MacBook Air Confuses Airport Security 550
Ant writes "MacNN reports that the thin design of Apple's MacBook Air is causing some confusion for the technically ignorant, according to one blogger who says that the ultra-portable caused him to miss his flight. When going through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) airport security checkpoint, blogger Michael Nygard was held up as security staff gathered around his MacBook Air, trying to make sense of the slender laptop/notebook. One of the less technically knowledgeable staff points out the lack of standard features as cause for alarm..."
Re:Ok - this is just getting silly! (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure those uber tiny laptops get as much attention as well.
Is this news? or marketing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like his fault (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignore this shitty, fake story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idiots... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ok - this is just getting silly! (Score:4, Insightful)
Show up on time, dumbass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No surprise really... (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the rules happens to be: separate laptops from other electronic devices. So what makes it a laptop and what makes it a "dvd player"? The keyboard? You can't see the keyboard until you open it.
Another rule happens to be: don't open electronic devices unless a secondary inspection is warranted.
And there's a bunch of other rules to decided if a secondary inspection is warranted.
They're just trying to do their job. It's a joke what the experts tell them but they are the experts so if you want to blame anyone, blame them.
Kind of makes me wonder what would happen if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiots... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)
It really boils down to the technically ignorant doing work that requires at some point a certain minimum level of technical competence. Kind of like a PHB making computer and networking decisions. I have not flown commercial in many years. The more stories I hear from my friends who still fly, the more I will take the train. There may be a case where I will fly again some day, but not if a viable alternative is available. I used to like to fly. I liked zipping into different cities, doing my job and popping back. It was exciting. Now, it would just be painful. Not my cup of tea.
BTW, if you fly on private craft, my experience so far has been a decided lack of idiots to deal with. Kind of makes the cost and time to get a pilots license that much more attractive.
InnerWeb
Re:irony (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even Alanis ironic.
The whole story is part of a viral marketing campaign intended to establish the Air as different, iconic.
"It's a MacBook Air."
Re:Sounds like his fault (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ok - this is just getting silly! (Score:5, Insightful)
Either way, had he been there a little earlier he could have had plenty of time to explain his new gadget and boarded the plane. TSA (and common sense) - 1, jackass blogger - 0.
Re:Is this news? or marketing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:slashvertisement (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you are being fair.
Protecting travelers from new attack vectors in real time based on an x-ray and basic visual inspection is not a job that can be performed reliably with any standard skill set. What the TSA actually appears to be aiming for is people who can identify a gun/knife/conventionally designed incendiary device, so that nobody has to stand in front of the cameras after an incident and explain how we missed the conventional threat during screening.
Unconventional threats cannot reliably be prevented through the methods the TSA is currently employing, but no one wants to admit this and pierce the illusion of security that these measures provide the average traveler.
Instead of relating TSA grunts to PHBs making decisions they are not qualified to make you could keep it simple and call it what it is: Politicians fronting like they have solutions, and average citizens (TSA workers) set up to take the blame when those flimsy solutions fail.
Re:slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)
Your break-even distance is almost 8 hours... in other words... if you aren't expecting to have to drive 8 hours, use your car or take a bus.
If you're going further than 8 hours by car, it's going to be like 5+ hours by Cessna and just suck up the 45 minutes to get through security (and the $500 in fuel) and take Southwest Airlines for $99.
I've only ever heard of about 3 situations where it was actually ECONOMICAL (both time and money) to take a private plane, unless you're god-awful rich and can afford a pilot to handle the checklists before you arrive.
SI
Re:slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole thing is actually more of a "show" nowadays, put on to make people feel safe and that the government is doing something. I mean banning liquids= joke.
After 9/11, the odds of such an incident being repeated went down a lot. In fact one of the planes didn't hit the target because of the passengers (who learnt what was happening), so that proves my point.
Now:
1) Cockpit doors are reinforced
2) The "unwritten rules of hijacking" have been invalidated- so more than a few passengers might think it is worth losing their lives to take down hijackers (esp if they think the hijackers are going to kill them all anyway). More importantly, serious hijackers know that (the crazy ones are a different matter).
3) The bomb scanning stuff has already been around for years, so the small stuff is invalidated by 2).
So, if terrorists now wanted to use planes to kill lots of people, they'll use private aircraft like you suggest
AFAIK private planes don't have as stringent luggage requirements as long as you know the pilot (or are the pilot). Those stars don't appear to have problems putting illicit drugs and stuff on their planes.
Re:Question about missed flight (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I am surprized one of those guys/gals doesn't pull a gun and go postal.
Re:Ok - this is just getting silly! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like his fault (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:slashvertisement (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you need to re-read my post. My entire point was that the current security schemes will only work against obvious conventional threats, nothing more.
And yet we have built this egregiously cumbersome security mechanism... which will most likely fail against the first unconventional threat that comes its way.
And who will be blamed for that failure? Surely not the architects of the system, because they will clearly point to all the measures they have taken, and the immense budgets they have alloted to secure flights. Therefore it must be the TSA grunts who failed to perform their appointed duties...
