Schneier on Security

briefcases, purses, laptop bags, all are banned (from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778615.stm?ls)

Passengers may take through the airport security search point, in a single (ideally transparent) plastic carrier bag, only the following items. Nothing may be carried in pockets:

Pocket-size wallets and pocket-size purses plus contents (for example money, credit cards, identity cards etc (not handbags)

Travel documents essential for the journey (for example passports and travel tickets)

Prescription medicines and medical items sufficient and essential for the flight (eg, diabetic kit), except in liquid form unless verified as authentic

Spectacles and sunglasses, without cases

Contact lens holders, without bottles of solution

For those travelling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies, wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags)

Female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed (eg tampons, pads, towels and wipes)

Tissues (unboxed) and/or handkerchiefs

Keys (but no electrical key fobs). All passengers must be hand searched, and their footwear and all the items they are carrying must be X-ray screened.

Pushchairs and walking aids must be X-ray screened, and only airport-provided wheelchairs may pass through the screening point.

No briefcases or purses allowed. No laptop bags. The definitive list of what *is* allowed on is:

> Passengers may take through the airport security search point, in a
> single (ideally transparent) plastic carrier bag, only the following
> items. Nothing may be carried in pockets:
>
> · Pocket-size wallets and pocket-size purses plus contents (for
> example money, credit cards, identity cards etc (not handbags)
>
> · Travel documents essential for the journey (for example passports
> and travel tickets)
>
> · Prescription medicines and medical items sufficient and essential
> for the flight (eg, diabetic kit), except in liquid form unless
> verified as authentic
>
> · Spectacles and sunglasses, without cases
>
> · Contact lens holders, without bottles of solution
>
> · For those travelling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents
> of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and
> sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies,
> wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags)
>
> · Female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if
> unboxed (eg tampons, pads, towels and wipes)
>
> · Tissues (unboxed) and/or handkerchiefs
>
> · Keys (but no electrical key fobs). All passengers must be hand
> searched, and their footwear and all the items they are carrying must
> be X-ray screened.
(forwarded from a travel agent; source is believed to be: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_about/documents/page/dft_about_612280.hcsp

We're getting rapidly closer to the "all passengers have to fly naked" rule.

Most interesting quote from the article:

[...] despite the arrests the threat level had been raised "in case there is some other sub-plot, back-up plot around this that the police aren't aware of".

This shows how it's not working. Critical threat level is supposed to mean "an attack is expected imminently", but apparently it's been downgraded to "there may be a plot we're not aware of".

I find the thought of mothers tasting baby formula, or their own breastmilk, in front of uniformed functionaries extremely disturbing.

The results of combining risk-averse Western societies and terrorist threats just get worse and worse.

No briefcases, nothing. The idea seems to be that they're looking for concealed liquid explosives (as in 1994) which I guess means that anything you can use as a container is out, and after that the list is pretty short.

Dunno why "no newspapers", though

Yet another opportunity for a movie-plot: Evil terrorist drinks a large bottle of liquid explosive, then detonates himself by swallowing a small pill hidden inside his watch (or chewing on a detonator hidden in a false tooth...).

Next thing you know, TSA will install vomit stations so that all passengers will enter the aircraft with empty stomachs...

You are right about some not flying. My wife and I had several trips planned and we just tossed one in the trash. Others we our seriously considering dropping as well but will see how long this lasts. Considering how often we have our baggage lost and quality of plane food going down hill, this just makes flying our last choice for transportation. Unfortunately, most seem willing to give up everything for the belief that is increasing security/safety.

Okay, so anyone with a bomb has to check it into luggage which rides on the same plane?

The following is pathetic since it can not be adhered to:
"Prescription medicines and medical items sufficient and essential for the flight (eg, diabetic kit), except in liquid form unless verified as authentic"
There is no way to verify that insulin is NOT say nitrogylercine, for example, in the context of an airline checkin. Either a biochemical lab is required, or a bioassay (which would take at least 2 hours to perform) with a trained professional.
So what does this mean in practice? BTW, I have no idea how dangerous 10cc (standard insulin vial) of explosive would be; probably not as dangerous as the insulin were it injected into multiple individuals as a poison.

My only question is: If they have just uncovered an attack, has not that made us safer for the moment?
If a criminal gang is busted, then that usually means they have to re-group and start over with planing. So that means that for the moment we can relax, not beef up security. Because the security messures now set in place now are so tight that my guess is they will be relaxed in some weeks time.

I've only seen the "no carry-on" rule for trans-atlantic flights leaving England. Here is the TSA announcement about changes in the US:

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/threat-change.shtm

They meant to cause severe disruption to air traffic and massive loss of life.

I'd say they are pretty much half-way there …

Wouldn't it be easier to check for detonators rather than liquid explosives? And shouldn't airport security have been doing that all along?

Lets just be thankful Richard Reed didn't try lighting his crotch on fire...

"There are several exceptions to the new rule. Baby formula, breast milk, or juice for small children, prescription medications."

So as long as the terrorist has a prescription, he can bring what ever he wants to?

How difficult could it be for a terrorist to get the required prescription and exchange the liquid in the bottle for explosives?

Bruce has said it before (I think) - exceptions break security.

Anyhow, this was an extremely successfull terrorist attack, that affected thousands of people, that will affect the bottom line for several airline companies, that will continue to inspire fear, and that will be used to further reduce civil rights.

The terrorists must be very satisfied with their accomplishments...

I think all passengers should be anesthesized during flight. Would make intercontinental air travel a lot more tolerable, too. Why, airlines could even triple passenger numbers by installing stacked cots instead of seats.

On a more serious note, it will be interesting to find out how these presumed terrorists were found. Was it because of massive surveillance detecting their suspicious behavior, or was it good old police work?

It's also interesting to listen to all the doomsday scenarios in the news -- the number of presumed casualties just keeps getting upped by networks trying to beat each other -- when we still have very little information about the plot, and whether this magical explosive liquid could ever be effective, and whether it could be brought on board.

I wonder what the duty-free merchants think of all this...

@Juergen Nieveler: That plot is already part of book "Days of Wrath" by Patrick Dunne...

More thoughts on the matter: This will lead to criminal luggage handlers having a great time, because now all the valuables are in the bags.
The rules will return soon to normal:
1. People will get fed up with the new stringent rules.
2. The airports have turned the boarding zone into a shopping haven, now nobody will buy because they cannot bring the stuff along with them. This will cause economic pressure to put things back the way they where.

FP: Liquid explosive has been used in an attack on an airliner before - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434 etc.

So we do have some evidence the magical explosive liquid could work (at least partially) and be brought on board...

I have an upcoming 15+ hr transcontinental trip in the next week. If it wasn't for a friend's wedding, I'd be cancelling it. Let's think about things a bit here:
1) 6+ hr flight from UK to US
2) *NO* books, laptops, newspapers, etc for entertainment
3) Really crappy food and drinks
= Very pissed off, hungry, and bored people.

I think I'd rather take my chances with the explosives than have to sit through a 6+ hr flight without a book.

I'm going on R&R from Operation Enduring Freedom in a few weeks. After seven months in country, going anywhere without full body armor, helmet, M-249 machine gun, and M9 pistol will be a difficult enough adjustment as it is...

