Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1evvx89559o

by robotsliketea • 6 months ago

632 818 6 months ago

jbellis• 6 months ago

Not because of a sudden outbreak of sanity, but because they have CT scanners now.

andai• 6 months ago

Yeah, I flew thru Eindhoven Airport in the Netherlands a few years ago, and I couldn't believe they let me through with water.

The security used something I would describe as out of an Iron Man film, they were zooming around a translucent 3D view of my backpack. (It was on an LCD display instead of hovering midair, but I was still impressed. But the fact they let me keep the water was even more amazing, hahah.)

cyral• 6 months ago

I've seen this too in the US, the newer machines let them spin the scan around in 3D space and must make it much easier to tell if something needs inspection or not

throwup238• 6 months ago

The security used something I would describe as out of an Iron Man film, they were zooming around a translucent 3D view of my backpack. (It was on an LCD display instead of hovering midair, but I was still impressed.

I just flew with two laptops in my backpack which I didn't have to take out for the first time (haven't flown in a while), with a custom PCB with a couple of vivaldi antennas sandwiched in between the laptops.

It was a real trip watching them view the three PCBs as a single stack, then automatically separate them out, and rotate them individually in 3D. The scanner threw some kind of warning and the operator asked me what the custom PCB was, so I had to explain to them it was a ground penetrating radar (that didn't go over well; I had to check the bag)

kevin_thibedeau2• 6 months ago

You can do realtime 3D flythroughs on CT scans with open source viewers. If you've ever had one, get your DICOM data set and enjoy living in the future.

bulbar2• 6 months ago

Tel Aviv has allowing this for quite some time (10 years?). I guess they update their security devices as soon as new technology becomes available.

They don't advertise it, I found out by accident, trying to empty my water bottle by drinking when a security person told me to just put it together with the rest of my stuff. I had no idea that was a thing and was pretty confused.

summarity2• 6 months ago

They’re multi wavelength CT. Basically whenever you see a 4:3 box with a “smiths” logo over the belt it’s going to be a pretty painless process (take nothing out except analog film)

SV_BubbleTime• 6 months ago

I would say just as if not more important are probably some advanced nitrates detector.

darth_avocado• 6 months ago

3-1-1 is rarely enforced. I always got confused why the 100ml limit existed, since I could just take multiple bottles of 100ml of whatever I wanted and it was okay. Then I realized that technically I only could take 3 bottles but I’ve been getting away with more for decades.

terribleperson2• 6 months ago

It's not 3 bottles, it's 3.4 oz or 100 ml.

vasco• 6 months ago

Then you hide them somewhere inside and go back out and in again

wodenokoto2• 6 months ago

It’s as many bottles sized 100ml or less that you can fit in a 1 liter bag.

bawolff6• 6 months ago

Yeah, but arent you allowed to exit and re-enter security as many times as you like as long as you have a valid ticket?

dataflow2• 6 months ago

Not because of a sudden outbreak of sanity, but because they have CT scanners now.

What's is the evidence for believing so strongly that airports all over the world have been prohibiting large amounts of liquids due to widespread insanity?

outside1234• 6 months ago

FINALLY

(PS. Still not going to fly there)

stanislavb• 6 months ago

Good. This should happen on all airports now. Otherwise it's useless. You won't be flying from Heathrow to Heathrow.

noncoml• 6 months ago

You know they don't take your liquids at the destination airport, right?

al_borland6• 6 months ago

People generally have a return flight.

United8572• 6 months ago

It’s slowly happening at least in Europe: https://www.skycop.com/news/passenger-rights/airports-liquid...

chillacy• 6 months ago

Hmm, I once transited in Heathrow in a return flight from europe to the US and had to go through Heathrow security for whatever reason, where they subjected me to liquids rules way stricter than either my source or destination did.

E.g. 1 day use contact lenses and prescription creams all having to fit in a tiny plastic bag. So I'm happy for this change.

alexfoo3• 6 months ago

Hmm, I once transited in Heathrow in a return flight from europe to the US and had to go through Heathrow security for whatever reason,

The US mandates that you have to go through TSA approved security before getting on a flight to the US.

Either the security at your European airport wasn't good enough, or the transit at Heathrow allowed you to access to things that invalidated the previous security screening and so it had to be done again.

The bonus is that if you get to go through US Immigration at the departure airport then you can often land at domestic terminals in the US and the arrivals experience is far less tortuous. I flew to the US with a transit in Ireland a few times and it was so much nicer using the dead time before the Ireland -> US flight to clear immigration rather than spending anything from 15 minutes to 4 hours in a queue at the arrival airport in the US (all depending on which other flights arrived just before yours).

ekianjo4• 6 months ago

The security theater needs to go on. In the meantime batteries represent a much bigger risk with potential in flight fires but I guess nobody cares enough to do anything about it.

dexwiz2• 6 months ago

If batteries were standardized and replaceable I bet they would force you to not bring your own, and only ones purchasable passed the gate could be used. Maybe that a silver lining to the repairability issues.

harry83• 6 months ago

On Scoot (Budget Singapore Air) they let you bring your external phone batteries on the plane but do NOT let you use them. You have to rent one of theirs.

Skyphone installation by the airlines led to "flight mode" because the horror of not paying is far more important than safety.

All of this fake, useless theatre undermines real security and makes us less safe while picking our pockets.

Fluids to bring down a plane? FFS every human is equipped with a bladder. Why was this charlatanism ever tolerated at all?

arccy• 6 months ago

south Korean airlines are banning battery use in flight now https://www.timeout.com/asia/news/psa-major-south-korean-air...

other asian carriers will say they can't be in overhead compartments

kijin• 6 months ago

South Korean here, it's all over the news but it sounds rather pointless. Faulty batteries can catch fire even when not in use. And the airlines still allow each passenger to carry up to 5 power banks, 100Wh each. That's enough power to blow up any aircraft.

kbutler• 6 months ago

When gate-checking carryon bags, staff told passengers to take batteries out of the carryons.

It seems like something that is high risk during flight shouldn't be left to passenger compliance with spoken instructions.

galuggus2• 6 months ago

Recently flew through china where they asked 3 times if if i had a portable charger and made everyone sign declarations to that effect.

ekianjo4• 6 months ago

Declarations are meaningless. This will not prevent fires ot occur.

jonah2• 6 months ago

We flew a couple legs on Virgin Atlantic yesterday. The info session before takeoff made several mentions of batteries - unplug devices when not on use / not in your seat, if your battery gets hot, don't leave your seat/notify a flight attendant immediately. (I think they have containers to try to contain lithium fires onboard FWIW.)

bob1029• 6 months ago

Batteries are such an incredible oversight if we are trying to control for kinetic energy.

100 watts for an hour ~= 36000 watts for ten seconds. Every fully charged laptop roughly has enough energy to bring an automobile up to highway speed (once). How many of these laptops exist on a typical flight?

nlawalker3• 6 months ago

Let me get this straight. If the article is correct, the new capabilities are related to better detection of large liquid containers, not determination of whether or not the liquid is dangerous.

So - you couldn’t take large amounts of liquids previously because some liquids in large amounts might be able to be weaponized. If you were caught with too much liquid (in sum total, or in containers that are too large) they’d throw it out and send you on your way.

But now that they have the ability to detect larger containers, they… do what? Declare that it’s safe and send you on your way with it still in your possession?

jmward012• 6 months ago

I believe the article mentioned density as well. I suspect that is extremely key in determining what it is, or at least determining if it is something really odd that should get additional screening.

mjevans• 6 months ago

So they'll still make me toss out my dang sunscreen.

dkersten• 6 months ago

Dublin has been relaxing their restrictions for a while now, and when I travelled two weeks ago, had also completely dropped the rules. You no longer need to remove liquids or electronics from bags, and the liquids per bottle limits are much higher (don’t remember exactly, maybe 2 litres) with no restriction on total number of bottles.

I watched a YouTube video about it a few months back and apparently the new devices, at least those used in Dublin, are much more accurate in detecting the difference between materials that previously looked similar to the machines, they can also rotate the images in 3d to get a look from different angles. Both of these make it easier to tell whether a substance is dangerous, apparently.

jillesvangurp• 6 months ago

Berlin had a mix of modern scanners and old scanners last time I flew. I had one flight where they were using the modern scanners. And then a few weeks later I used a different security gate and I still had to remove everything from the bag. If you fly from there, the security at the far end of the terminal has the new machines and is usually also the fastest because people generally use the first security gate they see. Good tip if you are in a hurry. The last few times I was through in a few minutes.

At some airports, you can now check your own bag using a machine that weighs it and prints a sticker. Then you drop it on a belt yourself and you walk through security scanners; all without having to talk to anyone. And finally you board using your phone. Lots of automated checks. I've boarded a few times now without anyone bothering to look at an id now. It seems that with self check in the id check at the gate disappeared. And inside the Schengen zone, nobody checks ids at security either.

secondcoming2• 6 months ago

Edinburgh dropped all liquids and electronics ceremony for a few months now. It's great. I have found that adds of your bag being put aside for further insepction seems to have increased though.

necovek2• 6 months ago

It's not just large amounts of liquids: it was my understanding that this is both a restriction on large amounts of liquid, but particularly on large containers needed for an explosive of sufficient destructive power.

You could always easily work around the liquid amount restriction (multiple containers over multiple people), but if you still need a large container, it becomes harder.

I don't know if this is true or if a resealable plastic bag also works, for instance (that would be funny, wouldn't it?).

ascorbic• 6 months ago

This might make sense if there weren't shops selling large bottles right after security. Ones full of highly flammable liquids, even.

FatalLogic• 6 months ago

particularly on large containers

It's common for people to carry large metal equipment cases (for cameras, etc.) onboard

dexwiz2• 6 months ago

Have you never been screened where they swab your items and stick it in a machine? That is to detect explosives. They can use the first machine to target people for follow up screening.

nlawalker3• 6 months ago

I have, but what’s relevant is that I’m always commanded to dump out any liquids in containers bigger than the 3.4 oz limit before going through security unless they’re like a prescription medication. What I’m unclear on why that’s changed if the improvement that’s been made is in detection of liquids in packed bags.

gambiting5• 6 months ago

So far, this machine has been used to reliably, 10/10 times, reject and discard my nivea deodorant.

bulbar2• 6 months ago

When you don't know much about a topic, probability is higher that your are missing some piece than some entity doing things that make no sense.

I know it's easy to get the impression that's not the case. But when your stop making fun of / belittle such events / persons / decision and be curious instead you start to realize that more often than not you are just missing a piece of information.

The truth oftentimes is just not interesting enough and not clickbait worthy.

nlawalker3• 6 months ago

You’re right. I am genuinely curious though, so I shouldn’t have been so snarky about it. I’ll try again:

I’ve always been under the impression that large containers of liquids were forbidden because they were potentially dangerous. If that hasn’t changed, and if the new technology is only about being able to better detect the presence of liquids in packed luggage, why have the limits on container size changed?

EDIT: So I see that the article says that it’s about being able to keep the liquids in your bag when going through security. But I thought liquids in large containers were forbidden from going through security entirely unless you had some kind of medical justification for them?

lambdaone• 6 months ago

It can detect not only large containers of liquids, but (up to a point) what liquid is in them.

lobochrome• 6 months ago

This rule wasn't enforced anyway...

I travel a lot - and never take out any liquids. Have nail clippers and scissors in my carry-on.

Once I even had an opinel pocket knife in my laptop bag for a couple of months.

Travelled through Tokyo, Taipei, SFO, DEN, PHX, LAX, BOS, JFK, FRA, AMS, MUC, LHR - nobody noticed.

I seriously had forgotten it was there, so I don't do that now, but still...

Also, no large water bottles or similar. Unless on domestic flights in Japan, where this is totally fine.

IDK - security theater. But if it helps.

djtango2• 6 months ago

I lost a nice swiss army knife in Singapore because I was carry-on only and forgot I keep one in my toiletries bag. Was really upset because it was a Christmas gift from my parents. Annoying they don't let you collect it on the way back, I totally get it but would have paid a fine to get it back

FabHK• 6 months ago

They detected one of the very small Victorinox pocket knifes in my hand luggage at HKG airport and kept it; but I was given the option of picking it up at the carrier's airport office upon return.

al_borland6• 6 months ago

It would be nice if there was an option to box it up and mail it back home or to a friend/family member for a fee. While a lot of people have throw away knives and wouldn’t care, many also have knives that are either expensive or have a lot of meaning.

Maybe they would encourage more people to risk it and hope they don’t get caught, but a vast majority of these people aren’t criminals. When I was a kid I would always take a Swiss Army knife with me on vacation. That was my favorite thing to back, and I could look like a hero when an opportunity came up where it was useful. No longer.

exidy2• 6 months ago

You should have backed up and posted it to yourself or a friend. Being the best airport in the world, there are self-service kiosks (Speedpost@Changi) in the transit areas of Terminals 1, 2 and 3, and in the public area of T4 (as the only terminal with centralised security).

vachina• 6 months ago

Enforcement is very inconsistent that’s for sure. The system is as secure as the least secure airport.

jmward012• 6 months ago

Famously Steve Jobs had a story about shaving time off of boot-up and equating it to saving lives on the concept of people sitting their waiting for the computer to boot up just lost that much of their lives. [1] I actually do believe there is value in thinking this way and it is one of my biggest arguments against TSA. Everything has a cost, including 'security' and 'safety'. If you look at the very real human toll, and economic toll, that airport security has caused any potential gain is out the window in just one day of costs from screening, and that doesn't even get into the privacy destruction this has caused. I think I would get way to angry to comment on that in an intelligent way.

But that is just one argument. My real anger at airport screening is that we have found it possible to fund and implement this level of screening, at massive monetary, human and privacy cost, but I can't go to my doctor and for a few pennies (sorry, those don't exist now, how about for a few nickles?) get a body scan that does all the 3d segmentation, recognition, etc etc etc. We could actually save lives if we put effort into this technology for people instead of for a sense of security. But we probably won't. Because fear gets money but solving real problems that actually impact people doesn't.

[1] https://danemcfarlane.com/how-steve-jobs-turned-boot-time-in...

danpalmer3• 6 months ago

My real anger is that we have found it possible to fund and implement this level of screening, at massive monetary, human and privacy cost, but I can't go to my doctor and ... get a body scan that does all the 3d segmentation, recognition, etc

Airport screening of people doesn't yield those results. It's able to notice a big inorganic mass, or a chunk of metal, but it wouldn't spot a tumour, it gives nowhere near the level of detail that an MRI or CAT scan will give. The airport scanners are also much cheaper, coming in at ~250k USD rather than ~2m USD.

Even the xray machines used for bags, while expensive and capable, are designed to differentiate metals, liquids, and organics, not organics from other organics.

Both airport security and healthcare funding have their issues, but I don't think this is one of them.

etchalon• 6 months ago

I think the point is we can afford massive machines for the TSA that are essentially paid for by the Federal Budget, and used by millions each day for free, but we can't do the same for MRI machines.

chickensong• 6 months ago

I think the OP was lamenting the overall effort and resources that could have been applied to something more effective at helping people, such as improving the medical industry, not suggesting that airport screening equipment could be used for medical purposes.

ch4s35• 6 months ago

My real anger at airport screening is that we have found it possible to fund and implement this level of screening, at massive monetary, human and privacy cost, but I can't go to my doctor and for a few pennies (sorry, those don't exist now, how about for a few nickles?) get a body scan that does all the 3d segmentation, recognition, etc etc etc. We could actually save lives

This always strikes me as a weird thing tech people believe about medicine. Full body scans just aren’t medically useful for otherwise healthy people. You’ll inevitably see something and it’s almost certainly going to be benign but might send you down the path of a lot of expensive and dangerous treatments or exploratory procedures. This is why there’s always so much debate about prostrate exam and breast exam age recommendations. There’s a tipping point where the risk of iatrogenesis outward the risk of disease.

sothatsit2• 6 months ago

People should be able to do full 3d scans of their bodies, and then doctors should be able to tell them what they should ignore. If they spot something abnormal they could suggest coming back 6 months or a year later to check if it has changed, just like mole scans. The problems that you suggest only come from people overreacting to test results. We can do better.

cyberax4• 6 months ago

BS. Full body scans are amazing, and should be added to the normal health screening along with blood tests.

Doctors need to get out of the headspace where an MRI is something reserved only to confirm the terminal cancer diagnosis.

Pretty much all the supposed issues are solved by taking the second scan a couple months in the future.

guerrilla2• 6 months ago

a few pennies (sorry, those don't exist now, how about for a few nickles?)

Wait what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_(United_States_coin)

nilamo• 6 months ago

From your link:

In late 2025, the Mint halted the production of pennies for circulation, largely due to cost.

komali2• 6 months ago

I almost exclusively take trains now because the experience of flying is one of repeated dehumanization, especially in the USA.

First, if getting dropped off in a car (most American airports this is your only option), you must suffer being screamed at by traffic cops while trying to navigate a perpetually under construction dropoff area. You get one (1) peck on the cheek from mum before some uniformed individual waddles over to yell at you some more.

Then you must wait in line at a check in counter behind fifty families with 4 large luggage items each, despite the fact that you only have a backpack. Why? Because when you tried to do online check-in and boarding pass, the site broke / said no, and the self-service check-in kiosk at the airport still isn't switched on despite being installed a decade ago.

At the check-in counter, a person who knows less than you about the country you're traveling to will inform you as a matter of fact that you can't get ok the flight until you buy a return ticket, since that's what their binder says and they don't understand your visa. You must wait for a supervisor to come and verify that your visa is actually valid.

Before security, you're offered the rich person line if you have the money to pay for it. Literally advertised as a "white glove experience." If not well, into security with the rest of the cattle.

At security, you get to be screamed at by TSA for not knowing the exact procedures of this airport you've never been to. Why must they have to tell Passenger, who is one person they see ten thousand times a day, over and over again that you have to push your box onto the automated belt yourself, rather than let it be pushed on as a train with the other boxes. Passenger must be stupid. Surely it's not because of poor signage that Passenger doesn't know what to do. And by the way, take off your shoes and let us look at your genitals. Oh, you don't want us to look at your genitals? Well then we'll have to just grope every inch of your body, and nut check you for making us do our job in a slightly more annoying way. Just in case you're terrorist scum, we'll check if you have bomb making residue on your skin, while someone else opens your luggage and digs around in it so everyone else in like can see what your underwear looks like. At TSA we offer full service sexualized humiliation, guaranteed!

The dehumanization never ends. Once on the flight you are packed in like cattle, so tight you're rubbing shoulders with the person on your right and left, while your knees dig into the back of the person in front of you. You're served a tray of slop that you have to pay for now. Security took your water bottle, but when you ask for water on the flight, it's given to you in a tiny plastic cup, that's free if you're lucky. Now sit there quietly while we try to sell credit cards to this captured audience.

Finally you land and it's time to get off the plane! Oh actually no, the curtain is closed in your face. Silly peasant, you must watch the first class passengers leisurely pack their things and stroll off the plane. Only until the last one is off may the dirty peasants pass the fabric barrier.

Spooky232• 6 months ago

https://youtube.com/shorts/bpS6e3PGwiY?si=T2OB4dxtqztHtHLs

Spooky232• 6 months ago

There’s alot to imaging. When my wife was battling cancer she was getting alot of MRIs and was in a trial for computerized radiology. We got to talk to the radiologist, who showed us the difference between what he found vs the machine. The machine spotted some stuff that he didn’t, but wasn’t as good at classification.

You also need context to appropriately interpret what you see.

politelemon• 6 months ago

Only in the Apple reality distortion field would I see the hubris of boot times being equated to saving lives. I see value in saving time, but without the celebrity worship, it's nowhere near the same in terms of importance, application, or utility. Besides, the same time saving desire has been a driving force in software by nameless developers since the beginning of software. Attempting to frame and attribute the concept to a single individual is dismissive and disrespectful to the work of others.

jonah2• 6 months ago

We transited through LHR yesterday. Still had to go through security - not sure why since we stayed on the air side.

Anyway, signage required us to empty our refillable water bottles. Odd. Thankfully we eventually found a refill station.

The scanners flagged a still sealed can of ginger ale left over from our incoming flight. It was "fine" but she still swabbed it. Shrug.

stephen_g3• 6 months ago

Pretty common to have to re-clear security at large airports if you've come from another country, I've had to do it every time when transiting through Dubai for instance.

stevage• 6 months ago

It's super frustrating losing the contents of your water bottle and then having nowhere at all that you can refill it.

jacobp100• 6 months ago

I think all UK airports have easy to find water bottle refill stations

al_borland6• 6 months ago

If you come in from a country that doesn’t fall under the TSA, you have to clear TSA before getting on a flight that does.

The worst I had was in India, flying to the US. Not only was there the normal airport security (despite having come in on a connecting flight from within India), but when I got to the gate (with only minutes to spare), there was a whole TSA check at the gate itself. Bags x-rayed (again), metal detectors (again), guy with a wand (again), the whole deal. Just getting to the gate, I had to show my papers to at least 6 people; every time I turned down a new hallway. That was my far my worst airport experience.

jakub_g• 6 months ago

Flying with connections mostly within Schengen, or EU<>US via CDG, I never had to clear security again at layover, but I recently learnt this is rather an exception, and apparently it's a very common thing in most airports to have to clear security again.

