https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2008/11/the_things_he...
My wife was also wearing my son in a wrap at the time and just walked through a metal detector, no searching pockets or taking off the wrap or anything like that. Anyone trying to sneak contraband through could just carry it through with the baby knowing it won't be searched and then just leave after exchanging the contraband past security and walk out. You could easily sneak 10lbs worth of contraband through so long as it wouldn't set off the metal detector.
Unfortunately, the UK doesn’t have the same simple exemption for contact lens solution bottles, so they seized it while I was transiting.
There’s bit of irony from seizing something that anyone can fly in with.
But one time I was trying to bring a fish, and had a next to impossible time trying to get them to agree that water was a "life sustaining liquid" as defined by their exemptions on the 3oz rule wrt to fish.
Just because the FDA requires raw-milk cheeses to have aged for at least 60 days in order to be sold in the USA, that doesn't mean you can't bring some in with you and consume it.
A pretty good summary and a bonus foreshadowing of this article.
I have had a pretty good experience with the new scanners. I have global entry/Precheck and one remaining headache with the old scanners was remembering to take my double walked flask out and show the TSA that it was empty by removing the cap. The new scanners can see that it’s empty from inside my bag, which is very handy.
An entire new line of single use toiletry products was invented to meet this regulation.
The much more likely scenario is that the politcians, who sometimes have ownership interest in the companies that get government contracts, want to be able to sell new equipment. This is also supported by the constant equipment updates we see at TSA lines.
> The much more likely scenario is...
Why do you phrase this as an either or situation? "My conspiracy is more likely than your conspiracy" as if there can't be more than one conspiracy.
Just like you have for instance "telefonino" as the diminutive of "telefono" in Italian, literally "small telephone". And in German you add -chen or -lein to words to create the diminutive, so "Hund" becomes "Hündchen" (adding an umlaut as well, if applicable).
Generally I think it's very common for a lot of languages to add a cutesy suffix to the base word, in order to create the diminutive.
There was a terrorist plot to do this, which was caught by the security services, and then despite the terrorists being caught the liquids ban was put into place forever more to stop future attacks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_...
It sounds like you're arguing that this regulation is not necessary any more because that particular plot was foiled. I find that line of reasoning odd, given that the 2006 attack was the last in a string of plots using liquid explosives to target airliners. The type of group which carried out attacks like this still exists, with similar goals.
Given that it's reasonably effective at deterring a technique which has actually been used (the Japan test run in the 90s) and which has been attempted multiple times, I think it's possibly the least objectionable regulation. It doesn't address all modes of attack (obviously), and it's very debatable whether the likelihood of attack makes the invasiveness of the countermeasure acceptable, but unlike body scanners it's at least effective at deterring the specific modality it's aimed at.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_...
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=563298...
Our screening is worthless