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

UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 252 posts

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#231

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

corbulo wrote: post #201
grishka wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides, taking drugs is a victimless crime. Theft or murder, on the other hand, both have very real victims.

100,000 dead annually from using would like to have a word. 70k of those are fentanyl by the way. Victimless though right? All those people could quit any time they want, right?

How many dead annually from inactive lifestyles or overeating? Those are all choices that people make that affect them — nobody should be forced to live in a virtuous bubble just because it might extend their life a few years. That's all totally different from choosing to harm another human being.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#232

Post by anotheruser13 »

shever73 wrote: post #162
deegles wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to throw away my nice Leatherman Micra (because of the tiny blade) at an airport because I forgot it was in my carry on, only to sit at a restaurant next to the gate and be given a full size serrated steak knife with my meal...

The same thing happened to me with my Leatherman Micra. I have come to the conclusion that most airport security measures are props designed to make us believe that we are safer.

Same here. The TSA brand of paranoia assumes you could seriously injure or kill someone with an implement that small. Sigh... Tiny brains, stupid rules.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#233

Post by zeeZ »

Qmppu842 wrote: post #10

I think Helsinki Airport has them. I had spray can of deodorant that i was able to take to Germany but on on way back it was deemed too dangerous. Thou the new scanners didn't like my 3 stacked card decks or the 2 of 250ml "milkshakes". Funny that the milkshakes needed to be drug tested while my 500mil smoothie was totally fine.

Someone I know talked about going through security with a carry-on filled to the brim with M:TG cards. Apparently raised many alarms.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#234

Post by jsjohnst »

trasz3 wrote: post #218
jsjohnst wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what allowed that was them not requiring two people to be on the flight deck. That’s insane to me (and doesn’t happen in the US which customarily has a two person rule, which I believe is defined in Part 121, but still trying to find it).

That wouldn’t matter at all if not for the locking down the cockpit.

That’s like saying seat belts wouldn’t be needed if the car didn’t move, no?

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#235

Post by camillomiller »

superhuzza wrote: post #163
camillomiller wrote: post #55

In Berlin at BER I had someone from security straight up tell me that water being sold at a premium after security, with a profit for the airport shops that pay hefty rents, is the only reason for keeping up the 100ml liquids rule. That was a heated discussion point for a while, since the airport had to stop people from drinking tap water inside because of an e.coli infestation in the water system of the airport. We'…

"In Berlin at BER I had someone from security straight up tell me that water being sold at a premium after security, with a profit for the airport shops that pay hefty rents, is the only reason for keeping up the 100ml liquids rule." This logic kind of falls apart when you think about it for a minute and: 1. Most airports have water fountains 2. Food and snacks are allowed through security. If it's all a conspiracy t…

Yeah, I mean, the thing is borderline conspiracy theory. Yet, like with many conspiracy theories, I believe there's a fundament of truth in the backward process. Meaning that the liquids policy doesn't derive from an actual conspiracy, but that interest groups within the airport would now still be kinda lobbing to have this element as a point of discussion as a weight on a future investment decision (in new machines).

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#236

Post by kyriakos »

Arch-TK wrote: post #47

Recently at Stansted I had an encounter with a security staff member who was of the opinion that both clotted cream and butter were liquids. (Note, I wasn't the one trying to get either of these onto the plane.) Her entire argument seemed to rest on the case that they were spreadable. I don't think she did well in GCSE physics.

I had a similar argument once at my local airport. The security argument was that if the container states millilitres then it's a liquid and they don't care even if it's only 10% full.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#237

Post by illiac786 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #221
illiac786 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyway, you’re allowed 10 times 100mL, in separate containers. You can easily blow up an airplane with a liter of the right liquid…

> You can easily blow up an airplane with a liter of the right liquid Yeah... The thing is that you can't. Not easily. You can't do much with a liter of some liquid that won't happen by chance on the way to the airport. And you can't change the liquid a lot while on the plane. You can barely fit seated there.

My understanding is that there is some form of reasoning behind the 100mL limitation. Sufficiently easy to procure liquids can blow up a plan when they are in a container bigger than 100mL (300mL, 1L, I don’t know what the findings were).

Now, what I do know is that pouring liquids together in a largers plastic bag is very easy, you can do that inside a backpack. I had to do this multiple times due to leaky milk bottles, leaky shampoo bottles, etc. The plastic bag simply has to be strong enough to stay in form while filling up.

Hence my point that this 100mL limitation is useless (from a volume limitation point of view), and I assume (not an expert on explosives) that if there was a limitation at 100mL, there must be something dangerous enough above this volume. Hence the overall regulation is useless.

Hope it clarifies my reasoning.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#238

Post by corbulo »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #231
corbulo wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100,000 dead annually from using would like to have a word. 70k of those are fentanyl by the way. Victimless though right? All those people could quit any time they want, right?

How many dead annually from inactive lifestyles or overeating? Those are all choices that people make that affect them — nobody should be forced to live in a virtuous bubble just because it might extend their life a few years. That's all totally different from choosing to harm another human being.

not doing anything and overindulging in an activity required to live are not equivalents to a drug addiction.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#239

Post by corbulo »

locallost wrote: post #214
corbulo wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100,000 dead annually from using would like to have a word. 70k of those are fentanyl by the way. Victimless though right? All those people could quit any time they want, right?

No, but it's not the root cause that should be fought. Things that cause drug abuse, especially the most harmful ones, are: * lack of education. This was sometimes on purpose, with drug companies lying to get people hooked on opioids * poverty and despair in general * mental health * many other things Those can and should be fought, and they are a lot more effective than policing overall, and also a lot cheaper.

Do you think it's possible that drugs prevent the things on that list from happening? Drugs are more frequently causal of those things than a symptom.

It's more common to find people who start addictions from a financially stable position where they have some discretional income. Rarely do people begin addictions where they have to decide between food or a drug they're not addicted to.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#240

Post by corbulo »

grishka wrote: post #215
corbulo wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100,000 dead annually from using would like to have a word. 70k of those are fentanyl by the way. Victimless though right? All those people could quit any time they want, right?

People do it to themselves. It's not like people don't know what hard drugs do to human body. They willingly start taking them. It ultimately is their own choice. Same can be said about alcoholism, btw, yet that is perfectly legal. Somehow, it's mostly accepted that making it harder to intentionally kill oneself is not the right way to stop people from committing suicide. Yet at the same time, we still consider this…

Constraining supply of highly addictive drugs isn't an important factor to you? At all?

Alcohol is legal, how does it follow that there should be more iterations of addictive substances that do more damage to the fabric of society?

Post reply on HN