"Security Theater" and Liquid Bombs

      In our discussion about safety versus personal liberty, we discussed the restrictions and regulations we experience while going through airport security. One of these included the restrictions on liquids on flights. The reason why airport security routinely checks liquids can be traced to the American and British Operation Overt, involving men who smuggled liquid explosives on planes. The leader, the Abdulla Ahmed Ali, was compelled by the appalling conditions of Afghanistan refugee camps he witnessed after leaving the UK. These men then made explosive devices of hydrogen peroxide and batteries using the internet. The explosives were then brought on planes, in order to spread their message against what they perceived as unjust foreign policy. These were uncovered when he returned home with the soft drink explosives. Had his plan worked, there could have been disastrous consequences for passengers. The Bojinka Plot was another instigator that occurred much earlier. Ramzi Yousef used liquid explosives in a Philippine Airline flight going to Tokyo. One person was killed in the incident. 

     The restrictions put in place by the TSA (3.4 ounces per person) are meant to prevent such attacks from becoming any worse. The size prevents any explosive liquid that a container might contain from doing any critical damage to the flight.

     While all of this suggests that this restriction is relatively reasonable, it begs the question of whether these ‘safety precautions’ are actually effective rather than just “security theater”. Restricting liberty in favor of safety can be warranted, but that still requires that it actually keep us safe. According to the Washington Post, the body-scanners meant to detect the carrying of the explosives on board are not effective. Although liquids are banned, they can still be smuggled in, so what’s the point exactly? There’s nothing stopping terrorists from trying to smuggle in liquids again and again on board because the policy does not have any consequences for those who violate it. At most, the bottle will be thrown away or confiscated. How can this help protect us if it wastes money one something that does not really work? There are other policies that are meant to scare off amateurs, and those who really want to cause damage can continue to try until the system fumbles. There are plenty of other things that have caused more deaths than terrorism: heart disease, cancer, stroke, cars; so why are we so caught up with checking baggage? If we are going to restrict our liberties and waste our time, there should be legitimate and effective reasons. Security clearance should protect rather than lull us into a false sense of security.


Sources
http://mentalfloss.com/article/565368/tsa-airport-liquids-rule-water-bottles-explained 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/opinion/why-britain-gets-angry-when-america-is-casual-with-secrets.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/10455915

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/08/07/dont-fear-the-tsa-cutting-airport-security-be-glad-that-theyre-talking-about-it/?noredirect=on

https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2008/10/time_to_show_bottle.html

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm