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

611–620 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#611

Post by largbae »

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 was always theater, Bruce Schneier did a great set of blogs and tests back in the 2001+ time showing flaws throughout the process. At the same time, he pointed out that humanity had already adapted their response to airplane hijackings _that day_ (the Pennsylvania flight). An airplane exploding from a bomb is definitely scary, but not as scary as airplanes being turned into missiles by a few suicidal passengers.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#612

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#613

Post by y0eswddl »

dingaling wrote: post #199
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…

> It's about making people feel safe. I don't think that's a common perception of airport security. Few people take reassurance from it, most consider it a burden and hindrance that could stop them getting their flight if they don't perform the correct steps as instructed. The lifting of this restriction is an example, the overwhelming response is "oh thank goodness, now I don't have to pay for overpriced water" and…

People stopped flying after 9/11 and airlines lost money until the TSA was created and made people feel safe to fly again

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#614

Post by HWR_14 »

traceroute66 wrote: post #577
ncallaway wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like, really ? Do they seriously think someone who should answer yes will really answer yes ? No, they do not think anyone will check 'Yes' to that box. The purpose of the box is that it's a crime to lie when someone checks 'No', and that tends to be an easy charge to bring. So, the purpose of the form is to generate convictions for lying on the form.

> the purpose of the form is to generate convictions for lying on the form. Yeah but if the immigration officer has reason to question you about those sections of the form then surely they have more than enough evidence of the underlying crime anyway ?

Intent to commit espionage is not a crime (but committing or attempting to commit it is) Lying on the form is. It is probably easier to demonstrate intent to commit espionage than to catch them in the act.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#615

Post by biofox »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #303
fc417fc802 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting to contrast this with my experience flying out of China. I was taken to a private room and shown the digital colored X-ray of my bag on which a box had been drawn around an empty lighter, I was asked to remove it myself and hand it over, and I went on my way. All in under 5 minutes, no pat down, no fuss, and no one physically rifled through my belongings. (Granted I was a tourist so that might w…

Once at a security checkpoint to a museum in Shanghai, they saw my water bottle, and then told me to take it out and drink from it.

The US embassy in London do this. You can take liquids in, as long as you drink from them at security.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#616

Post by ghm2199 »

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…

One man's fear of safety is another man's job safety.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#617

Post by Waterluvian »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #250
edm0nd wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. It's all security theater. TSA Chief Out After Agents Fail 95 Percent of Airport Breach Tests "In one case, an alarm sounded, but even during a pat-down, the screening officer failed to detect a fake plastic explosive taped to an undercover agent's back. In all, so-called "Red Teams" of Homeland Security agents posing as…

I find it interesting to contrast this with my experience flying out of China. I was taken to a private room and shown the digital colored X-ray of my bag on which a box had been drawn around an empty lighter, I was asked to remove it myself and hand it over, and I went on my way. All in under 5 minutes, no pat down, no fuss, and no one physically rifled through my belongings. (Granted I was a tourist so that might w…

This sounds like my experiences in Toronto. It’s less adversarial than the experiences I've had in the U.S.

My experiences were basically a form of, “Hey we saw something that caught our attention and might be an issue. Let's work through addressing this."

One case it was a handful of 3.5" galvanized nails. "Whoops. Okay, so, this bag used to be my makeshift toolbag. My other one ripped and I had to get one last minute--" "No problem. Can you remove them? You can either surrender them to us or we can get them mailed back to you, but I'm guessing it's not worth it..." I was so defensive because to me it looked bad but they weren't actually after me in the way I thought they'd be.

The second time was that I had an "Arduino Starter Kit" full of bundled up wires and random chips and such. Once they saw the box they didn't even ask me to un-shrinkwrap it, and unlike the nails, didn't re-x-ray the bag.

Both times they rotated their screen and pointed to the box framing the item in question on the colourized x-ray.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#618

Post by benjiro »

Scoundreller wrote: post #494
angry_octet wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been in many airports where there is no water on the other side of the X-ray. At KLIA and DPS they have none to buy even, and then you have to fight for it on the plane. At CDG you have to buy it, no water fountain. It's extremely aggravating.

I’ve definitely found free water fountains at CDG. Now, one of the Bucharest airports literally does not have potable tap water. Their well, being under an airport and all, is contaminated. By email, they did inform me that the water is microbiologically fine. Unsure of their pipe to the municipal system was been built out.

Probably a issue with PFAS contamination. Stuff was used in firefighting water, and has contaminated just about every airport and the surrounding area's groundwater, all over the world. So while microbiologically safe, it has PFAS issues.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#620

Post by HWR_14 »

flakeoil wrote: post #315
michaelt wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airport prices in the UK for recreational travel work like so: Flight from London to Barcelona: £16 Bottle of water past security: £5 Train to airport: £26 Taxi enters drop-off area for 30 seconds: £7 A person who wants to get the advertised flight at the advertised price has to be very careful.

On the other hand, one can also question if the £16 cost for the flight makes any sense. A more correct price would be £500. It's about time that the airlines pay the same taxes for fuel as everyone else.

What is the correct cost for a flight leaving in 3 hours with an empty seat? What is the correct cost for a scheduled flight leaving in 2 months with no seats sold yet?

Tickets aren't the same price for everyone, and planes fill to variable levels. Plus there are addons like luggage fees and beverages that have a huge markup. What is the best way to solve for that?

Besides, it averages something like 53L of fuel/passenger to make that trip. Hardly necessitating £500.

Post reply on HN