Russell McMahon wrote:
> You are allowed to carry through n x 100 ml liquids, and there is
> nothing to stop Y people combining their materials latterly, so
> absolute volume is hard to control. The Australians seem to be
> targeting this with their own checkpoints at the 'gate', and taking
> bottles off people again - even unopened ones just bought in the local
> stores at horrendous prices.
>
> I am able to easily carry strong containers (at least as strong as
> those that they confiscate) of arbitrarily large size in my carry on
> luggage (and, no, I'm not going to say how) so it would be trivially
> easy for others to do so as well.
>
> Based on relatively extensive travel experience in  recent years, with
> subsequent repeated 1st hand looks at the security systems,   I
> believe that a determined intelligent attacker would have a very good
> chance of being able to carry 'the makings' of any of a number of
> 'devices' through current security systems. "Bad" luck would be liable
> to be the main factor in failure.  I think the fact that this is not
> happening is liable to relate almost solely to a current lack of
> desire to do such things, rather than any effect of the security
> systems.
>
> There is substantial discussion in the public domain literature of
> newer systems which are liable to be somewhat effective against the
> "baddies". I only rail publicly against stupid ineffective make work
> systems - I'll not be discussing real systems that work in public
> forum :-).

The loss of freedom and privacy is appaling, and the measures seem arbitrary 
and utterly ineffective.

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist