $1.35 soda.

Re:Unsafe Bottles

[gregmac]

I've always been tempted to bring a half tube of toothpaste or drink bottle just so I can duck and cover when they take it and toss it into the trash behind them. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't see the humour in it though and instead I'd end up at the least being detained for several hours..

Here's another solution

[Maury Markowitz]

How about we just let people take liquids on planes again? You know, without the stupid scanner?

BTW, it clearly doesn't work on toothpaste or any other metal container.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Because nobody siphons off any taxpayer money that way?

Re:Here's another solution

[Gideon Wells]

The genie is out of the bottle and people are too scared now. I'm waiting for the day that someone suggests flying requires passengers to be put to sleep through anesthetics and shipped in cubes, not mean it to be a Thomas Swift Modest Proposal type suggestion.

Re:Here's another solution

[QuasiSteve]

and why would we allow that, when a thirsty passenger...
1. Has to buy a bottle of drink after clearing the security checkpoint.
2. Has to buy another one on arrival at the connecting airport.
3. Has to buy yet another one on arrival at the destination airport.

And that's just the drinks - don't forget about all the awesome 3floz bottle variants of ointments, creams, moisturizers, sanitizers, etc. etc. that now litter some (airport) stores.

Allowing people to take their own packaged fluids onto planes again will just cut into this very profitable market.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it's only been 20 years since toothpaste was regularly sold in metal containers.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I was never sure why one 20 oz bottle was more dangerous than a dozen 3 oz bottles.

Re:Here's another solution

[devent]

Actually, that would be nice. Of course if the anesthetics would be side-effect free. Kind like the cruisers from The Fifth Element. You checkin, go to sleep, wake up at your destination. A 24 hour flight would be just a nice dream for you.

Re:Here's another solution

[jythie]

You kidding? That would be awesome! If someone started offering a service where you were knocked out at boarding and woke up at your destination I would so use it!

But yeah, people are scared of the bad reporting surrounding the original 'liquid bomb' hoax, and too much has been invested as treating it like it was an actual threat... so now they need a new bit of theater to deal with the inconvenience that was created.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anrego]

If they could figure out a way to do that which wouldn't have severe health reprocussions.. I'd be all for that.

Also, I don't think it's not so much a fear issue as a political risk issue. If they start letting people take liquids on the plane.. and someone actually _does_ blow up a plane with something they brought on board in, that politicians career is over. Politically it's pretty damn risky to undo these kind of decisions for this reason.

Re:Here's another solution

[wvmarle]

Most airports provide drinking water fountains (if the tap water isn't drinkable straight away, like in many countries in Europe).

You're also allowed to bring bottles.

Cross checkpoint, fill bottle with water to drink later. Approach checkpoint? Empty bottle. Dump it in a toilet, or just in a garbage bin or so (they usually have plastic bag so shouldn't leak - and if it would, that's not your problem for having to conform to stupid rules).

Re:Here's another solution

[Anrego]

I don't think it's not so much

Augh.. *face palm*

Re:Here's another solution

[Dunbal]

When I was young we used to drink tap water from the communal water fountain and you know people didn't always die from it. I don't understand the obsession with paying $5 for a bottle of water you have to carry around everywhere.

Re:Here's another solution

[Dunbal]

Except for the 0.1% of passengers who develop fulminant hepatitis due to an allergic reaction to the halothane, and the other couple percent of passengers who die for all sorts of other reasons because of underlying health problems they did or didn't know about.

Anaesthesia is not to be dicked around with. Sincerely - a doc.

Re:Here's another solution

[ceoyoyo]

"Has to buy another one on arrival at the connecting airport."

I've never understood that. Civilized airports are smart enough to route connecting passengers so they stay in the security cleared area. Do some airports just like to make the lines for security as long as possible?

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they scared of?
Aircraft maintenance budget cuts?
TSA??
Terrorists???

Re:Here's another solution

[Anrego]

Also..

* brought on board in <some liquid container>, that

I know this is my fault for not looking at the preview, but come on.. how hard would it be to check if the stuff between the < and > looks valid and warn if not (or just auto correct). They have to be checking anyway because it's filtering to a small set of acceptable tags!

Re:Here's another solution

[ceoyoyo]

When I was young we used to dig a hole to collect runoff in the spring, then drink that for the rest of the year. We didn't die. In fact, when travelling in tropical countries when everyone else thinks they really are dying, I'm the wise guy selling off his unused Immodium stock.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

There is always the con-air option (as in the movie) where everyone is lock down with heavy guards if it make you feel any safer.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

They knew the risk when they got on the plane! I say, let them die!

Re:Here's another solution

[FTWinston]

You're also allowed to bring bottles.

Really? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to in the UK. Of course, once you're through security, you can buy a new one at ridiculous prices and take THAT onto the plane (presumably first dispensing all your miniature bottles of liquid explosive into it).

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

And risk getting Incepted?! I think not...

Re:Here's another solution

[Dan667]

what if a terrorist blows up the huge line where people wait to be groped by the tsa?

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the even wiser guy selling off his *used* immodium stock

Re:Here's another solution

[Theophany]

Because that worked flawlessly...

Unless Vegas was actually where you wanted to go. In which case, I retract my sarcasm.

Re:Here's another solution

[Jason Levine]

Sadly, that's exactly why it's so hard to get rid of "security" items even if they don't provide any actual security. "What if someone, at some point, does something that this would have stopped? I don't want to be remembered as the person who took away the security that would have stopped a terrorist from killing fifty people! I'd rather inconvenience ten thousand people unnecessarily than allow one terrorist to slip through and ruin my political career!"

Fear of a boogeyman scenario + possible political fallout = Security Theater Upon More Security Theater

Re:Here's another solution

[Anrego]

Then the politician expresses his sadness over the incident and announces (probably to much applause) plans to make airport security even tighter.

But if they stopped the TSA groping and this happened.. they'd be calling for the head of the guy who made that decision!

We are talking politics here, not logic.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the 0.1% of passengers who develop fulminant hepatitis due to an allergic reaction to the halothane, and the other couple percent of passengers who die for all sorts of other reasons because of underlying health problems they did or didn't know about.

"TSA is dedicated to its mission of protecting the traveling public from the terrists. If that means we have to kill one out of every thousand travelers this year to keep the traveling public safe from the terrists, then that's what we're gonna do."
- TSA

Re:Here's another solution

[MrLint]

When I flew thru narita, they put bottles on what I can only assume was an ultrasonic densitometer. This isnt rocket surgery ppl.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Job security is the most important security of all, according to studies of airport security staff.

Re:Here's another solution

[QuasiSteve]

At Philadelphia International Airport, international connecting flight passengers have to pick up their luggage and then pretty much drop it off again.

I don't know why that is - perhaps to allow passengers access to their luggage if the connecting flight is several hours away.

However, because you are allowed to put fluids in your regular luggage (not carry-on), it means that at that time you can get your fluids out of there and into your carry-on.. hence the second screening... and the need to buy another drink past it.

So it's not that the area isn't secure - they just treat your luggage (or its content) as unsecured.

Re:Here's another solution

[pheonix7117]

Err I flew to and from the UK this January and I had my trusty plastic water bottle with me the entire way, emptied right before security of course.

Re:Here's another solution

[rwise2112]

Yeah! Probably more comfortable that way as well.

Re:Here's another solution

[Dcnjoe60]

If they start letting people take liquids on the plane.. and someone actually _does_ blow up a plane with something they brought on board

Umm, planes are usually, not always, but usually, blown up by something they brought on board.

Re:Here's another solution

[Dcnjoe60]

what if a terrorist blows up the huge line where people wait to be groped by the tsa?

Then they install another TSA checkpoint outside the airport to protect the one inside.

Re:Here's another solution

[Muad'Dave]

'The Fifth Element'-esque sleepy-time travel chambers didn't seem to be anesthetic-based to me; they seemed more electronic. The flight attendant flipped a switch and Corbin Dallas dropped like a poled Ox.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anrego]

There was supposed to be a <some liquid container> in there.. but slashdot took my words :(

Re:Here's another solution

[jank1887]

I've been taking an empty bottle through security for years. Almost every airport has potted plants before security. water one. shake out the bottle really well. or have it empty and dry when you leave for the airport. then fill it at the water fountain once you're through. I did see a notice once that really wet things will get flagged, so dry the bottle as well as you can.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

An international landing will require you to collect your luggage, move through immigration, pass your luggage back to the airline, change terminal, pass domestic security, go to your gate and board... eventually.

captcha was redneck

Re:Here's another solution

[FTWinston]

Hmm, interesting. The large bins full of (mostly empty) bottles right before security control would seem to suggest I'm not alone in believing otherwise.

Re:Here's another solution

[QuasiSteve]

Of course, once you're through security, you can buy a new one at ridiculous prices and take THAT onto the plane

That might vary from airport to airport - but at least at Phoenix Sky Harbor, I couldn't. I bought a drink at one of the 'News' stands and both the person at the til and the greeter at the waiting area informed me that I couldn't take it on board. At the waiting area was another large bin filled with (half) empty bottles, similar to that at the checkpoints.

That things vary should be pretty clear, though. At Frankfurt I also had to dump my drink at the checkpoint, but they didn't care about my shoes.. no need to take those off.

Re:Here's another solution

[Canazza]

yeah, but those guys were hardened criminals. the general public are alot softer.

Re:Here's another solution

[Kjella]

If you're arrive on an international flight and is connecting on a domestic flight here in Norway, you must pick up your luggage, carry it through the customs area and check in again. They've considered a simpler way but the problem is once the passenger has his luggage he can take out items he's not allowed to carry on him so he's no longer cleared. Doing customs clearance without the passenger is hopeless, how can he for example go through the red zone? And customs check at final destination has the problem that he can just swap luggage with an accomplice on the domestic flight, including the luggage tags.

Re:Here's another solution

[CubicleView]

I demand that the airports hire A Team to do it...

Re:Here's another solution

[jank1887]

Well, you have 80% more liquid, for one. Those 3 ounce bottles are scanned. But you'd think it would be easier to detect a harmful substance in larger quantities. Why is scanning a 3-oz bottle ok, but not a larger one. why the 3-oz bottle? Is there a signal-to-noise ratio issue? The 20oz bottle might give off such a strong liquid signature than something else sneaks past alongside it?

I feel like I'm arguing nuances of religion. you spend forever on minute details about what the right way and form is for something like baptism, then realize to what ridiculous level of detail you've just tried to trivialize something like salvation, at which point you realize that you may have just been straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel.

Re:Here's another solution

[Joce640k]

Last time I flew they took my sun spray because the bottle was too big.

The bottle was transparent and nearly empty - very clearly only a little bit of liquid left at the bottom of it. Total volume of liquid only a fraction of the amount allowed but ... in a big bottle. It would have been OK if it was in a smaller bottle, he said.

The shop right behind him sells bigger bottles, full of water. I could have gone through with a small bottle, bought one of those, drink the water and put my liquid in the big bottle (assuming "big bottle" is what makes my safe amount liquid into a weapon of mass destruction).

I probably don't even need to buy one, there's some empty water bottles stood on a restaurant table clearly visible from the checkpoint. I could just pick one of those up and use it.

Luckily the force of my logic convinced him that he was being stupid, he changed the security policy right there and it all ended well.

Oh, no, wait ... this was in real life.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

And let me guess... its awesome.because you'd want to be a flight attendant so you can jack their money/belongings and/or take advantage of them while they are out cold.

Re:Here's another solution

[QuasiSteve]

Well, that's a completely different discussion. The bottled water craze is starting to spill over from the U.S. to Europe as well. Right now it's mostly supermarkets, though.. the vending machines rarely have bottled water - let alone 3 different types (sub-brands of either Coke or Pepsi, I suppose) of it.

I can see why in certain areas you'd want bottled water. But in most of the civilized world, it's completely unnecessary short of needing a container to hold the stuff. In several countries the quality of tap water even bests bottled water.

Sadly, some of those areas where I'd prefer bottled water, is the airport.. and if you've ever witnessed a drunk passenger between flights throw up one moment then wrap their mouth around a water fountain the next, you might be a bit more hesitant as well.

That said - I rarely buy bottled water anyway.. I prefer a fruit drink.

Re:Here's another solution

[Stizark]

You can bring empty bottles and fill them up once past security. It's not well known, of course, and TSA has done nothing to suggest that as an idea. My girlfriend got through security on New Years with no issue. If you're worried about bacteria, there are several filter bottles and straws available for fairly cheap. Just bring an ordinary plastic bottle, with the straw.

It would pay for itself after two or three trips, and the filter will last quite a while.

