Hacker News Reader

Comment by bandofthehawk | Hacker News Reader

Is there a legitimate reason for the liquid ban? AFAIK it was a response to a failed terrorist attempt similar to the shoe bomber, but it's likely that the ban has little to no effect on overall safety.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/03/tsa_admits_li...

View on HN

That article you linked is just one big causal fallacy. It claims that the TSA admitted that the liquid ban was bullshit, citing a Slate article which does not itself even quote the TSA lol.

I'm not a chemist, but I'm under the impression that the liquid explosives in the 2006 plot are a much more feasible approach to explosives than what the shoe bomber attempted.

I'm also not going to pretend like I have any idea how effective any of these security measures are, I'm only explaining that I'm under the impression that there's at least a real precedent for them.

I don't know what the solution is to terrorism in air travel, but it's a very hard problem and the liquid limit isn't something that personally bothers me that much -- who wants to carry around full bottles of shampoo and shower soap and whatever else anyway?

I can't help but think the liquid limit was put in to limit drinking as well, thats a big part why its a thing at stadiums and other events. If they let you bring in a water bottle people would fill it with vodka and then you get 300 frat boys throwing up on the plane to panama city beach.

Don't they still allow you to bring duty-free alcohol on board? I'm not a frequent flier, but as I understand it any liquids bought post-security can be brought on the flight.

Yeah but you aren't allowed to drink it. Meanwhile no one bats an eye if you are taking pulls from a plastic water bottle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com