4 ms·

The ban means little because the punishment is nothing. If I want to bring something bad on board, there are two outcomes: I succeed, or I don't, and maybe I h

The ban means little because the punishment is nothing. If I want to bring something bad on board, there are two outcomes: I succeed, or I don't, and maybe I have to endure a brief scolding. The difference now is that if I fail, I know my mixture will be stuck in the middle of a huge crowd of people for who knows how long, probably giving me time to go far away. The decision to throw all liquids into a bin has created a danger that would not have existed otherwise, which means the confiscations have lowered security. And collectively, unnecessary "security" measures slow down security lines, increasing the probability that more people will be in them and increasing the temptation to target security lines at all. The real goal should be to move people through so efficiently that there is barely a "line" to target in the first place, much less a massive crowd.

mikeash 11y ago
What danger is created that wouldn't exist otherwise? If people are bringing explosives through and they're being confiscated and thrown in a bin, then without the confiscations those explosives would be making it onto airplanes instead. Having them explode in a bin would be much preferable to having them explode on an airplane. Again, I don't agree with the liquid ban, but it's a problem with the goal, not a problem with the methods. There's no real evidence that liquid explosives pose a threat that needs to be countered. However, if you take as a given that you're tasked with stopping them, the system as it's set up is a decent way to go about it.
- makecheck 11y ago
  The danger is that, thanks to the act of throwing everything into a bin, there is now a practically-guaranteed way to leave a dangerous substance in the middle of a very large crowd and walk far away with no questions asked. If the person's goal was to bring it on a plane, they're suicidal so they probably don't care if it accidentally blows them up in the security line instead. If instead they expect to set it down and walk away, they can do that anywhere (even if they clear the checkpoint without having their bottle taken). The difference is that the added "security" has given them a much more effective target than they could have anywhere else. Before the ban, it was always possible for someone to do either one: get on a plane, or set down an object and walk away. It wasn't happening, which means the old security precautions were just fine. And if it had happened, there probably would have been security camera footage of one suspicious individual setting down an object instead of dozens of suspects throwing objects into a bin.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    You're not going to be throwing very much in there. I don't think a bottle full of liquid explosives is going to do much. I don't recall security lines getting noticeably worse after the liquid ban was enacted. It doesn't take up much time relative to the whole process.

mikeash 11y ago

What danger is created that wouldn't exist otherwise? If people are bringing explosives through and they're being confiscated and thrown in a bin, then without the confiscations those explosives would be making it onto airplanes instead. Having them explode in a bin would be much preferable to having them explode on an airplane. Again, I don't agree with the liquid ban, but it's a problem with the goal, not a problem with the methods. There's no real evidence that liquid explosives pose a threat that needs to be countered. However, if you take as a given that you're tasked with stopping them, the system as it's set up is a decent way to go about it.

makecheck 11y ago
The danger is that, thanks to the act of throwing everything into a bin, there is now a practically-guaranteed way to leave a dangerous substance in the middle of a very large crowd and walk far away with no questions asked. If the person's goal was to bring it on a plane, they're suicidal so they probably don't care if it accidentally blows them up in the security line instead. If instead they expect to set it down and walk away, they can do that anywhere (even if they clear the checkpoint without having their bottle taken). The difference is that the added "security" has given them a much more effective target than they could have anywhere else. Before the ban, it was always possible for someone to do either one: get on a plane, or set down an object and walk away. It wasn't happening, which means the old security precautions were just fine. And if it had happened, there probably would have been security camera footage of one suspicious individual setting down an object instead of dozens of suspects throwing objects into a bin.
- mikeash 11y ago
  You're not going to be throwing very much in there. I don't think a bottle full of liquid explosives is going to do much. I don't recall security lines getting noticeably worse after the liquid ban was enacted. It doesn't take up much time relative to the whole process.