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

631–640 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#631

Post by juliushuijnk »

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…

They don't believe these liquids are actually dangerous, otherwise they wouldn't just throw them in a bin near the queue.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#632

Post by k2enemy »

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 it is the opposite. It is supposed to be a visceral reminder that we are not safe, and therefore should assent to the erosion of civil liberties and government intrusions into our lives in the name of safety.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#633

Post by gambiting »

andrepd wrote: post #501
gambiting wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if France it's anything like the UK, the absolute vast majority of these deaths are people driving drunk at night. If you are driving in city traffic at 20mph commuting to work your chance of dying is nearly zero - there's always a chance someone else might be speeding and crash into you, sure, but it's nowhere near the general rate of deaths in cars. As a seque to this - knowing the above, I find it insane that…

That not true. Drunk driving is not remotely the biggest cause, let alone the "vast majority". Speeding is. And also: note you're only considering the pov of a person inside a car. In the last decade deaths among pedestrians and cyclists have skyrocketed , courtesy of society willingly accepting that it is normal and rational to have 4000kg vehicles with 180bhp being used ubiquitously to move 70kg humans to the groce…

I stand corrected - I looked it up and yeah, you are right, drunk driving is only the cause of about ~20% of road deaths in the UK.

>>And also: note you're only considering the pov of a person inside a car.

Well the person above was talking about how dangerous driving is, to which my argument still stands - if you are just commuting to work in or near a city, your actual risk is incredibly low(as the driver or passanger).

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#634

Post by pixl97 »

xeyownt wrote: post #546
wongarsu wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, if somebody said "I'm here for terrorism" and the immigration officer laughed that off, imagine the shitstorm if that person turns out to be a terrorist. For the individual employee the cost of wasting someone's time by escalating the case and detaining them is zero, the potential cost of letting someone slip by is realistically tiny but potentially huge

The point is that the situation must be really crazy if we reach a point where someone (mostly foreigner) saying "tourist" is being confused as to saying "terrorist". Airport are full of tourists, and exactly 0 person on the planet would reply with "terrorist".

>and exactly 0 person on the planet would reply with "terrorist".

Unfortunately you give your fellow humans way too much credit.

Much like the people that rob a bank by writing a note saying to hand over all the money... on the back of their own deposit slip.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#635

Post by Sheeny96 »

juggle-anyhow wrote: post #530
NL807 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if I told you, there is an app on the market https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWwCK95X6go

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#636

Post by ghaff »

fshr wrote: post #545
rdiddly wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not complaining on the bus...

A bus isn't going to fall out of the air and land in the ocean. A bus isn't going to be hijacked and flown into the top of a building.

And the fact is that there's been some level of security since the 1970s or thereabouts after a fair number of hijackings. Any serious debate is about restrictions around liquids/knives/etc. (Some of which related to isolated incidents like the shoe bomber and others of which seem like pretty clear overreach--like I can't bring a hiking pole in carryon.)

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#637

Post by pixl97 »

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?

> Also how does every other country in the world manage to not have these questions?

You sure about that? Many other countries have what would be considered odd questions on their forms.

Also, saying "every other country" is a mighty wide brush. There are a whole lot of countries where the rule of law doesn't come first and they can simply do what they want if they suspect you of anything regardless if they have a law or not.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#638

Post by ortusdux »

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…

Modern airport x-ray machines use two frequencies and then estimate the density of objects and liquids. In theory, the can tell the difference between water and vodka. I wonder if the change reflects trust in this tech?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#639

Post by lordloki »

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…

Is the capability of these explosives at a safe level if the liquid precursors are less than 3.5 fl ounces? If they are still capable of blowing a hole in the fuselage with less than 3.5 fl ounces then the limits on fluids are still pointless.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#640

Post by varjag »

y0eswddl wrote: post #613
dingaling wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's about making people feel safe. I don't think that's a common perception of airport security. Few people take reassurance from it, most consider it a burden and hindrance that could stop them getting their flight if they don't perform the correct steps as instructed. The lifting of this restriction is an example, the overwhelming response is "oh thank goodness, now I don't have to pay for overpriced water" and…

People stopped flying after 9/11 and airlines lost money until the TSA was created and made people feel safe to fly again

Did that really happen in the United States? Certainly not anywhere else.
Post reply on HN