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

141–150 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#141

Post by prmoustache »

chihuahua wrote: post #54
Fervicus wrote: post #35

How many man hours and how much money have we wasted over security theater at airports? Has it been a worthwhile trade off?

No successful terrorist attacks on planes going to/from western countries after 9/11/2001, that's a pretty good record. Maybe we can't prove that the security theater was responsible for that, but still, the only planes that were bombed after 9/11/2001 were inside Russia or going from Egypt to Russia.

I thonk it has more to do with process and pilot crew closing their door.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#143

Post by nlawalker »

bulbar wrote: post #120
nlawalker wrote: post #15

Let me get this straight. If the article is correct, the new capabilities are related to better detection of large liquid containers, not determination of whether or not the liquid is dangerous. So - you couldn’t take large amounts of liquids previously because some liquids in large amounts might be able to be weaponized. If you were caught with too much liquid (in sum total, or in containers that are too large) they…

When you don't know much about a topic, probability is higher that your are missing some piece than some entity doing things that make no sense. I know it's easy to get the impression that's not the case. But when your stop making fun of / belittle such events / persons / decision and be curious instead you start to realize that more often than not you are just missing a piece of information. The truth oftentimes is…

You’re right. I am genuinely curious though, so I shouldn’t have been so snarky about it. I’ll try again:

I’ve always been under the impression that large containers of liquids were forbidden because they were potentially dangerous. If that hasn’t changed, and if the new technology is only about being able to better detect the presence of liquids in packed luggage, why have the limits on container size changed?

EDIT: So I see that the article says that it’s about being able to keep the liquids in your bag when going through security. But I thought liquids in large containers were forbidden from going through security entirely unless you had some kind of medical justification for them?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#144

Post by chihuahua »

throwaway150 wrote: post #94
chihuahua wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

UK uses the metric system. Why would anyone expect UK to follow the imperial system in $CURRENT_YEAR?

I was referring to the fact that the TSA, the American government agency, also uses 100ml

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#145

Post by ekianjo »

chihuahua wrote: post #44
harry8 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

if you are really serious about this, you can hide a pocket a fluid inside your body, and nobody would know...

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#146

Post by CTDOCodebases »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #71

This just adds confusion as to the purpose of all this. The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids. Average people have never heard of them because they aren’t in popular lore. There has never been an industrial or military use, solids are simpler. Nonetheless, these explosives are easily accessible to a knowledgeable chemist like me. The…

The security theatre is there to make people feel safe.

It's about emotion not logic.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#147

Post by bruce511 »

hosteur wrote: post #131
chihuahua wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No successful terrorist attacks on planes going to/from western countries after 9/11/2001, that's a pretty good record. Maybe we can't prove that the security theater was responsible for that, but still, the only planes that were bombed after 9/11/2001 were inside Russia or going from Egypt to Russia.

I have a rock that keeps tigers away. For 30 years I have not encountered any tigers. That’s a pretty good record.

To answer the parent question, no not even close.

TSA direct costs, passenger time wasted, flights missed, items confiscated.

All so no bombs on planes. But somehow also no bombs at sports events or music concerts, or on trains or subways, or courthouses or....

So the TSA is either stunningly successful or a complete waste. I'd argue a complete waste, but hey, everyone in a TSA uniform drawing a paycheck us entitled to a different opinion.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#148

Post by kstenerud »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #71

This just adds confusion as to the purpose of all this. The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids. Average people have never heard of them because they aren’t in popular lore. There has never been an industrial or military use, solids are simpler. Nonetheless, these explosives are easily accessible to a knowledgeable chemist like me. The…

It's about making people feel safe.

We're not rational beings, so what do you do about an irrational fear? You invent a magical thing that protects from that irrational fear.

You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more.

You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many of which can't be protected against due to the laws of physics and practicality - short of forcing everyone to travel naked and strapped in like cattle, with no luggage. And even then, what about the extremist who works for the airline?

So you invent some theater to stop people from panicking (a far more real danger). And that's a perfectly acceptable solution.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#149

Post by Nextgrid »

purpleidea wrote: post #133

Heathrow is still a bullshit airport: 1) Bodyscanners: body scanners are a scam 2) They took away my 100ml contain that clearly had less than 1 cm of liquid in it because it wasn't clearly labelled as "100ml". Any idiot could know it was like 10ml full. 3) They used to do actual xray basically on people. 4) You have to re-security to transfer on connections! You already could have blown up the incoming plane, why doe…

A trick I use to bypass the liquid restriction is to intentionally pack a sacrificial bottle in addition to whatever valuable bottle I care about. In most cases when the luggage comes for manual inspection they toss the first (sacrificial one) they see and leave the actual valuable bottle alone.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#150

Post by politelemon »

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,…

Only in the Apple reality distortion field would I see the hubris of boot times being equated to saving lives. I see value in saving time, but without the celebrity worship, it's nowhere near the same in terms of importance, application, or utility. Besides, the same time saving desire has been a driving force in software by nameless developers since the beginning of software. Attempting to frame and attribute the concept to a single individual is dismissive and disrespectful to the work of others.
Post reply on HN