That being said, aside from the whole thing being a joke, it's a shame TSA doesn't offer you suggestions to make your flight more enjoyable. Instead, they shy away from any form of convenience and stick to their controlling factors.

Re:Here's another solution

[mr1911]

BTW, it clearly doesn't work on toothpaste or any other metal container.

That doesn't matter, mainly because this has nothing to do about safety or security. At least not the safety and security of the flying public.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we just let people take liquids on planes again? You know, without the stupid scanner?

Flew to tunisia few years ago (befor the revolution) for holidays. Passed metaldetectors, id checked by several agents, bag checked and sanned, had to dump waterbottles etc to get on the plane to fly to Tunisia.
Flew back from Tunisia, passed the metaldetector with a handbag full of things including waterbottle while holding 2 2 liter bottles of water under my arms. Noone checked the bottles, noone checked the backpack, nothing, just smiled at me. This flight took me to Brussels, which houses the EU parliament and NATO headquarters.

Why would a terrorist possibly go through a TSA 'secured' airport when they can easily hop on planes all over the world with little to no security at all??

Re:Here's another solution

[Stizark]

Have to correct a mistake-- the filter bottles aren't for filtering bacteria. But they're still a good way to have decent tasting water in countries you know have a solid purification system. I generally bring the straw and plastic bottle in my back pack. Never get any questions.

Re:Here's another solution

[Liambp]

I am pretty sure you mean Jonathan Swift's modest proposal. I know this only because I work right beside the cathedral where he was Dean.

Pretty cool idea to put passengers to sleep by the way. Apart from security concerns it would finally allow me to get some sleep on long haul flights.

Re:Here's another solution

[littlebigbot]

What if Bruce Willis never woke up and the second part of the movie was all his dream?

Re:Here's another solution

[wvmarle]

I said bottle. Not bottle with water in it. Just bottle. I've routinely taken empty bottles with me - the restrictions are on liquids, and I didn't try to bring liquids.

Re:Here's another solution

[wvmarle]

Mostly empty != empty.

Re:Here's another solution

[wvmarle]

If they complain, open it, hold it upside down, commenting "look, it's empty!". Any residue will be taken care of in the process.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

what if a terrorist blows up the huge line where people wait to be groped by the tsa?

Then they install another TSA checkpoint outside the airport to protect the one inside.

You joke, but the 'correct' solution to that is to have a a lot of 'light' check points with minor equipment to reduce the chance that somebody gets to the 'real' checkpoint with a destructive device, which would have fewer people passing through each one, and would pass through quicker. Something like, say, the pre-TSA checkpoints, which metal detectors.

But that would never, ever, ever happen, because people might wonder the need for the second checkpoint if the second one is apparently sufficient to protect thousands of people and millions of dollars of equipment...

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I flew inside the continental US, I took 3 refilled 20oz bottles of water in my carry on, and security said nothing. On return trip as well.

Granted this was in mid 2008, but I hear things have gotten better since then, which is why this is all a bit baffling to me.

Re:Here's another solution

[interkin3tic]

I don't think people are all that scared anymore. I think the thing keeping the TSA rules in place is laziness on the part of the public and the fact that no one in a position to change the rules wants to take that liability so that people can have slightly cheaper water on plane rides.

The only way it's changing is if people stop tolerating pointless rules, or if someone is going to be paid a lot of money over it. Ideally it would have been the first, but the second was always more likely.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

The genie is out of the bottle and people are too scared now. I'm waiting for the day that someone suggests flying requires passengers to be put to sleep through anesthetics and shipped in cubes, not mean it to be a Thomas Swift Modest Proposal type suggestion.

Personally, I vote for grinding them up into Soylent Green at the gates. Obviously only America-hating seditious Liberals would want to fly away from home on commericial aircraft. Our Congressmen and CEOs can afford private aircraft and therefore need not go through such plebian transports as the smelly masses with their bottles of explosive water, deadly nail clippers and stuff.

Re:Here's another solution

[xclr8r]

They kind of did this at the Russian airport last year sans the groping. My wife was awestruck that they had flights going again in a few hours. I just said take a look at those Putin the adventurer pics - that's how they role.

Despite the explosion quickly filling the terminal with smoke and the airport being evacuated, miraculously Domodedovo has now reopened for service for flights just a few hours after the terrorist attack. Russian news outlet RT.com reports that flights for this evening are departing on time.

citation (with poor taste in a title): USA Today Story

Pics of Putin

Re:Here's another solution

[Cerium]

What a twist!

Re:Here's another solution

[Richy_T]

Apply that to Stalone in Demolition man too and you could extend that into The Expendables.

Or not.

Re:Here's another solution

[interkin3tic]

Con Air was actually not a documentary, so please don't cite it as evidence of anything. Were TSA to really beef up security to the levels of chaining you in your seat and patrolling the aisles with shotguns, passengers would actually NOT riot and take over the plane. There are obviously other huge problems with that, but Con-Air is not a case study any more than the movie "Terminator" should convince you to destroy your computer.

Re:Here's another solution

[jythie]

Ok, that would be kinda cool too,.. but mostly I would assume they wouldn't bother with flight attendants at that point. No one to attend to.

Re:Here's another solution

[interkin3tic]

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall some official acknowledging that this was a bigger security risk a few years back. Since then I haven't come across any massive pre-security lines, though that could be pure chance.

Denver was the worst that I can remember. Seems like every time I went through security there, there were more people in the line than would be on the plane. They still had the massive labyrinth set up for a huge line, but I haven't seen it actually being used in quite a while.

Re:Here's another solution

[INeededALogin]

What if Bruce Willis never woke up and the second part of the movie was all his dream?

I knew Ruby Rhod couldn't have done that show in real-life!

Re:Here's another solution

[INeededALogin]

so that people can have slightly cheaper water on plane rides

Since we did we start paying for non-alchohol drinks on planes?

Re:Here's another solution

[INeededALogin]

They mostly empty at checkpoint... mostly.

Re:Here's another solution

[Gadget_Guy]

Con-Air is not a case study any more than the movie "Terminator" should convince you to destroy your computer.

Judging by the number of people who haven't replied to you so far, I think that your advice came too late.

Re:Here's another solution

[CSMoran]

Or maybe, just maybe, people don't want their plastic bottles anymore after having drunk the water they couldn't take it with them.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

what if a terrorist blows up the huge line where people wait to be groped by the tsa?

Then they install another TSA checkpoint outside the airport to protect the one inside.

Yeah. Like one outside your house. With document checks and "off with the shoes" and "Are you going to the airport? Oh, going to work? Don't worry, this will only take two or three hours."

"We don't want to hold you up, sir. So just let us install surveillance equipment throughout your house so we can make sure you aren't making explosives or taking them out of your house. Then the daily searches will only take half an hour. Oh, and if you don't mind, please keep an extra bottle of lube around just in case we run out. Cavity searches without it can be a real pain in the ass..."

Okay, so maybe not. If I were a violent radical who wished to use terror, I certainly wouldn't go for planes or airports anyway. Too much security. I would go for Trains, bridges, tunnels, shopping malls, bus stations, schools, large office buildings, etc, etc, etc. The truth is that there is no way to stop a lone attacker dedicated to exchanging his or her life for that of their target. If we want to live in a free society, we need to accept that freedom isn't safe.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have security at critical infrastructure points, but going through these dramatic gyrations are mostly a waste of time -- except for those who are making a mint, of course.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

If they'd just let us take our guns on the planes, we wouldn'thave to worry about liquids because we'd be able to shoot anyone seen trying to set off a toothpaste bomb.

problem solved.

Re:Here's another solution

[kju]

I believe the argument is, that if the liquid is in a greater bottle it can not be (that) easily determined if the amount of liquid is within the limits. If it is already in a small bottle which does not exceed the limit it's clear. So it is probably a way to speed up security checking.

Re:Here's another solution

[interkin3tic]

Bottles of water on the other side of security. They'll give you a dixie cup of water on the plane, but that's not enough to ward off jet-lag.

Re:Here's another solution

[ShavedOrangutan]

what if a terrorist blows up the huge line where people wait to be groped by the tsa?

Then they install another TSA checkpoint outside the airport to protect the one inside.

Funny thing is, they would confiscate your toothpaste, but they'd have to let me through with my gun, since I have to declare and check it in with my baggage at the ticket counter.

Re:Here's another solution

[Ron Bennett]

Airline security is *not* about protecting the passengers (though that's a nice extra benefit), but rather protecting strategic structures and the power-elite that reside in them from hijacked aircraft.

In the distant future, airline security for passengers will likely be relaxed when technological methods are widely deployed to remotely limit where aircraft can fly / ability to take over control.

As of now, there's no cost effective way to protect structures / people on the ground from aircraft attacks other than prevention; stopping a hijacking before it occurs.

Re:Here's another solution

[Theophany]

Please tell me you didn't think it was a serious comment.

Unless, of course, you work for TSA in which case I shouldn't be surprised.

Re:Here's another solution

[nschubach]

I could only imagine the pain he would have woken up to sleeping on his shoulder like that.

Re:Here's another solution

[Sean]

Then they create roving squads to randomly search us on the streets and to conduct unannounced searches of our homes and cars.

For our safety, of course.

Re:Here's another solution

[nschubach]

Some bottled water is literally tap water from the city it was bottled in. I can't remember where it was, but I got a bottle of "Walmart" water (Sam's choice?) and on the side it literally said it was bottled from municipal water supplies in X town.

Re:Here's another solution

[frank_adrian314159]

Con-Air is not a case study any more than the movie "Terminator" should convince you to destroy your computer.

Of course... Destroying computers would be stupid. "Terminator" should convince you to destroy any robots you come across.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good point. Every American TSA kills is one less American that the terrorists can kill. "It became necessary to destroy the American public in order to save it."

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You still think planes can be hijacked? When was the last time that actually happened? 9/11 caused two major changes that improved security, 1) reinforced cockpit doors, 2) awareness of passengers to a possible use of airplanes as a weapon scenario. That's all you need to prevent a 9/11 style event. Hijackers can no longer get into the cockpit to take control. If they try, the other passengers on the plane won't let them. If they did get into the cockpit, many of the pilots are armed. The commotion caused by an attempt to take over the plane would give enough time for the military to be notified to shoot the plane down. Hijackings were only a problem before because the passengers and crew complied with the hijacker on the idea that it would increase their safety. However, if the hijacker intends on crashing the plane, complying no longer increases personal safety. I.E, just the fact that 9/11 occurred has made air travel safer. The only way it could happen again is if the terrorists are the pilots at the beginning of the flight, or if they can remotely gain control of the plane from the passenger cabin. The TSA is powerless to prevent such a thing. These kinds of plots need to be stopped before they get to the airport. You don't need a weapon at all if you have remote control of the plane, or if you are actually the pilot. Hijacking a plane used to be easy, like robbing a convenience store. Now it is much more difficult, with a successful hijacking being about as difficult as robbing a casino vault.

Re:Here's another solution

[StikyPad]

We need fewer logical magicians in politics and more logicians. It's easier to get a bill passed than to get a paper in Nature. There's something fundamentally wrong with that, and it's not Nature's standards.

Re:Here's another solution

[Ameryll]

Like they do in 5th element?

At least then we wouldn't have to stress out about the horrible treatment, the sardine can like seats, or the lack of mobility for n hours.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Such people are idiots who deserved to be soaked (har) for all that money. Bring an empty water bottle, pass through security with it empty (or empty it at the checkpoint), fill it up at the water fountain on the other side. I've never had any issues on domestic or international flights. What is wrong with you people? Do you need electrolytes? Do you think it's "toilet water" unless it is in a purchased plastic bottle?

Food? Bring trail mix in a zip-loc bag or some other compact, non-perishable food that you like. I've lasted for days waiting in airports without having to pay ridiculously inflated food and drink prices. It's like camping out in the wilderness.

The zillions of lotions, creams, and whatever the hell else people "need"? Do you really need *that* much toothpaste when traveling?

Yes, it's all a ridiculous inconvenience for the sake of a bunch of silly security theatre, but if you also let airports have an economic incentive for maintaining the status quo, then you're making the problem even worse. If people can't figure out ways around the *economic* costs, then they're just being foolish.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I will get right on to destroying my

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Cubes are rather inefficient shapes for people. I'd think coffin-like pallets would be the way to go.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

my god, CSMoran is onto something!
maybe, just maybe... ;)

Re:Here's another solution

[Joce640k]

This wasn't a borderline case, there was hardly any left.

The whole size limit is a joke. You can send a few people through with small amounts of stuff and put it together in a big bottle on the other side.

Re:Here's another solution

[no1nose]

"There’s a big difference between mostly empty and all empty. . . . Now mostly empty is slightly filled. All empty—well, with all empty, there’s only usually one thing that you can do.”

