Hacker News Reader

Comment by ricardobeat | Hacker News Reader

I'm sure terrorists have chemists too, and would defeat that swab test in a week if it was that easy to take large amounts of unknown substances through security.

View on HN

Not necessary. The TSA already gave a better alternative. FTFV: They can put the liquid in several smaller bottles and then let him through with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m12mLXgO1A&t=11m10s

So what you're saying (and I'm trying to ask this without laughing), is that per TSA rules, I can't bring a liter of potentially explosive liquid, but I can bring several smaller containers of potentially explosive liquid, as well as a dry (empty) 1 liter bottle?

I think this is precisely the difference between "security" and "security theater".

I assume they would probably still _attempt_ to limit the amount of total liquid. But the idea that terrorists can bypass a chemical bomb detector but not figure out a way around the amount of liquid limit is laughable.

Why is it laughable? Because it doesn't fit your line of thought? Choosing a substance that doesn't trigger a specific chemical detector, but becomes dangerous when interacting with something else in your carry-on is certainly more feasible than taking large amounts of liquid unnoticed through multiple scanners.

As for the "split into smaller bottles", I think that's a brainfart on the part of the agent, at least around here you're limited to a couple 100ml containers.

So you get 4 people to go through security with you, each one of them brings the necessary components. And I don't know how is it like in the US, but in EU you always get shops on the other side, for duty-free purchases. And yes, they do sell all kinds of liquids - the idea is that they have been screened before entering the airport so they are safe to buy and sell after the screening. So you go and buy a litre of water, go to the bathroom, pour it out, fill it up with the stuff you and your 3 colleagues brought in a few 100ml bottles.

See? All TSA achieved is horse shit. You can still end up on the other side, with a litre bottle of whatever substance you wanted to have,and they couldn't stop you. This is why this entire agency is absolutely useless and more an inconvenience than anything.

The US is the same way actually, and I always sort of figured the easier way in would be to get one of the minimum wage retailers to smuggle something in for me. As they're typically young and low-paid, they 1) need the money, 2) aren't as likely to think about dangerous possible outcomes and 3) (possibly) aren't as likely to worry about it anyway.

Of course, blowing up a plane is sort of a stupid notion anyway. If I wanted a terrorist attack, I'd just bomb a building directly, Oklahoma City style. That wouldn't even need to be a suicide attack. If I was dead set on a suicide attack on an airline, I'd just pick the longest security checkpoint line and blow myself up there.

There are plenty of tactical reasons for commandeering an airplane, but blowing it up is generally not one of them.

> as well as a dry (empty) 1 liter bottle?

Actually, you're not allowed to bring such a bottle as I understand things. I didn't really bother scrutinizing, but the impression I got from a few years back was that even if you emptied out an over-sized container, you still wouldn't be allowed to pass it through.

Now that I think about it, I think this impression is from the fact that you can't bring a half-empty bottle (with only 100ml of liquid or whatever the amount is).

But I could bring a few small containers, pass the security checkpoint, and buy a 1.5 liter Fiji bottle that I could empty in the restroom?

Heh.

Also, I think I recall that there's a restriction on the total amount of liquid you're allowed to bring. I think it was "all of your 3.4 oz bottles have to be able to fit flat inside a X sized ziploc bag" or something like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com