Just to clarify - the post was written by Blue Lily - NOT Echidne.

Not that the goddess doesn't deserve our praise anyhow.

What exactly is ridiculous about this?

We're devoting an absurd amount of resources making sure that noone is carrying around shampoo, when, instead, we could be devoting said resources to doing the good old policework that discovered the plot in the first place.

Anyway, it's not like the terrorists are going to use liquid explosives now

"Anyway, it's not like the terrorists are going to use liquid explosives now." - bittergradstudent

This is only true if they screen for it.

noname:

Well, for starters, it doesn't help much. If you want to take down an airplane mid-flight with this technique, simply stack the two binary components together under pressure separated only by a dissolving membrane, and then stick much more of it concealed in the checked baggage than you could possibly fit in a carry-on. If the airports don't have sensors to detect the individual components or intelligence to detect the individual actors, they're screwed whether or not they prohibit carry-ons.

That aside, though, this is the "We'll stop terrorists from blowing up the plane by making the plane too inconvenient to use" technique. Disabled? Can't fly. Require medication that a minimum-wage guard doesn't understand? Can't fly. Carrying fragile equipment that cannot be checked (think: pretty much all musicians and photographers)? Can't fly. A new mother? Will be humiliated if you fly. Get bored easily? Will be driven out of your skull if you fly.

As an incredibly short-term measure, because you're terrified you might have missed something, and you feel the only alternative is to shut down all flights completely, okay, maybe. I'm still not convinced it's particularly likely to catch a terrorist, but I can at least see the reasoning.

The current fear is that these restrictions will be kept up for quite some time, though -- and although the "... then the terrorists will have won!" meme has been kind of done to death, this is a case where the damage to flight as a means of travel is so severe that it really will be a major victory. Killing the travel industry won't even require proper suicide bombers anymore -- it just requires people willing to get caught theoretically preparing a bomb, and you get much of the same effect. It's only redeeming feature is that it's not *quite* as bad as giving up on air travel completely -- but I doubt it will be sustainable with just the remaining people willing to fly under those conditions.

I know I certainly won't be flying to the UK anytime soon.

Zed - So because we can't protect against all threats, we shouldn't bother to protect against any?

These measures are here to protect the airlines, not hurt them. If your average Joe hears about this latest threat and does not think it has been addressed, he will not fly. If he hears that he will have to pack his shampoo and wait in line at the airport, he probably will.

noname:

All security is based upon a effectiveness/cost model, and you don't implement the security restrictions where the cost is very large with respect to the effectiveness (for instance, we could provide 100% protection against airplanes being blown up mid-flight by simply never letting the planes take off, but the costs of this are simply too high). The model for the current restrictions is very, very poor. The odds that it will stop the attack that it's trying to stop are close to zero, and the costs are very high, basically only one short stop below grounding the plane completely.

If the average Joe hears that not only will he have to pack his shampoo, but he can't bring a book or an audio player or a drink or his medicine that he might die without, I think he'll be a lot less more reluctant to fly than because he hasn't heard that the airport staff is overreacting.

And for that matter, why do people assume that a failure to do something absurd equates to "not addressing" security issues? Frankly, when I see something like this, I become substantially less confident in the security measures because it's the kind of thing people do when they're flailing about randomly and don't know how to solve the problem.

In any case, the current restrictions are exactly equivalent to shutting down all flights that I can take, as I travel with items that cannot be placed in checked baggage. Even if that weren't the case, I'm uninclined to travel if I can't even bring a PDA with my travel notes, music, and a few books. This isn't a matter of "packing your shampoo". Flying is already unpleasant. Making it horridly unpleasant is going to convince me that it's better not to travel.

I suspect a very large number of people will think the same way.

"Flying is already unpleasant. Making it horridly unpleasant is going to convince me that it's better not to travel.

I suspect a very large number of people will think the same way."

Good. I'm sick of people complaining how inconvenienced they are by airline security measures. If you don't like them, take a bus, and quit annoying the rest of us who want to travel safely.

These measures have nothing to do with travel safety, and everythign to do with creating a false sense of security amongst travelers.

Alternately, if the reduced demand makes it possible for me to fly to London for $300, then whatever. It's not like people in my price class are already not having do deal with infinite troubles while traveling

RM:

You may find your stance inconvenient when the lack of travellers causes airlines to either fold or drastically increase their prices. It's not economical to make an intercontinental flight with only a few people aboard.