“What’s that?”

“Go through his clothes and look for loose change.”

Re:Here's another solution

[Ihmhi]

And then that gets attacked and they set up another one further back...

I think you've invented a corollary of Turtles All The Way Down: "Checkpoints All The Way Back."

Re:Here's another solution

[Gordonjcp]

*WWWHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH*

No, I don't think that was an airplane that just went over your head.

Re:Here's another solution

[EdIII]

Anesthesia is not the only a problem Just like you said. What about people that have severe (*severe*) cases of chronic sleep apnia? They might not die, but they sure as hell won't feel very good when they get there. More like a hang over.

Sincerely - A CPAP user. 100% of the time.

Re:Here's another solution

[517714]

Larger than three ounce bombs may be able to destroy a plane, but they do not aid in hijacking. Therefore, by your logic, there is no need for restrictions now.

Re:Here's another solution

[ajlisows]

Awesome! I'd get the same effect without having to pay for all the booze and benzodiazepines I consume when going on a plane!

Re:Here's another solution

[fahrbot-bot]

what if a terrorist blows up the huge line where people wait to be groped by the tsa?

Then they install another TSA checkpoint outside the airport to protect the one inside.

The ultimate solution will be turtles all the way down...

Re:Here's another solution

[Dcnjoe60]

Then they create roving squads to randomly search us on the streets and to conduct unannounced searches of our homes and cars.

For our safety, of course.

I think the Patriot Act already allows for this.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Con-Air is not a case study any more than the movie "Terminator" should convince you to destroy your computer.

Of course... Destroying computers would be stupid. "Terminator" should convince you to destroy any robots you come across.

I see you are one of the lucky ones that didn't bother to see Terminator 3. Good for you. If you had seen it, you'd be worse off for it, but at least you'd understand why your reply is wrong.

Re:Here's another solution

[ShakaUVM]

>BTW, it clearly doesn't work on toothpaste or any other metal container.

What?? Obviously you didn't read the summary, where it says it uses "visible light" but works through "opaque containers"!

=)

Re:Here's another solution

[tompaulco]

If someone started offering a service where you were knocked out at boarding and woke up at your destination I would so use it!
It already pretty much works for me this way, anyway. I usually stay up late the night before just to be sure.

Re:Here's another solution

[Yoda222]

Like other says, I just take an empty bottle. But I have an other idea, untested yet. Just past the security with frozen water (aka ice). Froze a bootle for 24h, go to the airport, only the liquid are forbidden, so just drink the melted water just before the security. I'm waiting the good day to test it (if I can miss a flight with no consequence one day, I could try it. But I must also consider the fact tat I could be keept by airport security for a few hours, or worse)

Re:Here's another solution

[ceoyoyo]

"Doing customs clearance without the passenger is hopeless, how can he for example go through the red zone?"

I don't know what the red zone is, but customs clearance is done on cargo all the time without the shipper or the receiver present. I can understand the need to go through security after customs though. What's annoying is having to go through security again when connecting on domestic flights. Even in the US it doesn't always happen, as the OP implies, but it does occasionally.

Re:Here's another solution

[EnempE]

I liked to take water with me when traveling to destinations where people do not drink the tap water as it is not safe. If you are country hopping and you drink a lot of water then it is painful, and sometimes impossible (e.g. when the plane lands after midnight) to have to seek out bottled water on arrival in a foreign country.
What is more, stewardesses are too busy to provide all of the passengers with enough liquids if they attempt to drink the recommended daily amount of water.
I have had water bought inside the airport taken from me on a pre-boarding inspection, inside the secure area. This theatre is out of control, it is making travel more expensive (I don't imagine those skyrocketing 'taxes' are all to cover fuel) more offensive and more stressful.

When you were young people didn't realize they were dying from the communal water, people died of "natural causes" back then

Re:Here's another solution

[travbrad]

It beats dealing with the TSA

Re:Here's another solution

[treeves]

Eh. He's a moran.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You still think planes can be hijacked? When was the last time that actually happened?

Most recently and not counting unsuccessful attempts? Twice in 2009. Once in 2008, three times in 2007 and once in 2006.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I do this all the time and have only had a problem the one time I forgot to empty the bottle. I sent it through the scanner and the security guy pulled it. He wouldn't dump it out for me and he wouldn't let me drink it, but he would let me go back out and empty it out and come back through the security line. Since I didn't have time to go back through the line I left without it. As stated before, security theater.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Please hand in your geek card immediately for misnaming a major character.

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003667/

-AC

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a standard practice pretty much in any international to domestic travel.

Re:Here's another solution

[Builder]

Where in Europe are you ? I've been seeing vending machines with multiple different types of bottled water in the UK and France for at least 3 years now.

Re:Here's another solution

[tehcyder]

If someone started offering a service where you were knocked out at boarding and woke up at your destination I would so use it! It already pretty much works for me this way, anyway. I usually stay up late the night before just to be sure.

You also used to be able to get drunk before a flight and let that help you to sleep, but nowadays they're likely to refuse to let you fly

Re:Here's another solution

[tehcyder]

It's a positive "not so much", as practised by the inhabitants of a small village in Wales on Thursdays.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the 0.1% of passengers who develop fulminant hepatitis due to an allergic reaction to the halothane, and the other couple percent of passengers who die for all sorts of other reasons because of underlying health problems they did or didn't know about.

Anaesthesia is not to be dicked around with. Sincerely - a doc.

Hey asshole, I've personally seen the documentary film "Die Hard: With a Vengeance" and I assure you that the dangers of mixed-liquid explosives justify the risks to insignificant people!

Re:Here's another solution

[tehcyder]

what if a terrorist blows up the huge line where people wait to be groped by the tsa?

what if a terrorist blows up the huge line where people wait to check in their hold luggage, buy a coffee or wait for a taxi outside?

if everyone is somehow safe once they are out of the public areas and have passed the security checkpoints, doesn't that make the security checks a good thing?

what precisely is your point?

Re:Here's another solution

[tehcyder]

The truth is that there is no way to stop a lone attacker dedicated to exchanging his or her life for that of their target. If we want to live in a free society, we need to accept that freedom isn't safe.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have security at critical infrastructure points

So your argument is that (1) we can't prevent suicide bombers so there's no point in sacrificing freedom in the attempt to do so, but (2) if we have security at critical infrastructure points we can prevent suicide bombers. There is a slight contradiction there.

Re:Here's another solution

[tehcyder]

Denver was the worst that I can remember. Seems like every time I went through security there, there were more people in the line than would be on the plane.

So there is just one flight a day?

Re:Here's another solution

[tehcyder]

So there's no possibility that the person is thinking about preventing unnecessary death and injury? It just has to be political cynicism?

Personally I would much rather have ten thousand people marginally inconvenienced than fifty preventable deaths on my conscience.

Ask El Al

Re:Here's another solution

[tehcyder]

so that people can have slightly cheaper water on plane rides

Since we did we start paying for non-alchohol drinks on planes?

You have clearly never flown with Easy Jet, Ryanair or any other budget airline.

Re:Here's another solution

[tehcyder]

Hmm, interesting. The large bins full of (mostly empty) bottles right before security control would seem to suggest I'm not alone in believing otherwise.

The fact that you and most other people believe otherwise doesn't mean it's not true.

To be honest, I'd never have thought of taking an empty water bottle because I wouldn't really want to fill it up out of an airport tap/drinking fountain after security, but there's no logical reason why you shouldn't.

There is no rule about taking empty plastic containers through security, just ones containing liquids.

Re:Here's another solution

[tehcyder]

Unless you do an awful lot of flying the cost saving is not worth the inconvenience. Personally I would only drink from a public water fountain or bathroom tap if I was totally desperate (i.e. drunk) anyway.

Re:Here's another solution

[tehcyder]

When I was young we used to drink tap water from the communal water fountain and you know people didn't always die from it.

I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.

And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.

Re:Here's another solution

[tehcyder]

In the UK and Europe you have a red zone for "I have something to declare" and a green zone for "I have nothing to declare". I assume GP meant that you have to have the passenger there with his luggage so he can declare items that he needs to pay Customs duty on.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anrego]

To be honest, I really don't think it was every about that.

The messures are hillariously ineffective and illogical. I know it's been beaten to death, but the whole point of these messures was to re-assure the public, not actually make anything safer. All the messures are designed to be highly visible... with stuff that might actually be effective but would not be seen by the public not really focused on.

Re:Here's another solution

[cthulhu11]

"Doing customs clearance without the passenger is hopeless, how can he for example go through the red zone?"

I don't know what the red zone is

Male announcer: The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
Female announcer: The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
Male announcer: [later] The red zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the white zone.
Female announcer: No, the white zone is for loading of passengers and there is no stopping in a RED zone.
Male announcer: The red zone has always been for loading and unloading of passengers. There's never stopping in a white zone.
Female announcer: Don't you tell me which zone is for loading, and which zone is for stopping!
Male announcer: Listen Betty, don't start up with your white zone shit again.

Re:Here's another solution

[ceoyoyo]

Ah, I've never seen coloured zones. There's just the short, fast line for EU citizens and the long, slow line for everybody else. Or no customs at all if it's Spain. Canada really needs such a system - here we all get the long slow line, citizen, visitor, things to declare or no.

Re:Here's another solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Given my ability to consistently fall asleep on flights (min: 2 a week) before wheels up, I'd say it's superfluous. For me anyway.

Sharks

[Anonymous Coward]

Can this determine the contents of a container with laser-possessing sharks inside?

(Additionally, will it blend?)

How long until

[Anonymous Coward]

How long until they point these scanners at the ugly bags of water carrying the bottles?

and what are the risks?

Not practical

[will_die]

Since you have to remove each liquid container and individually place it in the scanner does not make this practical.
Also the system is only good for patterns it detects so some compound is going to mess it up.

Re:Not practical

[leonardluen]

since when has the TSA cared about efficiency or practicality? or if it even works?

need i post a link to the video with adam savage claiming to have gone through the body scanner with a 12 inch razer blade?

Re:Not practical

[neokushan]

I'm sure you'll be able to pay an additional charge and have to wait in an additional line to pass your liquids through.

Re:Not practical

[RazzleFrog]

Well if it means I can carry on a bottle of wine I bought instead of praying it doesn't explode on all my clothes then I might be ok with that.

Re:Not practical

[nedlohs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqoiifBZD4E

Though he's not claiming to have gone through a body scanner with them, just that they were in his bag.

Re:Not practical

[Anonymous Coward]

Sensor has detected Ethanol - Danger! Danger! Contents Flammable! - Confiscate - Sorry sir/madam, nothing we can do.

Re:Not practical

[RajivSLK]

Put it in a water tight bag.. This has saved me once.

Laser Scanner

[Anonymous Coward]

>Laser Scanner May Allow Passengers To Take Bottled Drinks On Planes Again

Presumably it was the laser scanner that prevented this in the first place, right?

USA = Pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, being cautious is okay, but what the US is doing is beyond insanity.

Re:USA = Pussies

[stoolpigeon]

I wish it were just the US with restrictions on liquids.

Good and yet...

[realsilly]

I think this is good, for it will ease up the burden of passengers not having to listen to small infants who will otherwise be happier with a comforting bottle then with a pacifier. I don't know exactly how difficult flying has become for families with infants, but this certainly may be a good relief for them.

Yet, while I think that this is good for some reasons, it's once again massive $ spent on the false illusion of feeling safe in the air.

Re:Good and yet...

[wvmarle]

There are exceptions for families with small children. They may bring milk and other drinks for the child (and yes that's of course a major security leak but who cares, it's theater anyway and the show must go on). Exact quantities I don't know but something like "a reasonable quantity for the trip".

Re:Good and yet...

[ceoyoyo]

Families still take bottles on board. You can get dry formula that you add water to, and the crew is happy to heat it up for you.

Re:Good and yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, exceptions are generally made for parents with infants and very small children. We have been allowed to take juice boxes, baby bottles, etc on the plane when they have been for the kids so I don't know if this would really make much difference in that case.

Re:Good and yet...

[JimWise]

Breast milk and baby formula were always exempt from the TSA 3oz limitations. Originally the passenger bringing them on board had to taste it to prove it was safe (not sure how that would deter a suicide bomber), but even that requirement was later dropped.

Re:Good and yet...

[Docasman]

The last time I traveled with small children we had to drink from the bottle in front of the officers... they considered it a "proof" that it was edible. They said nothing of the high-power laser in my backpack.

Re:Good and yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

...meaning the entire exercise of confiscating liquids has been a sham this whole time, not that that was really ever in question.

Re:Good and yet...

[Methuseus]

Or, you know, breastfeed instead of bottle feed? My wife does.