Well, doesn't this demonstrate that up 'til now, regular airport security has been 'security theatre'? If Operation Bojinka ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka ) showed that liquid explosives were difficult to detect back in 1995, then shouldn't all containers of liquid have been banned since then?

Cassie

This is just an example of how misguided and poorly reasoned your argument against the terror war is.

Since you only count terrorism that succeeds in your formula you get a distorted number for the actual toll taken by terrorism if the war on terror did not exist!

Ass.

@Insulintaker: "There is no way to verify that insulin is NOT say nitrogylercine"

And what about travellers with *prescribed* nitroglycerine for heart trouble?

Sig, yes I think your chances of getting any of that lot onto a commercial airline in the next few weeks are fairly slim.

Whatever happened to the possibility of them just changing the plan, and detonating in the midst of the sea of people waiting to be screened...?

That would accomplish the 2nd half of the "disruption of air traffic and massive lost of life".

"Passengers are not allowed to have gels or liquids of any kind at screening points or in the cabin of any airplane.

They said this includes beverages..."

Think you can survive *this* flight without liquids of any kind?
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4122187

I heard about but don't have a url for the FAA's response: No regulations were broken.

This terror has achieved its goal. Even without blowing planes. People are scared, authorities act as panicked chicken. Congratulations.

with all those valuables in the hold the baggage handlers are going to have a field day.

So I can't carry my sanitizing hand gel, which makes me more vulnerable to a biohazard attack.

@Insulintaker "Either a biochemical lab is required, or a bioassay (which would take at least 2 hours to perform) with a trained professional."

Oh come on, they can just throw your bottle of insulin against the wall to test it...

Interesting and not entirely unexpected. Lots of complaining about the new rules, the old rules, the rule makers ... but not one comment against the group that is responsible (across the world) for this mess.

Nice! The airlines have finally come around to good security that the computer industry has known for years: default deny rules at the gate.

I can see the need to increase measures when intelligence has knowledge of a plot; to not do so would be stupid.

However, if we trust our intelligence so much that we only have the measures necessary to find explosives when they say so, why do we need such tight security the rest of the time?

One cannot have it both ways. Either intelligence is good enough to know of all plots and therefore we know when to increase measures, or it's not good enough and measures need to be in place at all times.

The present approach implies that when there is an intelligence failure or the terrorists learn from their mistakes, they may succeed due to more lax security.

It sounds to me like the actual arrests and knowledge of the threat had nothing to do with security at airports and a lot more to do with community leaders tipping police off.

@Roland: What shall I say about these people? We know nothing about them, except the fact, that they are suspected terrorists.

This summer's unexpected blockbuster: DRINKS ON A PLANE!

As Frederic said " Anyhow, this was an extremely successfull terrorist attack, that affected thousands of people, that will affect the bottom line for several airline companies, that will continue to inspire fear, and that will be used to further reduce civil rights.

The terrorists must be very satisfied with their accomplishments..."

This is exactly it. All the new measures in place and even more so all the talk and news coverage about this is only bringing about more fear and terror.

Fine implement new security measures. Measures that will actually work. Talk about it for 5 or 10 minutes on every news show. But don't drop everything else and just talk about it, as all it does is bring about more fear and terror. When people do get more "terrified" well guess what, the terrorists WIN. They win even if they weren't successful as they scared everyone and consequently disrupted everyone's lives, from overplay in the media.

I think it should be mentioned, changes should be made, and then just move on and get on with our lives.

"And what about travellers with *prescribed* nitroglycerine for heart trouble?"

You're not suggesting that prescribed nitroglycerine is explosive, are you? ;)

All electronic goods such as iPods, keyfobs, etc banished to the hold - but presumably your are still allowed to wear a watch, aren't (most of) these electronic? Again rules not fully though through.

If all luggage is to be carried as hold, does that imply that the techniques for scanning hold luggage do detect all kinds of explosives? And if yes, why can't the hand luggage be scanned by the same kind of scanners?

Secondly, bar a full body cavity search before boarding, one cand get at least a pound of explosives on board an airplane. A detonator is so small I doubt there is a sure way of preventing one getting on board. Could an aircraft sustain an explosion of a party of six such "loaded" passengers without breaking up? Doubt it!

I do not have the solution, but if the above scenario is a feaseable, nothing short of full body scanning is other than for-show measure, very similar to banning nail-clippers.

Does El-Al have a no-liquides-on-board policy?

I always carry a 1.5L bottle of water with me on planes to avoid dehydration. I don't drink the entire bottle, but I do drink plenty of it. I suppose that if I want to fly in the future, I will not be able to drink as much water. That sucks.

It's so ironic that posters on this site are appalled at the amount of security when boarding a plane. I'm often stunned at the depths paranoia will run (often necessarily, true) in the digital security world, but use the same vigilance to try to prevent a bomber and it's all eye-rolling and "the terrorists have won".

Thank you for acknowledging that the new bans are the right short-term plan, Bruce.

Doesn't this create problems for people wishing to transport ipods, videocameras, etc. that have LCD screens? I understood that lcd screens can be permanently damaged by exposure to cold (such as is found in cargo holds.)

Could someone confirm/deny this?

Also, did any readers note other significant practical hurdles for passengers?

-r.

I've been in Manhatten the past few days, and as usual I haven't followed the news. Starting Wednesday, I noticed a much higher police presence in Times Square, and local hotel security was also higher.

I deduce that there was a general alert followed by a more specific alert. Seems to me that the system is working correctly and properly in this instance.

"The terrorists are winning" because we're taking precautions is an absurd position. The only way that position would be valid would be if the US armed forces were not fighting terrorism; if we accept terrorism as a low-level continuing police enforcement problem, then the terrorists will have won. Or we can surrender, like the Spanish did, and see how little time it buys the US.

"these don't seem like rediculous short-term measures."

I disagree. If you have to check your keys (electronic fob) and your cell phone and your bag gets lost or stolen, how do you get home from the airport? You can't even call anyone. This is typical gov't overreaction.

A colleague naively checked her laptop recently and it got smashed. I wonder how many laptops are in the process of being destroyed or stolen at this very minute. How soon before we hear about critical data loss from a checked laptop? And with thousands more laptops rolling through baggage now, what's the chance a rigged one will be missed?

This opens a whole new world for terrorists. They don't actually have to carry out a plot--all they need to do is plan one, and watch the hilarity that ensues. Oh, sure, what they get is more like paranoia, discomfort, and fear than true terror, but in exchange they only get arrested instead of dying.

So the discomfortists have us taking off our shoes, and now they've taken away our food and magazines. What will they have us doing next? I can hardly wait to find out!

There should be almost no restrictions on what you can take on a plane except those things that would disturb other passengers or unintentionally endanger them. Like for instance no cans of gasoline, etc.

Instead of all these checks and stupid rules we should just get rid of the terrorists. Easily done by getting rid of restrictions placed on us by International Law and the Geneva convention (which are rules made up by our enemies to make us impotent). Then excercising the nuclear option on Iran, Syria, etc. And then take away their funding by seizing their oil fields and international assets.

Problem would go away overnight and the rest of the civilized world would thank us.

It seems to me that although these security checks are over the top, it could be right to do them while the threat level is at critical.

Saying that though, I hate the fact we've just given the terrorists 1/2 a victory by having this level of security check.