LHR is actually notorious for this; you don't have to clear security again at LHR only when the connection is domestic.

In many other airports it's the same when e.g. you switch a terminal. Best to check for a particular airport what are the rules before booking.

dataflow2• 6 months ago

TSA needs consistency in alarm resolution, secondary screening rates, and officer workflows—otherwise “keep liquids packed” becomes a promise that varies by airport, terminal, and even time of day.

...what? These already vary in the same airport literally by adjacent lanes...

3eb7988a1663• 6 months ago

I don't even know what I need to show at at the start of the line. My ID? My boarding pass? Both?

Fervicus4• 6 months ago

How many man hours and how much money have we wasted over security theater at airports? Has it been a worthwhile trade off?

chihuahua4• 6 months ago

No successful terrorist attacks on planes going to/from western countries after 9/11/2001, that's a pretty good record. Maybe we can't prove that the security theater was responsible for that, but still, the only planes that were bombed after 9/11/2001 were inside Russia or going from Egypt to Russia.

none25852• 6 months ago

This is an asinine take - it literally has nothing to do with the theater we deal with at the airports in America

bradleybuda• 6 months ago

Last I checked, in the US there has not been a single instance of the TSA detecting and preventing a terror attack in its 25 year history.

And presumably they wouldn’t be shy about telling us if they had.

hosteur• 6 months ago

I have a rock that keeps tigers away. For 30 years I have not encountered any tigers. That’s a pretty good record.

prmoustache• 6 months ago

I thonk it has more to do with process and pilot crew closing their door.

bawolff6• 6 months ago

Bombings are pretty rare. The last succesful plane bombing of a plane departing from the united states that killed people was in 1962.

hdgvhicv5• 6 months ago

Ok so cockpit door was locked and thus nobody can hijack plane.

Of course even that has killed people.

reisse• 6 months ago

This is somewhat false? There were four other bombings, two in western countries (specifically EU->US flights). None of these two were successful in terms of "the plane was downed", but bombs were carried on a plane and exploded, and security didn't stop that.

22 December 2001, American Airlines Flight 63 7 May 2002, China Northern Flight 6136 25 December 2009, Northwest Airlines Flight 253 2 February 2016, Daallo Airlines Flight 159

dec0dedab0de• 6 months ago

The main benefit from post 9/11 security is locks on the cockpit doors. And no longer telling passengers to do whatever a hijacker says.

vjvjvjvjghv2• 6 months ago

No hijacked planes, no terror attacks?

none25852• 6 months ago

There's also been none since I washed my hair this morning - certainly must be related!!

runarberg4• 6 months ago

I don‘t think that is true at all. There have been numerous hijacked planes since 9/11 including two in the USA just this decade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

Plane hijacking has been on its way out anyway after the turmoil of the 1970s. And that has probably more to do with a) the relative political stability of the post cold war period, and b) a general sense that airplane hijacking isn’t actually that likely to advance your political goals. If you read the list above, you see people hijacking planes all kinds of dumb methods, hardly any of them involves carrying an actual bomb onto the plane.

Stevvo• 6 months ago

Depends who the 'we' is. It worked out great for the airports; increased drink sales means increased rent for airport shops.

mlrtime4• 6 months ago

How many man hours and how much money have we wasted over SREs at <tech company>? Has it been a worthwhile trade off?

- Half kidding but this is what a lot of CEOs/CTOs think, SRE is one of the least invested skills because it is so difficult to prove that they are worthwhile. Similarly they are invested into AFTER a major incident.

escapecharacter• 6 months ago

wrs• 6 months ago

Don't forget to account for the risk we added by creating places where hundreds of people line up outside the security check. [0]

[0] https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2016/05/out-of-line-how... -- "The study also identified an easy way to make people a less attractive target — improve ticketing and security operations so that crowds of people aren't waiting in line."

roamingryan• 6 months ago

I have never understood how this was effective against a determined adversary. An arbitrary limit like 100ml is pointless when there is no limit to the number of times you can pass through the checkpoint.

atmosx• 6 months ago

Oh. So it was a security measure? I honestly thought it was a way to force you to spend money on things on the airport or abroad. Like shampoo, water, etc.

superfrank2• 6 months ago

It was a reaction to a foiled terrorist attack in the UK where terrorists planned to blow up planes using liquid explosives disguised as bottles of soda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl...

chihuahua4• 6 months ago

It's also hilarious that the limit is the very metric 100ml, and not some even number of freedom units like 3 or 4 fluid ounces, like Jesus, George Washington, and bald eagles would have wanted.

bleepblap9• 6 months ago

TSA (at ohare) has a repeating thing that says 100ml or 3.2oz over the loudspeaker (never mind they are different amounts)

throwaway1502• 6 months ago

UK uses the metric system. Why would anyone expect UK to follow the imperial system in $CURRENT_YEAR?

superfrank2• 6 months ago

I'm sure that going through security 5 times for the same flight is bound to trigger some extra screening and even if it doesn't, each time you cross through increases the likelihood of getting caught by the normal process.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a large part of it is just security theatre, but part of it is also just to be enough of a deterrent that a would-be terrorist chooses a different target.

pastel8739• 6 months ago

How about an undetermined adversary? Security is all about raising the cost of an attack, not about preventing one altogether

throwaway1502• 6 months ago

An arbitrary limit like 100ml is pointless

Do you know that the 100 ml liquids gets scanned in the Heathrow airport? Many times they used to do a secondary scan too after the primary scan. I recall this very well because many times I was made to wait longer after my carry on arrived because they wanted to put the liquids through a secondary scan.

empressplay• 6 months ago

In many countries (Canada included) if you pass through security into the international terminal, you have to 're-enter the country' back through customs and immigration if you don't get on your flight.

deaux• 6 months ago

For airport operations teams, the real benefit isn’t just traveler satisfaction. It’s throughput stability:
- fewer stoppages caused by liquids mistakes
- fewer tray-handling steps per passenger
- less variability at peak banks (which is where hubs like LHR get punished)

Didn't know ChatGPT has started to call itself "John Cushma".

chrisfosterelli• 6 months ago

I noticed my eyes started automatically skimming right after that paragraph. It's funny my brain has learned to calibrate its reading effort in response to how much perceived effort went into writing it.

csomar• 6 months ago

I always thought the rule was about damage (liquid spilling onto your bag and other passengers' bags) rather than safety? That's based on how the rule was shaped: 100ml containers with no limits as long as in a sealed plastic bag.

I wonder if they'll walk this back? If you put a 2L water bottle in the overhead compartment and hit enough turbulence, it could open and drench the entire compartment and other people's luggage.

rudhdb773b3• 6 months ago

You're already allowed to refill large water bottles from a water fountain after passing through security, so the situation you described is already allowed to happen.

jen205• 6 months ago

What exactly was stoppnig you buying a 2L bottle of vodka in a glass bottle a duty free after security and having this happen?

jandrewrogers10• 6 months ago

This just adds confusion as to the purpose of all this.

The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids. Average people have never heard of them because they aren’t in popular lore. There has never been an industrial or military use, solids are simpler. Nonetheless, these explosives are easily accessible to a knowledgeable chemist like me.

These explosives can be detected via infrared spectroscopy but that isn’t going to be happening to liquids in your bag. This reminds me of the chemical swipes done on your bags to detect explosives. Those swipes can only detect a narrow set of explosive chemistries and everyone knows it. Some explosives notoriously popular with terror organizations can’t be detected. Everyone, including the bad guys, knows all of this.

It would be great if governments were more explicit about precisely what all of this theater is intended to prevent.

wbl• 6 months ago

Won't asking people to take a swig solve a bunch of those issues?

jrockway• 6 months ago

People travel with liquids they don't intend to eat. Shampoo and all that.

There is also nothing that precludes explosives from being non-toxic. Presumably your demise is near if you are carrying explosives through security. What do you care about heavy metal poisoning at that point?

jandrewrogers10• 6 months ago

This was done! It created terrible publicity incidents like the TSA forcing women to drink their own breast milk to prove it was safe. And not all liquids subject to this are things a person should swig even if they aren’t explosives. The extremely negative PR rightly stopped this practice.

JellyPlan• 6 months ago

I wonder if the improvements can detect trigger mechanisms better rather than testing the liquid itself.

jandrewrogers10• 6 months ago

Sophisticated detonators are very small. The size is well below anything you’d be able to notice on an x-ray. Trying to detect detonators is an exercise in futility. Fortunately, a detonator by itself can’t do any damage.

scq• 6 months ago

From my understanding, the new CT machines are able to characterise material composition using dual-energy X-ray, and this is how they were able to relax the rules.

jandrewrogers10• 6 months ago

I am not up-to-date on the bleeding edge but that explanation doesn’t seem correct? The use of x-rays in analytical chemistry is for elemental analysis, not molecular analysis. (There are uses for x-rays in crystallography that but that is unrelated to this application.)

At an elemental level, the materials of a suitcase are more or less identical to an explosive. You won’t easily be able to tell them apart with an x-ray. This is analogous to why x-ray assays of mining ores can’t tell you what the mineral is, only the elements that are in the minerals.

FWIW, I once went through an airport in my travels that took an infrared spectra of everyone’s water! They never said that, I recognized the equipment. I forget where, I was just impressed that the process was scientifically rigorous. That would immediately identify anything weird that was passed off as water.

dbbk• 6 months ago

Yes. The first step was upgrading to the new machines, now the size limits can be relaxed.

SanjayMehta• 6 months ago

Security theatre.

And speaking of theatre in the air, most Indian airlines will make an announcement of turbulence just before food service starts.

This is to make the sheep - strike that - passengers go back to their seats and sit down.

contingencies• 6 months ago

Ahh, the naïvety of the scientific mind! The security theater is intended to prevent government beaurocrats' mates from having to get real jobs and keep them happily sponging off public money. Also, set themselves up for post-career high paid gigs with those same private sector beneficiaries, so they can't be done for corruption during their career. Yes, really. Ask an AI about mid to late career public sector transitions to private sector and cross-examine 100 top examples across markets perceived as 'low corruption index'.

boomskats• 6 months ago

You mean Tony didn't really make £20m in his first year out of office from just giving speeches? I mean, that's what his tax return says?

You, sir, are a _conspiracy theorist_. Don't let that rotating door catch you on the way back in.

edm0nd3• 6 months ago

Correct. In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. It's all security theater.

