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

721–730 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#721

Post by brewdad »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #300
wakawaka28 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lighter is very different from a weapon. I'm sure they can see everything they need to see with X-rays. Do you think they find a white guy flying out of China to be a likely terrorist? (I'm assuming you are white or asian.) I've never had a bad experience with TSA but I hate taking off my shoes and all. I really question the value of those security measures.

I haven't had any particularly bad experiences with the TSA either but I have been physically searched a few times. The entire process is definitely slower and more involved. The contrast of that coupled with the published failure statistics just leaves me wondering. I'd rather we got rid of them but if we must keep them I think we could do at least a bit better.

Almost every time I've had a secondary search I've thought "Yeah, I can see how that looks suspicious on x-ray". A large block of cheese as one example.

My two favorite pull-asides were for a three inch toy cannon my son brought back from a civil war site and my 18 inch plastic roller I carried to the Boston Marathon. I was allowed to proceed with both but the roller required a supervisor's approval and the cannon actually had to go up two levels.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#722

Post by bruce511 »

reeredfdfdf wrote: post #675
bawolff wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

You claim comfort from monitoring, and yet the easiest source of fire on a plane is z lithium battery. Which are expressly allowed.

In other words the TSA specifically does not seek yo prevent fires. The reason we don't have people setting fires on planes is because people don't want to do that. And if they did the TSA would be specifically useless in preventing it.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#723

Post by morpheuskafka »

BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #556
morpheuskafka wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

No, none of them are federal contractors. They are direct employees but not sworn law enforcement. You apply on USAJobs.gov and go to FLETC for training, although the topics are very different than sworn/1811s going there, ex no firearms training. Some airports, SFO being the only notable one iirc, choose to contract their own security as an airport/municipal contract with TSA approval, in which case TSA only staffs some executive/oversight roles. Occasionally you see staff in green DHS uniforms rather than blue TSA ones, such as the dog handlers, however I believe they are still under TSA, not sure if they are armed though as it is not the typical blue TSO/STSO uniform.

I assume the technology part (secure flight) is heavily contractor run like most govt/defense technology, one of my old coworkers was briefly involved in that. Didn't say anything interesting about it beyond that they used one way fibers to upload the data into classified systems for processing without anything going back to the main system. The basic workings of the system are described in the SORN/PIA notices though IDK how up to date they keep them.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#724

Post by subroutine »

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…

I was flying out of Chicago and I had a big metal bolt that was hollowed out to store pills inside. They showed me the scanned image, and you could see everything clear as day - steel bolt, hollow core, Xanax.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#725

Post by bruce511 »

account42 wrote: post #509
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…

As far as the terror in terrorism goes, blowing up a plane or hijacking it and flying it into a building is a much bigger impact than blowing up a queue of people. It doesn't need to be rational.

I grew up in a time and place when terror bombings were "commonplace". And while actual bombs were rarish, bomb alerts were not.

The impact of a bomb at a post office or shopping mall or commuter train was way more impactful than planes. Only a small number of people flew, and that was easily avoided if you cared. It's a lot harder to process when a place you go regularly explodes.

Flying into buildings is not gonna happen again. That tactic didn't survive even a few hours as UA 93 demonstrated. Passengers won't allow it, and these days the cockpit door are locked.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#726

Post by bruce511 »

eru wrote: post #406
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…

> Now? Short of the hijackers getting guns on the plane, passengers will absolutely fight back. I'm not even sure guns would hold some wannabe heroes back.

Guns on planes aren't terribly effective. Firstly cause puncturing the hull will end badly.

But also because there's a lot of people in a very confined space. A shooter has no space to maneuver and threats on all sides.

It's not even heros-required. Most passengers know the math. Hijacking means certain death anyway, so you may as well roll the dice.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#727

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway290 wrote: post #379
koshergweilo wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you still need metal bullets for the 3d printed gun?

No idea. I only replied to the guy saying that "metal detectors stop weapons". Which is false. The evidence is in US law. Because they would be undetectable, 3d printed guns are required to have some metal inserted into it to be legal ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D-printed_firearm#United_Stat... ). I think a guy who can 3d print a gun and wants to bring it onto a plane could probably skip that step;)

[deleted]

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#728

Post by pc86 »

account42 wrote: post #503
astura wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody disallows empty bottles through security, that's a lie.

I have had an empty water bottle thrown away once so it's not a lie even if it might not be universal.

"Someone threw this away once" is not the same as "banned at security."

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#729

Post by pc86 »

mcny wrote: post #404
graemep wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've flown with someone who simply said she has prescription medication with her. I mean it was the truth. It was legitimately prescription medication. In this case. But I can imagine someone could lie.

I can't speak to UK airports but TSA policy is that any medication needs to be in the original container, including prescription medication. So if you have any unmarked pills they'll toss them if they find them, same with multiple different pills in a prescription pill bottle or similar.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#730

Post by [deleted] »

closewith wrote: post #359
sethammons wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Flammable liquid and all high temperature lighters are forbidden, as are Li-ion batteries over 100kWh.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN