> Unfortunately, it wasn’t down to the fact that airports realized it was a bogus security concern, but rather because they got new tomography machines that produce a 3D image of the scanned baggage rather than a 2D one.
I fear "security" laws are always eternal until the collapse of civilization.
The new scanning technology being 3D instead of 2D has seemingly no connection wit the removal of the 100 ml limit, it seems like these new scanners have (better) explosive detection capabilities, otherwise it would only allow to avoid taking the liquid containers out of the bag, not changing anything about their allowed size.
And it all came out of a "terrorist plan" uncovered by British intelligence in 2006, involving the use of TATP that many people familiar with the matter said at the time was hardly doable due to the instability of this explosive.
Additionally we were told that the issue was not only the liquid quantity, but also (and mainly) the capacity of the liquid container:
But last week I departed from an airport in Italy and there were special containers just before the security control line where you could empty your flask/canteen that, once empty, you could bring with you, still the 100 ml capacity applied for other liquids.
So, if not completely "bogus" the current limits seem like arbitrary or however open to various interpretatioins.
> Unfortunately, it wasn’t down to the fact that airports realized it was a bogus security concern, but rather because they got new tomography machines that produce a 3D image of the scanned baggage rather than a 2D one.
I fear "security" laws are always eternal until the collapse of civilization.