We accept 10000s of deaths on roads in europe and the US each year, why do we seem to be striving for 0 deaths from terrorists even if it costs us our way of life.

@Scott Johnson: It looks like prescription liquids are still permitted on board. Wouldn't it be hilaroius to get a doctors prescription for bottled water?

I suggest everyone flying in the next couple weeks to obtain medical prescriptions for bottled water.

Alternatively, freeze the water solid before bringing it on board. It won't become a liquid until after you're past the goons and safely on board.

I can think of several inconveniences for passengers that would have to be resolved:

1) Non-prescription medications that people nevertheless have a medical need for. This includes such things as saline nasal spray for people who are subject to chronic sinus infections. In some cases, they are not supposed to fly without it because they *will* get a sinus infection from the dry air.
2) Milk, juice, etc. for diabetic adults, people with bladder infections, etc. If I can carry it because I’m traveling with a child, why can’t I carry it for myself?
3) Dealing with contact lens solutions that invariably leak in checked baggage and which will bleach clothing that they come in contact with. (AoSept, this means you.)
4) Not being permitted eyeglass cases virtually ensures that glasses will be scratched and damaged. What the heck is someone likely to do with an eyeglass case anyway? And many will not wear contact lenses on a plane if they cannot have access to contact lens solution when needed.
5) What happens when someone’s checked baggage is lost with their car keys inside?
6) What happens to fragile carry-ons like musical instruments? If this is to continue long-term, baggage handling is going to have to get much better.

As for the terrorists, way to convince me that your religion is better than mine. Not. Obviously Islam as practiced by these folks is the equivalent of the Thugees. Any religion that practices unwilling human sacrifice is clearly wrong by any sensible calculation.

@ Mike Stanczyk

The FAA said that no regs were broken.

That's true. The FAA is not responsible for your comfort on commercial flights, just like the Highway Patrol is not responsible for your comfort on a Greyhound bus.

For some reason, people seem to think that the FAA and air traffic controllers run commercial aviation, and that commercial carriers own the airways.

This could not be farther from the truth. It works just like the highways do.

18-wheel transfer trucks do not own and run the highways. Large and small commercial operations share the roads with individuals. Similarly, the big iron commercial airliners have no more right to the skies and runways than I have in my single engine "spam can" airplane.

Just to get this straight: The FAA is the Highway Patrol of the skies. Air Traffic Control are the traffic cops of the skies. You and I are free to fly among the commercial planes just like we're free to drive among the transfer trucks.

Alan

Well, the airlines have finally figured out how to get people to buy more beverages and take less bags on the plan to speed up boarding.

My doc told me to not drink from a cup handed to me by unwashed flight attendants. Ever since I stopped doing that I've never gotten sick when flying.

And I'm sure that the TSA rules are inconsistent: If you have a combined domestic and international terminal, how is the security gate going to filter out who's laptops are allowed and who's aren't?

What if there was no terrorist threat after all? What if it was there but it's being blown out of proportion? The only source we have confirming this news is the government.

No one should trust the government to announce a threat and then take measures against our freedom acting upon that non-verifiable threat.
The governments should be reassuring people and taking care of problems, not scaring their citizens and acting upon the fear they induce.

This is government-sponsored manipulation.

A problem is that officials aren't asked to treat decisions made in the height of anger or fear any differently than ordinary day-to-day decisions. Every decision they make today will feel right- and then they'll get emotionally invested in those decisions, so that in one week the decisions will still feel fine.

Of course this is a major incident, a horrible crime. Goes without saying, except that anyone asking for a cost-benefit analysis might be treated as if they aren't saying so.

Unfortunately, officials and authorities don't often admit "we know the decisions we make today are more likely than usual to be incorrect. When we review them, we'll likely find that 20% of them weren't at all useful. So of course we will review them."

That passengers can't even buy landside waters? Dehydration is risky. Airplane water is risky. Trying to sooth children with sugar-fruit-water or soda? I'm not sure that the noise from unusually-hyper chilren isn't distracting to the staff, and that too can be risky.

While I understand the fear and anger driving decisions today, I hope they'll remember to review the decisions once they're somewhat less emotional. And I hope that we can find ways to ask for that review without retriggering the emotions of today.

I like that the British cops actually troubled to investigate the plot, letting it proceed under surveillance while they collected evidence, and only broke it up when it looked like it was on the launch pad. Now they have evidence they can take to court.

The contrast with the laziness of FBI terrorist "investigations" is stark. The FBI appears to mostly act on intelligence tips that they are unwilling to discuss in court, and apparently the standard procedure is to arrest alleged plotters as soon as their identity and whereabouts is ascertained. Prosecutors then show up in court with nothing but bombast.

As a result, they've had a bunch of failed cases and reversed convictions. In the Padilla case (the alleged aspiring dirty bomber) they didn't even bother going to court, a Navy brig being so much more convenient than an actual investigation. And there is every reason to believe that those Muslims they busted in Florida -- essentially for wild talk about how much they'd like to be terrorists -- will never be successfully prosecuted, their perp walk having served the required publicity purpose of illustrating how we're succeeding in the war on terror.

There is a paragraph of text between "The foiled UK terrorist has" and "no carry-ons are allowed:" that came through in the RSS feed between some broken HTML....

"Given how little we know of the extent of the plot, these don't seem like rediculous short-term measures. "

s/rediculous/ridiculous

Israel Torres

And just a few days ago, Bruce treated us to a nice pointer to a CATO paper that basically said that the way to win against the terrorists is to not be terrorized.

Very prescient, that posting....

The response may or may not be ridiculous. It's certainly extreme, but what do you do when your security procedures are suddenly shown to be inadequate in a way that's difficult to fix?

The TSA carry-on screening procedures focus on finding firearms, not explosives (except in your shoes), and certainly not liquid explosives. So a new threat has emerged, and once again we discover that airline security is entirely reactive.

Permit me a dubious analogy. When we build computer security systems, we try to design against as-yet unknown threats. We don't build something that stops Blaster, we try to stop all kinds of viruses and worms. New threats come out, but a good network design is resistant to worms, no matter what flaws they happen to exploit.

What the TSA has built is a default-permit firewall that's updated after new threats come out. Guns had been used to hijack planes, so they added a gun-blocking filter. Then boxcutters were used, and they added a boxcutter filter, and just to be sure they expanded it to cover Swiss Army knives and letter openers and nail clippers, too. Someone tried to light his shoe on fire, and they added a shoe filter. But it's still open to any attack from someone creative enough to try an attack that hasn't been done before.

In a sense it's understandable. There's a basic queueing problem: MSP (for example) handled 36,700,000 passengers in 2004. If we assume that number includes both incoming and outgoing passengers, that's roughly 50,000 people going through security per day, or one every 1.3 seconds (if you assume most of the traffic is between 5 am and 11pm). That's average, not accounting for the fact that airline departure and arrival schedules aren't evenly distributed--they're bunched together to make connections work more smoothly. But at a minimum, TSA has to churn a passenger through at a rate of one every 1.3 seconds or (probably much) faster. If an explosives test adds two minutes to the time to check someone in, it would take 92 check-in aisles to check everyone in. MSP usually has about 6-8 aisles running (and each aisle has multiple agents).

As usual, it comes down to economics, and its far cheaper to say we can't bring on liquids than it is to check for explosives. At what point, though, are they telling us we can't use HTTP because someone once ran Code Red on it and they can't bear the expense of checking for it?

"Airline workers tried to speed things along by circulating among the passengers with plastic bags in which bottles, deodorant containers and shampoo could be discarded. A woman with a bottle of medicine was allowed to bring it on board after it was checked to see that her name was on the pharmacy label." NYTimes describing a line in Newark.

Because all important medicines are prescription, and no bad guy would think to reuse a prescription bottle rather than an ordinary bottle. But I'm sure this felt like an obviously good decision to the officials protecting us from other people's medicines.

(Do airlines have an easy way to check single items? If you have to leave the security line to check an item, does security at least allow you to rejoin the line where you left it?)

"Prescription medicines and medical items sufficient and essential for the flight (e.g. diabetic kit)"

And so, when they lose your baggage, what the hell do you do? Die? Go to the hospital? What if you're not a native speaker? I'm sure your embassy will be happy to take care of you :-/

These security measures may, in fact, be reasonable in the short term, but if they stay, I expect the economic and human toll may be higher than stopping terrorists the hard way.

Also, are they going to ban these?
http://www.fredericks.com/promo/liquidDream042006.asp
"If you like, we can get a female TSA agent to squeeze your boobs"

my prediction is the airlines will lobby hard to keep the "no liquid" policy in effect forever, even after any reasonable threats disappear. the reason is this gives them a guaranteed monopoly and revenue stream for purchased drinks onboard.

I don't particularly care for the new proposals, since they are knee-jerk and are thorough. For example, how much you want a bet within hours terrorist could place liquids in clear medical containers with fake prescription labels?

The real problem however is for the airlines. At some point air travel will become so "hard" and uncomfortable that it will decline. My guess is you see easing of restrictions not due to any security analysis, but due to airline carrier economics.

To me, airlines (and TSA) have missed the boat in the process. If you don't want as many carry-on items then you need to (a) improve bagging handling so checked luggage doesn't get lost or damaged, and (b) improve quality of in-flight food, beverage, and common supplies (like Contact solution and other common medical supplies that may be needed by passengers, such as Benydrl). You need to make the incentive for passengers to check luggage that can be screened and not carry on luggage. Only then will you get at the root of the major security vulnerability. Only then will you be able to speed up checkpoints, etc.

The good: No more obnoxious people eating fast food on flights.

The bad: Massive inconvenience. There are still holes in the security, such as people carrying bomb materials inside their body. It's all still just a show.

The ugly: Fear encouraged by the government. Airport lines make great targets, especially when there is a backup due to new security rules.

The fix: El Al style security, with intimidating people asking questions to fish out nervous people who may be planning something. In other words, thoughtful human security.

It's typical of the "we're handing terrorists their victory" crowd to have already made the following points:

- the carry-on exceptions render the security useless (Chertoff must be a moron)
- long lines at an airport are 50% of the terrorists' goal (Gonzalez is an idiot)
- mothers tasting formula or milk is disgusting (Mueller is incompetent)
- it's a conspiracy to sell more food and beverage on the plane (it's all Bush's fault)

At least Bruce was able to concede that they "don't seem like rediculous [sic] short-term measures."

I suggest that even long lines, cancelled flights, and plastic bags full of travel documents are better than an airplane full of dead people in the Atlantic because one of the plotters slipped through. Sorry if that upsets the ACLU-types here.

@Bitsy.

You are quite right, and clearly one of the underlying assumptions made is that people do not need non-prescription medications for the duration of a flight. That is probably an incorrect assumption. The new rules are almost certainly not aimed at achieving perfect security, 'though - simply a 'good enough' risk reduction by application of a simple, clearly understood set of rules. One of the results is to make cheap air travel less convenient for the less than fully healthy. Of course, if you can afford to hire or own your own private plane, the rules will probably affect you less.

Cassie

most flying is elective, discretionary. very few passengers are there because they absolutely have to fly. we are witnessing the death knell of commercial aviation. it won't be the terrorists who will kill this industry, but the security. six hours on a plane without a book? whoa!

And the False Dichotomy Award goes to...Anonymous!

Well, we can see the rise of "classed" baggage handling. You can have standard baggage handling as today or for an additional fee you can have 'first class' handling with special attention to the safety of your bags...

1. Check-in baggage is already (somewhat) bomb-proof. An airport the size of Heathrow has some quite effective non-sampling screening for most explosive chemistry. It's not used on all flights, but it's available for the high-risk routes or suspects.

2. Check-in baggage is already (somewhat) bomb-proof. Baggage containers are much more bomb-resistant than they used to be. if you want to down a plane with a checked bag, you either need to have friends loading it, or you need a big bomb.

3. If you're taking it into the cabin, why carry bulky explosives when you can have a compact toxin instead? Nitroglycerine isn't a practical "concealed as insulin" bomb, partly because it's so easy to detect by any of the current generation explosive screeners. The trouble with poisons is that have much more diverse chemistry than commonplace explosives and non-sampling screening for them is unreasonably difficult.

For once our law enforcement seem to be getting things about right. Sorry if you're caught in the middle of the mess.

Another_Bruce:

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you. If a person has a reason to travel a long distance, flying is the only practical option. Other transportation methods simply take too long. Who has time to cross the Atlantic by ship these days? Who has time to cross the U.S. by train or bus? (A friend of mine tried to take the train from California to New York a few years back. The train departure was delayed for over 24 hours.) Even driving a personal vehicle would take a long time.

What it would discourage, and has been happening already, is short flights.

I find interesting is that your beverage has to be consumed before boarding a flight. Now since TSA is screening just at the security checkpoint, how do you enforce this rule? The gate agent making sure you don't have a water bottle that you bought at a newstand inside the "secure" area is not in your bag?

@Anonymous Coward

'It's typical of the "we're handing terrorists their victory" crowd to have already made the following points'

I think you have missed the bigger picture of what the 'terrorists are winning' crowd suggest.

You have suggested that "plastic bags full of travel documents are better than an airplane full of dead people in the Atlantic because one of the plotters slipped through"

That's fine, and that is your opinion. But you are wrong to presume that that is the opinion of EVERY SINGLE traveler. You can not know their opinions, you can not make the risk assessment for them.

You can not say that tens-of-billions of dollars diverted from the public directly and indirectly (both in the present and in the future), and all the direct hassle is worth it.

You are making your own utilitarian judgment, and as usual you can not even calculate the 'cost' vs. the 'benefit' other than to use your own subjective value. An extra plane crash a year, may be worth it to the multi-millions of passangers - but none of them get a choice in the manner.

The actions of the government are direct and visible for anyone to see, the poorly trained mind can not understand the forgone opportunity in its execution.

Economic arguments aside, the 'terrorist are winning' crowd simply extrapolate from the definition of terrorism: using force to change government policy. So by the simple definition, the terrorists are winning! Be it both international terrorists, or domestic terrorists (politicians, bureaucrats, close contractors).

@Moshe Yudkowsky

"surrender like the Spanish did"? The Spanish democratically changed their secular government: exactly what the terrorists are fighting against!

It must be just a coincidence that all this happened one day after Lieberman lost his primary and the GOP needed some way to refocus attention on just how weak the Dems are on security....

