MSE News: Is lipstick really a liquid? Airports enforce different security rules

heatherw_01 wrote: »

I do think it is ridiculous that they all seem to set their own rules. I always go by the government website and follow that...

Yup; but even the "Government Rules" are a great example of "something must be done"-ery. Let's remind ourselves why these "temporary restrictions" on lipstick, lemonade and Limoncello were introduced.

I was in Italy and about to fly home in 2006 when the CIA leaned on UK authorities to close down a ring of wannabe terrorists who were planning to bring down a flight to the US using explosives disguised in drinks bottles in cabin baggage.
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/liquids-ban-on-flights-10th-anniversary-do-we-still-need-it-a7181216.html

My godsons and I, having already left our little flat in Puglia, enjoyed an unexpected 3 days extra holiday in Rome, as London airspace was closed while they (precipitately) mopped up the conspirators. It was a great example of intelligence-led sleuthing, and the subsequent restriction was meant to be temporary - maybe up to 18 months - while the authorities worked out screening methods for liquid explosives.

Over ten years later, we're still presumably spending gazillions on staff and screening for frisking people for hair-gel and swiss army penknives? Dunno how many bomb plots have been averted but it's done wonders for airside sales of shampoo and conditioner (not that as a baldie, that worries me!)

AlexMac wrote: »

Dunno how many bomb plots have been averted but it's done wonders for airside sales of shampoo and conditioner (not that as a baldie, that worries me!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-41026591

There's one from this year alone...admittedly the Police did muck up a little bit but the airport security screeners themselves did what was meant to happen.

Aviation Security is simply a deterrent. Nobody will ever know the true impact but you certainly don't hear of aeroplanes being hijacked by pen-knives any more. Whilst security can be an inconvenience to some, at the end of the day it is YOU that is getting on the plane, not the security officers.

jamesd wrote: »

That one was using a pipe bomb, not liquid explosives, so wasn't blocked by the liquid restrictions. The nitrocellulose that was part of the explosives in that is a very easy chemical synthesis, demonstrated to me in a chemistry lab lecture on explosives, a very important class of chemical products. Not really practical to do it in an plane toilet though, takes too long for that to be viable.

The liquid blocks are pretty much completely ineffective against a couple of quite well known techniques for hiding things, one commonly used by illegal drug shippers:

1. rectal concealment. Put whatever you like in say a sealed glass vial that has been cleaned using vapour deposition cleaning to remove any significant residues (but your body will need serious cleaning and new clothes, along with no activity in the place where you handled explosives).

2. surgically implanted explosives, the boob job or baby device, or just general surgery on humans or other animals. Used to get a bomb close to a senior Arab target. Sometimes called "body packing".

My comment was regarding aviation security in general. The liquids ban/restriction does serve a purpose. Whilst the technology does exist in airports to screen bottles of liquids, at the moment it is not suitable for general use. Currently these machiens are used to check things like medications, baby food and milk, etc. The sealed-bag restrictions allow for much easier and faster liquid checking on a mass scale.

Security services are more than aware that the next major threat will not be some blokes with balaclavas...that's why the security process that you SEE is a deterrent for the wannabes, mentally unwell, amateur, etc. What is unseen more generally is the background work which try to detect these more meaningful and harder-to-detect threats.

I use an A5 ziplock bag, the thicker plastic folder kinds not the sandwich bag kinds, and I've always been fine with one of them, thankfully.

I don't put any powders in to save space, as it's my logical understanding that a powder is not a liquid or gel. I do take quite a lot of products in my A5 bag as well, usually shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, liquid foundation, primer, moisturiser, liquid eyeliner, eyeshadow primer, eyebrow gel, mascara, shower gel, lipsticks, dry shampoo & hairspray. My non-liquid products usually consist of pressed powder, loose powder, powder blush & eyeshadows.

So far nobody has said anything, but I do wear all those products for daily wear so I always assumed that because I looked like the kind of person to pack that many cosmetics, they've used their common sense and just let me through.

As a tip though, pop into Boots or a department store before you go and ask if they have any fragrance samples. They usually have plenty available to give out, they'll usually be no more than 10ml samples but they're often in a handy mini spritzer bottle, or you can get a packet which you just open and rub on your skin. I usually pack 4/5 of them as one small sample will last a day or two, then they can simply be disposed of. They're really small so can easily be squeezed into your clear bag as well. Saves packing any perfume but allows you to have a nice fragrance for when you're out and about.