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

591–600 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#591

Post by ubermonkey »

davedx wrote: post #249
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…

On one hand, I think it's a valid criticism to say it's security theatre, to a degree . After 9/11, something had to be done, fast! , and we're still living with the after effects of that. On the other hand: defence in depth. No security screening is perfect. Plastic guns can get through metal detectors but we still use them. Pat downs at nightclubs won't catch a razor blade concealed in someone's bra. We try to catc…

Lots has been written about this.

The post-9/11 freakout is a GREAT example of the syllogism "Something must be done! This is something, so we must do it!" -- IOW, a train of thought that includes absolutely no evaluation of efficacy.

Security expert Bruce Schneier noted, I believe, that the only things that came out of the post-9/11 freakout that mattered were (a) the reinforced cockpit door and (b) ensuring all the checked bags go with an actual passenger.

The ID requirement, for example, was a giveaway to the airlines to prevent folks from selling frequent-flier tickets (which was absolutely a common thing back then). (And wouldn't have mattered on 9/11 anyway, since all the hijackers had valid ID.)

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#592

Post by closewith »

Scoundreller wrote: post #572
closewith wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, the vast majority of terrorist truck, car, bombing, shooting, stabbing attacks have single digit casualties due to the security measures in place and the level of difficulty (thankfully) in killing large numbers of people.

For a given number of people, money, resources, and risk, an attack against an airliner will have disproportionate casualties and effect. As above, a similar amount of co-ordination was required for Bataclan vs 9/11, with an order of magnitude fewer casualties.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#593

Post by direwolf20 »

0x3f wrote: post #535
direwolf20 wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's limited space everywhere. It is rationed by people not wanting to be there. There's limited space at the baggage claim but nobody is charging you to be at the baggage claim.

You think people don't want to drop off at the airport? There's literally a multi storey full of short term parking at every Heathrow terminal. They wouldn't fit in the drop off area at all. You are charged to be at the baggage claim. The airline pays it on your behalf, from your fare.

you are not charged to be at the baggage claim

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#594

Post by iambateman »

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…

Not a chemist…but if someone can carry on 3 bottles at 3.4 ounces each, now they have 10 ounces.

Two people do it and it’s 20 ounces. All within the “TSA Standard.”

This is where the liquid limit never made sense to me…if we were serious about keeping these substances off of planes, we would limit the total liquid…right? Or require that any liquids get checked.

I just don’t see how per-bottle liquid limits are anything close to deterrent for motivated attackers…but they sure are deterrent for me when I forget that I put a hotel water bottle in my bag.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#595

Post by labcomputer »

traceroute66 wrote: post #577
ncallaway wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ?

No they’re playing the long game. It’s for if they need to deport (and/or jail) you later.

Lying on a customs form is a valid reason to revoke a visa, and it’s an open and shut case.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#596

Post by woolion »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #250
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…

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…

Flying back from Beijing, I had bought a lot of books. I filled my bags with it, so they were very heavy. When the agent came to try to check my backpack, he casually grabbed it, and fell on the conveyor belt trying to lift it. He looked at me with shock. "I'm done", I thought. He opened the bag, and saw a box of zongzi the university gave me, on top of the books. He instantly became radiant, gave me a pat on the back, and just indicated the way.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#597

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#598

Post by bleepblap »

codethief wrote: post #318
bleepblap wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, but a) not at the prices people wanted to spend to get 25,000 of them b) not at the maintenance cost for 25,000 of them c) without the software to (by someone's metric) discriminate between shampoo and bomb with enough error

25,000? Interesting. Is there anywhere I can read up on this?

There are a lot of airports in the Us and 2.5 million passengers transit them daily.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#599

Post by rayiner »

voxic11 wrote: post #582
ncallaway wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Wouldn't it be easier to make those things illegal and then prosecute them instead of the lie? For prosecuting a lie you need to prove 2 things, the thing lied about and the lie itself, so it seems like a more difficult prosecution for no reason. Also how does every other country in the world manage to not have these questions?

That crime alone wouldn’t give you a basis for denaturalizing and deporting people who commit certain kinds of crimes.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#600

Post by dfxm12 »

davedx wrote: post #249
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…

On one hand, I think it's a valid criticism to say it's security theatre, to a degree . After 9/11, something had to be done, fast! , and we're still living with the after effects of that. On the other hand: defence in depth. No security screening is perfect. Plastic guns can get through metal detectors but we still use them. Pat downs at nightclubs won't catch a razor blade concealed in someone's bra. We try to catc…

That something could have been lawmakers going on major media saying, unequivocally, that flying is safe, warning not to give away freedoms lightly and even making a show of flying commercial themselves.

That something didn't have to include trading freedom for surveillance/inconvenience/increased exposure to poorly trained LEO's.

The world we live has been shaped more and more by the funders of certain politicians and major media to make us fearful of boogiemen. The payoff is increased surveillance and more authoritarian governments.

Post reply on HN