Re:Good and yet...

[Methuseus]

Reasonable quality is exactly what they say. I've brought enough food for a whole week for a baby and they didn't bat an eyelash. But others have said they're very strict. Probably depends on the airport.

Re:Good and yet...

[orgelspieler]

Not here in the good US of A. Somebody might see a nipple. And then, the terrorist have won!!!

Re:Good and yet...

[c 0xFF]

Yeah, that's not going to fly (pardon the pun).

1) Adoptive and foster mothers (usually) can't breastfeed
2) Not all women can produce sufficient milk for their children (even the most productive mother has a hard time with triplets, and some have a hard time nursing just one baby)
3) Some American will sue the airline over indecent exposure if the woman on the same isle breastfeeds
4) Working women have a hard time breastfeeding. They usually must pump during the day to get enough milk flowing, and often the child starts to prefer the bottles they get during the day anyway.

I could go on, of course. The point is that even though "breast is best," it is not always possible due to individual circumstances and physiology. If you can do it, great ... but don't expect everyone to do the same.

Re:Good and yet...

[cthulhu11]

Yes, but they'll divert you and make you wait for another ten minutes while they make a show of testing the bottle. Since my son drinks hemp milk I've worried about some stupid false positive for cannabis but that hasn't been a problem. If they tried to make him drink at the checkpoint he'd probably hit them in the face with his sippy bottle.

Can the scanner find my dignity?

[SniperJoe]

Can they develop a laser scanner to find my dignity again? While I hail these suggested improvements, the fact remains that these piecemeal changes are a smokescreen to the larger issue of the legality and effectiveness of our current airport security scheme.

Re:Can the scanner find my dignity?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're working on a device to find and remove any remaining dignity that you have left after the current procedures.

Rumor is that it will need to be inserted rectally.

Re:Can the scanner find my dignity?

[Joce640k]

Hey, did you know people can hide stuff up their asses?

No, really, people do it every day to get drugs through customs or to get stuff like cellphones into prisons. If people can get cellphone chargers up there* a couple of pounds of C4 would be no problem.

[*] Which apparently they do ... %img_src%=goatse.cx

Re:Can the scanner find my dignity?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been done, but if I recall the suicide bomber forgot to remove the bomb before detonation, so there was only the one fatality.

Suicide bombers aren't the brightest set of people, of course, pretty much by definition.

Re:Can the scanner find my dignity?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Can they develop a laser scanner to find my dignity again?

Found it - it's here. Don't allow yourself to be treated like sheep, no matter how sweet the grain looks. That corridor leads to the slaughterhouse.

Re:Can the scanner find my dignity?

[stoolpigeon]

Will they send a driver to get me from Budapest to Addis Ababa on Thursday? And can they get me there in time for the meetings on Friday? 'Cause that would be awesome.

Re:Can the scanner find my dignity?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Will they send a driver to get me from Budapest to Addis Ababa on Thursday?

You don't need to go from Budapest to Addis Ababa, The grain is just sweet.

Re:Can the scanner find my dignity?

[cold fjord]

While I hail these suggested improvements, the fact remains that these piecemeal changes are a smokescreen to the larger issue of the legality and effectiveness of our current airport security scheme.

The searches are completely legal if unpopular. TSA finds an average of about 4 guns per day on/with people trying to board planes nationwide, and many other weapons as well. People known to have associations with various terrorist groups travel on airliners, but they don't try to hijack them.

Re:Can the scanner find my dignity?

[tehcyder]

Will they send a driver to get me from Budapest to Addis Ababa on Thursday?

You don't need to go from Budapest to Addis Ababa, The grain is just sweet.

You don't need to fly anywhere, true, it's just that it would be slightly inconvenient for most businessmen to sail from New York to London for a quick meeting.

more waste

[Taibhsear]

Oh great, more crap the airports have to buy, which increases ticket prices, for zero increased safety. Super.

Re:more waste

[interkin3tic]

I thought this was taxpayer money being spent. Airports are loath to offer so much as an electrical outlet without charging you for it, I can't imagine they'd be coughing up for those utterly useless naked cancer scanners.

Federal funds for security, on the other hand, no politician ever got voted out for spending too much in the name of security.

So good news: it won't directly increase the price of the ticket, bad news: you'll pay for it even if you DON'T fly.

X-Ray eyes?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the airport recently, before the X-Ray:

TSA (looking at my bag): "Is that empty?"
Me: "Huh?"
TSA (pokes empty water bottle zipped in carry-on pocket): "Is that empty?"
Me: "Yeah."

He saw it inside the bag. X-Ray eyes? Not sure how useful it is to hone the skill of seeing water bottles inside of bags, but there it is.

what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

I fly several times a year between US, South america, Europe and Asia and I have never had any problems bringing anything I need on the plane.
Do you seriously need a 2L bottle of water? Every flight I've ever been on offers free drinks. As for toothpaste, you're allowed to bring a bag of liquid like things, and toothpaste fits in there. The only real complaint I can see is if you're traveling with only carry on, and you want to bring some presents that contain liquids for people back home.
That's not to say all this no liquids on the airplane isn't ridiculous, but to me this is a lot like the people complaining they can't bring two extra suitcases full of vegetables and other food items.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[FTWinston]

Every flight I've ever been on offers free drinks.

ORLY? http://www.ryanair.com/

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[BlackCreek]

> I fly several times a year between US, South america, Europe and Asia and I have never had any problems bringing anything I need on the plane.

Good for you AC. Though I bet you never travelled with a baby, did you?

I travelled with an 8 month old. We walked in with loads of items and containers that would otherwise not be allowed. You know why that is allowed? Because parents would sue airlines to the end of the Earth for the inconvenience and discomfort that that would cause their babies (babies can be picky eaters); and when some scare monger US politician got to it, everyone watching TV would ALREADY be thinking about the children by the moment the bozo started talking about al'quaida.

All these security measures are just a ridiculous freedom and privacy take down first put in place in the US, later in Europe and then exported everywhere else. Parents will walk in with everything when caring babies, because that is beyond the limit of what society would put up with AND because, truth is, there is no security risk to justify not taking liquids in.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Kjella]

When you're a regular traveler, you adapt to jump through all the hoops. I have the laptop and liquid bag ready and everything like toothpaste, deodorant, contact lens liquid etc. are less than 100ml, I wear shoes that won't beep, belt that won't beep, put all my stuff in the jacket pockets, don't carry large amounts of loose change, drink up my soda before the security check and so on. You don't forget to take off your watch or any other of the million annoyances. I swear they have a "beep anyway" button though, just to annoy you.

Then you've got everybody else that only travel a few times a year. Oh, I need to take out the laptop I put at the bottom of my bag? Oh, I have to throw away the soda? Oh, I have to spend two minutes getting all the change out of my pockets? Oh, I have to untie my shoes and send through? Oh, you mean I can't bring my regular size tooth paste? They get frustrated and I get frustrated waiting for them, I wish there was a frequent traveller's lane (not the insanely expensive business express lane) where if you got say >10 stamps a year don't have to stand in line with the rest.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Joce640k]

Not all liquids are for personal hydration. There's creams, lotions, sprays, gels, etc.

Even if we stick to hydration, some people need special liquids. eg. Babies.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

>When you're a regular traveler, you adapt to jump through all the hoops.
That's not adaptation. That's submission.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that there is no real reason to justify this liquids BS. I just think that of all the examples they could have used, bottles of water and tubes of toothpaste are the worst. The point you make about parents traveling with babies being allowed to take these things anyway just goes to show how stupid the whole idea is.
What's to stop terrorists from taking a kid and a bomb on board.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[pz]

I swear they have a "beep anyway" button though, just to annoy you.

I've seen a presentation by a perceptual scientist who was doing a study for the TSA on false alarm rates (both false positive where they detect something that shouldn't have been detected, and false negatives where they miss something that should have been seen). It turns out that boredom in agents watching the scanner monitors is a serious problem and that if there aren't enough items to detect, the agents become complacent and the false negative rate goes up. False negatives result in serious security breaches, like guns getting on planes. Say what you like about the TSA, false negatives are a problem. So, according to this presentation, x-ray scanners have a mechanism to insert fictitious objects into the images to keep the agents sharp. That's why you get asked to go through your hand luggage every now and then even though there's absolutely nothing that could be considered suspicious: the false positive rate is raised so that the false negative rate can be reduced to near zero.

And, to bring this back to the quote above, this is, essentially, a "beep anyway" button, only it isn't under direct TSA staff control.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[InsertCleverUsername]

> I fly several times a year between US, South america, Europe and Asia and I have never had any problems bringing anything I need on the plane.

Good for you AC. Though I bet you never travelled with a baby, did you?

I'll never forget flying with our 3-month old and having some TSA goon take the kid's bottle away. Every lucky passenger in coach got to hear our hungry baby scream most of the flight. But I'm sure it was worth it, right? No doubt, many imagined threats were stopped that day.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if we stick to hydration, some people need special liquids. eg. Babies.

Babies must be blended before they are a liquid.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sucks if it's true... why not just have a button for them to press when these things show up, and then if it's one of these intentional false positives, a passenger isn't inconvenienced needlessly?

Sorry, I forgot these are the people who went ape-shit over my gf's coffee creamer. I'll stop being reasonable now.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was a frequent traveller's lane

There actually is, kind of: TSA: Black Diamond Self Select Lanes. It's also worth looking for less-used checkpoints at your airport, since they tend to have more experienced travelers. The "Skyway Security Checkpoint" at MSP or the North and South Security Checkpoints at ATL, for instance, are particularly great.

The TSA also started a pilot of their "PreCheck" program this past October, which allows "trusted travelers" to breeze through security while wearing shoes and jackets, and without having to remove laptops from bags. The downside? The trial is invite-only, and travelers have to reveal "additional information" about themselves.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is they've got you well-trained.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[interkin3tic]

I've occasionally thought they should have a "practice run" security gate before the real one.

(BEEP)

TSA: "Okay, ma'am, are you wearing any metal"
Clueless grandmother: "No! Let me go through three or four more times, I think your machine is broken!"
TSA: "Ma'am, you sure about that?"
Clueless grandmother:" I... no... I... um... Oh, I'm wearing like 30 dangly neclaces aren't I?""
TSA: "Thats' RIGHT! And you're also holding your purse which is no doubt filled with coins, nail clippers, and other bits of metalic crap. Make sure you don't do that when you go through real security, or else you'll hold up traffic and the other passengers are legally able to grope you to death. Next!"

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why you should breastfeed your children!

Particularly if you are a father travelling alone with the child :P

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[shippers]

Just for information, the kid's bottle should have been allowed through. Most places I've been to appear to allow reasonable amounts of formula to be taken through security. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/formula.shtm

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Matheus]

They do have a frequent traveler line (at least at a few airports I've been through)... IT DOESN'T HELP! You know who fills up those lines? Business travelers. The very same business travelers who spent an hour (or more) getting ready in the morning for their meeting when they get off the plane and spend that same amount of time getting practically undressed to go through the metal detector only to clog up the line putting themselves back together on the other end. What's worse? The business traveler who is now traveling with his family of 5 and feels he still has the right to use that line because he's a "frequent traveler" who can apparently get 3 fighting and confused children to also practically disrobe to go through the same scanners not to mention his trophy wife who decided to don the entire set of family jewels for that extra travel fashion. Grr.

I'm a modest business traveler... last few years I've averaged 75K miles per year although that is dropping off as my responsibilities change. I'm ready when I walk up to the checkpoint. Metal is not in my pocket/on my person. My shoes are ready to come off. My bag is ready to have my laptop slide out of it. I've walked up to an empty checkpoint and been completely through and out the other side in less than a minute. If more people would just freaking *think* before they got in that line then the line would move SO much faster and maybe there wouldn't be such a big line in the first place.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Flaming Troll Shill]

Are you a troll? Because he doesn't fly 9.99 specials, I suspect every flight he has flown has indeed offered free drinks . Every flight I have ever flown has offered "free" food and drinks (free == included in price).

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

To my knowledge, breast milk and formula have always been allowed on planes...? Did you make this up or did you have a TSA agent that did not know their own rules (believable)?

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[futuresheep]

I always carry at least 2 1L bottles of water on the plane and constantly drink from them. Why you ask? Because planes usually have a very dry atmosphere and cause dehydration which can lead to exhaustion and illness. The two or three 4 oz cups that you get on a domestic U.S. flight just aren't enough.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-travel/air-travel-and-dehydration.aspx

On the Plane: Why Is Low Humidity a Problem?
Dehydration can cause problems ranging from mild discomfort caused by dry skin and scratchy eyes to potentially life-threatening issues, such as problems with breathing for people who have respiratory conditions like asthma. Dehydration can also lead to fatigue, says William L. Sutker, MD, chief of infectious diseases at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

Being in a low-humidity environment has another caveat: You're at increased risk of catching a respiratory virus, such as a cold. Humidity in the air keeps your airways moist so the lining can help trap germs trying to enter your body. When the air youâ(TM)re breathing is too dry, the mucous in your airway canâ(TM)t do its job, and viruses or bacteria can enter more freely.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[InsertCleverUsername]

Just for information, the kid's bottle should have been allowed through. Most places I've been to appear to allow reasonable amounts of formula to be taken through security.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/formula.shtm

Well... My problem was shortly after the incident that caused the rule, so Terror Alert Level(c) was crap-your-pants brown. Guess they hadn't fine-tuned the policy.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[nschubach]

If more people would just freaking *think* before they got in ...

... anywhere. I find some people use thinking as a last resort. Highway merges, grocery lines, banking...

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[FTWinston]

No, I wasn't trolling, I was offering a contrary experience in an attempt at a mildly humorous format. Apart from one time I went with BA 4 years ago, I've not been on a flight with free drinks since I was a small child. Plenty of flights with a variety of operators where I've been able to buy food and drink, however. I linked ryanair because they're notorious for hidden extra charges, and even more so for their boss speculating in the media about additional charges he'd like to introduce (charge for use of the toilets on planes, replace seats with "standing frames" unless you pay extra, etc.)

Incidentally (may be wrong in this case, but it's frequently the case), those £9.99 specials will probably have cost you ~£70 by the time you've actually got off the plane at the other end).

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Kjella]

I know they have that for training sessions, but I doubt they use it in real life. Otherwise they'd have to constantly scan it again as the search came up empty but they can't tell if it was a fake image or a hidden compartment. In any case I was thinking of the gate you walk through yourself, I've walked through the same gates, on the same airport, wearing pretty much exactly the same and by far most of the time it doesn't beep, yet it seems impossible to get down to where it never beeps no matter how little metal I wear.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last couple of times I got "beeped", after I was cleared, I asked why it beeped so that I could avoid it next time. I was told that the machine inserts a number of random "beeps" just in case. The whole exercise is one of security theatre, not genuine security anyway.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[pz]

You've never had your carry-on bags searched after being x-rayed and put back through even though there was absolutely nothing suspicious in them? I fly enough that it happens to me ... not very often, but it definitely happens. I had wondered about that until I saw the presentation on false alarms, and then it made sense.

Same with the metal detector you walk through. There's undoubtedly an intentional level of uncertainty built in where it will beep at a certain rate no matter what the readings actually are, just to keep the agents moving around and alert. I have no direct evidence for that, however, and these days I'm always opting-out of the backscatter so get the extra-special-and-personal treatment no matter what the metal detector gate says.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Spectre]

To my knowledge, breast milk and formula have always been allowed on planes...? Did you make this up or did you have a TSA agent that did not know their own rules (believable)?

Airport security is not TSA at many airports, which is where a lot of the mish-mash of methods of enforcement tend to arise. My local airport is MCI (Kansas City International), security is some local company hired to perform that function, not "real" TSA. The local company is years behind the TSA guidelines for what is permitted to be carried on. As an example, the TSA allows a typical cigarette lighter to be carried aboard on your person, but they get confiscated if you go through security at MCI.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? I would have thought that this would make matters worse! If I was a TSA employee and something goes beep I would then be thinking "Probably just a random false positive but I will do a cursory check so I appear to be doing my job - its not likely to be real anyway". It just make them more complacent surely?

I'm not based in the USA now and I certainly do anything to avoid travelling through the USA. And I'm certainly not subjecting my children to these invasive checks that must be hurting the economy (especially tourism) with no real benefit in my view.

 

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called TIP (Threat Image Projection).
The idea is that X-ray operators on long, grueling, mostly boring shifts get complacent and/or tired and will miss real items.
So the X-ray monitor occasionally overlays fake images of guns, knives, etc to see if the operator is still alert.
The operator's actions are monitored for these fake images and the results put in the operator's record.
It is a bit like whipping a kitten harder to make it pull your car out of the mud.
Security bosses love it and the X-ray operators hate it.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of us who have have paruresis (bashful bladder). I have to fly for my brother's wedding in a couple of months (I haven't flown since before 9/11) and paid more for a flight without a connection because I will have to

a) get to the airport in a car
b) get through security
c) get on the plane for a three hour flight
d) get through the airport on the far side and
e) survive the car ride to the hotel

all without being able to relieve myself. I plan on not bringing anything to drink at all for the 7-8 hour ordeal. You would think that if you had a bashful bladder you would just be able to go when it became bad enough, but for most of us that is not the case. It's not unknown for severe cases to bring sterilized disposable catheters onboard a flight and insert them in the bathroom. I won't have to do that, but I'm sure I will be very uncomfortable on top of the rest of the stress with security.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[tehcyder]

You're the fucking troll. Most of us normal human beings fly on airlines like Ryanair or EasuJet for our holidays, and can't afford to fly first class on BA or whoever.

Re:what do you need all this stuff for anyway?

[tehcyder]

>When you're a regular traveler, you adapt to jump through all the hoops. That's not adaptation. That's submission.

Most people who are frequent flyers are doing it for work, not leisre, so they probably don't have much of an option about not flying.

Saying to your boss "I'll take an extra two days driving there and two days driving bac" for a meeting probably isn't going to be received very well.

Another useles gadget

[devent]

And all it will just be another $100 Million for each airport. Airports are truly become the most high-tech places in the world. If you have some obscure security technology, just go to the next airport, they will buy it. I think 1000 years from now archeologist will think that air travel was the most dangerous travel form of this century because they will find the most invasive and most high-tech security technology ever implemented (despite the fact it is in fact the most save form of travel).

criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Anonymous Coward]

If "they" want to blow up a plane they will find a way to do it. The focus should be on "why" they want to blow up the plane. Maybe we should stop pissing off people by trying to take over their countries?

What liquid agent is a terrorist going to use to blow up a plane? Napalm? Or just set the plane on fire?

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two very common liquids that you most likely have under your bathroom sink that can be used to make the same explosives used in the London bombings. Not going to give you the specifics, but the information is out there.

The only problem is: one of those chemicals has a strong "floral & irritating" scent. Why we don't check for that scent is beyond me.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Dan667]

anyone with any chemistry knowledge can put together household chemicals that would be deadly and they are not limited to liquids. The whole no liquid policy is stupid.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Liquid binary explosives would be my guess. Although why the TSA believes anybody who wants to bring such a thing aboard a flight will do so in obvious liquid containers, I don't know.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[ScentCone]

What liquid agent is a terrorist going to use to blow up a plane?

Are you really that uninformed, after years of coverage of binary liquid explosives, demonstrations of their effectiveness when used correctly, and actual use of them by actual terrorists who actually killed people? You can't possibly be. So, what's your real point?

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Robert Zenz]

Maybe we should stop pissing off people by trying to take over their countries?

Yeah, stop to piss off people! Stop hailing the wrong god you insensitive clod!

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[MedBob]

Yeah. I really get upset over people that use too much hairspray. I mean, you can just look at them and the venom rises in my throat.
Why in the world would you want to wear ANY hairspray, it's so disgusting!
Make absolutely sure that you don't wear any hairspray if you are in line with me!
I also question ANY culture that would accept anything so disgusting as hairspray. After all, that stuff has Alcohol in it!

IMHO, Hairspray will be the undoing of this world and I intend to make this world safe for all the unsuspecting people that have been seduced by this western habit of shaping their hair in such a disgusting manner!

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Joce640k]

If "they" want to blow up a plane they will find a way to do it.

The methods aren't complicated, high tech or secret.

eg. People have body cavities.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I'm not convinced anyone even wants to blow up a plane.

I'm only 26 so maybe It happened before I remember but has a commercial jet ever actually been bombed? It seems to me the damn things are more likely to fall out of the sky because of ice or a computer failier than from terrorist action.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just accept. "Yup, they can blow up the plane if they want to. Just make sure they can't pilot it into any buildings." Lock the cabin doors and we're fine.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Uberbah]

And you have a statistically greater chance of drowning in your bathtub from an accidental fall than dying in a terrorist attack. So, what's your real point?

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[InsertCleverUsername]

The focus should be on "why" they want to blow up the plane.

EXACTLY. If the desire is there, there really is no end to the creative means of accomplishing their goals. Every added moronic indignity from the TSA is nothing but a reactionary measure, only applied after some plot makes the news. I'm dreading the day a terrorist is discovered with a bomb up his ass.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Anonymous Coward]

And how does current technology prevent attacks with binary liquid explosives? You can still take small bottles with you in the plane, or not?
You need two bottles with the two components. So, to reduce your risk, instead of taking them both with you, just get two terrorists per flight instead of just one. Once inside they mix both of their liquids and there you go, you managed to destroy an airplane!

It's so easy, yet it hasn't been done. However, millions of dollars have been spent worldwide installing scanners and searching through luggage. What did they accomplish with that? All we managed was to waste water, sunscreen, moisturizing agent at the screening and then make people buy them later on. But hey, that's good for the economy.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Leif_Bloomquist]

> What liquid agent is a terrorist going to use to blow up a plane? Napalm? Or just set the plane on fire?

Liquid nitroglycerin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434#The_bomb

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[chrb]

What liquid agent is a terrorist going to use to blow up a plane? Napalm? Or just set the plane on fire?

This kind of comment always comes up in these discussions: suggesting that it isn't possible to construct a liquid bomb in a regular drinks bottle by mixing precursor liquids taken through the security checks.

Watch this video on BBC News of a 500ml drinks bottle bomb being detonated in an aircraft. It is possible. The man who built that bomb was Dr. Sidney Alford, an explosives and IED expert who does work for the Ministry of Defence. Here's an article about the liquid bomb. They state that they used 400ml of liquid which could be mixed from individual 100ml bottles. There was even a plot to use this exact method to blow up several aircraft simultaneously over the Atlantic. People were prosecuted and jailed for life for it.

At this point a lot of people refer me to an apparently widely read article at The Register, Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible? which suggests that the plot would not have worked: "But what do these experts know about chemistry? Less than they know about lobbying for Homeland Security pork, which is what most of them do for a living." Hmmm. What people missed is that The Register later backpedalled and decided that, Yes, there was a viable liquid bomb plot. The bomb plot that The Register originally ridiculed was a complete strawman - the bombers never intended to make TATP in the toilet of a commercial plane.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[InsertCleverUsername]

What liquid agent is a terrorist going to use to blow up a plane?

Are you really that uninformed, after years of coverage of binary liquid explosives, demonstrations of their effectiveness when used correctly, and actual use of them by actual terrorists who actually killed people? You can't possibly be. So, what's your real point?

Uninformed? Really? Better that than misinformed by watching too many bad action movies. Getting it all to work is a little harder than they make it look on screen.

It only takes the slightest effort with Google to see how unlikely such a plan is to succeed (unless, of course, success is creating more security theater).

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Googling "Lockerbie"

Not that I'm saying that the security measures are correct, in many cases they are stupid or easily bypassed but it has happened.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[pclminion]

Watch this video on BBC News of a 500ml drinks bottle bomb being detonated in an aircraft. It is possible. The man who built that bomb was Dr. Sidney Alford, an explosives and IED expert

You mean, these bombs are so easy to make even an explosives expert can do it? Oh my God... This changes things.

What people missed is that The Register later backpedalled and decided that, Yes, there was a viable liquid bomb plot.

Jesus, I had no idea it had been judged viable by *The Register*. If anybody on this planet knows bomb-making, it's them.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[ScentCone]

What's your point? That it's hard and unlikely? It wasn't too hard or unlikely for it to actually work and kill people, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Overzeetop]

But powder isn't prohibited. I'm not sure if aluminum would set off any of the alarms, but a pound baggie of aluminum and a pound baggie of potassium perchlorate (or, hell, chlorate - you're gonna die anyway, why be careful) would make a mess of part of a plane, likely more than enough to take it down since such a large quantity of flash powder has a reasonable chance of flame propagation that would reach detonation speed. A common lighter, or even flint and steel, or a small filament of nichrome and a 9v battery is more than enough to set it off.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[futuresheep]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[CAIMLAS]

The focus should be on "why" they want to blow up the plane. Maybe we should stop pissing off people by trying to take over their countries?

We just spent millions of dollars by giving radical Islamists yet another country to control. Why question anything?

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your point? That it's hard and unlikely? It wasn't too hard or unlikely for it to actually work and kill people, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

What incident are you referring to?