In any case, however, you have missed the point that you aren't really any safer with extreme measures than without.

"Good. I'm sick of people complaining how inconvenienced they are by airline security measures. If you don't like them, take a bus, and quit annoying the rest of us who want to travel safely."

Perhaps there is a solution to make both parties happy? I propose that the current bans should be lifted, that we focus on intelligence and better training of security staff, and that we create a special airline for people who want the new restrictive measures: CSA, or Cavity Search Airlines. With no liquids of any kind, special "freedom" scrubs issued at the check-in counter, all street clothes checked with baggage, and all passengers screened by a team of medical experts, this airline will be 100% safe, Right?

The rest of us can bring some bottled water, our medication or necessary equipment, and a good book.

Wow, Raging Moderate, that's brilliant. Disabled people who find planes difficult to access should use buses. It's not like the terrorists have ever thought of attacking public transportation.

Technically, Zed, they could let the planes fly if we weren't allowed to carry anything, and forced to change into paper robes and slippers at the airport. Then they'd be SURE no one was carrying anything untoward. (In this scenario, nothing gets put on the plane by the people who load and service it, of course.)

Flying 14 hours with a small child who insists on taking blankie everywhere? Fuck you. Prone to low blood sugar and allergies but don't actually have diabetes, so you want to bring your special juice? Fuck you. Have an extremely heavy period and need to change your tampon every two hours but can't prove you need that many? Fuck you. Sensitive to the sun and landing in a hot place where you get off the plane on the tarmac and want your sunscreen? Fuck you. Unable to drink anything but water and terrified by reports that airplane water is often stale and contaminated? Fuck you.

Oh, and don't whine about how inconvenienced you were when you couldn't attend your daughter's wedding/go to your business meeting/visit your dying mother in the hospital/anything else important that you can't really avoid. Everyone else wants to feel SAFE. From the 14 year old who's really picky about his juice.

prairielily:

Technically, Zed, they could let the planes fly if we weren't allowed to carry anything, and forced to change into paper robes and slippers at the airport.

Ah, yes, excuse me. I suppose that would reduce the passenger population still further without completely shutting it down, so I guess there are a few steps in between. If you're going to go that far, though, go all the way and make the passengers strip naked. Maybe we can turn airport security into a means of banishing the pervasive fear of the sight of the human body.

I was idly speculating a little while ago about whether or not it would be better to simply allow passengers to bring whatever carry-ons they wanted, but simply sedate them all into unconsciousness and revive them at arrival. It'd actually make flying more pleasant. Sure, you'd still end up with some dead allergic folks, but hey, the current rules aren't really friendly to medical needs anyway.

So I fly a lot, and I'm kind of suprised at some of the reactions here.

I think we all know that flying will never be 100% safe, nor will it ever be 100% convenient.

You can always come up with an "I needed to visit my disabled dying mother in the hospital but I'm allergic to everything and I go crazy without my iPod" sob story. You know what? The story is true and the person IS DESERVING OF SYMPATHY. That totally sucks, and I hope it never happens to you.

However, terrorism sucks more. And as furious as I get when, say, people with disabilities are inconvenienced (and trust me, I get pissed), I'm still in favor of increasing security regulations when the government sees fit. It's not that I have perfect faith in the US government or any other; it's that you have to start somewhere. Also, they have access to information that I don't.

Sun sensitive? I feel for you. You do need need your sunscreen, and it is a serious medical issue (i.e., skin cancer survivors). But I was here in NY during 9/11, and I'd just as soon not go through all of that again. If denying you your sunscreen is going to help that... sorry, but my vote is going anti-sunscreen here.

I now this sounds mean, but this foiled terror plot will jar anyone from thinking his isn't a constant threat. I would rather go through all the check-outs rather than feel I am endangering someone elses safe flight. The attitudes of many whick feel this is an inconvenience is ,like saying this terror threat is an inconvenience. It isn't the checks, it's the war. I wonder when Americans are going to remember were at war? We havn't even closed the borders? In 1993 some of the World Trade bombers came over illegally south of the border. It is good to be keeping everyone safe, but we have to remember where these threats come from, and secure them so the burden is not solely put on the citizens shoulders. After going through all those security measures, wouldn't you want to make sure the government was truly trying to stop terrorism as much as their doing on these flights?

As far as the thwarted terror plot it also highlites some of Europe's problems with their muslims. It is no wonder that one of the subway bombers was a third generation English person. They have problems now with the internet, these young muslims log onto these sites and feed into hating the west. One of the hijackers on the thwarted plot was a jamaican convert to Islam. From the muslim riots in France, to these Islamic terrorists I think Europe could cut down on alot of their problems by cutting down on arab immigration. They do not assimilate, and that offers more problems in this age of terror. There are now places in Switzerland and elsewhere around europe were Europeans can't go because these areas are enclaves where extremist muslims and violence reigns. The Swiss citizens do not walk there. That is their culture and they cannot walk to certain areas in their own land.

DT, freewmn:

The problem is that this kind of restriction basically doesn't help. It's bad security designed to deceive people like you into continuing to fly. Anyone sophisticated enough to set up a complicated plan around binary explosives is not going to be thwarted by a lack of carryons. Barring bottled water would not have stopped 9/11, and in fact, 9/11 cannot now be repeated even if you allowed box cutters because it relied on the willingness of pilots and passengers to cooperate, something that will never again be the case. (Not that I'm advocating allowing box cutters as a general principle, mind you.)

Keep in mind, I'm not opposed to good security measures (i.e. ones that have a decent cost/benefit analysis). X-ray machines? Great idea! Metal detectors? Well, they're getting a little long in the tooth, what with modern composites being available, but still a good idea! Chemical sensors? Great idea!

Not allowing family and friends into the pre-boarding area? The result of this has been a larger number of completely unscanned people in densely packed concourses outside of the security screen, waiting until the last possible moment to get screened to squeeze in as much time as possible together. I'm not sure who thought having larger numbers of unscreened people in airports was a good idea. It doesn't have any real effect on the chances of someone boarding a plane with someone else's ticket.

Soldiers with fully automatic weapons, all the way up to the gates? Ah, yes, for that remarkably common "an entire armed contingent of terrorists storms the airlines with heavy weapons" scenario. I'm mostly relieved that we got through that period without having one of them overreact and shoot an innocent in the back, though an armed air marshall did exactly that some time later.

No carryons at all? Okay, now who are you kidding.

If you ever start thinking on cost/benefit terms, you might want to ask yourself this question: how many more people will die every year in traffic accidents if they are driven away from aircraft by extreme security measures than would die if those measures weren't taken?

Annual automobile deaths are approximately 42,000 per year in the U.S., in case you needed to know the number. The flu kills 20,000. Minus the now unreproducible effect of 9/11, average fatalities from commercial airlines is about 120 per year.

At some point, your own security people become more lethal than terrorists.

"You may find your stance inconvenient when the lack of travellers causes airlines to either fold or drastically increase their prices."

I'd pay extra if it would reduce the amount of whining.

"We're devoting an absurd amount of resources making sure that noone is carrying around shampoo, when, instead, we could be devoting said resources to doing the good old policework that discovered the plot in the first place."

Why can't we do both?

"The rest of us can bring some bottled water, our medication or necessary equipment, and a good book."

Sure, but good luck on getting a pilot to fly a plane that has no security screening.

"I would rather go through all the check-outs rather than feel I am endangering someone elses safe flight."

Me too. But unfortunately, many people are more concerned with being inconvenienced than with the safety of the other passengers (mainly an American attribute, it seems - you don't see Israelis complaining about the rigorous security on El Al flights - in fact they demand it).

"but I doubt it will be sustainable with just the remaining people willing to fly under those conditions.

I know I certainly won't be flying to the UK anytime soon."

"The problem is that this kind of restriction basically doesn't help. It's bad security designed to deceive people like you into continuing to fly."

In the first quote, you say these new measures will cause people to stop flying.

In the second quote, you say these measures are useless, but will encourage people to keep flying.

Which is it?

Is there anyone here who will not fly because of these new security measures?

Not allowing bottled water may thwart amatuer terrorists (remember the shoe bomber?) I agree airports need to organize a more lucid plan of prevention, this is what we've got, and it doesn't look like it's going away anytime soon. I agree, there are many overlooked areas of concern. I think the model for preventative security will go something like this: potential passengers who want to board the plane will have to forgo their medications, bottled water, ect on-flight until they can think of something better- such as new screening technology, strategys, and new measures that will be more efficient. I think our government needs to establish more control over security in this country. There are sooo many ways they can take us down......

Zed - Your wrote, "The problem is that this kind of restriction basically doesn't help."