I want to travel on "spa" airlines for my next vacation trip to Europe.

On the one hand, they'd make me check everything I didn't have a doctor's note for, and I'd have to change out of my clothes and into a comfy airline-supplied sweatsuit.

On the other hand, they'd have a way to check my baggage so it wouldn't get lost and so my checked items wouldn't be damaged, they'd give me a comfortable place to wait before boarding, and once on board I'd be provided with tasty beverages and snacks, a comfortable seat suitible for napping, and a variety of entertainment options.

My point is that if the airlines provided more amenities and treated people better, people wouldn't need to carry on as much stuff. e.g. If they gave me a nice clean pillow, I wouldn't need to bring on an inflatable one. If they gave me free music stations to listen to, I wouldn't need to bring on a walkman. If they served decent food and beverages at regular intervals, I wouldn't need to bring on a large sack lunch. If they wouldn't lose and/or destroy my luggage, I wouldn't refuse to check it . . .

What about Pespi & Mentos? :-P

@some anonymous person
In my opinion you're not telling something different that another_bruce. The key is "If a person as a reason". Currently plane travel is fast, quite cheap and the carry-on luggage gives you (should I say gave you?) the opportunity to bring sensitive pieces of equipment without having them smashed, stolen or lose in the checked baggage process. Now let's say I'm planning a holiday travel. I want to take my camera with me. If the safety regulation don't allow me to safely take my camera with me I'll try to use an alternative transportation method and none is available I'll probably plan my trip to a destination where I don't have to fly.

I'm pretty sure this is valid for business trips. No bringing a laptop with you probably mean, no possible work during the flight or at the hotel, harder access to company email and reduced possibility to bring significant amount of data with you.

Does anybody have a good grasp of how realistic this plot really is? It is maybe true that an explosion can be provoked by mixing several "innocent" liquids but how much liquid would you need in order to provoke an explosion big enough? Several litres? Wouldn't this be suspicious enough?

I want the airline Bill Maher jokes about - "shit happens airways". No / little security, no fake feeling of security.

And if it were my airline, all of my pilots and the flight attendants would be armed and trained. And anyone that had a concealed carry permit would be allowed to bring their own as well.

It's all an elaborate plot designed by the IRA.
...
International Railway Association

I'm hearing too many comments approving of these measures from folks who only fly a few times a year. Having to check a bag adds 30-60 minutes to the end of every flight (in some cases doubling the travel time) - and given that they lose 8% of the bags, it's a huge issue. Oh, and did I forget to mention that there's a maximum value the airlines will pay for a lost or damaged bag? Less than $1000 if I remember right. So the traveler who loses his checked laptop is screwed.

Take away my ipod, books, and bose headphones and the flights become miserable. Not a big deal if you're flying 3 times a year...but a different story if you're flying 50. So all you vacationers out there who want the 'if it only saves one life' approach should simply take the train.

How easy would it be for a terrorist to get a prescription for cough medicine, empty the bottle, and then refill it with something else? Or fill a zip-lock and tape it to their body. Or inject an orange with it (like we did at college football games), or....you get the point.

Object based security is brittle. There's far to many plausible means to get around it (let alone movie-plots). Intelligent human security is the best - and to hell with the ACLU and their 'profiling' complaints.

If they ban carry-on luggage, they effectively ban business travel. The TSA wanted to ban laptops after 9/11, but the airlines understand that that would kill the industry. Laptops don't survive checked baggage, and most company policies prohibit them from being checked in any case.

Thanks TSA - you're killing an industry with security theater. And it's not even a good movie.

I somehow don't see the airline companies issue the travellers written statements that they would cover the damages that could happen to the stuffed in checked in luggage like laptops. Like all the accidental damage and abuse like dropping, cracked screens, broken hinges, hard drives, optical drives.... everything that the manufacturers warranty would not cover.

And I'm so glad I'm not flying today anywhere.

Calm down :-)

The airports and airlines had about 2 hours notice and had to make some instant rules that could be enforced and prevent the use of two part liquid explosives and chemicals such as nitroglycerin. No doubt the rules will be changed over the next few days.

Some have questioned the banning of newspapers and magazines. When I was young we used to make fuel for rockets from newspaper, suger and another chemical. When the newspaper dried, it looked wrinkled but unstained. It was hugely flammable. If you then soaked a corner in nitrogen triiodide you have a contact trigger which becomes active as the corner dries out...

It may not crash the plane but makes a good distraction.

Incidentally, I was reading about a similar plot in the NY Times and they mentioned clothing made of nitrocellulose fiber ("guncotton"). If I remember rightly, one of the first synthetic fibers earned the nickname of "mother-in-law silk" because it would go up in flames easily and violently.

So even the traveller's clothing could be a weapon.

Here's the real kicker. You can't buy liquids airside and carry them on the plane.

Whoever thought that up is either admitting that screening is useless, or is working for airlines that are about to start charging for all drinks, not just booze.

I have one ticket booked, but about twelve tickets planned. If this nonsense doesn't stop, I'm cancelling. I'm tired of being treated as a terrorist for daring to get on a fucking airplane.

Newsflash -- all of the new procedures have gone into place because the alleged plot *failed*. They were caught.

How is this proof that we need this extra security? Never mind Scotland Yard's long and glorious history of lying like dogs when it comes to terrorists.

buntklicker.de makes an excellent point. The next stage then is to plan something nasty and then INTENTIONALLY LEAK IT. Instead of being killed you are throwing yourself on the criminal justice system, but you still achieve the massive disruption without having to finish off all the really complicated small details of pulling your threat off for real.

BTW, here is what fundamentally irritates me about all of these security measures. (Granted, calling them up in the short term to fight a specific threat is probably a reasonably sane idea)

What is the difference between blowing up a plane and blowing up a shopping mall? Answer: blowing up a plane might be harder, because of all this security we have now. But then again it might not anyway; I'm not an explosives or security expert.

Imagine that we enact all the crazy security procedures necessary to stop airline attacks. Do you think terrorists will shrug and say "'Guess we have to stop what we're doing now'?" Or perhaps they might say "Hmm, what about these 95,000,000 other ways to inflict terror".

There is a basic level of security that makes sense. Locking the cockpit during flight, and perhaps even arming the flight attendants, makes sense.

But I definitely fall into the "terrorists are winning" crowd here, because what they're supposedly trying to do is make us afraid and cause us to take our own freedoms away in the process. Game over guys, you won.

The one thing that really stood out about this incident for me wasn't the loss of carry-on privileges, it was a quote from a British official:

------------
Mr. Clarke told reporters that the investigation had “already lasted for several months and will undoubtedly last long into the future’’ and said it had involved “an unprecedented level of surveillance.’’

“We have been looking at meetings, movement, travel, spending and the aspirations of a large group of people,’’ Mr. Clarke said.
---------------

That is _exactly_ what we have to be worried about -- the erosion of civil liberties. 9/11 gave us the USA Patriot act. Look at what has been happening in the UK especially with regards to surveillance and the police.

If every 'foiled' plot results in the loss of more privacy and freedoms, we're not going to have any left at all.

@ Alan Porter

"The FAA is not responsible for your comfort on commercial flights..."

