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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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?

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.....

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: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.