5 ms·
I have long looked for an answer outside of security theater as to why the ban on liquids continues. If anyone has an answer, I'd appreciate hearing it. If you
by pgrote 10y ago
I have long looked for an answer outside of security theater as to why the ban on liquids continues. If anyone has an answer, I'd appreciate hearing it.
If you go through a screening line and a liquid is found, the liquid is not tested. It is not handled carefully. It is not thoroughly inspected. It is tossed in the closest garbage can.
If the liquid really did pose a danger, wouldn't it be handled more carefully?
- Dagwoodie 10y agoNot defending the rule at all, and I'm no chemist, but I always assumed it was because someone could bring on base chemicals in various containers and mix them into a finished and dangerous concoction on the plane... and they determined that < 3oz per container was enough mitigation?
- michaelkeenan 10y agoI think the (ostensible) reason is similar to this, from the link: > As security expert Bruce Schneier likes to note, such screenings don't have to be perfect; they just have to be good enough to make terrorists change their plans: "No terrorist is going to base his plot on getting a gun through airport security if there's a decent chance of getting caught, because the consequences of getting caught are too great." That is, the act of confiscating the liquids almost ensures that the liquids are already harmless. But if they didn't confiscate the liquid, it (supposedly) might not be harmless. It's a bit like Newcomb's Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox
- chrismcb 10y agoExcept that... it wouldn't really make anyone change their plans... at least not drastically. How much liquids do you need for a decent explosives? A few liters, 10 liters? 20? So get 10 or 20 of your followers to bring it in.