While I have no way of knowing your credentials, I suspect that you don't really know this. I certainly don't know whether or not it helps, but I have to hope that those in charge HAVE carried out a cost benefit analysis and made decisions accordingly (if I'm wrong and you are an expert in the field, I apologize. You never know).

El Al no longer trusts American security to screen passengers for them. I flew El Al recently, and the security was much tighter than typical American stuff. On the other hand, a friend of mine who didn't fit the profile of a typical traveler to Israel was detained for hours. She did not resent this, but some of her fellow travellers did.

I agree that some of the security measures are only there to calm and placate the masses. But in general, I do not consider myself qualified to determine which are which.

I was watching the news and saw all this footage of people pouring their bottled water and contact solution into these large bins before boarding the plane--and I thought to myself, if any of those liquids were potentially explosive, why are they just pouring them into bins? Even though the plot mentioned that the terrorists planned to mix chemicals--and also mentioned nitroglycerin, which explodes if handled roughly; there they are, just dumping them into bins in front of all those innocent people.

Hmmmm....

RM:

Why can't we do both?

Sure, but good luck on getting a pilot to fly a plane that has no security screening.

(I notice that you keep skipping the point that banning books doesn't actually improve the security any, as well.)

you don't see Israelis complaining about the rigorous security on El Al flights - in fact they demand it

In the second quote, you say these measures are useless, but will encourage people to keep flying.

Is there anyone here who will not fly because of these new security measures?

If this is the shape of the future, the terrorists did win. They have destroyed commercial air flights as a viable means of transportation for many people.

My guess, though, is that this will work out roughly the same way as most of the 9/11 security "improvements". After a little while, saner heads will prevail, admit at least privately that it's bad security policy, and quietly roll it back.

Crap, I mean, what ARE people with nasal meds going to do? Not having these with you (even if you don't need them for the duration of the flight) could cause a serious anxiety attack.

And please! AS IF one of these terrorists isn't going to just swallow the nitro in a heroin balloon.

Dumb question here: exactly what do they use to screen checked bags' liquids? How about just bringing that technology aboveground? Or, installing x-ray machines that will reveal said balloons (like Terminator).

Wow. how excited am I that on Sept 4th I'm flying to London for my honeymoon? -_-

To all the ney-sayers out there:
Did you notice that the British caught these guys before they blew anything up and without banning carry ons or liquids? Stopping terrorism doesn't mean you have to be over the top with restrictions. I guess it makes sense to stop liquids right now because maybe the Brits missed a few of these guys, but in the long run it makes no sense to continue such ridiculous restrictions. Think about flying from DC to Shanghi or Sydney. Those flights are as much as 24 hours long... no book and no meds? This might last long enough for someone to die on a plane because they couldn't have something they need, but I hope they come to their senses long before that.

"Incidentally, I hope you're in support of completely banning cigarettes, as that's a significantly less inconvenient loss than air travel that would save over 400,000 lives and billions of dollars every year."

I don't support banning self-destructive behavior. But I'd be willing to put the cash used in the war on drugs into security.

"We could use the money to come up with some real security, say like the part where the British actually detected and arrested the plotters."

Aren't some of the people who detected the plot the same ones proposing the new restrictions? They seem to think that both are part of "real security".

"(I notice that you keep skipping the point that banning books doesn't actually improve the security any, as well.)"

I'll give ya that one. What is their reasoning behind it, anyway?

"Yes. Generally, when I travel I need to bring both my camera (that cannot be safely placed in checked luggage) and my allergy medication, including a one-shot epi-pen that cannot be "tested" on me."

All I've heard says that medications are exempt from the ban, but must be presented for inspection. Where have you heard that medication must be "tested"?

As for the camera, aren't there protective cases made for them (like for musical instruments) that can protect them when checked? Perhaps your employer would pay for it if you need the camera for your job.

"If this is the shape of the future, the terrorists did win."

I'll agree that right now they are winning. But I think that recent developments in the middle east may be the turning point.

"After a little while, saner heads will prevail, admit at least privately that it's bad security policy, and quietly roll it back."

I agree. Eventually they will come up with the technology (or the money to implement it) and the restrictions will be relaxed. We just have to be patient.

What we need is for the US to

a) Increase the salary and training of security personnel

b) Make the security rules clear and enforceable. Right now there are too many grey areas (take your shoes off or not? find a lighter or not), which means the rules aren't enforced uniformly, which means they're not enforced consistently.

c) Stop pandering to public demand for security measures and actually take a thoughtful look at what does and does not pose a threat to security. Right now, I can't bring a lighter on board, but I can bring seven packs of matches. Oh yes, that is logical.

