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

761–770 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#761

Post by aylmao »

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

There's room for both. You can have security checkpoints where they check your bag for liquids, and you should be allowed to fly with them once they confirm its innocuous.

I'm no chemist, but I can't imagine it's hard to test if something is an explosive or just body cream. To pack a punch, I have to imagine explosives need very specific compounds in them.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#762

Post by Scoundreller »

red_admiral wrote: post #568
insom wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The different Heathrow terminals have different security requirements. I suspect it’s based on countries they fly to from each terminal, but it could be age if equipment. It is frustrating for security to act like you’re a total idiot for following a process another terminal says is fine (like leaving very small electronics like Kindles in your bag). Oh, well.

Indeed. Other airports in Europe even have separate terminals or areas for Schengen and non-Schengen destinations, with passport control and sometimes security scans again between them. Bonus points to Zurich (Schengen but not EU, just to test the edge cases) - I think they have an airside metro where each car is segregated for a different security category of passenger.

That was one of my jokes going between terminals (always by bus): has this country thought about discovering trains?

Once leaving a terminal the staff said we’d take an internal bus and I asked if that meant we wouldn’t have to go through security again, but they just meant the same one as the rest.

All of our trips were non-UK-entry but possibly some terminals do have heightened security to meet one-stop-security requirements. Didn’t seem like it but can’t be sure.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#763

Post by xp84 »

ultrahax wrote: post #713
VBprogrammer wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New York is the worst security I've ever come through for just being needlessly horrible. Like screaming at people because they didn't literally put their feet on the "footprints" on the floor. Toronto was fine. Just a slightly incredulous conversation about how we could take 3 weeks off to travel Canada.

Only time I have ever been shouted at by personnel in an airport was at JFK.

Especially if you've been in New York for a few days, being yelled at shouldn't be taken so personally. Especially when you consider how many people badly need instructions yelled at them because they're so very confused, I can see why they do it!

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#764

Post by QuantumFunnel »

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…

TSA has always been security theater

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#765

Post by Zak »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #129
chipsrafferty wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But also you can fill up a water bottle after security. Wouldn't it be fairly easy to make a pen or similar innocuous item out of sodium, and drop it in a bottle of water to make an explosion? My point is that security can never be strict enough to catch someone who's truly motivated and funded, without making it impossible to admit people at a reasonable pace, and the current rules don't really help with that except…

FWIW, sodium in water is such a pathetic explosion that it would mostly be an embarrassment for the would-be bomber. It wouldn’t do any meaningful damage. An explosion with real gravitas is far more difficult to execute than people imagine. (see also: people that think ANFO is a viable explosive) This goes a long way in explaining why truly destructive bombings are rare.

ANFO is certainly a viable explosive for a truck bomb, e.g. Oklahoma City.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#766

Post by Zak »

WalterBright wrote: post #169
jandrewrogers wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, sodium in water is such a pathetic explosion that it would mostly be an embarrassment for the would-be bomber. It wouldn’t do any meaningful damage. An explosion with real gravitas is far more difficult to execute than people imagine. (see also: people that think ANFO is a viable explosive) This goes a long way in explaining why truly destructive bombings are rare.

Airliners are also pretty robust against damage. Although they are not designed to resist explosions, everything is redundant. This robustness is why fighters in WW2 used cannons for guns. Poking a hole in the side won't do anything.

The USA mostly used .50 caliber machine guns, usually with a mix of ammunition including incendiary bullets so that a hole in a fuel tank meant a large fire. Fighters from the other major combatants usually had 20mm autocannons in addition to smaller machine guns.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#767

Post by James_K »

thomassmith65 wrote: post #375
James_K wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we to worry about train terrorism also? Shop terrorism? A person might bring a bomb to any crowded space, it simply is not practical to check all of them.

It's difficult to take down a skyscraper with a train. Yes, 'shop terrorism' can be a problem (see: the UK during the Troubles). I do agree with the implication that society must tolerate a certain amount of terrorism to avoid turning into a police state. That does not mean that airplane terrorism, without strict security, is so rare that we can ignore it.

Neither can most planes given the cockpit is sealed and locked. I suppose one could strategically try to take it down over a populated area, but that doesn't really seem reliable. The truth of the matter is that people can smuggle bombs onto aeroplanes relatively easily, and you don't see many blowing up. And it's not even entirely clear that planes can always take out buildings. The twin towers only collapsed because of the slow burn of jet fuel heating and weakening the structure. The impact alone wouldn't have been enough.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#768

Post by xp84 »

cess11 wrote: post #757
pc86 wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than charge everyone £7 or more for a drop off, wouldn't it make more sense to charge the people abusing it an absurd amount? I'd much rather see a £25 fee after 90 seconds and an additional £125 fee after 5 minutes than £7 for 30 seconds. It seems less about making things more efficient and more about just squeezing a little bit out of money out of everyone.

That'd be a lot of surveillance and bookkeeping.

In San Francisco we have toll tags called FasTrak. You can pay for parking at the airport with it. Of course, there, it's just the normal, pretty high airport parking rates, but there's no reason you couldn't use such a tag for enforcing quick free drop offs and pickups with exactly that much precision. Enter the drop/pickup area with your toll tag, if you're out in 3 minutes, no charge. 5 minutes, $4, and if longer than that, $20/hour or whatever. It's not like computers mind doing that math.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#769

Post by xp84 »

account42 wrote: post #490
fc417fc802 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people say "water" here I have to assume they mean "vodka". Otherwise you can just bring an empty bottle and fill it on the other side. It's the toiletries that pose a problem.

Depending on the airport and terminal (e.g. shitholes like Frankfurt, especially terminal 2), filling it on the other side might mean a washbasin in a stinky toilet because they'd rather you buy overpriced bottled water. And many airports that do have at least water fountains only have some that seem deliberately designed to prevent you from using them to fill any reasonably sized bottle. Also, don't count on securit…

Wow, it's refreshing to read that we maybe we don't have it the worst in the US, right here amongst everyone's beefs with TSA. Every airport domestically I've ever flown to has not just water fountains, but the convenient bottle-fillers (usually connected to the normal fountains). I always just bring an empty plain disposable plastic bottle, for its light weight, and security never bats an eye at it.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#770

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

rusk wrote: post #447
Reefersleep wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Believe it or not it’s a question on the pre-clearance form for travel to the US: ”are you or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organisation” - I always wondered what the rationale for that was

You say "No", then it turns out you're a HAMAS supporter --> deported.
Post reply on HN