UK Flight Ban On Devices To Be Announced (bbc.com) 249
The UK is due to announce a cabin baggage ban on laptops, tablets and DVD players on certain passenger flights, after a similar US move. From a report on BBC: It is understood the UK restrictions may differ from the US Department of Homeland Security's ban, although details have not yet been released. Flights from 10 airports in eight Muslim-majority countries are subject to the US announcement. US officials said bombs could be hidden in a series of devices. BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford said the expected move was "obviously part of coordinated action with the US." The attempted downing of an airliner in Somalia last year was linked to a laptop device, and it appears the security precautions are an attempt to stop similar incidents, our correspondent added.
All these bans are useless security theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
These days terrorists could kill more people detonating their explosive belts while standing in the waiting lines of TSA screening in airports.
Re:All these bans are useless security theatre (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't a bomb blowing up in the luggage hold do just as much damage?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The baggage scanners use some sort of high powered x-ray back-scatter that can detect explosives.
Sometimes...the rate of false positives is above what should be acceptable in this sort of situation but since the TSA is a jobs program they're letting that slide by.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to open the laptop in question up too, and this all costs money. Contrary to popular belief, it's not the case that "even if you save one life" any cost is justified. Of course, if the baggage does contain a bomb inside a laptop, it would probably be set up to go off if you (say) turn the device on, in which case you need a full bomb disposal team, and the only safe way is a controlled explosion. You'll have to evacuate the airport, because it's not safe to move the laptop to a safe area, and you'l
Re: (Score:2)
The baggage scanners use some sort of high powered x-ray back-scatter that can detect explosives.
And is this somehow different than the x-ray machine your carry-on luggage goes through at the airport? This argument makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
None of this makes any sense. Buses, and trains, also seem like pretty good terrorist targets, as do shopping malls, busy markets, schools, universities, etc etc.
It's certainly not about public safety, which means it must be about something else. Some vast conspiracy, I expect.
Re:All these bans are useless security theatre (Score:5, Interesting)
Security theatre is a feature, not a bug (Score:2, Informative)
What better excuse to give agents unattended physical access to the electronics of travelers coming from "unbanned" countries?
Remember boys and girls: physical access is root access!
Re: All these bans are useless security theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not about bombs.
This is about cloning hard drives. The ones that aren't stolen along with the laptops
US protectionism. (Score:3)
Because this is purely a move by the US to give competitive advantage to their own carriers through several heavily used travel hubs.
The correct move is for these hubs to impose an outgoing bad of the same items on US carriers - which they of course could do.
The UK is just bootlicking the US as usual, because their government gave up caring about their own people quite some time ago
and has demonstrated they will do anything to punish people for not doing what the government told them in the BREXIT vote.
Sad
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps there is some scenario that involves bringing together multiple electronic devices to increase the effect
like a LAN party?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All these bans are useless security theatre (Score:5, Interesting)
If the point is to spread terror, the destroying an aircraft seems to be more effective than blowing up a queue. Not only is the visual of an aircraft crashing to the earth more vivid, but it demonstrates that security itself is ineffective.
It also might be difficult to rack-up the body count in a queue. A 747 carries more than 500 passengers in a two-class layout and an A340 carries 350 in a two-class layout. It may be difficult to kill that many people with a single terrorist in a security line, especially when it seems that airport security staff have made efforts to avoid serpentine lines that switchback upon themselves when possible.
Lastly, your comment on TSA screening lines is predicated on the terrorist already being in the United States. I expect that the point of arrivals from foreign countries is that security at the airports those flights originate from might not be as good as from a domestic airport or an otherwise Western airport. Blowing up the security line in the originating overseas airport probably won't induce the kind of terror in the West that the terrorist wants to get, so they have to get to the destination country or on a flight bound to that country to drive-home the effect. That plane needs to be on its way for the terror tactic to be attributed as they want, instead of just as local terrorism at the originating airport.
So terrorist plays on the weakness of the security at the foreign airport where they have a greater chance of sneaking through their bomb, or else they've had a better chance of making inroads with the local security staff to smuggle their bomb through. This means airlines now have to take the step of their own security, prohibiting these kinds of devices and basically having airline staff declare an emergency if prohibited items are seen in the passenger cabln, or even to re-screen passengers at the gate prior to letting them board.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite, blowing up the airport would have a lot more of an impact. Because it would show that the whole security theater is as meaningless as it actually is.
Then again, why bother, the whole security theater is already inconveniencing the people enough that they are more fed up with it than with the terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite, blowing up the airport would have a lot more of an impact. Because it would show that the whole security theater is as meaningless as it actually is.
Then again, why bother, the whole security theater is already inconveniencing the people enough that they are more fed up with it than with the terrorists.