Jane:

You've just struck on the problem -- the checked bags aren't screenable, either.

One of the officials let it be known that the explosive in question has a peroxide base, is easy to make and is difficult to detect, which means that it's very likely a new form of acetone peroxide (which is normally crystalline/powderish and highly friction-sensitive -- I'll speculate that if it's being found in liquid form, someone is trying to stabilize it as an undried slurry, possibly with smokeless powder or some variant). This would probably make it require a detonator of some nature, which is why there is speculation about a binary nature.

A means for screening for acetone peroxide was invented in Israel only in January of last year, which means that there are very few places with equipment to do so. The problem with the current security change is that it protects against one very specific attack model: that terrorists have come up with an explosive that *must* be hand-detonated. If there is any way of putting even an incredibly inaccurate timer on it and sticking it in the luggage, all of the restrictions on carry-ons won't help.

DT:

As far as my credentials are concerned, I've had some formal training on explosives, but am not a certified demolitionist. I've had jobs where I've been responsible for building security, data security, and both physical forensics (informally, assisting only) and data forensics (formally, my responsibility), but not any form of airport security. Make of my credibility from that what you will. I guess you could say that I'm basing my statements on training in fields I think are close enough.

There is of course the possibility that I'm blowing smoke due to a fundamental ignorance of something essential, or that in fact that the authorities involved do have specific intelligence leading them to believe that it's impossible for whatever it is they've found to be automatically detonated, or that they DO have Israel's PET device in a form that allows scanning only of checked bags but not carry-ons (and I did admit above that as a very short-term safety catch, I can at least see the possibility), and I suppose I should be more willing to grant the benefit of the doubt in the longer case, but remarkable stupidity in other government security proposals has left me with a very unforgiving view.

In the longer case, though, it's really not the point whether it's really required -- if we've reached the point where we do have to exclude a substantial portion of the population from commercial air travel because we can't stop the terrorists any other way, we're losing.

So I'm hoping it's a short-term thing.

RM:

All I've heard says that medications are exempt from the ban, but must be presented for inspection. Where have you heard that medication must be "tested"?

As for the camera, aren't there protective cases made for them (like for musical instruments) that can protect them when checked?

Lenses are even more delicate. It almost doesn't matter what you pack them in -- if someone hurls them into a storage bay with enough force to jostle them hard, they could lose focus calibration, and be mostly useless until you can get them to a shop. (Manual focusing would still be possible, but it's very time consuming, can't be done for many shots, and the focusing screen on my camera isn't really suited for it, though I could get it swapped out.)

"The BBC article noted that all medicines in liquid form had to be verified, and I've seen verification generally been interpreted as usage (mothers drinking breast milk, so on)."

The BBC article only says that baby food or milk must be tasted by the accompanying passenger.

Could you point me to a link stating medication must be used or tested, and not just inspected or verivied?

As for the camera, that sucks. I guess that there won't be many photographers flying to the UK for a while (maybe indefinitely - there are rumors that the UK restriction may become permanent). On the bright side, there might be a revival of the cross-Atlantic passenger cruise industry.

RM:

I've been interpreting "verified" as "tested", since I don't see any other way of verifying that a chemical in a container is what the label says. If that's not the case, that would make life much easier for me personally, though of course it doesn't help those with other issues requiring larger liquids (blood sugar issues not quite reaching diabetes, medication that causes extreme dry mouth, etc.)

And then hope nobody gets the bright idea of packing explosives into medicine containers.

Incidentally, I read on Crooked Timber that some of these restrictions are in place on U.S. to Canada flights as well. Does anyone know whether U.S. domestic flights are also a problem?

"On the bright side, there might be a revival of the cross-Atlantic passenger cruise industry."

That would be cool, but I doubt it'll happen--Americans usually get only 2 weeks of vacation, so at least on this side of the ocean we can't afford to spend the time on a cruise ship unless we don't actually want to go to a particular destination.

A friend of mine made the point that as far as she's aware, airport economies are now dependent on passengers' abilities to carry items on planes. All the shops that sell you stuff once you get past security--overpriced bottles of water, books, newspapers, duty-free liquor--and that if they don't fine-tune the screening, revenue losses will be so big as to screw up the airport's profit margins. That, she believes, and who am I to argue, is probably the best indicator that these strictures are going to be temporary.