TSA Chief Out After Agents Fail 95 Percent of Airport Breach Tests

"In one case, an alarm sounded, but even during a pat-down, the screening officer failed to detect a fake plastic explosive taped to an undercover agent's back. In all, so-called "Red Teams" of Homeland Security agents posing as passengers were able get weapons past TSA agents in 67 out of 70 tests — a 95 percent failure rate, according to agency officials."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-...

unclad5968• 6 months ago

In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. It's all security theater.

This matches my experience. I recently flew out of a small airport that flies 2 fairchild metro 23 turboprop planes up to 9 passengers. There were four TSA agents to check the 5 of us that were flying.

aiisjustanif• 6 months ago

While still theatre to a degree, that was 11 years ago.

JasonADrury4• 6 months ago

I routinely conceal large bottles of liquids on my person while going through airport security. I've probably gone through airport security in various places with a 1.5L bottle of water more than a hundred times now. Haven't been caught once, although of course the US-style scanners could presumably defeat this.

Same with hot sauces, perfume and the occasional bottles of wine. I really don't like to travel with a checked-in luggage, so this is a frequent problem.

Luckily I own lots of Rick Owens clothes with large hidden pockets.

lostlogin• 6 months ago

the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled.

I thought that was the US military?

fc417fc80216• 6 months ago

I find it interesting to contrast this with my experience flying out of China. I was taken to a private room and shown the digital colored X-ray of my bag on which a box had been drawn around an empty lighter, I was asked to remove it myself and hand it over, and I went on my way. All in under 5 minutes, no pat down, no fuss, and no one physically rifled through my belongings. (Granted I was a tourist so that might well not be typical.)

I'm not sure what their success rate is when tested by professionals but the experience definitely left me wondering WTF the deal with the TSA is.

dboreham• 6 months ago

TSA is much more skilled than the security people employed by the airlines that proceeded them.

PeterStuer• 6 months ago

"In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. It's all security theater."

Over here, it's G4S pork barrel contracts.

bartread2• 6 months ago

I don’t think it’s just the TSA tbh.

A couple of years before the pandemic I managed to make it all the way from London Heathrow to Auckland, New Zealand, passing through Dubai and Brisbane on the way, with one of those USB rechargeable plasma lighters and a Gerber multitool in my hand luggage.

Completely unintentional, of course, but due to #reasons I had packed in some haste and made the mistake of not completely unpacking my day sack, which I also used to carry my laptop for work, first.

I stayed in Auckland a couple of days and the items were eventually picked up on a scan before my flight to Queenstown. The guy was very nice about it: he had to confiscate the lighter, but he let me post the Multitool to my hotel in Queenstown.

A couple of years ago I did something similar flying out of Stansted but, that time, it was picked up at the airport and, again, I was able to get the items posted back to my home address.

Nowadays I always completely empty all compartments of all bags I’m taking before repacking, even when I’m in a hurry.

morpheuskafka4• 6 months ago

Correct. In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled.

This is oft repeated, but as a federal job, the bar is at least slightly higher than those typical AlliedUniversal/Andy Frain/Etc mall cop guards you see all over the place. I have no doubt that many are incompetent, but I think it is a big unfair that it gets singled out as a "jobs program" given that the bar is on the floor industrywide for security.

An interesting comparison would be FPS, which is the agency that does security checks for federal buildings, also under DHS same as TSA. They are armed despite many of them having an indoor only role (a few do patrol larger campuses outdoors). Thus, I suspect the requirements are somewhat higher. They are generally more thorough in my experience, except for one time where they did not notice one of my shoes got stuck and didn't go through the X ray, which is funny because they insist on all dress shoes being scanned as they have a tiny metal bar inside. The same shoes go through TSA just fine.

ascagnel_• 6 months ago

I'd believe that. I was in a situation where a bag started smoking _in the security checkpoint_ (it was a camera battery failing), and the TSA agents all abandoned the checkpoint. As a result, the FAA issued a full ground stop and had re-screen every passenger in the airport.

ec1096852• 6 months ago

Any large organization is going to have some terrible employees.

schaefer2• 6 months ago

It's all security theater.

It’s so much worse than that. Because the department of homeland security was formed in the panic following 911, many of the laws meant to protect our civil liberties (which have existed decades/centuries before the DHS was formed) haven’t been amended to explicitly apply to DHS staff as well.

So what ICE is doing right now could only happen with the loopholes that apply only to DHS staff.

So if not for the security theater of the TSA, Stephan Miller might not have had a mechanism to get the ball rolling on his murder squad that is ICE.

vablings2• 6 months ago

TSA Is not great, I have been groped by TSA twice, I have never been pat down by any European airport staff

yieldcrv2• 6 months ago

It would be great if governments were more explicit about precisely what all of this theater is intended to prevent.

Have you considered just going long Palantir?

there's nothing to really understand

vkou• 6 months ago

. This reminds me of the chemical swipes done on your bags to detect explosives. Those swipes can only detect a narrow set of explosive chemistries and everyone knows it.

Meanwhile, you get swabbed, the machine produces a false positive, the TSA drone asks you why the machine is showing a positive, you have no fucking idea why, and they just keep swabbing until they get a green light and everyone moves on with life.

HNisCIS2• 6 months ago

OP is talking about (mostly) TATP here. It's very easy to make, harder to detect with traditional methods and potent enough to be a problem. It's also hilariously unstable, will absolutely kill you before you achieve terrorism, and if you ask people on the appropriate chemistry subreddits how to make it you'll be ridiculed for days.

jandrewrogers10• 6 months ago

Yes, peroxide chemistries famously don’t show up on a lot of explosive scans. TATP is an example but not the only one and far from the best one. They are largely missing from common literature because they are too chemically reactive to be practical e.g. they will readily chemically interact with their environment, including most metal casings you might put them in, such that they become non-explosive.

That aside, TATP is a terrible explosive. Weak, unstable, and ineffective. The ridicule is well-deserved.

hackingonempty• 6 months ago

The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids.

The limits were instituted after discovering a plot to smuggle acetone and hydrogen peroxide (and ice presumably) on board to make acetone peroxide in the lavatory. TATP is not a liquid and it is not stable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl...

jandrewrogers10• 6 months ago

This illustrates a point though. TATP you could synthesize on a plane is entirely inadequate to bring down a plane. It also requires a bit more than acetone and hydrogen peroxide. Pan Am 103 required around half a kilo of RDX and TATP is very, very far from RDX.

The idea of synthesizing a proper high-explosive in an airplane lavatory is generally comical. The chemistry isn’t too complex but you won’t be doing it in an airplane lavatory.

piglatinlingo• 6 months ago

there are other, very similar compounds in the same family that are indeed liquid.

CTDOCodebases• 6 months ago

The security theatre is there to make people feel safe.

It's about emotion not logic.

Fervicus4• 6 months ago

And to make some people richer.

xxs4• 6 months ago

...or be very anxious and resent air travel. I don't feel any safe through body searches, coupled with belt/coat removal, not wearing glasses and what not.

Personally, I don't know a single person who feels more secure due to the checks.

kstenerud• 6 months ago

It's about making people feel safe.

We're not rational beings, so what do you do about an irrational fear? You invent a magical thing that protects from that irrational fear.

You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more.

You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many of which can't be protected against due to the laws of physics and practicality - short of forcing everyone to travel naked and strapped in like cattle, with no luggage. And even then, what about the extremist who works for the airline?

So you invent some theater to stop people from panicking (a far more real danger). And that's a perfectly acceptable solution.

peyton• 6 months ago

It’s a $12 bn/yr production. I don’t think that’s perfectly acceptable. Let’s invest in loudspeakers if all we’re doing is shouting at people.

WalterBright8• 6 months ago

You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more.

This can be traced to people in a car believe they can control whether they have an accident or not (and largely can). In an airplane, however, you have no control whatsoever.

closewith12• 6 months ago

You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many of which can't be protected against due to the laws of physics and practicality - short of forcing everyone to travel naked and strapped in like cattle, with no luggage. And even then, what about the extremist who works for the airline?

This is said as an axiom, but we have protected against the motivated terrorist, as shown by the safety record.

BrenBarn3• 6 months ago

I seriously doubt that most people are happy with the tradeoffs of safety vs. convenience provided by the TSA. The general idea of x-ray, metal detectors, sure, that's all good. But the stuff with taking off your shoes, small containers of liquid, etc., no. I think if we reverted to a simpler system with fewer oddly specific requirements layered on top, most people would not feel significantly less safe, but would feel less inconvenienced.

dingaling• 6 months ago

It's about making people feel safe.

I don't think that's a common perception of airport security. Few people take reassurance from it, most consider it a burden and hindrance that could stop them getting their flight if they don't perform the correct steps as instructed.

The lifting of this restriction is an example, the overwhelming response is "oh thank goodness, now I don't have to pay for overpriced water" and not "is this safe?"

wickedsight• 6 months ago

It's about making people feel safe.

My guess it's more about being able to say: 'We did everything we could.' If someone does end up getting a bomb on board. If they didn't do this, everyone would be angry and headlines would be asking: 'Why was nothing put in place to prevent this?'

troupo4• 6 months ago

You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many of which can't be protected against due to the laws of physics and practicality

Ah yes, the insidious opponent who learns the inherent vulnerability of ... huge crowds gathering before hand baggage screenings and TSA patdowns.

And these crowds are only there only due to a permanent immovable physical fixture of ... completely artificial barriers that fail to prevent anything 90-95% of the time.

kakacik2• 6 months ago

I know literally nobody panicking from some idea of terrorist attack against airplane, this is not a thing in Europe. Neither my old parents, neither any of my colleagues etc. Its not 2001 anymore and even back then we were mostly chill.

But I can claim one thing for sure - people hate security checks with passion.

graemep4• 6 months ago

It reminds be of how after a fire at a tube station a lot of people decided to commute by motorbike because of fear of fire.

grishka• 6 months ago

Airport security never makes me feel safe. It makes me feel violated and anxious.

I haven't really flown before 9/11, but I have used the subway in my city daily both before and after they installed metal detectors and started randomly asking people to put their bags through a scanner. I'm deeply nostalgic for not having to deal with this utter bullshit.

afh1• 6 months ago

The government who wages the wars and brings its terrors home invades people's privacy and comfort in the small amount of time they have away from the toll they put to pay their taxes, and the people are thankful, after all, all of it is for their safety.

moffkalast2• 6 months ago

Yeah as we've seen with MH370, literally nothing stops the pilot from committing mass-murder-suicide at any point. We just need to trust that they're not feeling particularly depressed that day.

stephen_g3• 6 months ago

A lot more people I've talked to about it say the theatre makes them feel uncomfortable and intimidated rather than making them feel safe. Airport security staff being so gruff and expecting people to know what to do (which casual travellers often don't), then not being able to properly explain what to do and shouting at people...

