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

211–220 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#211

Post by throwaway290 »

bruce511 wrote: post #140
unclad5968 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. It's all security theater. This matches my experience. I recently flew out of a small airport that flies 2 fairchild metro 23 turboprop planes up to 9 passengers. There were four TSA agents to check the 5 of us that were flying.

You gotta love the TSA. They serve no real purpose, but its a monster too big to kill, staffed by people who desperately cling to the notion they're doing something important. They don't stop hijackings (locking the cockpit door does that), they don't stop bombings (there are much better targets for that, which don't involve killing the bomber), they don't stop weapons (lots of airports outside the US have simple met…

> they don't stop weapons (lots of airports outside the US have simple metal detectors for that.)

There are 3D printed guns.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#212

Post by stephen_g »

BrenBarn wrote: post #184
kstenerud wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I seriously doubt that most people are happy with the tradeoffs of safety vs. convenience provided by the TSA. The general idea of x-ray, metal detectors, sure, that's all good. But the stuff with taking off your shoes, small containers of liquid, etc., no. I think if we reverted to a simpler system with fewer oddly specific requirements layered on top, most people would not feel significantly less safe, but would fe…

The thing about shoes is just dumb anyway - I don't know if there was some period of time where it was required elsewhere around the world but I never experienced it. Literally the only times I've ever had to take off my shoes were during the two times I've visited the US (vs. a over a dozen trips to European and Asian countries).

Liquid restrictions were also lifted in my country four or so years ago for domestic travel, so it's still annoying when getting ready for an international trip and I remember I still have to do that...

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#213

Post by bawolff »

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.

Bombings are pretty rare. The last succesful plane bombing of a plane departing from the united states that killed people was in 1962.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#214

Post by hdgvhicv »

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.

Ok so cockpit door was locked and thus nobody can hijack plane.

Of course even that has killed people.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#216

Post by sethammons »

reeredfdfdf wrote: post #187
closewith wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they don't stop bombings (there are much better targets for that, which don't involve killing the bomber), I think you should read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_a... The only reason you believe aircraft bombings aren't being stopped is because you live in a world where rigourous security has stopped all aircraft bombings.

Yeah. The "security theater" absolutely does play its part in stopping attacks. Without it, airplanes would be an extremely easy target for any nutjob to commit mass murder in. They wouldn't even necessarily need a bomb, anything that can cause a big enough fire mid-flight could be potentially catastrophic. Over past few decades many airliners have crashed because out of control fire in the cabin / cargo hold. I real…

Did you drop a sarcasm tag? Anyone can make a fire on a plane as they allow lighters on a plane, and batteries, and any number of flammable objects. None of that is facing any scrutiny nor stopping crazy people from being crazy.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#217

Post by bawolff »

reeredfdfdf wrote: post #198
bruce511 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's just not bombs that are a danger. You really don't want anyone to set the airplane on fire either, or start shooting people or holes into the fuselage. AFAIK America has had plenty of shootings, and probably arson attacks too over that time period.

Other then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Northern_Airlines_Flight... how often has anyone ever set fire to a plane (not counting bombs that caused fires). Is there even a single other example.

I agree on guns, but you can probably deal with that with much lower intensity security.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#218

Post by terribleperson »

bsimpson wrote: post #135
terribleperson wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not 3 bottles, it's 3.4 oz or 100 ml.

isn't it whatever fits in a quart-sized ziploc? i presume that's where the other poster estimated "only 3 bottles."

3-1-1 is an awful mnemonic, but it's basically: 3.4 oz containers in 1 1-quart ziplock bag.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#219

Post by hdgvhicv »

decimalenough wrote: post #174
chipsrafferty wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what? Alcohol isn't flammable unless it's over 63%, and you aren't allowed to bring duty free alcohol on the plane.

Duty-free purchases are all hand carried into the aircraft, and "tamper-proof" bags are nothing of the sort.

Tamper evident, a very different thing.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#220

Post by hdgvhicv »

ascorbic wrote: post #104
necovek wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just large amounts of liquids: it was my understanding that this is both a restriction on large amounts of liquid, but particularly on large containers needed for an explosive of sufficient destructive power. You could always easily work around the liquid amount restriction (multiple containers over multiple people), but if you still need a large container, it becomes harder. I don't know if this is true or…

This might make sense if there weren't shops selling large bottles right after security. Ones full of highly flammable liquids, even.

Or if you couldnt simply take a large empty bottle through.

Howver if you rely on 10 people to take 100ml each that’s a far larger conspiracy and far less likely than one person taking 1l through.

Post reply on HN