I think you are missing the point. Terrorist don't want to show that security theater is meaningless. On the contrary, they would want our government to simply amp security up to suffocating levels (e.g., we spend $$$$$$$$$$ to counter their $). This is a classic asymmetric warfare gambit play and we are taking the bait.
Note this doesn't say anything about how effective any actual security measure would be because as we all know, no security measure perfect and even if there were one, the TSA wouldn't be
Re: (Score:3)
Dollars, yes, but not just dollars; but impediments to commerce and comfort. For very little effort (by which I explicitly mean, nearly none), they have thrown a huge wrench into anything that involves commercial air travel. They manipulated our control-addled congress into doing the work for them. 100% successfully.
All that was actually needed was:
o Revamp cockpits, armor thoroughly, install rest and feed facilities for long haul flights. One time cost.
o Reduce cabin-to-cockpit comms to "land near hospital
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree that the TSA as we've seen it is not really making us safer, I don't think that the three items you've listed are entirely adequate. First, those only stop someone from commandeering the aircraft in the circumstances that we saw in 2001 and do not necessarily address destroying an aircraft, and second, those do not necessarily prevent access to the cockpit if conditions within the pressurized interior are changed sufficiently.
One of the concerns about the cockpit door is a rapid depressurizat
Re: (Score:2)
Strange why it wasn't done that way since day 1.
Given the large number of aircraft built for the last hundred years, I'm inclined to let aircraft engineers weigh on that one.
Re:All these bans are useless security theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
If the point is to spread terror, the destroying an aircraft seems to be more effective than blowing up a queue. Not only is the visual of an aircraft crashing to the earth more vivid, but it demonstrates that security itself is ineffective.
Depends on the size of the bomb. Anything that could get through airport security is likely going to be somewhat limited in size. You could have multiple suitcase-size bombs in security at once and effectively blow up an entire airport with several of them. You don't think the "visuals" of that would spread terror?
The empirical evidence is absolutely clear -- if terrorists REALLY wanted to spread terror, they have opportunities EVERYWHERE to do it. And many countries which have actually had a terror problem have seen it: buses blowing up, people blowing up in a major city square, etc. That kind of stuff would be much more effective in spreading terror, because it impacts people's everyday lives... getting on buses or subways or going to work. Most people don't fly on planes everyday, but if they start worrying that going to the mall puts them at risk because people are congregating there, that starts to seriously disrupt everyday lives.
As we saw clearly a few months ago, if you really wanted to spread terror, it's just as effective (if not more so) to do it in an unexpected way -- e.g., rent a big truck and just drive through a crowd on a holiday. The fact that this doesn't happen on a regular basis (despite extremist leaders calling for people to run over people with trucks for nearly a decade -- seriously, look it up) just goes to show how small the number of mentally ill people willing to execute terrorist acts really is.
Re: (Score:2)
He said
multiple suitcase sized bombs
So, it's not just one. And he's completely right in every point. As has been pointed out elsewhere, since this isn't about public safety, it must be about something else. So, if you crack down on laptops from countries that you don't really care about, you now have more of an excuse to thoroughly search laptops from countries that you do. The countries that aren't on this list are the ones we should be talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
This means airlines now have to take the step of their own security, prohibiting these kinds of devices and basically having airline staff declare an emergency if prohibited items are seen in the passenger cabln, or even to re-screen passengers at the gate prior to letting them board.
Had that happen recently on a flight from Minneapolis to Paris. After we had our boarding passes scanned and had entered the jet way.
Inside the jet way were big, heavily armed agents, not visable from the gate, with dogs that gave us all the sniff test as we passed. I had a momentary concern since I was carrying a steak sandwich but the dogs didn't even blink. Good doggie! I didn't particularly care since it didn't slow boarding at all, but I'd not seen this domestically before,
Re: (Score:2)
If the point is to spread terror, the destroying an aircraft seems to be more effective than blowing up a queue. Not only is the visual of an aircraft crashing to the earth more vivid, but it demonstrates that security itself is ineffective.
People tend to forget that the last time that happened, the terrorists didn't have any bombs whatsoever. They just bluffed. 9/11 worked because everyone assumed hijackers would try to live and everyone was safer going along with it because that's what had happened before. Security was ineffective because it's basic assumptions were turned upside down.
That would be exactly true of the gate lines today: we assume terrorists would only care about the plane because last time they only cared about the plane,
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I have been for replacing welfare-to-bank-account with a credit card like system where the money isn't capable of being withdrawn from, just spent.
That would achieve nothing, other than making people on welfare's life even more miserable than it already is. You might even drive some people to hate the system enough to want to blow it up...