"Just to get this straight: The FAA is the Highway Patrol of the skies. "

But isn't the FAA responsible for my safety on a commercial flight? Isn't being exposed to 100 degree heat for 2-4 hours without water dangerous to my health?

Don't the airlines have to supply me with a minimum of air pressure and temperature to stay alive? Or do the airlines get to decide to cut a psi off of cabin pressure to save on fuel costs?

Are you allowed to travel on commercial airlines with an IV fluid bag attached to you?

I think the silliest thing here is focuing exclusively on liquid explosives. There's no intrinsic reason they can't be in powder, solid, or gaseous form, particuarly the relatively small amount that you need to take down an airplane.

My opinion is that this is a scorched earth policy, just like the "no knives on planes" after 9/11.

Soo...

What about prosthetic limbs?

Here is an interesting web site in the future of air travel:

http://www.focazio.com/pa/

I think our U.S. goverment has wasted too much money concentrating on who is flying rather than what is flying. If we had taken these millions of dollars wasted on getting passenger information and used it to buy bomb-detection machinery and ways to X-ray carryon luggage in two dimensions, today's reaction would have been subdued. Today would have been like any other day--all carryon and checked bags are screened for bombs, and each passenger is as well. At a glance, they would know that bottle in my toiletries bag is my hair gel, not an explosive.

Or to put it another way, who cares what your fellow passenger's beliefs are as long as he does not have anything that could blow up the airplane? I do not care much about other weapons (except guns and large knives) since I and everyone else on the plane will not allow another hijacker to succeed.

I would like those in power of aviation security wake up to this, but I doubt they would want their pet projects to go away.

And I can't imagine how much money other governments have wasted wondering the name of the person who is going to sit in Row 22, Seat A.

I'd like to second the request for a fix to the RSS feed.

Folks should head over to flyertalk.com and check out the "travel security" forum. The gnashing of teeth by frequent flyers is quite educational...

Anybody want to fly on my private airline? three seats, no waiting. No security check, no metal detector, I can fly to any of 3,000 airports east of the Mississippi and you can bring drinks, laptops, toenail scissors, knives, samurai swords (in the trunk) anything you like. Only cost you $2,000 per trip (not per seat).

A new level of security must immediately be added. All passengers must report/be bussed to an initial security checkpoint AWAY from the airport terminal where baggage must be checked/exrayed, so forth. Only after passing through this level of clearance should passengers be allowed to proceed to the airport to board flights. We must restore order to our vital transportation hubs.

My expectation is, that with a large number of laptops being checked (probably against company security policies for the travelers) we will shortly hear stories of potential lost consumer data as laptops go missing through various means. This means that security measures that will almost certainly have no productive effect will also more than likely cause security breaches that we will have to hear about down the road. Granted, the business travelers should not be carrying consumer data on their laptops already, but this becomes a likely scenario with the short notice.

Also, regarding the ban on beverages, why do you not request the traveler to drink the beverage in front of the security personnel--I drink clear liquids in clear plastic containers, and any chemical that would be useful for a "liquid explosive" would be unlikely to be palatable or even non-toxic to the drinker (unless someone knows of chemical/beverage combinations that would be otherwise).

Regarding medicines, there are an extremely large number of OTC medicines that people can and should be taking (often verbally recommended by their physicians) without a prescription; some of them are even for travel illnesses. There are likely to be more serious health repercussions from millions of travelers unable to carry such medications than the risk of terrorist action.

The terrorists have NOT won, and this may actually make some parts of the travelling experience a little bit better:

At security: Less carry-on should speed up the security scanning – now just a pat down and scan of your single clear plastic bag with the minimum of items.

On boarding: Passengers should be able to take their seat more quickly and with less hassle. The new rules eliminate large amounts of carry-on luggage and prevent the owner blocking the isle while they look for an overhead bin.

During the flight: With little reading material and no work to do, a conversation with another passenger might actually take place!

On landing and taxiing to the gate: The number of private mobile phone conversations one is normally subjected to, will be eliminated. People should be able to disembark the aircraft quickly as they have no carry on.

Sure there are some negatives, but there are some positives in all this. Next time your flying, strike up a conversation with the person next to you and make a new friend.

Sounds like somebody's been hoodwinked.

Terrorists aim to negatively affect as many people as possible for as long as possible. Death and destruction is a popular mechanism, but also very a difficult operation to pull off. On the other hand, if they can train their target to react in a certain way, all they have to do is sit back and make threats. Law enforcement takes care of spreading the panic and destroying the economy.

Meanwhile, and here's the absurd part, the governments pat themselves on the back for a job well done. They averted a highly unlikely, outlandishly complex (and arguably physically impossible) terrorist plot, and all they had to do is lower the quality of life within the country.

I assume Tony Blair new about the plot in advance and so flew off on HIS holiday just ahead of the airport chaos ;-)

@nzruss

That's right and we all should be 'good Germans'

I'm confused by the majority of you. Some of you (I can't say all) are the typical greedy, instant gratification, gimme, gimme, gimme American's that make me sick. I'm an American and a Marine. If youu can't handle a little more security, so that the masses are safe then drive. We all have to understand that times have officially changed. Get used to it! This is just the way it is. TSA and Homeland Security aren't doing this to "upset" you or pick on you, IT'S TO KEEP YOU ALIVE!! I woke up this morning to a great day, my wife is in Scotland and is coming home tomorrow. I can't wait to see her and now I've been worried sick about all of this going on at this time. If it takes every person being inconvenienced so that my wife and everyone else flying with her, make it home safely. Then so be it. I just want her home. So please stop all of your belly-aching and just realize that this is the new world that we live in. Just because I'm worried, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TERRORIST HAVE WON!! I worry when she goes downtown alone, or has to work late.

"If youu can't handle a little more security, so that the masses are safe then drive."

of course 40,000 people/year die on our roads. About measures that are actually commismerate with the threat. Or should we have roadblocks in all our towns to make sure that the driver are competent, insured, and licensed?

Re: Something to drink on the plane.

Can one bring an empty clear plastic bottle through the checkpoint? You could fill it with water at a drunking fountain or bathroom sink once inside the gate; that would give you something to drink on the plane.
If that fails, I have used small Ziplock sandwitch bags to hold drinking water before, although that can get messy.

Backing up what ^Tyler just said, the Terrorists do not need the capability to carry out a plot, they just need the police or intelligence agencies to believe they can. Our reaction accomplishes the majority of their goals - we live in fear and it interrupts our freedom.

@Daniel Pawtoski

If only it were that easy, one could just purchase a bottle of water from a concourse newsstand and take it on the plane. However:

"Beverages purchased in the sterile area must be consumed before boarding because they will not be permitted onboard the aircraft."

So you may not bring a bottle of water through security. You may buy a bottle of water once you have passed security. You may not bring that bottle of water onto the plane with you. But, presumably, you can (eventually) get water when/if the flight crew passes out beverages.

@Cleveland

Does all of this extra security on the plane make your wife any safer? Really?

Sure, it might keep her safe on her flight tomorrow. But the day after that, any terrorist with an ounce of brains and a pound of motivation is going to realize they can blow themselves up on the bus, or the subway, or in the mall food court. For them, one mass casualty event is as good as another.

Planes are one target out of literally millions. Beefing up security on planes doesn't make anybody safer. Except maybe the airline industry.