A minor point is that a fair number of medications, including my asthma inhalers, come with the prescription sticker on the box, not on the inhaler itself, and is discarded with the box. Hmm. I suppose if I find myself flying in the next few months I'll have to go get a new inhaler.

I don't know if this applies only to outgoing flights or also to incoming ones, but I flew into the US a week ago and wasn't subjected to any of this crap. I know that my mom and sister, who came along, will be flying back in a few days (I'm staying for at least the next couple of years), so I'll be able to ask them if they got hit with this abuse.

Zed: you seem to have a bit of expertise in this area. I also get the impression that there's still not a whole lot we can do about swallowing balloons.

Further questions (to you or anyone):

1. From a security standpoint, what is the "ultimate" checkpoint scenario? Please include the process by which you would check, and any technology that is currently on the market, or in development. Don't worry about "inconveniencing" anyone.

2. What's the deal with these assholes? Do they relocate to places they hate deliberately, or are they more likely to convert in spite of the location? Whatever happened to "if you don't love it, leave it?" Wouldn't they be much happier in a third world sewer, since they despise any sort of happiness? Better yet, why don't we just ship them off to an island with Fred Phelps and his congregation, along with every other religious lunatic? They can then proceed to kill each other while arguing whose god is mightier.

Reasoning with religious fundamentalists is like reasoning with animals...

Also, as far as this "crystalline/powderish" substance, does this soon mean no more eye shadow or translucent glow powder? Are we going to have to trust that the passenger is a Middle Eastern drag queen?

All joking aside, it's clear that, along with the online porn industry, this area will always be ahead of its time. Wouldn't it be better to put more focus on the people (though I guess that isn't foolproof, given our administration's tendency to single out Catholic missionaries and liberal activists)?

What's the deal with these assholes? Do they relocate to places they hate deliberately, or are they more likely to convert in spite of the location?

It's mostly the latter... If France breeds Islamism with its turning a blind eye to racism, Britain does by doing the exact opposite thing: recognizing ethnic and religious groups so extensively that it imposes an identity on people, many of whom came to Britain in order to flee that sort of fundamentalism in the first place.

All joking aside, it's clear that, along with the online porn industry, this area will always be ahead of its time.

Maybe the solution to this is to minimize the impact of an airline bombing/hijacking - for example, by making it harder for a bomb to blow up the entire plane.

Jane Minty:

Ick. While I'm cheerfully arrogant enough to bang my head about measures that don't look reasonable, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not competent to design a new system. I can list a few of the most obvious improvements, assuming unlimited funds.

Technologically, get the peroxide detectors in everywhere, and go from metal detectors to ultra-high-frequency radio wave scanners. Merge this tech in with the X-ray scanners as well for luggage, though it may not work quite as well with thick cases. The downside is that there are massive privacy concerns -- these things will basically map your naked flesh contours straight through your clothing, so you have to make sure that images can't be stored and re-used and separate scanning lines by gender, with appropriately gendered guards.

Socially, we need much improved training. I've been given to understand that the TSA gets tested on detecting only three specific items that are always the same for any test, so the training tends to focus on how to recognize those particular things no matter what, and penalizes people with a more general ability to spot real threats. Also, at least a cursory scan of photo ID should be done at the gate itself. It's really trivial currently to board with a ticket that isn't even in your own name, which bothers me.

Israel, much as I hate to say it, actually has one basic idea right with the way they handle security -- they don't rely so much on the tech and put trained ex-military interrogators out there asking travelers questions and looking for inconsistencies. This gives you maximum opportunity for real judgement to come into play. Unfortunately, this also requires the most investment of training and it leads to abuses. I have no idea if it's possible to rely on this strategy without those abuses, or if it would scale up to a much larger population.

Generally, you don't want to be stopping things that late, though. Britain had supposedly been investigating these people quite some time in coordination with Pakistan, and that's really where the security needs to happen -- at the good old-fashioned police investigative level long before it reaches the airport.

As to the question on religion, I must admit that I am becoming less and less tolerant of the religious as time goes by, but it's important to remember a few things: first, very little evidence has actually been disclosed, and these people are innocent until proven guilty. It wouldn't be the first time that Britain (or the U.S. for that matter) has picked up the wrong people or had bad intelligence. Second, even if guilty, they're not representative of Pakistanis or Muslims in general. Third, even if it's Al Quaeda, it may be driven less by the religious beliefs than the political at this point.

