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

391–400 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#391

Post by ExoticPearTree »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #265
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…

A lighter is very different from a weapon. I'm sure they can see everything they need to see with X-rays. Do you think they find a white guy flying out of China to be a likely terrorist? (I'm assuming you are white or asian.) I've never had a bad experience with TSA but I hate taking off my shoes and all. I really question the value of those security measures.

There are countries that for whatever reason do not allow lighters on airplanes.

One time my bag was searched furiously because they saw a lighter on the machine, but had trouble locating it. Took two people about 15 minutes. Finally found it. It was very tiny.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#392

Post by mlrtime »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #357
dingdongditchme wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it has been such a godsend flying out of Frankfurt where they have the new scanners and you don't have to empty out your bag anymore. So much smoother. Then I fly back and get all annoyed at the other airports. I was told Oslo airport is holding out until it becomes regulation to use the new scanners. Security-Theater is still what it is. It is super weak imho, despite never having seriously attempted a heist or tryi…

Germany has a very sad and weak airport security story. The security personal are hired and paid by the state (Land), and thus the state plans their capacity and workflow. The airport owner (i.e. FRAport) has no say in their internal work organization, as it is basically contracted out policework. For whatever reason, most german Airports I regularly use, use the same machine and broken workflow: There is only a limi…

>so everybody can get undressed

Wait what? What are you removing?

Flying in the US this week I removed nothing but a winter coat. Everything went on as normal, nothing out of bags, jut coat off.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#393

Post by jen20 »

runarberg wrote: post #110
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No hijacked planes, no terror attacks?

I don‘t think that is true at all. There have been numerous hijacked planes since 9/11 including two in the USA just this decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings Plane hijacking has been on its way out anyway after the turmoil of the 1970s. And that has probably more to do with a) the relative political stability of the post cold war period, and b) a general sense that airplane hijacking isn…

Of the two in the US this decade, one did not have a cockpit door as the plane was too small, and the other was by an off-duty pilot sitting in the cockpit…

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#394

Post by mlrtime »

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?

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

- Half kidding but this is what a lot of CEOs/CTOs think, SRE is one of the least invested skills because it is so difficult to prove that they are worthwhile. Similarly they are invested into AFTER a major incident.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#395

Post by amiga386 »

sgjohnson wrote: post #222
closewith wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point is that security can never be strict enough to catch someone who's truly motivated and funded, without making it impossible to admit people at a reasonable pace, and the current rules don't really help with that except for cutting down on the riff raff terrorists. This is the classic HN developer arrogance and oversimplification, but let's accept this as true for argument's sake. It turns out that "riff ra…

> and there have been foiled attempts. have there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Failed_airliner_bombi... ->

2001: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_63_(2...

2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl...

... which is what we're discussing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_repercussions_due_to_...

2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253

2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_transatlantic_aircraft_bo...

2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daallo_Airlines_Flight_159

2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Australian_aeroplane_bomb...

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#396

Post by ExoticPearTree »

matwood wrote: post #296
bruce511 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hijackings (locking the cockpit door does that) 9/11 also stopped all future hijackings. Up to that point passengers were trained that if they stayed calm they would likely survive. Now? Short of the hijackers getting guns on the plane, passengers will absolutely fight back. > they don't stop bombings (there are much better targets for that, which don't involve killing the bomber) Suicide bombers ar…

> Suicide bombers are probably the main vector that TSA helps avoid even if they miss some items sometimes.

Not really, but this is because there are pretty much no suicide bombers anywhere in airports. They are incredibly rare.

But if you're a suicide bomber, by the time you get to the TSA checkpoint you can do a ton of damage inside a terminal during a holiday season when all airports are packed. Until then no one is stopping you.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#397

Post by jen20 »

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…

What exactly was stoppnig you buying a 2L bottle of vodka in a glass bottle a duty free after security and having this happen?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#398

Post by jen20 »

harry8 wrote: post #33
dexwiz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If batteries were standardized and replaceable I bet they would force you to not bring your own, and only ones purchasable passed the gate could be used. Maybe that a silver lining to the repairability issues.

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?…

> Skyphone installation by the airlines led to "flight mode" because the horror of not paying is far more important than safety.

By the time “airplane mode” became common on mobile phones, the phones installed in airplane seats were already decommissioned in most cases.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#399

Post by afh1 »

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…

The government who wages the wars and brings its terrors home invades people's privacy and comfort in the small amount of time they have away from the toll they put to pay their taxes, and the people are thankful, after all, all of it is for their safety.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#400

Post by ExoticPearTree »

mlrtime wrote: post #392
littlecranky67 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany has a very sad and weak airport security story. The security personal are hired and paid by the state (Land), and thus the state plans their capacity and workflow. The airport owner (i.e. FRAport) has no say in their internal work organization, as it is basically contracted out policework. For whatever reason, most german Airports I regularly use, use the same machine and broken workflow: There is only a limi…

>so everybody can get undressed Wait what? What are you removing? Flying in the US this week I removed nothing but a winter coat. Everything went on as normal, nothing out of bags, jut coat off.

Probably the same thing as you, but lost in translation. Removing jackets, maybe shoes, winter coats, hoodies etc.

Not undressed in the "everything but your underwear" sense.

Post reply on HN