I really don't buy that the illusion of safety is high on anyone's priority list, it's more that a bureaucracy will grow as much as it can, employing more and more people who might not have better prospects, and no politicians want to be seen to be "comprimising people's safety" by cutting things back. Then "lobbying" from those selling equipment and detection machines probably helps everything keep going.

If it was actually cut back to a proper risk-assessed point of what's strictly necessary, people going thorugh would think "is this safe not having as much security" for about 30 seconds and then never think of it again.

NL8073• 6 months ago

It's about making people feel safe.

It adds stress. I fondly remember flying in the 80s vs today. Travelling back then was more chill.

andrepd4• 6 months ago

You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more.

On the contrary, a competent and responsible government should counter the hysteria, not enable it. It should protect citizens from car crashes rather than making a 18-lane highways through residential areas, and it should implement effective measures that reduce effective risk and panic regarding airline attacks, instead of pushing the fear even further with TSA.

acdha• 6 months ago

It's about making people feel safe.

I think this is true but had to be seen in the bigger context: the Bush administration wanted people to feel that there were threats which required sacrificing things like civil liberties, balanced budgets, or not being at war because if you didn’t fight them “over there” the nebulous “they” come here in a never-ending swarm. Even at the time we knew that the threats weren’t serious but the people making those decisions saw it as part of a larger agenda.

ghm21992• 6 months ago

One man's fear of safety is another man's job safety.

k2enemy• 6 months ago

It's about making people feel safe.

I think it is the opposite. It is supposed to be a visceral reminder that we are not safe, and therefore should assent to the erosion of civil liberties and government intrusions into our lives in the name of safety.

tastyfreeze• 6 months ago

It's about making people feel safe.

It doesn't make me feel safe. It makes me annoyed. Since TSA are government agents it also pokes a tyranny button for me. I despise TSA with a passion and there is not a damn thing I can do about it. They also have the gall to offer a paid service to get around the delays they cause with taxpayer money. If airport security checkpoints need to be done it shouldn't be government doing it.

CorrectHorseBat• 6 months ago

So how does that explain I can take 10 100ml bottles and an empty 1l bottle through security but not 1 full 1l bottle?

WalterBright8• 6 months ago

The same reason used for WA emissions inspections (since suspended). If your tailpipe emitted 99ppm of pollutants, you were good to go. If it emitted 100ppm, you had to get it fixed.

Good ole step functions.

gizzlon• 6 months ago

You can't, at least not where I live

opello2• 6 months ago

You have to be able to fit those 10 100mL bottles into a single 1 quart resealable bag. At most you'd probably get about 9.46 of those 10 bottles in the bag but in practice it's fewer still.

1 US liquid quart is about 946.353 milliliters.

4gotunameagain• 6 months ago

Everyone, including the bad guys, knows all of this.

Then satisfy our curiosity and provide more details as to which are the liquid explosives and which common ones are not detected ? ;)

7e• 6 months ago

It's obvious. The harder you make it to down or hijack a plane, the fewer downed planes you will see. It didn't have to be perfect to prevent and deter. Some security is better than no security. If you had no security at all you would see planes go down all the time.

And it wouldn't surprise me if some of the detection technology were classified.

It would not be "great" if governments were more open about their detection capabilities; that would cause more terrorism attempts and is one of the stupidest things one could do here.

troupo4• 6 months ago

The harder you make it to down or hijack a plane, the fewer downed planes you will see.

You know that TSA fails in 90-95% of cases and that crowds before it are a much jucier target?

breppp• 6 months ago

most of airport security rests on the notion of going over a series of long tests will elicit unusual (fear, stress) responses from malicious actors and these can then be flagged for even thorougher checks which will then eventually lead to discovery, banning or removal of luggage

so it's not the test accuracy by itself but rather then the fact that these tests are happening at all

wedog6• 6 months ago

You have surprising faith that the system is well designed.

Malicious actors don't get as stressed as normal people who don't want to miss their flight about the long series of obviously pointless tests. Why would they?

And there isn't anyone who surveils the queues and takes the worried looking for further checks. This can happen around immigration checks. It happens for flights to Israel. But not in routine airport security.

KingMob2• 6 months ago

This kind of thinking is as legitimate as believing lie detectors work, i.e., not at all.

pcl• 6 months ago

marcosdumay5• 6 months ago

going over a series of long tests will elicit unusual (fear, stress) responses from malicious actors

Oh, man. Let me tell you what kind of response going over a series of long tests by armed authority figures elicits on normal good-intended people...

bawolff6• 6 months ago

I thought the point of replacing all the xray scanners with CT scanners was to be able to detect this sort of thing?

omnicognate• 6 months ago

Average people have never heard of them because they aren’t in popular lore.

Everything I know about liquid explosives I learned from Die Hard 3.

misnome• 6 months ago

Funnily enough, that’s also all the people who made the rules in the first place knew

fooker• 6 months ago

These liquids show up as slightly different colors in the new CT scan machines and this can finally be reliably detected by software.

This is also why a bunch of airports no longer ask you to take electronics out of your bags.

kanbara• 6 months ago

how does it add confusion?

if normal people don’t know, criminals/terrorists do, and the materials are commonplace but not screened for, then everything about the current approach is wrong.

and when has a plane been brought down by the evil explosives or stable liquids in recent memory?

so the theatre put in place is just that, huh?

davedx• 6 months ago

On one hand, I think it's a valid criticism to say it's security theatre, to a degree. After 9/11, something had to be done, fast!, and we're still living with the after effects of that.

On the other hand: defence in depth. No security screening is perfect. Plastic guns can get through metal detectors but we still use them. Pat downs at nightclubs won't catch a razor blade concealed in someone's bra. We try to catch more common dangerous items with the knowledge that there's a long tail of things that could get through. There's nothing really new there, I don't think?

croisillon• 6 months ago

to nitpick, the 100ml rule doesn't come from 9/11 but from 2006 attack attempts

ubermonkey2• 6 months ago

Lots has been written about this.

The post-9/11 freakout is a GREAT example of the syllogism "Something must be done! This is something, so we must do it!" -- IOW, a train of thought that includes absolutely no evaluation of efficacy.

Security expert Bruce Schneier noted, I believe, that the only things that came out of the post-9/11 freakout that mattered were (a) the reinforced cockpit door and (b) ensuring all the checked bags go with an actual passenger.

The ID requirement, for example, was a giveaway to the airlines to prevent folks from selling frequent-flier tickets (which was absolutely a common thing back then). (And wouldn't have mattered on 9/11 anyway, since all the hijackers had valid ID.)

dfxm12• 6 months ago

That something could have been lawmakers going on major media saying, unequivocally, that flying is safe, warning not to give away freedoms lightly and even making a show of flying commercial themselves.

That something didn't have to include trading freedom for surveillance/inconvenience/increased exposure to poorly trained LEO's.

The world we live has been shaped more and more by the funders of certain politicians and major media to make us fearful of boogiemen. The payoff is increased surveillance and more authoritarian governments.

ghm21992• 6 months ago

One little know crazier example of how things linger around for decades is how the H1B program actually allowed for renewals of visa stamps within the US.

After 9/11 the only reason people were made to go to another country to do it is because the US State department wanted people 10 printed and face scanned at places that had the equipment to do them: the embassies outside the US.

Now all airlines are basically human cattle-herding boxes at 35K feet for the metaphorical H1B cows.

mrguyorama3• 6 months ago

There were plenty at the time insisting it was not needed, that TSA was an overreaction, that it was clearly grift to people connected to the Bush Admin, that we don't need to do anything even. They all pointed out that DHS was clearly an internal anti-dissent force, to be used against american citizens for daring to critique a government of grift and lies and authoritarianism taking away our rights.

They were all decried as "anti-american" or worse epithets.

They were all correct of course.

They are all being decried again right now.

It was literally called "The Patriot Act" FFS. You really think it was about security?

Note that the reason none of the passengers were ever able to regain control of the planes was the exact security measure that actually protects us now: The cockpit door. It literally doesn't matter what happens in the plane cabin, nobody can hijack a plane in the current system.

Again, TSA currently cannot catch someone going through security with plastic explosives, in their own self tests.

AndrewThrowaway• 6 months ago

I believe the "theater" is needed precisely for this - to catch bad actors. There could just be a long queue with some blind dog and scary looking guy at the end. What it still does is makes a bad guy sweat, plan against it and etc. You just can't have free entrance for all. However you will never prevent state actors or similar with any kind of theatre because they will always prepare for it.

altern82• 6 months ago

I'm fine with some liquid potentially being explosives, but the fact that security just throws them all in the same bin when they confiscate them makes me think that not even they believe it makes any sense.

Also, why 100ml? Do you need 150ml to make the explosive? Couldn't there be 2 terrorists with 100ml + 50ml? All these questions, so little answers...

Krssst• 6 months ago

Liquids are not explosive, they are assumed to be used to make explosives once onboard.

Regarding quantity, hard to find information, I guess they don't want to have a terrorist handbook to making explosives online, but I would assume that 100ml would mean multiple times this amount would not be enough to make an explosive large enough bring down an airplane.

In general, considering the overall cost of the measures, I would think that there is a valid reason and that "it does not make sense at first glance so it's just a security theater" does not hold.

JumpCrisscross• 6 months ago

These explosives can be detected via infrared spectroscopy but that isn’t going to be happening to liquids in your bag

There are more ways to find them. Look up Z score. TL; DR New detectors can discriminate water from explosives. Old ones couldn’t. None of them are doing IR spectroscopy.

sschueller• 6 months ago

Is a open flame enough to ignite those liquids and don't they need something to press against to "explode" and not just cause a giant flame like gasoline?

wiredfool4• 6 months ago

In Zurich, you can buy Swiss army knives in the secure zone.

xxs4• 6 months ago

That's ok - 6cm blades are allowed. You can also carry it in a cabin luggage anyways.

realistically any broken glass bottle can be used as a blade.

duskdozer• 6 months ago

Security theater and conditioning people into accepting invasions of privacy

piokoch2• 6 months ago

Well, I watched the video of some former Delta Force officer, who said that you can sharpen your credit card to make a deadly weapon out of it. Let's ban credit cards in the airplanes.

xxs4• 6 months ago

Backpack can have metal reinforcements that would make a proper weapon too, Same broken glass bottles and what not.

The entire point is futile and pointless.

teiferer2• 6 months ago

And yet .. nothing ever seems to happen! Even though it's so easy.

That means one of at least two things. Either the terrorists are stupid and easily impressed by the security theater. Or there are just not that many bad ombres out there trying to take down airplanes. Or something else I can't think of.

Any thoughts?

Ylpertnodi2• 6 months ago

Drones.

KaiserPro• 6 months ago

extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids.

My understanding is that those are detected by the bag swabs.

I _thought_ that this was to stop people mixing their own explosives _on_ the plane? There was a whole court case in the UK about how people had smuggled it onboard and then were going to make it in the toilet.

They would need and ice bath, which is somewhat impractical.

wouldbecouldbe• 6 months ago

Schiphol at Amsterdam had this for a year or so, you could bring any type of liquid and leave everything in the bag. But they reverted the liquid rule, if I remember correctly, because of the confusion it caused.

tirant• 6 months ago

This happened due to a change in regulation in Europe.

Some airports, like AMS or MUC, invested on new machines with higher detection capabilities, and decided to allow all liquids and improve efficiency in boarding. The EU updated the rules claiming those new machines were still not sufficient and airports should go back to forbidding liquids.

It was a mess. I remember flying from MUC and being allowed all liquids and on my return flight, also from EU, when trying to fly with a normal water bottle, security people looked at me wondering what the f I was doing: "Don't you know liquids are not allowed, sir!?"

retired3• 6 months ago

Schiphol has been very relaxed. I once had a water bottle with probably 200ml of water still in it in my bag. I was told to not do that again and they gave me the bottle back.

aa-jv• 6 months ago

Its not just for explosives, by the way. Its also for solvents - for example, mercury, which could be used to weaken the airframe very easily.

jalapenos• 6 months ago

I assume the logic was:

1) People demand the government be accountable for their failing to protect them

2) Government responds by increased giving the appearance of protecting them, since that creates more lowest-common-denominator sense of feeling safe than the government actually protecting them does; votes protected

3) Complaints of "security theatre" don't alter the above - they just have to wait until people have forgotten their fear while very slowly, bit by bit, without it being noticed, stop doing the nonsense

Or put simply: "terrorists win"

pushedx• 6 months ago

One theory that I've had for a while with regards to the no liquid policy is that it was somehow introduced by the food vendors on the other side of security, who want you to buy a drink and some food after you pass through.

maxerickson• 6 months ago

2 part liquid explosives featured heavily in Die Hard with a Vengeance.

angry_octet7• 6 months ago

That was just strawberry jam.

account426• 6 months ago

If those explosives are extremely powerful then do the limits actually prevent using them to do damage inside an airplane though? TSA isn't even effective at preventing you from bringing on sharp metal objects as long as they aren't particularly knife shaped.

Ntrails• 6 months ago

Maybe I'm being naive, but it has always seemed pretty trivial to me to use the post-security shops to assemble something that will meaningfully damage the aircraft - so the whole thing smacked of theatre.

shevy-java2• 6 months ago

It would be great if governments were more explicit about precisely what all of this theater is intended to prevent.

That is a good statement. It IS a theater. So, the point for it IS the theater. The "evil terrorists" is just the scapegoat wrapper, similar to how officials in the EU constantly try to extend mass surveillance and claim it is to "protect children".

__alexs• 6 months ago

I think the idea is that the new scanners they have are capable detecting liquid densities better so that they can actually tell the difference now?

tushar-r• 6 months ago

is reminds me of the chemical swipes done on your bags to detect explosives.

I've also had this done on my dialysis port at some airports here in India :-|

Xmd5a• 6 months ago

Israel strips you naked and rubs the swipe between your legs thoroughly. Source: friend.

Zigurd2• 6 months ago

If you have access to nitric acid you don't need any obscure lore. 3 ounces of a simple concoction a high school chemistry student could make is enough to blow a hole in an airplane. You also stand a good chance of blowing yourself up on the way to the airport.

Teever• 6 months ago

This reminds me of the chemical swipes done on your bags to detect explosives. Those swipes can only detect a narrow set of explosive chemistries and everyone knows it. Some explosives notoriously popular with terror organizations can’t be detected. Everyone, including the bad guys, knows all of this.

I used to work at a place that sold a lot of fertilizers. We mostly sold stuff like Monoammonium phosphate or potassium nitrate.

One time while cleaning out a back storage room I came across an open bag of ammonium nitrate. I picked that thing up, carried it around, putting it on a cart and wheeling it around kicking up a lot of dust, all the kinds of stuff that you’d expect while cleaning out a storage room.

A day or so later I got on a plane and they swabbed me and my bag before doing so. I was startled when I didn’t raise any alarms.

I was completely under the misguided impression they something like ammonium nitrate would be detected on a person if they had handled it within a few days of being tested and that would have to explain myself.

amelius• 6 months ago

Because the theater raises the threshold.

ubermonkey2• 6 months ago

If I recall correctly, it was WIDELY reported by sane, savvy people that no such liquid agents existed that could be combined onboard in this way.

Are there examples you can point to?

iambateman• 6 months ago

Not a chemist…but if someone can carry on 3 bottles at 3.4 ounces each, now they have 10 ounces.

Two people do it and it’s 20 ounces. All within the “TSA Standard.”

This is where the liquid limit never made sense to me…if we were serious about keeping these substances off of planes, we would limit the total liquid…right? Or require that any liquids get checked.

I just don’t see how per-bottle liquid limits are anything close to deterrent for motivated attackers…but they sure are deterrent for me when I forget that I put a hotel water bottle in my bag.

HWR_144• 6 months ago

It would be great if governments were more explicit about precisely what all of this theater is intended to prevent.

The liquids requirement was in response to a famous (at the time) plot by people in Britain to smuggle a two part liquid explosive onto the plane. So the context was, at the time, obvious and needed no explanation.

largbae• 6 months ago

It was always theater, Bruce Schneier did a great set of blogs and tests back in the 2001+ time showing flaws throughout the process. At the same time, he pointed out that humanity had already adapted their response to airplane hijackings _that day_ (the Pennsylvania flight). An airplane exploding from a bomb is definitely scary, but not as scary as airplanes being turned into missiles by a few suicidal passengers.

juliushuijnk• 6 months ago

They don't believe these liquids are actually dangerous, otherwise they wouldn't just throw them in a bin near the queue.

ortusdux• 6 months ago

Modern airport x-ray machines use two frequencies and then estimate the density of objects and liquids. In theory, the can tell the difference between water and vodka. I wonder if the change reflects trust in this tech?

lordloki• 6 months ago

Is the capability of these explosives at a safe level if the liquid precursors are less than 3.5 fl ounces? If they are still capable of blowing a hole in the fuselage with less than 3.5 fl ounces then the limits on fluids are still pointless.

helterskelter• 6 months ago

I remember reading something around the time these prohibitions against liquids were rolled out that said none of the two-part liquid explosives were powerful enough to take down a plane unless you were carrying an unusual amount of liquid to be traveling with, or storing your liquid in an unusual way. For instance, there should be no reason you couldn't carry an ordinary sized bottle of shampoo in your luggage. No idea how accurate this is, maybe somebody could set this straight?

CGMthrowaway6• 6 months ago

powerful enough to take down a plane

Is that the criteria used for restrictions? I don't actually know. I guess a firearm falls into that category. Does a wine corkscrew? A foam toy sword? A small fishhook? All items that are prohibited in the cabin

jandrewrogers10• 6 months ago

Explosives that are inert liquid binaries aren't really a thing. That is something Hollywood invented out of whole cloth. The chemistry of explosives doesn't lend itself to such a form.

Chemical weapons often have liquid binary forms though.

meroes• 6 months ago

Are these chemicals freezable? Because TSA lets through large quantities frozen matter that is liquid at room temp. E.g. you can bring through a liter of hot sauce if it's frozen when it passes through TSA.

avisser• 6 months ago

After 4 years of Russia/Ukraine, does anyone think that a terror group would take down an airliner with anything other than a drone? Why take any operational risk of actually going through security?

ErroneousBosh3• 6 months ago

The fact that nobody has flown a drone with a hand grenade gaffa taped to it right into the middle of some politician's security cordon says to me that either a) terrorists are not smart enough to go for the low-hanging fruit (and the Republican terrorism in NI demonstrates this isn't the case), b) it's actually a lot harder to do than that, or c) the intelligence agencies are really, really good at stopping people from doing that, and even better at keeping quiet about it.

I'm going with option C.

tehjoker2• 6 months ago

It's designed to protect consumer confidence so the economy hums along. A single plane is a few hundred people, but the effects ripple out. This is a big country, you need air travel to make it reasonable to connect the coasts, and the more people traveling the more cohesive and economically balanced the country is. They were fine with letting 1M+ Americans die from COVID to protect the economy. That's really all there is to it.

cromka• 6 months ago

So, security through obscurity mostly as a smoke show for the public, not actual terrorist countermeasure. It's like the TSA being unable to detect most traditional weapon in carry-ons. Business as usual it seems.

randusername2• 6 months ago

I would not be surprised if this started out totally unrelated to explosives. Say that some toddler spilled an entire 3 liters of grape soda all over the plane. Or a hypochondriac brought cleaning agents aboard and gave everyone a headache.

Mostly sarcasm, but man do I see this pattern a lot. The risk mitigation apparatus is called in for something, they see an opportunity to overgeneralize and prevent an entire new category of potential mishaps, and the everyday folk end up really confused trying to reconcile the rules with their intent.

Reminds me of the parable about the bench guards. Is there an aphorism for this?

QuantumFunnel• 6 months ago

TSA has always been security theater

GorbachevyChase• 6 months ago

Why do you make a dog hold a treat on his nose?

pseudohadamard• 6 months ago

The motivation was that we've run out of other things to scaremonger about so we'll come up with what Bruce Schneier calls movie-plot threats and go with those instead. The few explosives that are liquid are also incredibly impractical to work with in most cases except for perhaps perchloric acid which is nitrogen-free so won't be detected but then persuading that to detonate from a seat in economy class is going to be quite a feat.

The country I'm in abolished the liquids nonsense for domestic flights (which they can do because it's domestic travel) around a decade ago with the reasoning that it wasn't serving any purpose.

butvacuum2• 6 months ago

Is it really unclear what the theater is actually for? It was immediately weaponized that any opposition placed you somewhere between 'anti-american' and a 'terrorist'. A perfect environment to pass any legislation, no matter how ineffectual and illegal.

BrandoElFollito• 6 months ago

See, when the shoe bomber or the guys doing chemistry 101 in the toilets of the plane were discovered, they put a ban on liquids and almost shoes.

I was hoping nobody comes out with an explosive you can build with cotton (and a nuclear reactor, but that would be a detail for the "security compliance" people who will come up with new restrictions). We would need to fly naked and this would be annoying.

I sure like to fly a safe plane. The problem is that I am sure the people who actually want to do something bad will use, like you mentioned, alternative solutions - and I will not even have the nail file they took from me when trying to to defend the plane during the hijacking.

humanpotato• 6 months ago

Recently, I worked all day at an ammunition plant, then the next day got may hands swabbed by TSA. Nothing detected by the machine.

Makes you wonder.

danilafe• 6 months ago

This is funny because just a few months ago, I was forced at Heathrow to chug -- not allowed to pour out! -- my entire water bottle that I had filled prior to my flight. The security person watched me do it and added, "bathroom's over there".

PcChip• 6 months ago

How did they force you to do that?

lmm6• 6 months ago

Anything a border official says is implicitly backed with the threat of, at a minimum, detention without trial and without basic humane treatment like access to drinking water. Heathrow has well publicised cases (and is not unusual in this).

bowmessage• 6 months ago

Why did you allow them to humiliate you like this?

lmm6• 6 months ago

Because flights are expensive enough that for most ordinary people missing one would set them back years or decades financially?

bleepblap9• 6 months ago

there is actually a science change that happened, and it's not (entirely) just politicians changing their mind.

The big thing going from X-ray (2d) to CT (spin an X-ray machine around and take a ton of pictures to recreate a 3d image) did a lot to let security people see inside of a bag, but the hitch is that if you see a blob of gray is that water, shampoo or something else?

The recent advance that is letting this happen is machines who will send multiple wavelengths of X-ray through the material: since different materials absorb light differently, your machine can distinguish between materials, which lets you be more sure that that 2litre is (mostly) water, and then they can discriminate

bleepblap9• 6 months ago

There's a whole ton of people taking about MRI -- MRIs are a completely universe than CT/X-rays

DaiPlusPlus• 6 months ago

I think if an MRI was ever used for airport security screening it would cause more damage and disruption than the terrorist bombs it purports to detect.

HNisCIS2• 6 months ago

Dual energy x ray has been around forever though, like decades.

bleepblap9• 6 months ago

Certainly, but a) not at the prices people wanted to spend to get 25,000 of them b) not at the maintenance cost for 25,000 of them c) without the software to (by someone's metric) discriminate between shampoo and bomb with enough error

5d41402abc4b• 6 months ago

Can this X Ray bit flip memory or damage NAND?

wiredfool4• 6 months ago

It's a specific liquid scanner that's done on bottles that have been pulled aside for extra scanning (at least, that's what Frankfurt was doing a couple weeks ago)

flambeerpeer• 6 months ago

Super Mario 64 airport security speedrun strat

marcosdumay5• 6 months ago

The bar for damaging memory is way higher than normal X rays.

Flipping bits is more fuzzy. In theory anything can flip bits in working memory.

ErroneousBosh3• 6 months ago

It can erase EPROMs, so don't send your vintage computers through an X-ray machine.

dingdongditchme2• 6 months ago

it has been such a godsend flying out of Frankfurt where they have the new scanners and you don't have to empty out your bag anymore. So much smoother. Then I fly back and get all annoyed at the other airports. I was told Oslo airport is holding out until it becomes regulation to use the new scanners. Security-Theater is still what it is. It is super weak imho, despite never having seriously attempted a heist or trying to get contraband on a plane. I miss the good old days where you handed your luggage to a guy just before boarding the plane.

littlecranky674• 6 months ago

Germany has a very sad and weak airport security story. The security personal are hired and paid by the state (Land), and thus the state plans their capacity and workflow. The airport owner (i.e. FRAport) has no say in their internal work organization, as it is basically contracted out policework. For whatever reason, most german Airports I regularly use, use the same machine and broken workflow: There is only a limited amount of containers to put your stuff in to go through the x-ray, and the machine itself has an integrated container-return system using conveyors. As a result, each machine has only a single small table with a container dispenser to serve passengers. On that tiny table, only 2-3 people at the same time can get undressed, get water out of their handlugagge etc. Waiting passengers behind them are blocked.

I contrast that with my experience in Spain: Several meters before the machines, there is a large amount of unoccupied, huge tables with containers stacked everywhere, so everybody can get undressed and pack their stuff into the container trays at their pace of choice. Staff assists and tells the rules to individuall travellers. Once you are done sorting your stuff into the containers, taking off your belt etc - only THEN you take the containers towards the x-ray conveyor line. So there is hardly any blocking the line. Instead of a container-return system, a single human stacks the containers past the scan and returns them to the beginning. This is so much more effective.

Classic example of government run workflows: No one cares to optimize the workflow, and the one who would benefit from a speedup (the airport and the airlines) in terms of increased sales, have no say in the process.

scoot• 6 months ago

despite never having seriously attempted a heist or trying to get contraband on a plane

So you've tried casually? What does a casual heist look like exactly?

NL8073• 6 months ago

These machines don't really detect what kind of materials stuff is composed of, much of that is just a crude classification based on density. True identification requires broadband x-rays emission with spectral analysis.

juggle-anyhow• 6 months ago

Water, not water is all you need.

user3939382• 6 months ago

Forgive my zooming out but the overton window on this topic is in the wrong place. Airport security is dehumanizing inconvenient and unacceptable. I’d only use planes in an emergency. The living memory of what air travel is supposed to be is just gone with the sands of time. I don’t accept the shit economy version starting #1 with the cattle screening.

purpleidea• 6 months ago

Heathrow is still a bullshit airport:

1) Bodyscanners: body scanners are a scam 2) They took away my 100ml contain that clearly had less than 1 cm of liquid in it because it wasn't clearly labelled as "100ml". Any idiot could know it was like 10ml full. 3) They used to do actual xray basically on people. 4) You have to re-security to transfer on connections! You already could have blown up the incoming plane, why does this even matter?

I don't go there anymore. Waste of time and all security theatre without common sense.

Nextgrid• 6 months ago

A trick I use to bypass the liquid restriction is to intentionally pack a sacrificial bottle in addition to whatever valuable bottle I care about. In most cases when the luggage comes for manual inspection they toss the first (sacrificial one) they see and leave the actual valuable bottle alone.

Ylpertnodi2• 6 months ago

Heathrow is still a bullshit airport:

Heathrow has the best Guinness+ in the world - those pumps just don't stop.

* if you don't like Guinness, DON'T try it if you've already had a different beer/ ale (whatever). Try it before anything else or it's worse than the very devil spitting on your buds (!).

al_borland6• 6 months ago

On my last trip I bought some different deodorant, because my usual brand was .2oz over the limit. Not sure why the brand wouldn’t just go with the TSA limit to make life easy for everyone. The new stuff ended up staining all my shirts. I largely blame the TSA for having to buy all new shirts. Next time I’m going to less of a stickler for the rules and hope for the best, as following the rules yields poor outcomes. Hopefully by that time the new rules will filter out to more airports.

roschdal• 6 months ago

I am sure Al-Qaeda will be thrilled about this.

yakshaving_jgt3• 6 months ago

Well you wouldn't want a thirsty terrorist, would you?

burnt-resistor• 6 months ago

Presumably, these CT scanners involve fairly energetic photons, and if they're above 100 keV, then that's bit-flipping error territory.

wtcactus• 6 months ago

25 years to do this.

I had the luck of traveling by plane quite a bit before 2001 and I can tell you it was much more pleasurable. Now, the issues now-a-days are not only due to the security circus, it's true. But it does play a major role.

wodenokoto2• 6 months ago

My GF is from East Asia and has travelled almost 100 countries, anything from rich first world to poor 3rd world countries.

She was absolutely shocked to find that liquid container limits were enforced in northern Europe. She would just put her makeup bag with cleansers and gels and everything in her carry-on and travel the world.

nottorp3• 6 months ago

Okay but for personal toiletry stuff you need the rule scrapped at both ends of your trip.

dxdm4• 6 months ago

Don't be sad. One step at a time. One more trip-end to connect to other trip-ends. Or do you want to wait with roll-out until the whole world is ready to do it at the same time? Always look on the bright side of life. :)

nottorp3• 6 months ago

My deodorant isn't available in those small travel containers :(

And it's the only thing i really care about, I can do with any random toothpaste and shaving foam that i buy on arrival.

But maybe it will happen in my lifetime.

hdgvhicv5• 6 months ago

Flew through Heathrow a few months ago. Signs flashing on the screens specifically saying laptops must be removed, security guys yelling “don’t remove laptops”

smcl2• 6 months ago

This was my experience too - they're visibly angry at you for following the rules

ExoticPearTree6• 6 months ago

Flying through JFK once, security lines had different rules: Line one, laptop in, shoes out. Line two, laptop out, shoes stayed. Line 3, nothing out. It was hilarious, because TSA agents would talk over each other, confusing the hell out of everyone.

hacker_88• 6 months ago

Key and peele

evanjsx• 6 months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHfiMoJUDVQ

alexfoo3• 6 months ago

And don't rely on the destination airport having the same rules when you fly back.

This used to get people doing EU -> London flights. The EU rules had already been relaxed, but you got bitten by the extra restrictions when you went to fly back.

Like most things, flying is a complete shitshow, but do it often enough and you get used to it and all of the foibles.

Regularly flying hand luggage only is a grind as you're at the mercy of the lowest common denominator in terms of rules on what you can carry. When I had to visit a string of customers with one or two flights a day I had to submit expense claims with various toiletries purchased several times over, it was questioned by the finance department and they asked about whether I should check in a bag next time, but they stopped pushing when I said that adding a checked bag to my tickets would have been about 10 times more expensive than just buying things as and when I needed them.

Hugely wasteful but then so is flying, and most of my trips could have been replaced with a video call if it wasn't for touchy-feely corporate politics.

Water: I use a generic cycling bidon for travel. I empty it before security and they're happy with that. Any sane airport will have places to refill it for free, if they don't I can just buy a bottle of water and refill it. No airport I've traveled through has wanted to confiscate an empty cycling bidon and if they did it's cheap to replace.

mogoman• 6 months ago

It seems that this is only in place at the security entering the terminal. I landed in Heathrow a few days ago and had to empty out my water bottle (which I got given on the flight to the UK) for the transfer security check.

RamblingCTO• 6 months ago

Frankfurt has been doing that for ages (2 years now?). They just got better scanners. But they don't cover all terminals or checkpoints, so you gotta know your way around.

wiredfool4• 6 months ago

I don't recall it in Frankfurt last summer, but it was definitely going earlier this month. Though, they've got a weird security setup for some of the gates, so I'm sure it varied from gate to gate. Dublin and Edinburgh have had it for a while too, Dublin since last summer. Really speeds up security.

roryirvine• 6 months ago

Yeah, even small airports like Belfast City have had it for the past couple of years. Other London area airports (Luton, City, and Gatwick - not sure about Stansted) have had it for about as long, too.

Heathrow's definitely a straggler - I'm assuming it was a more difficult project for them due to their sheer size.

ivanjermakov• 6 months ago

Wonder what effect it's gonna have on duty free economy. I'm sure selling beverages is the big chunk of airport's revenue.

MikeNotThePope• 6 months ago

Doesn’t duty free shopping typically happen after one goes through security?

sokoloff• 6 months ago

If you confiscate my Diet Coke at security, you have created demand for Diet Coke on the other side of security.

piokoch2• 6 months ago

From the beginning it was a scam to force people to buy 10 times overpriced water. Kudos to Brits that they do away with this absurdity.

Halan3• 6 months ago

How is this news? A lot of airports in Europe had had this for years and even in England there were terminals within the major hubs where this was already the norm

n4r93• 6 months ago

Heathrow is by far the largest airport in the UK, with several times more flights per day than any other, and flights to a broader range of destinations. So it affects a lot more prospective fliers. I looked up European airports and found some mention that Rome and Milan also have this new equipment, but they're both still significantly smaller than Heathrow.

Halan3• 6 months ago

Gatwick already had it too, at least a part of it.

The fact Heathrow got 30/40% more traffic than other airports in the same continent already having it doesn’t make the news worth all this noise.

gpvos• 6 months ago

Schiphol had this for a while (several years I think, I don't fly often), but they reversed it a couple of years ago because European regulators didn't agree for some reason, and now liquids are forbidden again (discussed elsewhere in thread). So this surprises me and is news to me.

lavezzi• 6 months ago

Because Heathrow markets itself as a world class airport and they have been woefully behind the times with regards to updating their security tech

gadders• 6 months ago

I remember the days in the 90's when me and my wife could both carry back 5l containers of the local red wine in our carry on. I hope that comes back...

dxdm4• 6 months ago

The free wine on the planes has gotten better since then. ;p

thomassmith654• 6 months ago

The comments here insinuating that airplane terrorism is a non-issue would make for a good chapter in Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World.

Yes, after 9/11 airports did introduce 'security theater' methods. That is a fair.

No, worrying about airplane terrorism is not pearl-clutching. The most likely explanation for its decline is that the changes the establishment made were effective.

The establishment successfully dealt with the difficult problem of airplane terrorism, thereby leaving the public free to take it for granted and complain about the establishment.

James_K3• 6 months ago

Are we to worry about train terrorism also? Shop terrorism? A person might bring a bomb to any crowded space, it simply is not practical to check all of them.

thomassmith654• 6 months ago

It's difficult to take down a skyscraper with a train.

Yes, 'shop terrorism' can be a problem (see: the UK during the Troubles).

I do agree with the implication that society must tolerate a certain amount of terrorism to avoid turning into a police state. That does not mean that airplane terrorism, without strict security, is so rare that we can ignore it.

alansaber• 6 months ago

Still not allowed to bring in food, but now allowed to bring in unlimited soup? Ridiculous

ExoticPearTree6• 6 months ago

Where were you prohibited from bringing in food?

retired3• 6 months ago

Don't give RyanAir any ideas please.

sdpy• 6 months ago

Many agriculture products are prohibited entry into the United States from certain countries because they may carry plant pests and foreign animal diseases.
Prohibited or restricted items may include meats, fresh fruits and vegetables, plants, seeds, soil and products made from animal or plant materials.

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/agricultur...

bkmeneguello• 6 months ago

There is something I never understood: what if multiple people carry the limit of "explosive/flammable" liquid allowed and combine it inside the plane?

ec1096852• 6 months ago

Defense in depth.

pelagicAustral2• 6 months ago

If you think you had it bad all these years, you should come and visit the Falkland Islands. I will be brief, but I will explain what going through the Mount Pleasant Airport (MPN) feel like for the average visitor.

For added context: Only one flight by a commercial airline a week on Saturday, comes in around 1300, departs around 1500. You miss it, you wait another week.

- The terminal is extremely small, the plane that comes around can probably fit around 180 pax, you could not fit that many people on the check-in lounge, which means a lot of times people have to queue outside, even in the winter.

- Check in is sluggish, with the Airline representatives in the Falklands calling for check in 4 hours in advance when a flight is full.

- After getting your ticket, security will check your bags and you will be asked to wait an undetermined amount of time, to see if a "random" check need to take place, again, the terminal is tiny, people often crowds waiting forever for their name the be shouted by some security person.

- If you manage to get passed this part, you are still not safe, security can still call your name when passing through or after immigration. Even if you are already in the wait lounge. Someone might still show up and shout your name.

- Immigration will scan your passport and charge you £40 for leaving the country.

- Now you are actually commit to the security checkpoint (these are the same guys that scan the bags on check-in). At any given time there is at least 10 in a 5m2 area. You are forced to take your shoes, no liquids are allowed, no toothpaste, take all electronics out of your bag, take jacket off.

- You are randomly tested for drug and explosive traces (GOING OFF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS)

- You may be patted

- All your belongings might be checked at this point as well.

All in all, you could be looking at a 2-hour ordeal from start to finish.

Do yourself a favor. Go to Maldives instead.

secondcoming2• 6 months ago

That's crazy.

NL8073• 6 months ago

Dudes must be really bored there

IshKebab• 6 months ago

Apart from a lack of space a lot of that is very normal, and it's hardly surprising things are a bit janky if they only have one flight a week.

sterwill• 6 months ago

I flew to Belfast in the mid-2000s. I don't remember the security screening as being that unusual (for an American), but the terminal architecture was interesting.

gsck• 6 months ago

Hearing some of these stories of Belfast its hard to believe. Flew out of both Belfast International and Belfast City airports last year and they are by far the best airports I have ever had the luxury of travelling through.

Out of Belfast I flew into both Heathrow and Stanstead both are fucking miserable ordeals.

CGMthrowaway6• 6 months ago

Mount Pleasant Complex is primarily a military base, not a normal civilian airport. That explains almost everything you’re experiencing. Civilian flights are effectively guests on a military base

pelagicAustral2• 6 months ago

MoD flights are managed by the Military on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. They use a larger aircraft where check in can take 10 minutes in the same process described for the Saturday flight. 190 people can easily be processed in about 60 minutes with none of the friction that is added by the private company managing the security.

stirlo• 6 months ago

Tiny airport, on island with tiny population, thats not a major tourist destination, thats subject to competing territorial claims, that had a major war fought over it in living memory, has extra security requirements and a poor terminal...

I'm flabbergasted, this is absolutely shocking and outrageous!!!

I would much rather see the penguins in the maldives!!!

mvijayaadhithya• 6 months ago

Good

kebman3• 6 months ago

Going to Edinburgh Airport, I was reminded that the tiny water bottle I forgot in my bag could be a bomb. I just went "Oh jeez I'm sorry... Here, have some water! You look like you need it!" Then I opened the bottle and drank it. He grabbed it out of my hands and said it had to go to some lab. So I went "Ok then, the chemical compounds in there are ... H2O and perhaps some carbon...? Idk. I'm not a chemist, but I'm fairly sure the worst thing it'll do is make me burp."

Wiles_7• 6 months ago

Thankfully, Edinburgh airport has relaxed it liquid rules. You are now allowed up to 2 litres, across one or more containers and they stay in your bag while going through security.

mgaunard• 6 months ago

In my experience the real issue with airports is the border control, not the security check.

Pete-Codes• 6 months ago

Nice to see them catch up with Edinburgh.

shevy-java2• 6 months ago

That liquid limit never made any real sense to me; it always seemed arbitrary.

Now - I don't think I was ever affected by it in any way, shape or form, though I also rarely use(d) the plane. But to me it seemed more as if it was an attempt to meta-engineer the opinion of people, e. g. to make them fearful of danger xyz. When I look at the current US administration and how the ICE deathsquads operate (two US citizens shot dead already), with that administration instantly defending them without even any trial, then this also seems more a propaganda operation - that one being more reminiscent of the 1930s supposedly, but we had this wave of propaganda before (e. g. both Bush presidents; Noriega capture is somewhat similar to Maduro, though the latter situation seems more as if the other officials in Venezuela purposefully gave him up - watch how the sanctions will be removed in a short while).

mcculley• 6 months ago

it seemed more as if it was an attempt to meta-engineer the opinion of people, e. g. to make them fearful of danger xyz
how the ICE deathsquads operate

Hanlon's Razor applies. These are not complicated conspiracies. Just myopic humans making bad decisions.

bell-cot• 6 months ago

If anyone's looking for a quick "airport security is mostly theater" argument, without getting into the weeds of weapon & explosive & detection technologies - notice that pagers and similar electronics are not on the TSA's list of forbidden items -

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...

- despite their famous use as at-scale, remotely controlled explosives devices back in 2024 -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_electronic_device...

jiffygist• 6 months ago

Stupid question as I never flied: does the limit include drinking water?

gorfian_robot• 6 months ago

Los Alamos is developing these cool resonance based detectors

https://www.lanl.gov/media/publications/1663/1224-fighting-f...

t1234s• 6 months ago

Which companies were the big winners with all the post-9/11 security theater?

CGMthrowaway6• 6 months ago

Booz, L3, Rapiscan, Smiths, Leidos, Verint... their logos are mostly everywhere at the airport

lacoolj• 6 months ago

I have yet to encounter a reason to take more than 3oz of liquid with me on a flight somewhere.

Once the restriction was added, it seemed like "oh no how dare you" but in reality, I'm never carrying enough toothpaste to make this a problem.

Are other people truly struggling with this limitation? Feels more like a perceived issue than a practical one.

teachrdan• 6 months ago

In the US at least, the limit applies to containers that hold more than 3oz. So I'm prohibited from bringing an 8oz toothpaste tube with an ounce or less left in it. This is an inconvenience if I want to fly for a multi-day trip without checking any baggage.

fishywang• 6 months ago

I was flying out of LHR yesterday (Monday). I read the news before so asked the agent at security check "I don't need to empty my water bottle now right?" and she was like "nah that's only for up to 2 litres in a clear/plastic bottle, not a metal flask bottle" or something along those lines. I was using a Stanley metal water bottle. So I still had to empty my bottle.

telliott1984• 6 months ago

Sad to see no mention of Manchester airport in this. Seems like they flag every third bag for manual screening.

Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

Related Stories