>> 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',

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

< hat = devilsadvocate>

If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I agree, there can surely be no greater breach of privacy than to have
all your internal components plus all your luggage components
distributed publicly at 30,000+ feet along with everyone else's who
are travelling with you. The shame!. Such breaches of decorum are
worth going to any length to avoid.
<or>
There are no significant privacy breaches involved in the sense that
would usually be understood by the term. If you don't shop in shops
that have signs that say your bag may be searched on leaving because
of the signs and the policy, then you may have problems with airline
security people wanting to be sure of what's in your bag. But, other
than concerns of that level there are no great privacy issues.
Carrying and using an international passport is a personally agreed to
privacy 'breach' that makes most others pall.

The "losses of freedom", as noted in a previous email, are balanced by
social contract with the losses which would or might occur to  others
if 'my' freedoms' were  not limited by mutual social assent. ALL such
restrictions are carried out as an assenting part of using an
essentially private for-profit system where the rules are set with the
intention of maximising profitable outcomes. ie market forces have
established  this system. (What the market will bear: Too many dead
customers, travel drops off. Too many restrictions, travel drops off.)
Because the system uses a 'common good' governments get involved in
the regulations as well, but that's still apart of the market forces
mix. Some carriers are more careful than others and it is not obvious
that this is not by choice.

Airline security has been tight for a long time. Especially so for the
last 8 years 8 months or so. I have no problem with that. What I
dislike is inconsistent and unintelligent application.

Despite my having argued for the ineffectivesnesss of current methods,
there have been extremely few successful and an apparently few
unsuccessful (don't ask, don't tell, these are not the ones you want,
move along please ...) attempts to do nasty things to aircraft in
flight in the last 7 years or so.

SEEMING arbitrary is good, if those you are attempting to forestall do
not understand the reasons for your actions. The measures may not be
arbitrary, but are inconsistently and non rigorously applied. Allowing
US passengers to carry empty bottles aboard with capacities > 100 cc
seems strange.

In Shanghai "the tower" has signage*  which disallows the carrying of
fluids over 100 cc. Also tinder, exploder, restsricted cutter,
articles which can destroy and pollute, dangerous germs, pests,
baleful biology, articles from epidemic areas, contraband, carrying of
animals, articles which disturb common sanitation including the
peculiar smell of effluvium. Such restrictions of freedom are unheard
of elsewhere :-)


       R


* Photo  available. Too large to attach without shrinking too small.
Rushing ...

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