A note on musicians:

I've just spotted a BBC article noting that the new restrictions have forced many professional musicians -- including what appears to be the bulk of the entire Bolshoi Theatre -- to abandon air travel out of the region completely. I suspect that if the restrictions are not eased, the Bolshoi may never play in Britain again.

Other musicians are chiming in in the comments.

Raging Moderate:

Good. I'm sick of people complaining how inconvenienced they are by airline security measures. If you don't like them, take a bus, and quit annoying the rest of us who want to travel safely.

My father is a insulin-dependent diabetic. This is not an inconvenience for him. This is a ban on flying for him. If he cannot take his insulin on board, he may *die*. He also needs to take fruit juice should he get hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). Again, if he cannot do so and gets a hypoglycemic attack, he may die. I find your statement to be quite arrogant and insensitive to people with disabilities.

Is there anyone here who will not fly because of these new security measures?

Yes - me, and my parents.

Zed, your suggestions sound totally reasonable. I think if people are upset over the fact that their flesh will be mapped, they need to get over themselves. Also, I've been flying Delta for a long time, and they always seem to check IDs at the gate. While my recent first experience with Jet Blue (a week ago) was very pleasant, they neither checked my ID as I stepped through the scanner, nor when I boarded the plane. Ugh.

I recall the airport by Rome also had a heavy military presence, which made me feel pretty safe. Plus, it didn't hurt they were amazingly handsome fellas!

Oh, and I know they don't represent Muslims in general...it's just difficult not to become extremely frustrated with dangerous fringe elements. That's why I slipped the "God Hates Fags" Church into a previous comment; hell, why don't you throw in a few Earth Liberation Fronters? ;)

Jane:

Uh, maybe I should be a little bit more specific: this device will trivially generate an accurate, if somewhat undetailed, nude image of you even if you pass in front of the sensor fully clothed. Whether or not people should feel upset over having a naked picture of themselves made and shown to whoever is working the scanner (and thus potentially also recorded for distribution later), a great many people will be.

One more security suggestion, based on breaking news.

Please don't cut the budget for explosives detection research.

*sigh*

Zed, this article truly gives me a headache, not to mention a sick feeling in my stomach.

I was watching CNN with my mom, and there were these hot Middle Eastern guys denying their friends had anything to do with the plot. I then heard something about (paraphrasing) "their mothers urged them to follow this sect, and they grew breards." I then shook my head and said to my mom, "It starts with the mothers, then the facial hair..!"

It goes without saying the guys in question had English accents, hence the the special hotness factor. ;)

Rachel:

"If he cannot take his insulin on board, he may *die*."

Medications are exempt from the ban on liquids.

"He also needs to take fruit juice should he get hypoglycemia (low blood sugar)."

I have not heard that there was a total ban on liquids on planes, just that passengers may not bring their own liquids on board. I'm sure your father would be able to have a fruit juice on the plane, just not one he brought himself.

Alon:

"I know that my mom and sister, who came along, will be flying back in a few days (I'm staying for at least the next couple of years), so I'll be able to ask them if they got hit with this abuse."

What part of these new restrictions do you find abusive (instead of just annoying or inconvenient)?

I have not heard that there was a total ban on liquids on planes, just that passengers may not bring their own liquids on board. I'm sure your father would be able to have a fruit juice on the plane, just not one he brought himself.

Actually, it's a bit problematic. Apparently, planes aren't allowed to distribute any drinks but water until they take off, due to some stupid customs regulation. The last time I flew from the US to Europe, the plane got delayed on the ground for about two hours, and one of the people sitting next to me almost fainted because she couldn't get any sugared drinks.

Bottles test positive for explosives residue

Explosives residue != explosive. My guess is that it will be determined to be a false positive. If it were actual explosive material, that would have been determined and announced already, and it's nonsensical that someone would have brought explosive, emptied it out, and then brought the bottle on anyway.

I'm a little concerned right now that the entire thing seems to be turning into a farce. From the evidence released, no tickets had actually been bought, some of the people arrested didn't even have passports, no explosives or explosive materials have been found, the only confession appears to have been extracted under torture (rendering it rather suspect), and it has come to light that the investigation was closed prematurely by the Bush administration, against the protest of the British investigators, conveniently timed in such a way that it provided political benefit.

The piece that I want a closer look at is the supposed self-taped goodbye video that was found. If that's legit, it at least proves intent. Otherwise, this is turning into Jose Padilla Round 2.