Maybe I needed to state my point more concisely in the original post. The system will fail and the point of failure will not be identified correctly.
If we are not in agreement please let me know.
Re:slashvertisement (Score:3, Insightful)
I cant imagine any gun shaped objects inside it either (hell do they make a gun that thin?).
They dont need to know what it is - they only need to know that its not a thread.
Asking him to turn it on would suffice.
Re:slashvertisement (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not completely in disagreement with you, but this means that the TSA needs to be kept up to date with all bleeding edge devices worldwide. MP3 players from Japan can look quite different than the bog standard iPod. I've seen mobiles in Europe that I never saw back in the States. If they are only looking for things that they saw on their last trip to Best Buy, that's going to be a problem.
Re:slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)
After 9/11, the odds of such an incident being repeated went down a lot. In fact one of the planes didn't hit the target because of the passengers (who learnt what was happening), so that proves my point.
Hell, before 9/11 the odds were slim to none. If security was so piss-poor before, then why had there only been maybe half a dozen or so (I don't have a list in front of me at the moment) incidents of, say, bombs being used to blow us U.S. originated airliners? And hardly any incidents of hijackers actually taking control of a plane and crashing it? For that matter, why have there never been mass suicide bombings in our malls or other public places a la what happens in some other corners of the world? In theory, it should be stupidly easy to walk into the Mall of America at lunchtime and blow yourself up, taking a few dozens shoppers with you.
It boils down to this: 9/11 was an anomaly. It was so far out of the norm that it had never been done before, and is not likely to be replicated anytime soon. The risk is always there, but it is infinitesimally small in relation to the number of flights and passengers annually. You can be 99.9% safe and, in the process, majorly disrupt and complicate airline travel, negatively affect the economy by costing businesses and their travelers added expense and delays, plus expend billions of taxpayer dollars on added security. Or, you can use the same common sense precautions that had always been used, and still be, say, 99.5% safe. The difference is not worth the expense. Of course, if you happen to have a loved one killed in such an incident, you will say that ANY improvement in security is worth ANY additional effort and expense, but when it comes to the big picture, common sense must trump emotionalism or we will all be held hostage to fear.
Re:Idiots... (Score:3, Insightful)
I also find it amusing that they don't think the Macbook is a "device". Man, these morons have even less brains than I had anticipated.
Wonderful Airport Insecurity. Gotta make you wonder.
I just wonder how much longer must we deal with the TSA? I mean, for the actual "threat" of "terrorism", they are overkill to the max. And are completely useless. All a would-be terrorist would have to do is pick a really busy time to come into the airport, stand in the TSA security line, and blow himself sky-high before he got to the checkpoint. Many would die instantly.
The fact that this has not happened since 9-11 tells me the "terrorism threat" is largely nonexistent.
Some level of caution should be exercised, for sure, but not these insane levels. The actual TSA process would make more people vunerable to the scenario I described above because more people would be concentrated in a small area for greater effect AS WELL AS showing egg on face of the US Insecurity measures.
Meanwhile, 41,000 people die each year on our highways, and no one seems concerned about that. When I drive everyday, I am fully aware of this and watch every car around me like a hawk. Everyday I see nutty drivers dancing with death on the highways, and have seen quite a few nasty accidents as well. Improving road safety would cost far less than the TSA and actually save real lives. And improving road safety is easy -- it begins with educating the idiot drivers or get them off the road altogether.
But then, I expect way too much of my government. Bad me!
Re:slashvertisement (Score:3, Insightful)
What most people here seem to miss is that these guys are not looking for computers, they are looking (amongst other things) for "stuff disguised as computers".
Man I am disappointed in the moderation going on here, common sense obviously has left the building =(
PS: As for the parallel port, maybe I should have said "serial" port and yes, my Latitude D830 has one and no, I haven't found a use for it (yet).
Re:Private Pilot License (Score:2, Insightful)
In a classic example of short-term thinking, the airlines are going to protect themselves in the short run by lobbying for user fees, only to be scratching their heads later when their source of new pilots is gone. If Congress was anything less than totally corrupt, they would force the airlines to set aside huge reserves in escrow for training. After all, the proposed user fees will turn most private aircraft into scrap aluminum and the airlines will then have to train new pilots from scratch.
And this time, there will be no H1-B labor to assist. GA has already been pretty much taxed to death in Europe, and the third world is not exactly a hotbed of aviation activity. Pilots are one of the few US exports that we have not yet screwed up. A disproportionate percentage of pilots on foreign airlines are American. Most people do not realize that English is the ONLY language spoken from air traffic control towers worldwide.
If they were really clever, the Congressmen from aircraft producing states would arrange for the user fees bill to be linked to some kind of carbon tax nonsense that would hold the auto industry hostage at the same time.
Re:Ooga Chaka (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing like the smell of baked trout on your mac toy.
Re:slashvertisement (Score:4, Insightful)
just out of interest, based on the above - if you were aiming for a flight that departed the runway at 12 noon, what time would you leave your house.. 11am?
Re:Ok - this is just getting silly! (Score:4, Insightful)