BA to fingerprint domestic passengers

[David Hansen]

On 5 Mar 2008 at 9:59, Roland Perry wrote:

> >I'd assumed the worry[1] was chemical agents, although the 100 ml volume
> > limit doesn't seem to preserve us against a nerve or mustard agent.
> 
> The scare which triggered these restrictions was caused by an alleged 
> plot [1] to manufacture a binary explosives on board.

Even if one assumes that such manufacture is possible, all it does is 
move events to the so-called security checkpoint where ot may affect 
far more people, as has been demonstrated elsewhere.

Imagine the scene at Heathrow. Someone, perhaps so-called security bod, 
opens a bottle of something and discovers that the liquid is not 
benign. He or she falls over and spills the liquid over the floor. If 
it can be made to disperse adequately (which is not as easy as shown in 
films, but can be done) then it can be dispersed rapidly around the 
building courtesy of the ventilation system before it can be switched 
off [1], so that it doesn't just affect people in the immediate 
vicinity.

Anyway, if one wanted to mix something up in a toilet then the thing to 
mix up is one of the nerve agents. They can be mixed in a few seconds, 
see binary munitions, and then circulated around the aeroplane via the 
air conditioning system. The companies recirculate nearly all the air, 
to avoid the expense of heating much replacement air.

[1] the sort of filtration needed to keep these sort of things at bay 
is large, expensive to buy and very expensive to run. It is/was 
installed in a handful of buildings, most below ground but some above 
ground. I doubt if any airports are fitted with it and even if they 
were it wouldn't prevent mass casualties in the immediate vicinity.




-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents 
me   
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54