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[InsertCleverUsername]

When/where was this incident you're talking about? Honestly, other than the foiled plot, I haven't heard anything of the sort. Please share.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Anonymous Coward]

... the statistics before and after the TSA are pretty much the same.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Anonymous Coward]

If "they" want to blow up a plane they will find a way to do it. The focus should be on "why" they want to blow up the plane. Maybe we should stop pissing off people by trying to take over their countries?

What liquid agent is a terrorist going to use to blow up a plane? Napalm? Or just set the plane on fire?

3oz of Mercury would do the trick.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Joce640k]

Why not just hide some C4 in a body cavity?

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Anomalyst]

... the statistics before and after the TSA are pretty much the same.

Exactly, 0 not-so-scaryists caught before TSA, 0 caught 20 billion $$$ after TSA.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[cold fjord]

Maybe we should stop pissing off people by trying to take over their countries?

When people buy a six pack of beer, it isn't to simply open the can - it is to drink the beer. The Islamist don't simply want the West/US out of any random location, or to stop "trying to take over their countries" (opening the can) - that is at most an intermediate step in reaching their goal. Their actual goal ("drinking the beer) is to turn the entire world Islamic and restore the Islamic Caliphate government that combines church and state. Read Bin Laden's letter to America - his first real demand is mass conversion to Islam, and after that he demands the US throw out the Constitution and implement Islamic Sharia law. They are not responding to invasion, they are on the offense attempting to overthrow the existing world order and impose their own.

HAMAS Targets Spain

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos’ efforts earlier this year to remove HAMAS from the European Union’s terrorist list, have done little to change HAMAS’ agenda. It is not only Palestine that children in the West Bank and Gaza are asked to liberate; now they are asked to liberate Seville. The HAMAS children’s magazine, Al-Fateh, in a recent issue, (No. 66), tells the children about the city called Asbilia (Seville) and calls on them to free it, together with the whole country, from the infidels and to reinstate Muslim rule. . . . more . .

What liquid agent is a terrorist going to use to blow up a plane? Napalm? Or just set the plane on fire?

The Science Behind 3-1-1

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[fahrbot-bot]

Are you really that uninformed, after years of coverage of binary liquid explosives, ...

From what I understand, one can't simply mix the two liquids together - like shown in the movies.
See this for some (humorous) insight: Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?

Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together....

First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. ... But let's assume that you can obtain it in the required concentration, or cook it from a dilute solution without ruining your operation. Fine. The remaining ingredients, acetone and sulfuric acid, are far easier to obtain, and we can assume that you've got them on hand.

Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.

It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate - especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation - to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.

Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.

Re:criminals dont play by the rules.....

[Anonymous Coward]

What liquid agent is a terrorist going to use to blow up a plane? Napalm? Or just set the plane on fire?

Acetone peroxide (TATP, TACP). People occasionally make the stuff because it's easy - you just need acetone, hydrogen peroxide and a little acid for a catalyst. Terrorists occasionally try it because it's nitrogen-free which makes it hard to detect.

It's also very unstable which makes getting it onto a plane difficult. You're more likely to blow yourself up when you drop your duffel bag on the X-ray machine than actually make it onto the plane.

Acetone and hydrogen peroxide sound like stuff you can get at any hardware store but in reality you need very high purity reagents. Contminants make it even more touchy.

The liquids on a plane thing started after a couple of bungling idiots considered bringing the reagents on board and mixing them in flight. It sounds like a good plan on paper but in reality there is no way they could have pulled it off. Getting the reaction to go well is hard under good conditions. Doing it in a bottle of Tang is doomed to fail. They probably would succeed in the "suicide" part but it's highly unlikely they would have managed to take out the plane.

Nice idea, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

reportedly has a false alarm rate of less than 0.5 percent

According to Wiki, 46,514,154 passed through JFK International in 2010. Let's say they're very cautious about the false alarm rate and that it's actually 0.25%: that's still well over 100,000 false alarms per year. From one big airport.

What do they do then? Call in the bomb squad a couple of hundred times a day or let the passenger on the plane minus their alleged bottle of explosives?

It might be a good idea as an initial screen where any positives get passed to a more rigorous second layer of screening but this can take time, and bearing in mind it takes about 5 seconds to scan an item with this machine and that people can have three or four things to scan that could make an extra 30 seconds of time to screen each passenger bearing in mind time to get the items in and out of the machine. That might not sound like much but it'll just increase backups even further.

Besides, I take it "false alarm" means false positive. What about the rate of false negatives? Is it high enough to make it pointless?

Re:Nice idea, but...

[ceoyoyo]

Just do like they used to - if it's a suspicious liquid that's supposed to be drinkable, you take a swig. If not, it doesn't go with you.

Re:Nice idea, but...

[felipekk]

Two things you didn't consider:

1) Not all those passengers went through security. I expect a reasonable percentage to be in transit and thus not required to go through security.

2) Not all the passengers that would go through security would have brought bottles to be scanned.

Re:Nice idea, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the rate of false negatives? Is it high enough to make it pointless?

Not as important as you might think.
It only needs to be successful enough to deter potential attackers.
If there's a ~70% chance the detector will work, then that's probably "good enough" to foil (or prevent) any plot.

It's the same concept as random searches.

Sedation flight

[tepples]

Assuming that by "Thomas Swift" you meant Jonathan Swift, sedation flight has already been depicted in the film The Fifth Element.

Re:Sedation flight

[Gideon Wells]

Ah yes, *facepalm*. I meant Jonathan Swift. Still, not quite as bad as the time I accidentally stated Pablo (Picasso)'s Wager instead of Pascal's Wager. Also I have never watched The Fifth Element.

Re:Sedation flight

[LoP_XTC]

The Fifth Element.

Its the movie with Milla Jovovich's breasts ... the one without zombie's if that helps narrow it down for you.

Throw more money at it

[Dunbal]

Gee I feel safer already /sarcasm

I may object

[mseeger]

The mahor hassle are not the liquids but the complete chain of senseless security theater that complicate travel but not bring any security (beyond the false sense of it).

Adding another snake oil device will not improve things.

Re:I may object

[Jason Levine]

I think I need to develop the Terrorist Detector 3000. It will just be a plain metallic arch (but a *cool* looking metallic arch). It won't actually beep or have any electronics inside but it will detect terrorist by Advanced Probabilistic Reasoning. Each passenger that passes through has a nearly-zero chance of being a terrorist so it will read negative on them. My device will be 99.9999% accurate! (Perhaps even more accurate than that.) What's more, the Terrorist Detector 3000 will only cost airports $50,000 each, saving them tons of money. Hey, it'll be just as good at catching terrorists as the TSA is right now!

Re:I may object

[mseeger]

Actually it will be much, much better ;-).

Re:I may object

[Dogtanian]

I think I need to develop the Terrorist Detector 3000. It will just be a plain metallic arch (but a *cool* looking metallic arch). [..] What's more, the Terrorist Detector 3000 will only cost airports $50,000 each, saving them tons of money.

This is oddly reminiscent of something that *actually happened* with the Iraqi government.

Re:I may object

[Anomalyst]

Calling it theater gives it too much legitimacy. It is vaudeville..

Re:I may object

[mseeger]

Let's settle for security brothel.... (being unfair, i know, to regular brothels)

Re:I may object

[Anomalyst]

Butt we are the ones on the receiving end (puns intended) .

Re:I may object

[oobayly]

It's an embarrassment that somebody came up with this. Personally, I think the guy should be dropped off in a minefield with an ADE-651 and see how far he gets.

Re:I may object

[tehcyder]

You should have it beep occasionally at random. Sure, the poor sucker will end up in Guantanamo Bay for a few years, but it will give an additional level of plausibility to your device.

Mwah ha ha ha ha.

Good one

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the next thing would be for somebody to devise an explosive that is triggered by laser scanners.

Do away with scanning altogether

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

I notice not many people here are saying we should do away with intrusive pat-downs and feel ups altogether. At least here in the US, we used to have something called the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search & seizure.

Re:Do away with scanning altogether

[agentgonzo]

I notice not many people here are saying we should do away with intrusive pat-downs and feel ups altogether. At least here in the US, we used to have something called the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search & seizure.

They security officers do not have the right to search you. If you make the metal detector beep, they still do not have the right to search you. They do, however, have the right to not admit you to the rest of the airport or onto the plane unless you assuage their fears by allowing a pad-down search. If you really take objection to the security at the airports, get in a car, train or ferry. Air travel is by no means the only way to get there.

Re:Do away with scanning altogether

[Chowderbags]

Unless you want to go to Hawaii.

Re:Do away with scanning altogether

[jason777]

Not true. Its a $10,000 fin if you refuse the patdown and want to leave.

Re:Do away with scanning altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really take objection to the security at the airports, get in a car, train or ferry. Air travel is by no means the only way to get there.

Clearly you haven't heard about VIPR or how the TSA searched people leaving a train. Nor have you heard about how the boarder has been expended hundreds of miles inwards based on a recent court ruling and you can now face customs checkpoints while driving your car down the interstate without crossing any actual boarder. Last time I rode a ferry, they had dogs sniffing everyone.

Re:Do away with scanning altogether

[Sean]

Yeah right, try to leave the checkpoint in the middle of the process. Let us all know how that works out for you. Also, TSA is not just in airports anymore. You aren't safe from them anywhere.

Re:Do away with scanning altogether

[tehcyder]

Unless you want to go to Hawaii.

Don't they allow boats to go to Hawaii?

Re:Do away with scanning altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

Geeks need some human contact...

Theater at its finest....

[jythie]

So... we have a fake problem based off what was essentially a hoax, but now the public and TSA are so heavily invested in the myth that when everyone realizes how stupid the policy is, rather then just saying 'ok, start carying liquids', they have to go with some expensive face-saving device so they can maintain the facade that this whole policy was worthless in the first place.

You know.. I really should have just tried to sell them dowsing rods instead... they are already being sold as bomb detectors... I am sure I could repurpose a couple sticks for detecting combinations of liquids that when mixed will blow up planes. I wonder if I can set them up so they poke the user in the eye in order to indicate a positive.....

Re:Theater at its finest....

[ScentCone]

a fake problem based off what was essentially a hoax

How does your lying about the history and reality of binary explosives help whatever point you're trying to make? And, do you have any additional bits of ironic BS you can trot out that will bring back to life the people killed, by crazy jihaddists, using exactly the "fake" techniques you're mentioning? Please, do tell.

Re:Theater at its finest....

[Spad]

Remind me again how many people have been killed by "crazy jihaddists" taking binary explosives onto aircraft and detonating them...

Re:Theater at its finest....

[Jiro]

It's not so much security theater as it is political patronage. Having all that "security" makes some companies lots of money. This plan will go through because a device to analyze liquids with a laser is again something that has to be bought and will make the provider a lot of money.

Calling it security theater focusses on the wrong problem. The security-just-for-show is only the side effect; it's the fat government contracts that are the cause.

Re:Theater at its finest....

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that making the sort of binary explosive that caused the liquid ban was actually extremely difficult, even proving troublesome in lab conditions. Do you have any citations of binary explosives being used effectively by "crazy jihaddits"?

Re:Theater at its finest....

[drinkypoo]

a fake problem based off what was essentially a hoax

How does your lying about the history and reality of binary explosives help whatever point you're trying to make?

No, you are the liar. Try searching for terrorist attacks committed with binary explosives mixed on a plane. There never has been one. There was a notable case where a white american terrorist used a truckload of same to blow up a government building, but no air attacks.

Re:Theater at its finest....

[jythie]

That is correct. Mixing such an explosive requires very precise temperature and time controls, as well as having the problem of producing significant fumes. It requires a significant amount of equipment and space to do correctly, and if you are even a little off it is pretty worthless.

Re:Theater at its finest....

[jythie]

The only 'binary' explosives involving liquids that I have heard of being used in the field are along the lines of 'gas+lighter'. Such liquid explosives are difficult to mix and require not only lab equipment but careful temperature control and significant time. There is no way these people could have actually mixed such a thing on a moving plane. The cell in question had no idea what they were doing.

Re:Theater at its finest....

[Anonymous Coward]

They would usually have to carry a blasting cap on board, as well. A bomb is not the simplest thing in the world. The underpants bomber demonstrated this.

Re:Theater at its finest....

[drinkypoo]

The only 'binary' explosives involving liquids that I have heard of being used in the field are along the lines of 'gas+lighter'.

ANFO is a binary explosive. Thing is, it's the kind of thing that's fairly obvious in your luggage in that it can be detected by a simple sniff test. Binary explosives aren't a myth, but binary explosives that you can't trivially tell apart from shampoo or soda pop are.

Re:Theater at its finest....

[jythie]

I never intended to claim that binary explosives themselves are a myth, just that liquid ones, specifily powerful ones that can be smuggled in bottles and can easily be combined in such an environment, are.

more wasted money on the tsa

[Dan667]

why am I not surprised this is an expensive machine. The better question is trying to get rich with it? A much cheaper solution is to get rid of the tsa as they are not effective.

Security brings freedom

[LongearedBat]

See what all that higher security allows to do. Maybe one day we'll even be able to take with us alcohol and toothpaste and more, and still be more secure than ever before.
Isn't that swell, guys?

Note to the humour impaired: This is extreme sarcasm!!!

Here's what flying will be like in 10 years...

[Iphtashu Fitz]

You pack up your carry-on bag and show up at the airport. As you go through the security line you have to unpack everything. All liquids and gels have to be placed on one conveyer belt. Electronic devices are placed on another. Your belt, shoes, hat, jacket, are placed on another. Whatever remains is placed on yet another. If you accidentally put something on the wrong conveyer then you and all your belongings are dragged off to a private room by 3 goons who go through everything with a fine toothed comb, taking so long that you'll undoubtedly miss your flight. Each of those conveyers goes through an assortment of various gizmos that poke, prod, scan, irradiate, zap, spray, and shake all of your possessions.

If you sort all your belongings properly then you then proceed to one kiosk where you have your retinas and/or fingerprints scanned. Depending on the outcome of that (and probably the whim of a nearby screener) you're shunted to another line where your clothes are swabbed down and tested for lord-knows-what sorts of chemicals. Then it's off to another line to proceed through a nude-o-scope so the screeners can gawk at you. And since the nude-o-scope doesn't actually do what it's purported to do then you're also subjected to a full pat-down. After the final pat down you're interrogated by yet another agent who demands to know where you're traveling, who you're traveling with, why you think you should be allowed on board an airplane, etc.

After about 30 minutes of "processing" you're allowed to retrieve roughly 85% of your belongings (half of which are damaged or completely destroyed from the "screening" process) from a huge bin where all those conveyers dump everything into one huge pile.

Oh yeah, and if you're not smiling sincerely throughout the entire process then you're also subjected to a full body cavity search and then ejected from the airport no matter what the outcome of the search.

Re:Here's what flying will be like in 10 years...

[DogDude]

Speak for yourself. Those of us with a sense of self-respect have already stopped flying altogether.

Re:Here's what flying will be like in 10 years...

[Anonymous Coward]

My personal belief is that in 10 years carry on baggage will be equal to a magazine/book and whatever medication you need. But it probably won't be any faster due to some other security processing.

Re:Here's what flying will be like in 10 years...

[tehcyder]

After the final pat down you're interrogated by yet another agent who demands to know where you're traveling, who you're traveling with, why you think you should be allowed on board an airplane, etc.

That is actually one of the few effective security measures. Israel use it to good effect. Their security checks are quite intimidating, but if they have that effect on an innocenti tourist like me, god knows what it would be like if you were trying to smuggle a bomb on board.

Real benefit

[Peter Simpson]

The real benefit of this new device, is thousands of sales to TSA and profits for the undoubtedly politically well-connected company that manufactures them.

I just don't fly

[WCMI92]

I won't go anywhere I can't drive to in my own vehicle. I won't stand for strip searching, irradiation and groping by government thugs.

And how many terrorists have the TSA ever stopped? The answer: ZERO.

The TSA is all about harassment in the name of the APPEARANCE of security. They will strip search a nun while allowing muslims (who were responsible for 9/11) through without a second look. Because of this, because of political correctness, if anything planes are LESS SAFE today than on 9/10.

Obligatory TPB

[srussia]

Just do like they used to - if it's a suspicious liquid that's supposed to be drinkable, you take a swig. If not, it doesn't go with you.

"I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder."

Re:Obligatory TPB

[giorgist]

Or create a bottle with two compartments, the top one being drinkable. I can think of a few ways to make the boundary invisible. Example ... bottle in bottle, artwork on bottle and so on ...

Re:Obligatory TPB

[rdnetto]

Who needs a boundary? Just use two immiscible liquids.

Because of this paranoia...

[TheDarkMaster]

Because of this paranoia I can not import plastic modeling paints, adhesives or anything that is liquid. And detail, I'm not talking about cans of 500ml or 1000ml, I speak of "mini cans" that are usually 10ml at most.

Re:Because of this paranoia...

[will_die]

Don't take anything through carry one, check it.

Re:Because of this paranoia...

[tehcyder]

Don't take anything through carry one, check it.

Yeah, but it's his human right to have his glue and paint in the cabin with him.

Wha???

[rickb928]

Oh crap, it's April already. Dammit...

Idiotic rule

[orzetto]

I was already convinced this rule about liquids was bogus and mostly aimed at increasing the sales of beverages in airports, but a few months back I had a shock at just how stupid the system is.

I was taking a plane (international within Scandinavia) and I had noticed a bit late I had a very short time from landing to the departure of the train I wanted to get on. I had only a small piece of luggage, which I usually check in for convenience, so to cut the baggage claim I decide to carry it on the plane instead. Of course at the security checkpoint they notice there are a bunch of liquids inside (toothpaste, shampoo and the like), and I decide I'd rather buy them back upon arrival.

Funny thing, they take the 120 ml toothpaste tube, but leave a 500 ml bottle of liquid for contact lenses. I ask whether it is because it is almost empty (I thought the prohibition was based on containers, which is the case), but that was not it.

In fact I found out that there is an exception to the 100 ml rule: medical supplies, which apparently includes liquid for contact lenses (no, no special liquid; your average, run-of-the-mill, over-the-counter liquid for soft contacts; no prescription whatsoever). Security personnel did not perform any test whatsoever on the contents of the bottle (which was of a brand unavailable in that country, so they did not even recognise it). They did not even open it! It could have been sulphuric acid for all they knew.

So, next time you want to bring your soda on the plane, buy a bottle of contact lens liquid, empty it, and refill it with whatever you want.

Re:Idiotic rule

[Anonymous Coward]

Victims of 9/11: 40,000/y [dot.gov]

Yeah, but the victims of 9/11 mattered. They were executives and wall street people. Who cares about the normal riff-raff that dies.

Re:Idiotic rule

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, next time you want to bring your soda on the plane, buy a bottle of contact lens liquid, empty it, and refill it with whatever you want."

My 2 half liter contact-bottles have always contained Vodka since this security theater began, but I'm a drunk (and a cheap one) not a terrorist.

Re:Idiotic rule

[smurfsurf]

Yep, learnt about the contact lens stuff as well. But there is always a risk. Some goon might not know the rule and not allow the bottle. You throw it away, fly, arrive at the customer, you have stay at their office for the rest of the day, shops are now closed and you do not have your contact lens cleaning liquid. Therefore I still use small containers, just to minimize my risk.

The whole restriction to 100ml is bogus anyway. The rational being that if you manage to get dangerous stuff on board, if will be a relatively small amount (they do not test any of the liquid after all). Never mind that you could just split the liquid to multiple containers and even have passengers as partners to bring more of it. It truly is security theater.

Re:Idiotic rule

[smurfsurf]

Oh yeah, also contact lens liquids are way too expensive to just throw away.

Re:Idiotic rule

[IronChef]

The phrase "it's medically necessary" lets your liquids bypass most TSA checkpoint shenanigans.

Re:Idiotic rule

[nbritton]

So, next time you want to bring your soda on the plane, buy a bottle of contact lens liquid, empty it, and refill it with whatever you want.

Unfortunately you most likely could be charged with a felony if you were caught sneaking it past. Their are so many laws on the books these days that people don't even realize they're committing misdemeanors and felonies on a daily basis. Just the other day while driving I had someone deliberately cut me off while merging; had I not slammed on the brakes to protect myself from his recklessness it would have certainly ended in a violent crash. This simple act, which most everyone has done at one time or another, meets all of the elements required to be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, which is a felony in most states.

Re:Idiotic rule

[treeves]

I tried some of that 1N sulfuric acid contact lens solution, and now I can see ultraviolet!

Finally...

[Shoe Puppet]

...FREEEEEEDOM!

A cheaper solution

[SilverJets]

Drink it.

Someone shows up with a bottle of what they claim is water. Have them take a nice big gulp of it. If they don't retch or die you can bet it really was just water.

Re:A cheaper solution

[kanweg]

No, as it would require common sense, which isn't very common. There's a case where a person couldn't get his fish in a bag of water along because well, the amount of liquid (which could be an explosive, right?) was too much.

Bert

Re:A cheaper solution

[sheddd]

I carry nalgene bottles everywhere; I just like having liquid when I want it; I got stopped @ security, I was running late, and they said I'd have to go outside to empty it out if I wanted to keep the $10 bottle; they wouldn't allow me to keep the bottle even after I drank the contents. I drive when I can instead of flying now.

Re:A cheaper solution

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only practical for your main drink you are in the middle of drinking right then. It isn't practical for any extra drinks you want for later or on the way back. Opening each bottle in your bag exposes them to germs, most say refrigerate after opening. Additionally, containers like cans are not resealable. Additionally, even resealable bottles can let out some carbonation. What if you want to take some bottles of beer, wine, or champagne? You don't want to open them just to prove they are safe. Plus, this does nothing for hygiene products. Most brands don't come in travel size. I can put shampoo in a tiny 3oz bottle, but I can't put shaving gel in a 3oz container. It would go flat.

Checking a bag often costs extra money. Checking a bag requires you have proper luggage so that it can survive. Checking a bag means the airline might lose it, or stuff might be stolen. Checking a bag increases the risk that stuff gets broken. Checking a bag means you need to pick it up from baggage claim, possibly in an unfamiliar airport. Checking a bag increases the time needed to get out of the airport, which might make you miss a train. Have you ever needed to wait 90 minutes for the next train because you got to the station 5 minutes too late, because you had to wait for your bag? Checking a bag means you don't have any of that stuff while in flight. The time it takes to pick up your bag might mean the difference between getting stuck in rush hour traffic or not. You don't have control over the flight times or the train times. Checking a bag means you need to go pick up the bag right away after landing or it might disappear. You can't enjoy eating or drinking at restaurants inside security, because you need to leave security to go pick up your bag.

The point is that if you are going on a short trip, you might not want to deal with the hassle of checking any bags, which limits your ability to take liquids. You might not be able to shave on your trip, or bring rare beers to different locations. I had to drink my souvenir bottle of Coca Cola because I wasn't going to check my bag. Every time I take a flight, I have to have a debate with myself whether or not I'm going to check a bag, and if I'm going to check the big one or the small one. In fact, I have to think about this at the time of booking, because wanting to check a bag or not may influence my choice of airline, or may influence if I want to upgrade to business class. If I want a business class upgrade, I have to choose an airline that might let me upgrade, I'd need the points and the status.

Ummm.

[Anonymous Coward]

So they have discovered "Spectral Analysis". Oh wait...No, that's actually been around for years.

What the hell were they waiting for?

Mr Terrorist...

[SCHecklerX]

... gets to work on his new laser-detonated liquid explosive.

Follow the Money

[brxndxn]

I am almost certain the new 'convenience' that we already used to have but lost will be introduced after a company makes millions introducing some newfangled technology that rips off our government (really.. the taxpayers). It works like this:

Step 1: Add major inconvenience due to 'security'
Step 2: Consult with private consultants (read.. former government officials) on how to get rid of new inconvenience and make a ton of money
Step 3: Purchase new unproven technology for all airports with taxpayer dollars and make 'private industry' friends rich

This is how it worked with the backscatter machines and this is how it will work with the new 'laser scanners.'

Japanese scanners

[LQ]

What are the scanners they use on liquids in airports in Japan? I took a lot of internal flights there last winter and each time had a water bottle strapped on the outside of my hand baggage. Security set the bottle on a little stand, pushed a button and waited for (IIRC) a green light before handing in back to me.

Liquids - Solids

[anchelo123456789]

Are you allowed to take ice with you on board? It is clerly not a liquid!

More TSA guidelines!

[kiehlster]

TSA-certified drinking bottles will hit store shelves because who knows whether your regular translucent bottles will properly refract light. Shortly after this, there will be a list of what drinks are safe to place in your TSA-certified drink container because who knows whether your all-natural vitamin water contains chemicals that could be used to make explosives.

EPA says airplane water is not safe for formula

[Anonymous Coward]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) monitors the drinking water on airplanes, but the agency has been struggling with lax compliance for years. In studies conducted by the EPA in 2004, 15 percent of samples tested positive for coliform bacteria, making it unsafe for anyone to drink.

Your stomach can mostly tolerate the bad tap water on airplanes but it's a BAD idea to give it to an infant or toddler. And with airlines trying to fly lighter and lighter you can't count getting bottled water from the flight attendents as they may run out well before the flight lands.

TSA Theives

[Dareth]

My wife got some kind of spa lotion set while on vacation and forgot to put it in her checked bag. Security told her to give it to them or she would miss her flight. She handed it over only to be told she had already missed her flight. She asked for it back so she could ship it home but they wouldn't give it back.

Re:TSA Theives

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be funny to put some itching powder in it, the thieves would think twice.

Risk Assessment

[captain_nifty]

How about instead of Billion/Trillion dollar new technology, we do an unemotional risk assessment of the situation and go back to a more reasonable level of airport security.... except of course that doesn't make anyone any money which is all airport security is about these days, selling another machine using fear as a selling point. 9-11 should have resulted in some simple security fixes, locks on the doors and changes in passenger attitudes to hijacking, both of which have happened, everything else is CYA security theatre fundraising.

Don't Believe the Hype

[bill_mcgonigle]

Oooh, look, we've got a Slashdotter who believes the propaganda. This should be enlightening.

How does your lying about the history and reality of binary explosives help whatever point you're trying to make?

Tell us how a 3oz prohibition, per bottle, helps with your Hollywood movie-script danger.

It's 3oz per bottle, not person. Bringing 6 bottles on board won't phase any TSA screener. The 9/11 hijackings were five men per plane. That's 90oz of binary explosive on board an airplane. Assuming it's possible to successfully mix it onboard, for the sake of argument, the TSA's rules have allowed way more explosive onboard than is needed to take the tail of the plane clean off from the rear bathroom.

Meanwhile, they don't even pressure-test checked baggage (like Israel does) for barometer bombs (something that actually has killed hundreds of Americans in airline terrorism) and 60% of penetration tests of the TSA have succeeded (or failed, depending on your perspective).

As a consequence, the US economy has lost over $600B (and climbing) in tourism revenue. Osama Bin Laden got the US Government to attack its own country with economic sanctions and blockades and infringe its people's liberties. Buy, hey, maybe they won't "hate us because we're free" anymore, since we aren't?

What level of evidence is necessary to convince you that this is all about propaganda and obedience conditioning? Is there no point where the critical thinking reflex kicks in, despite official pronouncements?

This was a great idea until...

[Bobfrankly1]

This was a great idea until they rigged a laser sensitive trigger to the containers...

Liquids are not dangerous

[koinu]

The only person for whom liquids are dangerous me and when they are not available to me. Because of kidney problems, my doctor prescribed me to drink at least 4 litres of water a day. And the water has to have special components. The problem is that during the flight the crew didn't react when I told them I need to drink really much. I got 2 cups of water in 14 hours.

This is dangerous to me. I need my special water and lots of it.

bunch of hype...

[Lluc]

This machine is a pure marketing gimmick -- it would play a good part in the "Security Theater" that we run in American airports, but it would be next to useless to detecting dangerous chemicals. It is based on Raman spectroscopy, using a special input probe to their spectrometer that lets them look into the depth of the bottle by a few millimeters. Raman spectroscopy tests are, unfortunately, very easy to deceive because the Raman signal emitted by a chemical is very tiny. If you mix a bit of fluorescent dye, or a chemical with strong Raman cross section (tylenol, for example), this machine would be worthless. The drug bosses who want to smuggle things through customs do employ intelligent chemists who understand Raman spectroscopy, and will defeat these machines easily.

Does Michael Chertoff own stock in Cobalt Light?

[TheSpoom]

If not, this isn't bloody likely.

If you want to know if something is or is not going to happen at the federal level, the only question you have to ask is who will or will not financially benefit from it.

In Swiss trials

[Corbets]

The Zürich airport started trialling such a device a few weeks ago, according to local papers. I don't know if it's the same one, but I certainly look forward to getting rid of this ridiculous limitation in the future...

Don't count on it

[Brannoncyll]

The beverage companies have profited greatly from their monopoly on drinks in the airport. I would not be surprised if some law gets passed making it illegal to bring in drinks due to pressure by the ABA even if it is no longer a security risk. After all, protecting dying business models while lining the wallets of our leaders is what the law is *for*... isn't it?

Dogs

[forkfail]

We spend billions on what a dog can.

I love technology as much as the next guy (probably more)... but sheesh...

You can take them on now

[Anonymous Coward]

TSA's own website says you can take unlimited amounts of just about anything on if you have a medical need for it. Thankfully all humans have a medical need for water, and they cannot force you to say what your particular condition is. I have flown may times over the last few months with full 2 litre bottles of water, with cases of applesauce, and anything else I bring through.

The goons are quick to say "you can't bring that", and it is a bit sickening how unaware they are of their own company's publicly posted policies. I always take a printout from their website with pertinent sections highlighted, and they always give me grief, but ultimately, they let me on with whatever I take.

Maybe it's a good-faith effort at improvement?

[time961]

I have to imagine that not everyone in TSA management is a congenital idiot, and that some of them probably realize how silly the no-liquids rule is. But they also probably realize that they can't just abandon it without being accused of being "soft on crime" and various other silly problems, any of which might lead to the ultimate catastrophe: losing that coveted GS-99 civil service position and lucrative pension.

So what's a non-idiot to do? Simple: adopt a "new technology" that pretty much always blinks green when something gets put in its little hole, and blinks red occasionally just to pretend it actually accomplishes something. Such a device could easily scan a zip-lock bag containing a collection of liquids, and with further improvements could be integrated into the original X-ray apparatus so that it scans bags, too. For historical accuracy, it can claim to use N-rays.

As it happens, we already have liquid scanners just like this, although they are not heavily used. I accidentally tried to carry bottled water through the checkpoint X-ray at DCA 18 months ago, and after the goon squad got over the excitement, they explained that they'd have to dispose of it for me, but that first they would put it through a magic scanner (a suitcase-sized box with a cylindrical cavity and some buttons and lights) to be sure it was safe. To pass the time while being lectured, I asked if they would do something different to dispose of it were the scanner to say it was dangerous, and the responding goon assured me (with no trace of irony) that no, it all went in the same bin.

I have probably taken 300 flights since the "liquid explosive" scare. Since 2008, when I realized that the whole thing was ridiculous, I have never put my liquids into a quart-size baggie, nor have I taken them out for individual passage through the X-ray. In that time, I have been forced to give up my toothpaste in furtherance of the nation's security precisely twice. It's a small price to pay--a few bucks worth of toothpaste and a pious lecture about how dangerous the toothpaste might be, in exchange for significantly less hassle at the checkpoint. I have to imagine that the reason my approach works is that they really don't try very hard to find contraband of this sort. If I were a proper activist, I suppose I'd be willing to wear a "Toothpaste Smuggler" button when I fly, but I lack the courage.

Maybe they'll figure out that they can do this for other stuff, too. I must say that the full-body scanners are a major step backwards, since I can't even keep my passport and ticket in my pockets any more.

But those lasers

[WormholeFiend]

are going to transform innocuous liquids into carcinogenic substances!

Re:But those lasers

[Anomalyst]

No, that transformation is the result of the back-scatter radiation to which it is exposed.

Close, but no cigar

[Anonymous Coward]

The appropriate quote here would be: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"

What the F ever

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't remember who it was talking about airport security and what a scam it is, maybe Ray Kurzweil, but this person had a secret service escort who was apparently talkative. Said that you can kill somebody with a ballpoint pen rather easily. All this extra security has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with controling and frightening the domestic enemy (the citizens of the US).

3 goons

[Anomalyst]

your belongings are dragged off to a private room by 3 goons who go through everything with a fine toothed comb,

Hmmm, are they:
Larry, Moe & Curly
Huey, Duey, & Louie
or Security vaudeville veterans: Groucho, Harpo, & Chico

A Technical Solution....

[KhabaLox]

... to a non-technical problem.

It would be a wonderfull news if ...

[superzerg]

the airport security was not about make you buy stuff at the "duty free" shops as they confiscated all the cream, alcohol ... you took with you. If the duty free shop were cheap, it would be one thing, but thy are not, so I guess the VAT is just converted to airport taxes which will make airports resist to what ever evolution on that way.

Mod parent up

[gambino21]

You are right, that changes 1 and 2 were pretty much all the extra security we needed after 9/11. All the extra TSA theatre is not about making us any more security, it's about making money for various corporations and for the politicians they own.

Re:Mod parent up

[rioki]

... or letting Joe and Jane feel safer. They had military in airports without bullets, TSA and most airport security is about making the passengers feel safe.

Re:Liquids are not dangerous... Tell that to...

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that like it's funny. Remember what happened to the Wicked Witch of the West you insensitive clod!

Oh, what a world...

SOP

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty standard... I had to do the same thing at Miami international airport when I flew back from the Carribean.

land on international flight (which seems to be a separate section of the airport), pick up bags, go through customs, REcheck bags onto domestic flight... etc.

I see your anecdote and raise...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, flying from Geneva to Belfast for a week's holiday - sounds strange, but I love the Irish.
Anyhow, I go through the scanners and my backpack carry-on signals a manual search.
The lady's real nice, opens it up, and finds my hiking Swiss army knife.
"Oh, bugger", says I. I know I've just lost another one.
"OK - sorry about that. You just keep it and I'll get another one when I come back".
"Hang on", says the inspector lady. She opens the major blade on the Swiss army knife and holds it up against a little sticker on the neighbouring wall. It falls 1mm exactly short of the sticker. So she folds it up and hands it back to me.
"You mean I can keep it?"
"Of course, it's within the limits. And I know ...", she adds, "... it makes no sense at all because a knife 1 mm longer is really not any more or less effective as a potential weapon than yours".
"But that's insane", says I, "You should just keep it".
"No - it's your knife and you're free to take it with you".

Absolutely BAT SHIT INSANE!

So coming back from Ireland, the "security" guys tell me that I have to stand aside cause I have too many lotions in my carry-on (from my wife's large stock). He gives me 2 baggies, and I show that I can fit everything into both of them. One for me, and one for my wife.
So I grab my shit and head on over to where my wife is getting the same treatment. Her security guy tells me to go spend a pound and buy some baggies from the machine over there, so we can split up her stuff into 2 baggies, overflowing, and you guessed it, one for her and one for me. Which he readily approves, despite the fact that I'm STILL HOLDING the other 2 baggies in my arms when he sends us off. Deliberately breaking the rules in plain sight.

Theatre? It's not even worthy of the name. It's stupidity and job creation and makes me fill ill at the thought that THIS is where the security money is being spent, and NOT on anything actually effective. I feel less safe every time I fly thanks to these idiotic policies. I feel sorry for the staff - they're actually pretty well trained over here in Euroland, and always very polite. What a stupid job, though, how demeaning it must feel to go do useless shit EVERY day.... ;(

Nike Air Max 2012 Shoes

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cheapnikeairmax2012shoes.org/

You already can bring bottled drinks on a 'plane

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally the nice strong heavy glass 1 litre bottles.

You just have to make sure that you buy your makeshift shiv^H^H^H^H bottle on the "right" side of "security".

Never been much of a problem for me...

[arglebargle_xiv]

... probably because I live nowhere near the United States of Paranoia. The last flight I took I had to show my authorisation to travel (a printout of the electronic boarding pass) and shared a joke with the checkin guy. That was all. Time from (public) terminal area to departure gate was under 5 minutes.

How soon until we are just forced to fly naked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Next thing you know, someone will try to blow up a plane with a sandwich - no more food allowed. The someone will weave a thread bomb - no more clothes. Terrorists don't even want to take hostages anymore, they want to use planes as weapons. And now that people know that their lives are in imminent risk with any terrorist act on a plane, they will fight as if their lives depend on it from the moment a plot is revealed.

Its not about the explosives.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is not about the explosives in bottles - after all you can take 5 or 10 bottles on board (so how is 1L of fuild in 10 bottles different from 1L in 1 bottle?)

Its a scam by the airport operating companies to see how they can squeeze more money out of travellers - After all I can get water from home for 5p a litre or coke for 35p a can - You want me to pay over a £1 for each in your shops as the airlines don't give to me on the flight anymore......

(If I really wanted to blow up a plane why wouldn't I wrap a block of C4 in a Dairy Milk wrapper or in a tube around my waist ???)

Isn't TSA just a super expensive scapegoat?

[glutenenvy]

A scapegoat designed to divert attention to the real problem going on, politicians and their antics.
If you've ever had the chance to be near a goat you well know you need to guard your personal items else they get eaten. And they leave crap everywhere.

Seems to me that the only way to legitimize TSA is to institute a TSA duty system like jury duty.

just an excuse to stop this madness

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it actually do anything or are they like our 'bomb detection' equipment (two car aerials on a tin box)?