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

151–160 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#151

Post by HaZeust »

bradleybuda wrote: post #113
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.

Last I checked, in the US there has not been a single instance of the TSA detecting and preventing a terror attack in its 25 year history. And presumably they wouldn’t be shy about telling us if they had.

I mean, they do find a ton of guns and ammunition. I wouldn't be so sure.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#152

Post by nlawalker »

dexwiz wrote: post #107
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…

Have you never been screened where they swab your items and stick it in a machine? That is to detect explosives. They can use the first machine to target people for follow up screening.

I have, but what’s relevant is that I’m always commanded to dump out any liquids in containers bigger than the 3.4 oz limit before going through security unless they’re like a prescription medication. What I’m unclear on why that’s changed if the improvement that’s been made is in detection of liquids in packed bags.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#153

Post by rudhdb773b »

csomar wrote: post #70

I always thought the rule was about damage (liquid spilling onto your bag and other passengers' bags) rather than safety? That's based on how the rule was shaped: 100ml containers with no limits as long as in a sealed plastic bag. I wonder if they'll walk this back? If you put a 2L water bottle in the overhead compartment and hit enough turbulence, it could open and drench the entire compartment and other people's lu…

You're already allowed to refill large water bottles from a water fountain after passing through security, so the situation you described is already allowed to happen.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#154

Post by lmm »

sealeck wrote: post #117
lmm wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because flights are expensive enough that for most ordinary people missing one would set them back years or decades financially?

If the median UK salary is >£35,000 I really wonder how arrive at the conclusion that missing a flight will set you back "years or decades"...

> If the median UK salary is >£35,000 I really wonder how arrive at the conclusion that missing a flight will set you back "years or decades"...

Ok, now take that figure and deduct tax, housing, food, utilities and so on - how much do you think is disposable/saveable? And then take the typical cost of a last-minute replacement flight and compare those two numbers.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#155

Post by jandrewrogers »

hackingonempty wrote: post #138
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 motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids. The limits were instituted after discovering a plot to smuggle acetone and hydrogen peroxide (and ice presumably) on board to make acetone peroxide in the lavatory. TATP is not a liquid and it is not stable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl...

This illustrates a point though. TATP you could synthesize on a plane is entirely inadequate to bring down a plane. It also requires a bit more than acetone and hydrogen peroxide. Pan Am 103 required around half a kilo of RDX and TATP is very, very far from RDX.

The idea of synthesizing a proper high-explosive in an airplane lavatory is generally comical. The chemistry isn’t too complex but you won’t be doing it in an airplane lavatory.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#156

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

lmm wrote: post #95
PcChip wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did they force you to do that?

Anything a border official says is implicitly backed with the threat of, at a minimum, detention without trial and without basic humane treatment like access to drinking water. Heathrow has well publicised cases (and is not unusual in this).

> Heathrow has well publicised cases (and is not unusual in this)

Share with us your best source for this.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#157

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

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…

So how does that explain I can take 10 100ml bottles and an empty 1l bottle through security but not 1 full 1l bottle?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#158

Post by peyton »

kstenerud wrote: post #148
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…

It’s a $12 bn/yr production. I don’t think that’s perfectly acceptable. Let’s invest in loudspeakers if all we’re doing is shouting at people.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#160

Post by rudhdb773b »

ekianjo wrote: post #25
galuggus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently flew through china where they asked 3 times if if i had a portable charger and made everyone sign declarations to that effect.

Declarations are meaningless. This will not prevent fires ot occur.

Are battery fires on planes a common problem? I haven't heard of many, at least with any significant consequences.

And what would you suggest be done to reduce the risk? Asking passengers to travel without phones or laptops isn't realistic.

Post reply on HN