gregjohn wrote:

> I've seen a specific security measure, like, "Your FOO is going to be thoroughly
> examined and you may only possess items measured less than BAR."  So everyone is
> greatly inconvenienced with their FOO's and measuring things less than BAR.
> This is maddening to me because crazy bad guys could still create mischief with
> their non-FOO and with something of size less than BAR.  Given the possibility,
> I believe it is a cynical  response-- motivated not by security of the
> passengers but to avoid lawsuits-- to have the current level of inconveniences.
> So, in this analysis, security measures are nowhere near tough enough.

Ah yes, nobody is allowed more than 100 ml of liquid.

Becuase, you know, there's just no way that 100 ml of explosives could 
possibly cause a devastating explosion. Or release a deadly nerve gas 
and kill everyone on board. And there's no way that three suicide 
bombers could all get on the same plane, each carrying 100 ml, together 
making 300 ml in total. Or, for that matter, there's no way you could 
hide more than 100 ml of liquid about your person without somebody noticing.

Oh, wait... I think my brain just switched back on.

> I'm wondering what security measures would be in place after a century of
> dealing with the bad guys pushing of the envelope.

I'm wondering why they don't put humans through the X-ray machine. I'm 
guessing because then anybody who does a lot of travelling is going to 
start receiving dangerous amounts of X-ray exposure over time... So 
maybe we just need to invent a scanning technology that's less harmful.

Oh, wait. We already have several. Ultrasound, NMR, PET and so on. So 
I'm guessing it's just too expensive or impractical. (Ultrasound 
apparently requires close contact with the item to be scanned, or else 
the item must be immersed in liquid. Neither is especially practical.)

Then again, for any given scanning technology, there is probably 
something that's invisible to it. Ultrasound sees only changes in 
density. X-rays can't see liquids, only dense solids. And so on.

The again, maybe we're looking at this all wrong. I mean, why the 
obsession with airport security? Currently, anybody who feels like it 
can nip down to their local friendly chemist, buy a few chemicals, mix 
'em together, walk down the street to their location of choice and set 
off a devastating explosion. And nobody will stop them. Indeed, it seems 
utterly implausible that it's even physically *possible* to detect that 
somebody is about to do this and try to stop them. They could be 
anybody, anywhere, any day or night.

Then again, how many people actually do this? Not that many.

Interesting perspective: Road traffic accidents kill ten people PER DAY 
in the UK, apparently. And yet I don't see anybody freaking out and 
saying we need tougher controls on the roads...

Post a reply to this message