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

521–530 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#521

Post by sejje »

troupo wrote: post #207
7e wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obvious. The harder you make it to down or hijack a plane, the fewer downed planes you will see. It didn't have to be perfect to prevent and deter. Some security is better than no security. If you had no security at all you would see planes go down all the time. And it wouldn't surprise me if some of the detection technology were classified. It would not be "great" if governments were more open about their detec…

> The harder you make it to down or hijack a plane, the fewer downed planes you will see. You know that TSA fails in 90-95% of cases and that crowds before it are a much jucier target?

Have those crowds been targeted?

I see similar crowd densities all over the place. I can think of easier targets than the airport.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#522

Post by acdha »

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…

> It's about making people feel safe.

I think this is true but had to be seen in the bigger context: the Bush administration wanted people to feel that there were threats which required sacrificing things like civil liberties, balanced budgets, or not being at war because if you didn’t fight them “over there” the nebulous “they” come here in a never-ending swarm. Even at the time we knew that the threats weren’t serious but the people making those decisions saw it as part of a larger agenda.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#523

Post by api »

acdha wrote: post #522
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 think this is true but had to be seen in the bigger context: the Bush administration wanted people to feel that there were threats which required sacrificing things like civil liberties, balanced budgets, or not being at war because if you didn’t fight them “over there” the nebulous “they” come here in a never-ending swarm. Even at the time we knew that the threats weren’t seri…

I think it’s simpler, at least for some politicians.

You have to do something. If any other terror attacks happen and you didn’t do something, then “why didn’t you do something?” So you do something.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#524

Post by piglatinlingo »

hackingonempty wrote: post #138
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…

> The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids. The limits were instituted after discovering a plot to smuggle acetone and hydrogen peroxide (and ice presumably) on board to make acetone peroxide in the lavatory. TATP is not a liquid and it is not stable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl...

there are other, very similar compounds in the same family that are indeed liquid.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#525

Post by xxs »

adrian_b wrote: post #502
xxs wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ok - 6cm blades are allowed. You can also carry it in a cabin luggage anyways. realistically any broken glass bottle can be used as a blade.

Whether they are allowed or not, probably depends on the place. In Germany, at Frankfurt, I had to dump in a garbage bin a smaller Swiss army knife, to be allowed to pass. I had it because my high-speed train of Deutsche Bahn had arrived more than one hour late, so there was no time to check in my luggage. After losing the knife, I ran through the airport towards my gate, but I arrived there a few seconds after the g…

>Whether they are allowed or not, probably depends on the place.

It's a EU thing, even though the Swiss are outside... and I was sure it was a directive until:

The recommendation allows for light knives and scissors with blades up to 6 cm (2.4 in) but some countries do not accept these either (e.g. nail care items)[citation needed]

I thought it was universal mostly since I had no issues at the airports.

Prior to the 6 cm rule, once I had to run to a post office at the airport and mail a parcel to myself with the pocket knife (which is also a memento)

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#526

Post by direwolf20 »

kozziollek wrote: post #468
wongarsu wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easier to deport people for lying on their immigration form than for having been a member of a terrorist organization

But to prove lying you would have to prove being a terrorist anyway...

Member of a terrorist organization. Did you protest for Palestine action? Then you're a member of a terrorist organization, and they don't have to prove you did any terrorism or planned any terrorism. It's a form of thoughtcrime.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#527

Post by croes »

teiferer wrote: post #340
wakawaka28 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Do you think they find a white guy flying out of China to be a likely terrorist? What does skin color have to do with this? And yes, oppressed groups in China, like the Uyghurs, have support in the west. Among white people. Maybe the winning strategy is comprehensive mass surveillance which flags you in a database long before even showing up at the airport and then the security theater just provides a suitable pret…

The same Uyghurs in the US would be judged by theie religion und be tracked down by ICE

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#528

Post by k_kelly »

jfengel wrote: post #488
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Why are they rare? There used to be suicide bombings in the news all the time. Hijackings were the reason they instituted the metal detectors at airports. Improved security seems unlikely as a reason, given how many tests they fail. Was it just a fad? Did they decide it wasn't getting them what they wanted at a high personal cost? Did they find something more effective?

There's lots of suicide attacks in poorer African countries.

But the west by and large won the war on terror, it broke up all the state sponsored terrorist camps, and built a vast surveillance network capable of spotting people trying to build these devices. Israel was the flashpoint and they built walls and put cameras and AI everywhere and just flat out ignore human rights. It's just really hard to radicalise someone to that extent and not have them show up. Isis was also behind a lot of the attacks and they don't exist anymore. Afghanistan and Pakistan also don't shelter terrorists anymore because they might have kicked the US out but they don't want them back again.

Most of this is terrible from a civil liberties / human rights / sovereignty point of view, but if you wanted to stop suicide bombings it worked.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#529

Post by setsewerd »

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.

I've noticed every airport is different, and major airports are usually more likely to have the big fancy looking scanners that help keep the crowd moving along, without taking everything out. Smaller airports seem to have less of that tech and are thus often more of a hassle.

And yet somehow, airport security staff frequently get impatient when people in line ask whether to remove their shoes, laptop, etc. As if the travelers are stupid for asking.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#530

Post by juggle-anyhow »

NL807 wrote: post #474
bleepblap wrote: post #83

there is actually a science change that happened, and it's not (entirely) just politicians changing their mind. The big thing going from X-ray (2d) to CT (spin an X-ray machine around and take a ton of pictures to recreate a 3d image) did a lot to let security people see inside of a bag, but the hitch is that if you see a blob of gray is that water, shampoo or something else? The recent advance that is letting this h…

These machines don't really detect what kind of materials stuff is composed of, much of that is just a crude classification based on density. True identification requires broadband x-rays emission with spectral analysis.

Water, not water is all you need.
Post reply on HN