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

451–460 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#451

Post by mschuster91 »

rusk wrote: post #447
Reefersleep wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism"

Believe it or not it’s a question on the pre-clearance form for travel to the US: ”are you or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organisation” - I always wondered what the rationale for that was

> I always wondered what the rationale for that was

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. An easy way to keep communists out of the country.

And we've seen how easy it is to expand that list with "antifa" groups just recently, with antifa groups in Germany having to deal with their banks closing their accounts because the banks were afraid of getting hit with retaliation in their US business.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#452

Post by sgjohnson »

amiga386 wrote: post #395
sgjohnson wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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_t…

Literally none of these were foiled by the security circus we all have to go through.

If anything, they are evidence that serious attempts are foiled by intelligence services long before the perpetrators get anywhere near an airport, and the others were just incompetent idiots.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#453

Post by nottorp »

dxdm wrote: post #411
nottorp wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My deodorant isn't available in those small travel containers :( And it's the only thing i really care about, I can do with any random toothpaste and shaving foam that i buy on arrival. But maybe it will happen in my lifetime.

Ok, that's a bummer. Here's a silly idea that is probably not new to you, but just in case: have you looked into refillable deodorant dispensers?

Eh, I use another product that's bearable to me when I go on plane trips.

But I want mine!

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#454

Post by bartread »

edm0nd wrote: post #87
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…

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 don’t think it’s just the TSA tbh.

A couple of years before the pandemic I managed to make it all the way from London Heathrow to Auckland, New Zealand, passing through Dubai and Brisbane on the way, with one of those USB rechargeable plasma lighters and a Gerber multitool in my hand luggage.

Completely unintentional, of course, but due to #reasons I had packed in some haste and made the mistake of not completely unpacking my day sack, which I also used to carry my laptop for work, first.

I stayed in Auckland a couple of days and the items were eventually picked up on a scan before my flight to Queenstown. The guy was very nice about it: he had to confiscate the lighter, but he let me post the Multitool to my hotel in Queenstown.

A couple of years ago I did something similar flying out of Stansted but, that time, it was picked up at the airport and, again, I was able to get the items posted back to my home address.

Nowadays I always completely empty all compartments of all bags I’m taking before repacking, even when I’m in a hurry.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#455

Post by closewith »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #274
reeredfdfdf wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Most would-be attackers are not suicidal, I suppose. You would have to be in order to start a fire on a plane that you are on.

> Most would-be attackers are not suicidal

That's definitely not an assumption in the threat model.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#456

Post by Scoundreller »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #396
matwood wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That’s what happened in Brussels.

I was hoping these events could be used to impose fines/jailtime for airlines/airports/security that have queues longer than 5 people, but you know, counter-terrorism can’t mean making life better for the public.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#458

Post by wiredfool »

vidarh wrote: post #327
wiredfool wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a specific liquid scanner that's done on bottles that have been pulled aside for extra scanning (at least, that's what Frankfurt was doing a couple weeks ago)

As far as I know, it's not. You're now specifically told to not take liquid out of your luggage. At least that was the situation when I flew out of London Gatwick last time - they had people going up and down before the scanners admonishing people to leave everything in their bags to avoid delay.

We had 4 bags go through, 3 had liquids (2 water bottles and one Barenfang) in them. All three were pulled for secondary screening, at which point they put the specific liquid bottles in a secondary scanner and cleared them.

So, yes, they stay in the bag, but then they're pulled out and scanned separately, at least in Frankfurt.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#459

Post by astura »

londons_explore wrote: post #253
kleiba wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never done that yet I've never had any trouble finding water past security or even on a plane?!

Some airports charge money for water after security. Others disallow even empty bottles at security screening

Nobody disallows empty bottles through security, that's a lie.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#460

Post by lblissett »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #183
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.

There's a pretty strong trend in that timeline of two types of "bombings": (1) Bombings in which the bomb is supplied by someone who isn't flying on the plane; (2) Failed hijackings in which there was no intent to bomb the plane, but a bomb accidentally went off.

also, people always immediately think of terrorism, but TIL that life insurance policies are responsible for way more plane bombings than I thought
Post reply on HN