@roland -

"Interesting and not entirely unexpected. Lots of complaining about the new rules, the old rules, the rule makers ... but not one comment against the group that is responsible (across the world) for this mess."

And just what purpose would such a comment make on this or any other forum? Are you so naive as to beleive a terrorist cares what you or anyone else says on an internet forum or in the letters to the editor?

"That's right and we all should be 'good Germans'"

I call Godwin's Law. How long did it take, 100 posts?

The blog was just quoted on CNN :)

Just to clarify my last comment... it sure does seem like there was a serious plot in progress to do something really evil on planes. As a temporary measure, tougher security at airports is important.

I imagine people who rely on dramamine or other OTC meds for calming a nervous stomach aren't going to like this. Neither will the passengers next to them.

Some people are making the point that if you don't like these security measures, you can simply take the train, drive, etc.

To that, I say: if you can't stand the one-in-a-hundred-million chance of being killed by a terrorist bomb, why don't YOU take the train or drive? Let me take the airplane in peace. It will still be safer than driving even with reasonable screening.

"More security" should never be the default position that we must disprove.

@Brian

It does keep her safer for the moment. That's all I'm worried about at this time. If the airlines beef up security and it puts even an ounce of doubt into the minds of the warped, then it has done it's job. That's the point of the security. If it wasn't there, people would complain and when it is there, people complain. It's a lose-lose on the side of the airlines and the agencies that implement these security measures.

I agree that if someone wanted to destroy a mall or bus then they would. It doesn't matter the place or the method, it is now a very real threat in everyday life. No one is more aware of this than myself. The point that I was trying to make and probably didn't do a great job of is that no matter what the Government does or doesn't do, people will complain.

Checked film will be DESTROYED (via powerfull x-rays used on checked luggage) and now I cannot carry it on, what is a photo bug to do now?? Having undeveloped film shipped is no safer as it may travel by air and will again be x-rayed. So now I must purchase my film at my destination (if I can) and have it processed prior to returning (again if I can.) Yes, digital is not effected, and that is why I have gon digital, but now I risk the loss of that equipment in my luggage.

Just a thought to help you think through the implications.

@Cleaveland

Yeah - let me just get into my car and *drive* to India - can you point me to a road that goes from the US to India?

Driving isn't always possible. It would be nice if it were, because I'd be doing a *lot* more driving.

Well, I think this is an abomination.

The palatability/toxicity of a liquid may not be a particularly valid test. A suicide bomber expects to die, soon. Swill down some of the "baby formula" that will cause horrible poisoning effects in three hours or so, and blow up the plane in only two hours.

Notebook computers, mobile printers, scanners, and cameras will not survive in check luggage even if they are not stolen. Our organization prohibits them being transport in checked luggage. Fortunately we generally don't have to go through Heathrow.

The stupidity of our government is embarrassing.

"What is the difference between blowing up a plane and blowing up a shopping mall? "

Airplanes are prone to catastrophic failure and only require a little explosive to destroy. On "Mythbusters" they destroyed a pressurized plane with what was described as a 100 grain shaped charge that consisted of only a few strips of det cord in a funnel shape (this was all on the tv show, I'm not giving away any secrets here.)

The real winners of this new security regime are the food vendors in the sterile area since we'll all have to by food there and scarf it down before the plane boards.

@ Bruce, who wrote, "Given how little we know of the extent of the plot, these don't seem like rediculous short-term measures."

What a ridiculous statement. There are **always** plots we don't know about, so these measures have either always been reasonable or they have never been reasonable.

If terrorists are bringing our interstate and international commerce and travel to a permanent slowdown then there can be no denying that they are winning the so-called "War on Terror"

Good thing we have air marshalls to shoot dead any passengers that get too irritated with the absurd security measures.

I vote for sedation. It would make the whole experience more pleasant anyway.

Sorry, the keys for the Honda Civic Hybrid now integrate the 'key fob' controls - lock/unlock/panic into the head of the key itself. So does Homeland Security get to confiscate my car key, or does my car remain an unattended vehicle in the airport parking lot?

What is in the beverage that makes it flammable or incendiary?

What is the mystery gel-like substance (it's either a gel or it isn't) that is inert when passing through explosives screening? Can it be rendered in a powder form, and do we prevent people from using the toilet so they can't access water?

If anyone is at the airport over the next few days, please let us know if the kiosks are still selling Gatorade, PowerAde, Red Bull, or any other energy drink.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this one, Bruce.

And watch out for the passenger in 14A, he's drinking Diet Coke and his breath smells like Mentos.

From what I'm reading on Flyertalk (a high-quality board for all things flight travel), the water-ban may go on for days. And airlines might not be allowed to bring on extra bottled water.

Could they please stop for a moment, and contemplate how very, very, very unlikely it is that random pallets of water will be compromised? And how dangerous dehydration can be?

If airlines can't have pallets of water delivered to the plane, because the TSA doesn't see this as safe, then the TSA is living in a world where 99% of passengers are bad guys. Contemplate the probability that a random bottle of water from a random pallet is going to end up in the hands of bad guys on a plane.

Clean drinking water is not a luxury item. Clean drinking water is not an optional item.

wiki article on the foiled plot...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

The 'precautions' that are now being taken pointless. A plot of this type is old news, anyone in the business of blowing things is already aware of liquid explosives. The risk level has not changed fundamentally, so why tighten screening procedures now?

I see it now. This is the perfect excuse for a new round of government bailout of the airline industry.

I think the terrorists ARE winning. Bin Laden did say that the way to beat the West was through bleeding our economy. He is getting VERY good returns for his investment and he didn't even have to kill anyone.

Frankly, I view the new restrictions as simply a show of force. A way for the TSA to justify their existence. It appears to be working.

Ever kicked over an anthill? You're watching the results on live TV. Wait a few weeks/months and the TSA will be back to just feeling up old ladies and toddlers.

@ Cleveland
[begin flame here]
YOU ARE THE MARINE WE ARE "AFRAID" OF, AS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

"We all have to understand that times have officially changed."
"So please stop all of your belly-aching and just realize that this is the new world that we live in."

BULLSHIT. The world is little different than it was 20 years ago. If you think that things "officially" changing (in the imagination of some bureaucrat) is sufficient you need to grow up and learn that the outside world is not the military. We don't need nor want an "official" to tell us that the world has changed--because we can be damn sure that when said official does so he is using the very same tactics that an artful German civil servant by the name of Göebbels put to use for his own personal advancement.
[end flame here]
The fact of the matter is that you're own comments betray you to be afraid of exactly what the terrorists want you to fear: the loss of a loved one. (They can't change the minds of dead people.) Granted you appear to have not needed their convincing, so you at least weren't coerced. Good for you, but they could care less. You are afraid and that is what matters.
I, for my part, am just annoyed. I don't need nor want yet another misinformed puritanical nutjob out there deciding "what's best for me" and everyone else out there based on superstition and FUD.
Granted also that today is just the perfect occasion for yet another military-inspired acronym: SNAFU.
What we, the members of the so-called "free world" need most is both to dissent and to take the right to do so (and the content of most dissent by mostly sane people) seriously. This is how one fights off authoritarian and absolutist movements and regimes. Our own history [in the USA] is a testament to that fact.
Oh, and if all of this just seems all too much like the plotline of 1984 you perhaps need to make note of the fact that Orwell read many of the same things which inspired Göebbels. Said literature's content is also a part of modern-day PR and Journalism programs. Take everything with a grain of salt, and remember that all real criminals (those whom act with a blatant disreguard for others) are just criminals unless we imagine otherwise.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207744,00.html

On the other hand, the terrorists are lowering the price of gas; probably not what they had intended.

