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

571–580 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#571

Post by ncallaway »

traceroute66 wrote: post #566
Reefersleep wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism" Its like those stupid questions on US immigration forms, e.g. "Do you intend to engage in the United States in Espionage ?" or "Did you ever order, incite or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person ?" It's like, really ? Do they seriously think someone who should answer yes will really answer yes ? Might as well just…

> It's like, really ? Do they seriously think someone who should answer yes will really answer yes ?

No, they do not think anyone will check 'Yes' to that box.

The purpose of the box is that it's a crime to lie when someone checks 'No', and that tends to be an easy charge to bring.

So, the purpose of the form is to generate convictions for lying on the form.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#572

Post by Scoundreller »

closewith wrote: post #558
Scoundreller wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So like, just one not on the same order of magnitude?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#573

Post by red_admiral »

graemep wrote: post #334
JasonADrury wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I routinely conceal large bottles of liquids on my person while going through airport security. I've probably gone through airport security in various places with a 1.5L bottle of water more than a hundred times now. Haven't been caught once, although of course the US-style scanners could presumably defeat this. Same with hot sauces, perfume and the occasional bottles of wine. I really don't like to travel with a che…

its very much about looks. Uk airports (used to?) seize aftershave in bottles that are the shape of grenades. Its very obvious what they are (made of glass, branded, spray out aftershave) but they are banned nonetheless.

The real question here is whether you can buy the exact same bottle again in the duty-free after security.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#574

Post by jonlucc »

terribleperson wrote: post #218
bsimpson wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn't it whatever fits in a quart-sized ziploc? i presume that's where the other poster estimated "only 3 bottles."

3-1-1 is an awful mnemonic, but it's basically: 3.4 oz containers in 1 1-quart ziplock bag.

I guess the comms people got their hands on it before they deployed the original mnemonic: 3.4-1-1

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#575

Post by derektank »

traceroute66 wrote: post #566
Reefersleep wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism" Its like those stupid questions on US immigration forms, e.g. "Do you intend to engage in the United States in Espionage ?" or "Did you ever order, incite or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person ?" It's like, really ? Do they seriously think someone who should answer yes will really answer yes ? Might as well just…

Making false statements to federal officials is itself a crime. The intent of having those sections is to be able to have legal recourse against people that lie on them, which hopefully deters people that would lie on them from attempting to immigrate in the first place.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#576

Post by bluGill »

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?

Common things don't get into the news. How many people died in car related accidents in your country yesterday - it almost never even makes the morning news in your country, much less international news.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#577

Post by traceroute66 »

ncallaway wrote: post #571
traceroute66 wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism" Its like those stupid questions on US immigration forms, e.g. "Do you intend to engage in the United States in Espionage ?" or "Did you ever order, incite or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person ?" It's like, really ? Do they seriously think someone who should answer yes will really answer yes ? Might as well just…

> It's like, really ? Do they seriously think someone who should answer yes will really answer yes ? No, they do not think anyone will check 'Yes' to that box. The purpose of the box is that it's a crime to lie when someone checks 'No', and that tends to be an easy charge to bring. So, the purpose of the form is to generate convictions for lying on the form.

> the purpose of the form is to generate convictions for lying on the form.

Yeah but if the immigration officer has reason to question you about those sections of the form then surely they have more than enough evidence of the underlying crime anyway ?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#578

Post by ec109685 »

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…

Any large organization is going to have some terrible employees.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#579

Post by bluGill »

edm0nd wrote: post #403
fc417fc802 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those don't generally have any ferrous components.

yes but the spring in the magazine does. also the rails on the lower, the barrel, etc.

If you want a gun you can use more than a couple times need metals. However if the goal is one shot plastic is good enough. Even plastic bullets will work - not well, but one well placed/timed shot is all we are talking about.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#580

Post by red_admiral »

moffkalast wrote: post #409
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…

Yeah as we've seen with MH370, literally nothing stops the pilot from committing mass-murder-suicide at any point. We just need to trust that they're not feeling particularly depressed that day.

While MH370 is still "officially" unsolved, there were definitely industry wide updates to processes after the Germanwings crash.
Post reply on HN