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

671–680 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#671

Post by avisser »

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…

After 4 years of Russia/Ukraine, does anyone think that a terror group would take down an airliner with anything other than a drone? Why take any operational risk of actually going through security?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#672

Post by vablings »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #396
matwood wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don't stop hijackings (locking the cockpit door does that) 9/11 also stopped all future hijackings. Up to that point passengers were trained that if they stayed calm they would likely survive. Now? Short of the hijackers getting guns on the plane, passengers will absolutely fight back. > they don't stop bombings (there are much better targets for that, which don't involve killing the bomber) Suicide bombers ar…

> 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…

There are many events where you can go that is full of crowded people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arena_bombing

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#673

Post by pavel_lishin »

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…

> They are armed despite many of them having an indoor only role

Are the outdoors more dangerous?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#674

Post by marcosdumay »

5d41402abc4b wrote: post #257
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…

Can this X Ray bit flip memory or damage NAND?

The bar for damaging memory is way higher than normal X rays.

Flipping bits is more fuzzy. In theory anything can flip bits in working memory.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#675

Post by reeredfdfdf »

bawolff wrote: post #217
reeredfdfdf wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just not bombs that are a danger. You really don't want anyone to set the airplane on fire either, or start shooting people or holes into the fuselage. AFAIK America has had plenty of shootings, and probably arson attacks too over that time period.

Other then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Northern_Airlines_Flight... how often has anyone ever set fire to a plane (not counting bombs that caused fires). Is there even a single other example. I agree on guns, but you can probably deal with that with much lower intensity security.

A year ago Air Busan Flight 391 burned completely after a single passenger power bank caught fire on the overhead compartment, and crew couldn't extinguish it. If that had happened on a plane that was in middle of an ocean for example, it would have been almost certainly a total loss with everyone dead, or at least ditching into the sea.

You're right that fortunately there aren't many cases of people causing fires inside airliners on purpose. But that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. When a single power bank can cause catastrophic results like this, I'm glad there's at least some monitoring of what people carry into the airplane in their bags.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#676

Post by ryandrake »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #493
swiftcoder wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every job has ass assholes. Yeah, but jobs that are police-adjacent have them at a very high rate. Almost like they select for it or something...

>Yeah, but jobs that are police-adjacent have them at a very high rate. Almost like they select for it or something... Proximity to violence is probably the measuring stick you're looking for. Police spend the bulk of their day credibly threatening violence. Just about every word that comes out of their mouth, pen or keyboard while they're at work is implicitly back by an "or else". Everyone who isn't an asshole is g…

Proximity to petty power might be a better measuring stick. The same sorts of people gravitate to those jobs as the people who sit at the DMV window and tell you you need to get back in line, wait another two hours, and go to a different DMV window with the correct form.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#677

Post by reeredfdfdf »

sethammons wrote: post #216
reeredfdfdf wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. The "security theater" absolutely does play its part in stopping attacks. Without it, airplanes would be an extremely easy target for any nutjob to commit mass murder in. They wouldn't even necessarily need a bomb, anything that can cause a big enough fire mid-flight could be potentially catastrophic. Over past few decades many airliners have crashed because out of control fire in the cabin / cargo hold. I real…

Did you drop a sarcasm tag? Anyone can make a fire on a plane as they allow lighters on a plane, and batteries, and any number of flammable objects. None of that is facing any scrutiny nor stopping crazy people from being crazy.

Yes it's possible to make a fire on a plane, but it would be even easier to cause a big fire if there was zero monitoring of bags. As flawed as airport security is, it should generally catch things like somebody trying to get a carry-on bag full of gasoline or extremely large lithium-ion batteries on board.

I take security that catches 50 or even 20% of threats any day over 0 security.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#678

Post by jonhohle »

SapporoChris wrote: post #351
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the 90's USA was sensible. I was flying with a thermos of hot coffee in my carry on. As soon as they took out the thermos and felt the heat radiating from the lid the agent said, "I don't think they would heat it", smiled and passed me thru. Now when I fly I have to be careful. When they ask purpose of visit I say sightseeing. I used to say tourist, but with my accent that once caused alarm when the agent thought…

There were no liquids rules in the 90s.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#679

Post by fc417fc802 »

alistairSH wrote: post #661
Waterluvian wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like my experiences in Toronto. It’s less adversarial than the experiences I've had in the U.S. My experiences were basically a form of, “Hey we saw something that caught our attention and might be an issue. Let's work through addressing this." One case it was a handful of 3.5" galvanized nails. "Whoops. Okay, so, this bag used to be my makeshift toolbag. My other one ripped and I had to get one last minu…

Meanwhile, the TSA looks at me like I'm, at best an annoyance, and at worst a criminal, when I ask them to inspect my camera kit manually (film, not digital). And that inspection consists of swabbing 35mm film canisters - like, the shell of a 35mm roll is going to tell them anything useful?!?! It's a complete sham.

I guess they're probably operating on the assumption that at worst a few short nails stuffed in a small film canister are no worse than the metal handle from a rolling suitcase.

The swab is for common explosives. The canisters are a bit on the small side but I guess could still pose a threat if packed with high explosive and a bit of shrapnel.

The apparent annoyance (or worse) is the part that gets me. The entire process just feels needlessly adversarial. At least they didn't insist on patting you down or emptying out your bag!

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#680

Post by United857 »

sdpy wrote: post #586
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where were you prohibited from bringing in food?

> Many agriculture products are prohibited entry into the United States from certain countries because they may carry plant pests and foreign animal diseases. > Prohibited or restricted items may include meats, fresh fruits and vegetables, plants, seeds, soil and products made from animal or plant materials. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/agricultur...

Airport departure security (bringing onboard a plane) is different than arrival customs (bringing into a country).
Post reply on HN