Dammit, first TSA took away my nail clippers, so I had to threaten pilots with the sharp wood sticks I kept in my sleeves.

Then they made me cancel my shoe-bombing plans, so I had to start taping my explosives to my shin.

Then they made me leave my lighters on the ground -- good thing they only look for them when I bring cigarettes.

Now they're going to make me check my bottle of liquid explosives. I didn't even know there was such a thing, but I guess I'll get some and tape a Ziploc of it to my belly.

Can't wait for my virgins in heaven!

The fuel NASA used on the service module engine in the Apollo program was hypergolic. Two liquids come together and spontaneously ignite, so a compound explosive isn't out of the realm of possiblity. Granted the specific ingrediants aren't nice (rather caustic actually), so a taste test is an effective security measure against those. And no, I'm not talking about Mentos and Diet Coke (although they would a low-impulse fuel - per Mythbusters last night).

I still wonder why the TSA hasn't banned the big hammer the flight attendants use to bust up the ice.

"There are several exceptions to the new rule. Baby formula, breast milk, or juice for small children, prescription medications where the name matched the name of a ticked passenger, ..."

I guess it works both ways, ticked or ticketed :-)

@RvnPhnx

You're damned right I'm worried about my wife, what man wouldn't be. To be 'annoyed' would be doing my wife a great injustice and would not show her how I really feel. I haven't changed the way that I go about my day, I'm not tucked into a corner of my closet shuddering with fear. I'm concerned, and rightfully so. These are very real threats and shouldn't be taken lightly. If you want to roam about 'free' and not worry about any government telling you what to do, where would you go? Find a system that's perfect and let everyone know about it. It's not perfect but it's the best system out there. Oh, yeah, the grass is ALWAYS greener. Let's get real, the government and the bureaucrats aren't sitting back going 'lets do this to them, then they'll really hate us'. If your so self centered that you don't care about the well being of other human beings and you believe that the government is telling you what to do, then aren't YOU the one we should fear?!?

The flight attendants will be very happy. At long last there won't be any haggling with passengers over too much hand luggage.

Who need books, newspapers, etc., I for would even fly naked if airline operators provided crews like this one:

http://sevenload.de/videos/me9YeZ8

"We’ve lost the ability to come to grips with the simple fact that life is not a safe proposition—that life will kill us all by and by, regardless." - Jack Gordon, Milksop Nation, http://www.shelleconomistprize.com/winners2002.html

"The costs of terrorism very often are the result of hasty, ill-considered, and overwrought reactions." - John Mueller, A False Sense of Insecurity, http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/cato_on_the_ris.html

"...Baby formula, breast milk, or juice for small children, prescription medications where the name matched..."

And what are nursing mothers supposed to drink to make up for the water lost in nursing? Airplane tap water- found to often have bacteria? The cups (they are banning giving cans to pax) of juice, when the juice'll run out after the first hour?

OK, ban people from bringing their own drinks. But also preventing the airlines from bringing on extra *clean* water? There is no safety benefit, none at all, to that. There is a severe risk to passengers: being stuck on the tarmac for an extra hour or two, without A/C, happens every day.

And this idea that essential medicines are prescription medicines? From CNN:
"Bill Poland, 61, of Ross was headed to Lake George, New York, with his wife and son. He held up a tube of lip balm and shouted to a security officer who told him he couldn't bring it on the plane with him. He said he recently had a cancerous growth removed from his lip and the anti-bacterial ointment was necessary treatment.

"In an hour or two my lips are going to start burning and turning purple. And I've got five to six hours on a plane without this," he said. "This is not something I'm looking forward to." '

I just hope that these restrictions are temporary.

I always travel with a laptop, and placing it in checked baggage is not an option. It will either not arrive or arrive broken.

Why is it that exactly the things savvy travelers have been doing for years (placing valuables or delicate items in carry-on baggage, bringing their own food and water, bringing reading material) are exactly the things that are being prohibited today? It is senseless to deny us these reasonable precautions.

In particular combine the new UK rules with the US policy of not locking your checked baggage so that TSA can search it. There was a reason the airlines advised us for years to lock our bags. Now that they ask us to do the opposite, has the original reason changed at all? Of course not. Knowledgeable travelers never place valuables or delicate items in checked bags.

So we are now officially required to act stupidly. Per the new UK rules, we must place valuable items such as laptops, cellphones, and iPods in checked bags, and those checked bags (at least by US rules) must be unlocked.

@Skate

For the sake of argument, let's assume that it is easier to create a mass-casualty event on an airplane than in a mall or a subway, because airplanes fail catastrophically.

Also for the sake of argument, let's assume that the new security measures on planes will prevent terrorists from attacking airplanes.

It seems pretty obvious (to me, anyway), that terrorists will go for the smaller mass-casualty event, on the subway, for example.

So instead of killing 300 people, they kill 50.

Massive TSA security measures that will do serious harm to businesses and the airline industry have saved the lives of a grand total of 250 people.

Was it worth it?

Maybe I'm cold-hearted, but I don't think so. And for what it's worth, I ride the subway way more often than I fly.

Cleveland,

In the shock of the first hours of hearing about this horrible plot, every decision made by the authorities will feel right.

But when there are real risks- real dangerous effects- from a decision made, we have the right to ask officials to prove that they are calmly reviewing their initial fear-filled decisions. They have the responsibility to prove they are aware of the separate impacts and different relative risks that one lump rule will have. i.e.

Banning passengers from bringing liquids? They've shown why this ban is needed. *Also* banning airlines from bringing on additional safe drinking water? This is dangerous. Dehydration is a real risk, especially to the frail or ill. Or people with kidney stones- constant hydration can be a medical necessity.

Sure, making one overarching decision is easy- we should give them that in the first 12 hours. But it's been more than 12 hours. Far, far more than 12 hours at the highest levels of the TSA. Clean safe drinking water is a necessity, yet they didn't seem to know this in their contingency plans.

Plans that miss out on critical infrastructure ('water') aren't safe, and I and everyone else here has the duty to call them out on it.

@jason,

so to take a somewhat tenuous biological security analogy, terrorists are to society as allergens are to your body. They don't kill you directly, but the vast overreaction by your immune system does.

To all those saying "the terrorists haven't won, if you don't like this just drive!" Don't you see that this very statement indicates the terrorists *are* winning? Their whole goal is to change our policies and the way we live. If we implement ridiculous security procedures which keep people from flying, we have drastically changed our lifestyle due to the "terrorist threat." That's the very definition of them "winning."

What, do you think their sole goal was to kill people? That is clearly not the case. For all the press statements about how horrible this event would have been, blowing up 10 planes would kill about 3000 people. Sure that's a lot of people, but there are hundreds of ways to kill more people with far less effort. They aren't just trying to kill people. They are trying to make us so afraid that we change our policies around them. And it is working.

Are these measures reasonable in the short term to catch anyone who may have slipped through