5 ms·

What exactly are they trying to prevent with the liquid prohibition, anyway?

javagram 8y ago
Trying to prevent people carrying through chemicals that could be combined in the airplane bathroom to make explosives I believe. There was a terrorist plot to do this, which was caught by the security services, and then despite the terrorists being caught the liquids ban was put into place forever more to stop future attacks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_...
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  First, a slight clarification: while the main charge and the detonator were separated during transit and intended to be assembled on the plane, the explosive liquid itself was not a binary compound; it was live in the soft drink bottles. It sounds like you're arguing that this regulation is not necessary any more because that particular plot was foiled. I find that line of reasoning odd, given that the 2006 attack was the last in a string of plots using liquid explosives to target airliners. The type of group which carried out attacks like this still exists, with similar goals. Given that it's reasonably effective at deterring a technique which has actually been used (the Japan test run in the 90s) and which has been attempted multiple times, I think it's possibly the least objectionable regulation. It doesn't address all modes of attack (obviously), and it's very debatable whether the likelihood of attack makes the invasiveness of the countermeasure acceptable, but unlike body scanners it's at least effective at deterring the specific modality it's aimed at.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Moto7451 8y ago
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/liquids-ban-on-flights-10th-anniversary-do-we-still-need-it-a7181216.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/liquids... A pretty good summary and a bonus foreshadowing of this article. I have had a pretty good experience with the new scanners. I have global entry/Precheck and one remaining headache with the old scanners was remembering to take my double walked flask out and show the TSA that it was empty by removing the cap. The new scanners can see that it’s empty from inside my bag, which is very handy.
- admax88q 8y ago
  I'm still fairly certain that the purpose of the liquid ban is purely to boost sales of toiletries, especially in small "travel size" containers. An entire new line of single use toiletry products was invented to meet this regulation.
  - Scoundreller 8y ago
    And some airports require that your liquids fit in a 1L bag. Which they’ll gladly sell to you.
    - KozmoNau7 8y ago
      At least every airport I've been to (Europe, Dubai and India) have provided the 1L baggies for free. I usually get 4-5 uses out of them before they start tearing.
      - dingaling 8y ago
        'baggies' is an interesting development in the English language, a colloquialism that is longer than its base word.
        KozmoNau7 8y ago
        It's just a diminutive form of "bag", ie. "small bags"? Just like you have for instance "telefonino" as the diminutive of "telefono" in Italian, literally "small telephone". And in German you add -chen or -lein to words to create the diminutive, so "Hund" becomes "Hündchen" (adding an umlaut as well, if applicable). Generally I think it's very common for a lot of languages to add a cutesy suffix to the base word, in order to create the diminutive.
Godel_unicode 8y ago
Liquid explosives, it was inspired by the 2006 plot to bring down a transatlantic flight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_... https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5632982 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=563298...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
henrikschroder 8y ago
They are preventing you from bringing drinks from the outside to boost the sales of drinks on the inside.

Trying to prevent people carrying through chemicals that could be combined in the airplane bathroom to make explosives I believe. There was a terrorist plot to do this, which was caught by the security services, and then despite the terrorists being caught the liquids ban was put into place forever more to stop future attacks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_...

Godel_unicode 8y ago
First, a slight clarification: while the main charge and the detonator were separated during transit and intended to be assembled on the plane, the explosive liquid itself was not a binary compound; it was live in the soft drink bottles. It sounds like you're arguing that this regulation is not necessary any more because that particular plot was foiled. I find that line of reasoning odd, given that the 2006 attack was the last in a string of plots using liquid explosives to target airliners. The type of group which carried out attacks like this still exists, with similar goals. Given that it's reasonably effective at deterring a technique which has actually been used (the Japan test run in the 90s) and which has been attempted multiple times, I think it's possibly the least objectionable regulation. It doesn't address all modes of attack (obviously), and it's very debatable whether the likelihood of attack makes the invasiveness of the countermeasure acceptable, but unlike body scanners it's at least effective at deterring the specific modality it's aimed at.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Moto7451 8y ago

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/liquids-ban-on-flights-10th-anniversary-do-we-still-need-it-a7181216.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/liquids... A pretty good summary and a bonus foreshadowing of this article. I have had a pretty good experience with the new scanners. I have global entry/Precheck and one remaining headache with the old scanners was remembering to take my double walked flask out and show the TSA that it was empty by removing the cap. The new scanners can see that it’s empty from inside my bag, which is very handy.

admax88q 8y ago
I'm still fairly certain that the purpose of the liquid ban is purely to boost sales of toiletries, especially in small "travel size" containers. An entire new line of single use toiletry products was invented to meet this regulation.
- Scoundreller 8y ago
  And some airports require that your liquids fit in a 1L bag. Which they’ll gladly sell to you.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    At least every airport I've been to (Europe, Dubai and India) have provided the 1L baggies for free. I usually get 4-5 uses out of them before they start tearing.
    - dingaling 8y ago
      'baggies' is an interesting development in the English language, a colloquialism that is longer than its base word.
      - KozmoNau7 8y ago
        It's just a diminutive form of "bag", ie. "small bags"? Just like you have for instance "telefonino" as the diminutive of "telefono" in Italian, literally "small telephone". And in German you add -chen or -lein to words to create the diminutive, so "Hund" becomes "Hündchen" (adding an umlaut as well, if applicable). Generally I think it's very common for a lot of languages to add a cutesy suffix to the base word, in order to create the diminutive.

Godel_unicode 8y ago

Liquid explosives, it was inspired by the 2006 plot to bring down a transatlantic flight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_... https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5632982 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=563298...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

henrikschroder 8y ago

They are preventing you from bringing drinks from the outside to boost the sales of drinks on the inside.