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

551–560 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#551

Post by redleader55 »

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.

I am a strong believer in the "low-tech" solutions for this kind of thing. I seriously doubt the terrorist suicide bomber knows if drinking the explosive is going to prevent them from taking the mission to the end (ie. they will die in 5 min, in 30 min or in 24h), so they will start panicking when asked to drink from the bottle.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#553

Post by thinkingtoilet »

lostlogin wrote: post #191
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…

> the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. I thought that was the US military?

I don't necessarily agree with the OP, but a lot of TSA is ex-military.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#554

Post by simmonmt »

0x3f wrote: post #428
jeffwass wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in your own car dropping off your friends or family at a UK airport (at least the London ones) requires paying a £6 fee now. Just to get to the dropoff area, even for 30 seconds as you say. But hey, at least the luggage carts are free…

Right, but what do you think the alternative is? There is limited space close to the entrance of the terminal, it has to be rationed somehow. Also what happens in practice is people take advantage. A trust-based 30s wouldn't work. Even with the current fees you can hang around Heathrow drop off and see the police having to move people along, check unatended cars, etc.

The alternative is not charging. JFK somehow manages. Yes there's traffic, but it keeps slowly moving.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#555

Post by _dark_matter_ »

wedog6 wrote: post #267
breppp wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most of airport security rests on the notion of going over a series of long tests will elicit unusual (fear, stress) responses from malicious actors and these can then be flagged for even thorougher checks which will then eventually lead to discovery, banning or removal of luggage so it's not the test accuracy by itself but rather then the fact that these tests are happening at all

You have surprising faith that the system is well designed. Malicious actors don't get as stressed as normal people who don't want to miss their flight about the long series of obviously pointless tests. Why would they? And there isn't anyone who surveils the queues and takes the worried looking for further checks. This can happen around immigration checks. It happens for flights to Israel. But not in routine airport…

Why would they? Because they are about to do the thing they planned to do for months or years? Because they may be risking their own life? Because they're worried about getting caught rather than following through? Because no matter how prepared they are they have never done that EXACT scenario before at that exact airport with those exact people? Because the human mind is a lizard brain even with training and preparation?

Still not a perfect systems, other countries manage this part much better (I've heard Israel is especially good at it, but I don't have direct evidence).

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#556

Post by BigTTYGothGF »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #498
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…

> Correct. In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. This is oft repeated, but as a federal job, the bar is at least slightly higher than those typical AlliedUniversal/Andy Frain/Etc mall cop guards you see all over the place. I have no doubt that many are incompetent, but I think it is a big unfair that it gets singled out as a "jobs program" given that the bar is on th…

> as a federal job

Aren't they all contractors?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#557

Post by ExoticPearTree »

Scoundreller wrote: post #456
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…

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.

> 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.

Not even at private airports or business terminal can you can manage not having a queue smaller than 5 people. So this is a really no-go from many points of view.

BRU did something incredibly retarded after the incident: moved the queue outside. I mean yes, in open air a bomb is less lethal than in an enclosed space, but will still kill people.

And like others said, we developed capabilities to track hostiles before they can actually blow up a bunch of people. That's why you don't see FRA or MUC or CDG or LHR being blown up daily.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#558

Post by closewith »

Scoundreller wrote: post #505
closewith wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As horrific as truck attacks, mass shootings, and suicide bombings have been, no-one have been on the same order of magnitude as airborne terrorism attacks. The Bataclan, Las Vegas, Nice truck attack - all enormous tragedies. But compare to 9/11, Lockerbie, Flight 182, etc.

Bataclan = 132 deaths + ??? injuries Nice Truck = 86 deaths, 458 injured Lockerbie = 270 deaths (presumably 0 injuries) Air India = 329 (also presumably no injuries)

Conveniently leaving out 9/11, was an attack on the scale of Bataclan, but due to the nature of air travel, had a much higher death toll.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#559

Post by DoughnutHole »

BrenBarn wrote: post #390
closewith wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your contention that there haven't been any terrorist attacks, therefore airport security isn't effective? Because over the last 25 years, there have been a _lot_ of "successful" terrorist attacks in the West, and none of them were on planes.

My point is that if improved airport security just shifts terrorist attacks to other places, the overall safety benefit is not as great as it may at first seem.

If those attack vectors are intrinsically less effective at causing mass destruction then that’s an improvement.

A plane hijacking can evidently cause enormous destruction with minimal equipment and personnel. Even just a bomb on a plane can easily kill 200-500 people depending on the plane’s capacity.

Ground-based attacks since 9/11 have been evidently less effective because a bunch of guys with guns attacking a train station or a rock concert can’t do as much damage as quickly as a hijacker essentially flying a cruise missile into a major office building.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#560

Post by empath75 »

kleiba wrote: post #232
WalterBright wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This can be traced to people in a car believe they can control whether they have an accident or not (and largely can). In an airplane, however, you have no control whatsoever.

> This can be traced to people in a car believe they can control whether they have an accident or not (and largely can). This is true. In France, about two thirds out of the people dying in a car accident are the actual drivers responsible for the accident, according to the 2024 Road Safety Report.

> This is true. In France, about two thirds out of the people dying in a car accident are the actual drivers responsible for the accident, according to the 2024 Road Safety Report. --- This is because a large number of accidents don't involve another car.
Post reply on HN