Plot to blow up transatlantic flights foiled

[ssampier]

If anyone does want to discuss the politics side, ENW's sister site, Circvs Maximvs has a couple of threads currently active. The main one is here: http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/showthread.php?t=7475

Please note that different rules apply over there - specifically, there is no "grandma-friendly" standard, and discussion of politics and religion is allowed. Think of it as having a vigorous debate in your local pub, and you won't go far wrong.

Cheers,
Liam

Thanks for that. I joined when it still called Nut Test. I haven't posted over there yet, though.

 

[ssampier]

Didn't they recently change screening rules just now? I thought I read something about that. Lip balm and lip stick was okay, but everyone must take their shoes off (gel insoles are out, too).

Beverages I still think is the biggest deal.

 

[dragonhead]

you cant have deodernt or toothpaste either. beter take a shower and brush your teeth before you get on the plane, otherwise the plane will be smellin funky

 

[Ranger REG]

you cant have deodernt or toothpaste either. beter take a shower and brush your teeth before you get on the plane, otherwise the plane will be smellin funky

I pity the traveler who has a 12-hour flight plan with many stops in-between but can't get to his hygiene products because they're locked up in their checked-in luggage.

Now would be a good time to build a second-generation supersonic airliner that can fly over land without making loud sonic booms.

 

[Nyaricus]

In Canada here they are banning everything - toothpaste, hairgel, cosmetics, etc. All liquids, esentually. The only thing you are allowed is baby forumla and perscription medicine

It's pretty crazy, but it's necessary - these people will try anything to terrorise you, which is too bad. Yet again the actions of a few affect all.

 

[Zander]

Damn, they're getting resourceful. My initial thought was, "Did they kidnapped and tortured MacGyver for his trade secret?"

They've used liquid explosives disguised as contact lense fluid with makeshift electronics before in airline terrorism. Here's a link.

 

[jaerdaph]

They've used liquid explosives disguised as contact lense fluid with makeshift electronics before in airline terrorism. Here's a link.

Exactly - terrorists plotting to use liquid explosives to take down an airplane isn't exactly a new revelation. The real question is, where was the concern before last week, and why hasn't equipment to detect liquid explosives (a technology which iexists and is supposedly extremely reliable) been installed in airports?

I'll leave that as a rhetorical question because I don't want to cross the no politics/no religion line.

Anyhow, I'm glad this was stopped and nobody was killed. Hats off to Britain and Pakistan for averting this!

 

[Sidekick]

Hmm I'm glad it got stopped as well. Qudo's for the British and Pakistani Secret Service.

As for living in Britain and terrorism being yet another risk, I'll admit I did constier the possiblility before I moved here. I made a conscious decision to take that risk when I came here. But as you say, its a pretty small risk, thankfully.

You can't even take on breast milk for babies unless you taste it infront of security staff. So it really is EVERY liquid and also Gel. As well as electronic devices, one plan got turned around from England (headed to the US) because a cell phone was found on board - probably just some muppet cleaner dropping it and no-one finding it or something. Still better safe that sorry.

Apparently the British Government have lifted the immediate secrutiy procedures, but BAA are keeping them in for at least another couple of days.

There's been rumors about keeping the 'no-hand luggage' rule in on the long-term, which while it makes sence will severely piss me off. I've got a flight from Heathrow to NZ in Januarym all up its 26 hours on plane or in a flight lounge in San Fran, no toothpaste, shower-in-a-can, books, water etc will make that areather uncomfortable flight for sure.

Also as I understand it airports CAN detect liquid explosives, just not the machines that do hand-luggage. That tech is on the main luggage scanners, so it could be rolled out. Don't they have the chemical swabs in the US? I remember having my baggage checked for chemicals when I was there late Nov '04.

Stopping Terrorism? Le'ts put this in an academic criminological point of view - these are in essence Situational Crime Prevention strategies.

The essential plroblem with ALL situational crime prevention tools and efforts is that they very rarely dimish the number of crimes being carried out. They simply move them somewhere else, or the criminal modifies their MO to do something else in the same space.

Eg - CCTV, all CCTV does is discourage peple from committing crime in that specific location. So either you (as a criminal) a) go somewhere else) or b switch crimes to make ti worth your while (say move from purse snatching to ram-raiding the ATM).

Situational crime prevention merely seeks to make the risk greater than the reward, while anyone can see that so long as the reward/end goal is significant enough, any risks can be overcome with careful planning.

That follks is the core flaw in Situational Crime Prevention techniques.

[EDIT] I re-did this out outline the point, while also keeping it politics and religion free. if you think I didn't go far enough PM me or post a reply for me to remove this last section and I'll be happy to[/edit]

 

[Umbran]

Exactly - terrorists plotting to use liquid explosives to take down an airplane isn't exactly a new revelation. The real question is, where was the concern before last week, and why hasn't equipment to detect liquid explosives (a technology which iexists and is supposedly extremely reliable) been installed in airports?

I'll leave that as a rhetorical question because I don't want to cross the no politics/no religion line.

I can address this as a purely technical matter - one can detect finished explosives. But if the plan is to mix them on board, you have a much more difficult problem - the raw materials are extremely common. Some poor guy who works in a chem lab, or even a simple janitor, will tend to set off such detectors. If there are too many false positive results, the system is useless.

 

[Jdvn1]

why hasn't equipment to detect liquid explosives (a technology which iexists and is supposedly extremely reliable) been installed in airports?

I didn't know that technology existed. You're telling me that a terrorist with a liquid-explosive-filled walkman (why not?) can just walk onto a plane, but I can't try to avoid dehydration--this, because airlines aren't using current technology to detect liquid explosives, which they should have been using for at least ten years?



And, um, how are the terrorists being averted? It can't be that tough to conceal liquid.

EDIT: According to Umbran, they can't detect the raw materials--and that makes sense. Though, the question still stands.