Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#41

Post by dullcrisp »

etchalon wrote: post #34
danpalmer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My real anger is that we have found it possible to fund and implement this level of screening, at massive monetary, human and privacy cost, but I can't go to my doctor and ... get a body scan that does all the 3d segmentation, recognition, etc Airport screening of people doesn't yield those results. It's able to notice a big inorganic mass, or a chunk of metal, but it wouldn't spot a tumour, it gives nowhere near t…

I think the point is we can afford massive machines for the TSA that are essentially paid for by the Federal Budget, and used by millions each day for free, but we can't do the same for MRI machines.

I think an MRI probably takes longer than the TSA scan so walk-through MRIs wouldn’t be practical.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#42

Post by ch4s3 »

jmward01 wrote: post #19

Famously Steve Jobs had a story about shaving time off of boot-up and equating it to saving lives on the concept of people sitting their waiting for the computer to boot up just lost that much of their lives. [1] I actually do believe there is value in thinking this way and it is one of my biggest arguments against TSA. Everything has a cost, including 'security' and 'safety'. If you look at the very real human toll,…

> My real anger at airport screening is that we have found it possible to fund and implement this level of screening, at massive monetary, human and privacy cost, but I can't go to my doctor and for a few pennies (sorry, those don't exist now, how about for a few nickles?) get a body scan that does all the 3d segmentation, recognition, etc etc etc. We could actually save lives

This always strikes me as a weird thing tech people believe about medicine. Full body scans just aren’t medically useful for otherwise healthy people. You’ll inevitably see something and it’s almost certainly going to be benign but might send you down the path of a lot of expensive and dangerous treatments or exploratory procedures. This is why there’s always so much debate about prostrate exam and breast exam age recommendations. There’s a tipping point where the risk of iatrogenesis outward the risk of disease.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#43

Post by chihuahua »

roamingryan wrote: post #37

I have never understood how this was effective against a determined adversary. An arbitrary limit like 100ml is pointless when there is no limit to the number of times you can pass through the checkpoint.

It's also hilarious that the limit is the very metric 100ml, and not some even number of freedom units like 3 or 4 fluid ounces, like Jesus, George Washington, and bald eagles would have wanted.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#44

Post by chihuahua »

harry8 wrote: post #33
dexwiz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If batteries were standardized and replaceable I bet they would force you to not bring your own, and only ones purchasable passed the gate could be used. Maybe that a silver lining to the repairability issues.

On Scoot (Budget Singapore Air) they let you bring your external phone batteries on the plane but do NOT let you use them. You have to rent one of theirs. Skyphone installation by the airlines led to "flight mode" because the horror of not paying is far more important than safety. All of this fake, useless theatre undermines real security and makes us less safe while picking our pockets. Fluids to bring down a plane?…

The intention/purpose of the limit on fluids was to prevent people from assembling liquid explosives inside the plane. The contents of your bladder would not help with that.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#45

Post by superfrank »

roamingryan wrote: post #37

I have never understood how this was effective against a determined adversary. An arbitrary limit like 100ml is pointless when there is no limit to the number of times you can pass through the checkpoint.

I'm sure that going through security 5 times for the same flight is bound to trigger some extra screening and even if it doesn't, each time you cross through increases the likelihood of getting caught by the normal process.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a large part of it is just security theatre, but part of it is also just to be enough of a deterrent that a would-be terrorist chooses a different target.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#46

Post by superfrank »

atmosx wrote: post #40
roamingryan wrote: post #37

I have never understood how this was effective against a determined adversary. An arbitrary limit like 100ml is pointless when there is no limit to the number of times you can pass through the checkpoint.

Oh. So it was a security measure? I honestly thought it was a way to force you to spend money on things on the airport or abroad. Like shampoo, water, etc.

It was a reaction to a foiled terrorist attack in the UK where terrorists planned to blow up planes using liquid explosives disguised as bottles of soda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl...

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#47

Post by deaux »

> For airport operations teams, the real benefit isn’t just traveler satisfaction. It’s throughput stability:

> - fewer stoppages caused by liquids mistakes

> - fewer tray-handling steps per passenger

> - less variability at peak banks (which is where hubs like LHR get punished)

Didn't know ChatGPT has started to call itself "John Cushma".

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#48

Post by amarant »

danpalmer wrote: post #36
etchalon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is we can afford massive machines for the TSA that are essentially paid for by the Federal Budget, and used by millions each day for free, but we can't do the same for MRI machines.

Lots of stuff is funded by the US federal budget instead of MRI machines. My point is that there's not actually any useful connection between the TSA scanners and medical scanners, it's comparing apples to oranges. By all means be angry about the lack of healthcare in the US, by all means blame other spending, but singling out the TSA is arbitrary.

Most of the other spending serves a useful purpose. TSA doesn't. Though they seem relatively benign next to the Gesta..I mean ICE

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#49

Post by stephen_g »

jonah wrote: post #21

We transited through LHR yesterday. Still had to go through security - not sure why since we stayed on the air side. Anyway, signage required us to empty our refillable water bottles. Odd. Thankfully we eventually found a refill station. The scanners flagged a still sealed can of ginger ale left over from our incoming flight. It was "fine" but she still swabbed it. Shrug.

Pretty common to have to re-clear security at large airports if you've come from another country, I've had to do it every time when transiting through Dubai for instance.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#50

Post by terribleperson »

darth_avocado wrote: post #32
jbellis wrote: post #2

Not because of a sudden outbreak of sanity, but because they have CT scanners now.

3-1-1 is rarely enforced. I always got confused why the 100ml limit existed, since I could just take multiple bottles of 100ml of whatever I wanted and it was okay. Then I realized that technically I only could take 3 bottles but I’ve been getting away with more for decades.

It's not 3 bottles, it's 3.4 oz or 100 ml.
Post reply on HN