Re: (Score:2)
I donno, that's basically what we have to do to buy things at work. We have to get a PO through the purchasing department to go shop for specific items, or else we go to a business that we have a pre-arranged open-PO with where we can shop in the retailer and "pay" by presenting the PO information to the clerk, who charges against the open-PO like one charges-against a credit card, or for those times where there are emergencies that need something purchased, a few staff members have a work-issued credit ca
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that would probably just kill people. People are replaceable--they can be created with unskilled labor. We're talking about downing a multi-million dollar aircraft here. Not to mention what would happen to airline profits if people become nervous about flying.
I mean, let's get our priorities straight here.
Re: (Score:2)
Unskilled yes, but anything that takes 18 years to develop usually comes with a decent price tag anyway.
it's been done. (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
this is why in most airports in EU and elsewhere, there are heavily armed troopers in armor patrolling check-in.
In-seat entertainment price rise (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Airlines have started ordering new planes without the seat-back entertainment systems. Given that few people use them anymore, they didn't want the extra expense, maintenance, and weight. Something tells me that Boeing saw this trend and did a study showing those personal devices to be dangerous, and reported those findings to the governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Airlines have started ordering new planes without the seat-back entertainment systems. Given that few people use them anymore, they didn't want the extra expense, maintenance, and weight. Something tells me that Boeing saw this trend and did a study showing those personal devices to be dangerous, and reported those findings to the governments.
I don't know where you travel, but when I travel, particularly over seas, I see nearly all the seat back screens showing movies, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow... just nuts.
Everyone doing short hops / day trips for business is going to howl... that's basically their entire luggage. One laptop bag. Now they have to all pack them and check them? That's a huge waste of their time.
And everyone doing long hauls and bigger trips - the laptop is the entertainment for the cabin, to get work done in the cabin, and above all nobody wants to put their several thousand dollars relatively fragile laptop in checked baggage where the TSA gorillas and baggage handlers will either play frisbee with it or just steal it.
How is anyone ok with putting up with this nonsense?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm more concerned that they must have a quite big hole in their security net that they cannot easily fix. I mean, there is security theater for sure, but things like the metal detectors and carry on scanners at least turn getting a weapon onto an aircraft into much more of a lottery with low odds of winning than a sure thing.
I wonder how long before they extend this to all flights, and whether they have any ability to restore things to the status quo. Because that is one hell of a inconvenience
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3/10 anti-Trump post. Demerits for lack of Russian conspiracy element.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Trump isn't wrong after all?
Just because something isn't politically correct doesn't mean it's wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It only applies to countries that are part of Trump's Muslim ban. The US government must have offered the UK something to follow suit and give their scheme legitimacy... We are kind of desperate with Brexit coming up and a desperate need for trade deals.
It's disgusting, we shouldn't be entertaining it.
Choices have consequences. Which do you want? A temporary ban for non-citizens or inconveniencing all travellers? Make your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
How about we drop the security theatre.
Remember the requirement to have your devices charged so that they could be checked? This is just another useless scheme... If you were going to bomb an airliner and thought you had a bomb that could get through security checks, why not just put it in the hold? They are still allowing people to do that.
You can tell it's bullshit by the omissions on the list. There are 11-12 flights from Dubai to Heathrow every day, so they decided it would be too much hassle to ban lar
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump travel ban affects six countries (at least the new, improved one does) and the new restriction on electronic devices affects eight countries.
I'm not sure which countries make up the additional two.
Re: (Score:2)
And what would you suggest to "not entertain" it?
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Jordan isn't on the ban list though? Are you sure it only applies to flights from those countries - the guardian was reporting that 13 are involved.
I doubt boris/may would have asked for anything in return. As you say they are desperate, and the UK has always been a bit of a lapdog for the USA anyway. They will just be hoping that showing obedience to the Don means they are rewarded with his favor when the UK is left floating in the atlantic without easy access to the 500+ million person market of rich westerners that it was previously able to trade freely with.
No common countries on the two lists (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, there are NO countries on the new flight restriction list (Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Morocco) that were on the Travel ban (Iran, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Sudan and sometimes Iraq). It's possible the new restrictions are based on actual intel this time.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the countries were singled out by the Obama administration.
Why do people keep saying this? Trump issued the ban. Trump has told us almost every day for the past year that he's smarter than everyone else, that he's the one "with the facts," that he's got "tremendous" people working for him who are the smartest and greatest, etc.
So why are you (presumably a Trump supporter) so anxious to "pass the buck" and claim this has anything to do with Obama? Surely the man who's smarter than everyone else and has all these "tremendous" people working for him should be able to make changes to a list of countries if all of his superior access to facts warranted a change, right?
(And regardless of what the Obama administration may have said or done about this list of countries, they obviously didn't think a travel ban was necessary, so claiming this is in anyway related to Obama is completely disingenuous. And I say this as someone who thinks Obama's presidency in general was a horrific disappointment, by the way.)
There are, however, travel restrictions that affect incoming flights from certain countries known to harbor large numbers of people who have threatened to kill large numbers of Americans in as spectacular a fashion as they can muster.
Hmm... and yet we don't get countries that actually are KNOWN to harbor terrorists and which HAVE actually been the origin of terrorist events in the U.S. on this banned list. Biggest example: Saudi Arabia, but there are plenty of others known to have large numbers of people who hate the U.S. too.
Oh wait, restricting travel with a place like Saudi Arabia might interfere with business deals and such.... well, we can't have THAT happening. Who cares if some more pesky terrorists get through from there, as long as our business deals are intact? (The true priorities here are very clear.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>>Why do people keep saying this?
Because many people cite the travel ban as some kind of example of "Islamaphobia" so that they can be dismissive of it, when actually it is an example of "MotherFuckersWhoWantToKillMeAndMyFamilyaphobia" which, I must confess, I suffer from.
Re: (Score:2)
These days they attack the line at the security check in the airport, so your paranoia is actually making you less safe by making that line even longer.
You are many thousands, if not millions of times more likely to be murdered by your fellow Americans on the way to the airport than by terrorists. You worry about things that almost never happen... In fact, do you even know the last time someone had a viable plan to suicide bomb an aircraft? They prefer to put the bomb in the hold, and then not get on the ai
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how many acts of terrorism, or even suspected terrorists in the USA came from the affected countries in the past couple of decades?
If you really thought that such bans will keep your family safe, you should be advocating loudly for bans affecting Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and many other countries.
The reasons that people say the travel ban is Islamaphobia is that it is not based on facts, Trump has a history of saying he wants to ban Muslims and places in which Trump has business interests appear to hav
Re: (Score:2)
>>Why do people keep saying this?
Because many people cite the travel ban as some kind of example of "Islamaphobia"
You mean like Trump and Giuliani?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)
I'd love to see your cites and stats re "police standoffs gone wrong" in 2016.
According to the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com], 963 people were killed last year in the U.S by police. I filtered that down to people that had guns, in order to kinda hit your 'standoff' thing, and got 518 people. I assume that if someone has been killed, then it's a standoff 'gone wrong', but I suppose there's no clear definition of what it means for a standoff to 'go wrong'. You might argue that if the bad guy got killed, maybe the standoff went right, so let's instead use the number of police killed in action. That's 46 officers for the year 2016, according to the BBC [bbc.com].
Now, how many people were killed by islamic terrorists in 2016 that arrived here by plane from one of the 'banned' countries?
It's none, isn't it? There were terrorist attacks for sure, but Omar Mateen was 'self-radicalised' and was from New York, Dahir Ahmed Adan was from Somali (the country is on the list), but he didn't kill anyone, Ahmad Khan Rahami was from Afganistan (not on the list) and didn't kill anyone, and Abdul Razak Ali Artan (also from Somali) also didn't kill anyone. Names from here [dailywire.com].
So, you are more likely to be a police officer killed in the line of duty, than by a terrorist that's arrived from one of the banned countries.
Furthermore, as you no doubt very well know, Trump himself has publicly stated on more than one occasion that the ban is about religion. This is why it has been struck down in the courts, because there is no other basis for his choices. There's certainly no public safety basis, that's for sure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And there is no ban on Muslims -- that would be illegal.
If you hadn't noticed both of the executive orders have been found to be illegal by the courts. The second time it was largely because Trump and his staff had repeatedly called it a Muslim ban.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely to go all the way to the Supreme Court unless Trump backs down. I look forward to seeing which of us is right.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. The Hawaiian judge based his opinion upon "intent" as expressed verbally by members of the Trump campaign in the run-up to the election. The actual (second) order was more carefully written to avoid any reference to religion (here, read it yourself [whitehouse.gov].) There is not a legal scholar, Left or Right, in the U.S. who believes that the partisan Hawaiian ruling will withstand appeal.
If a person didn't read the Washington judge's opinion, in which he cited precedent for finding that statements indicating discriminatory intent can be used to invalidate a law, then he isn't much of a legal scholar.
It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266- 68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The countries banned were
Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Iraq was removed from the second travel ban.
Both trump and his senior advisors openly said in interviews they intended to write a muslim ban, and that they were asked to write muslim ban that would pass legal muster.
Your conway-esque pivot/lie by omission fails.
Re: (Score:3)
It was that I was on that flight and they knew I have a bomb with me. Since there have never been two bombs on one plane, ever, and I promised that I won't explode mine, the flight was safe.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about?.. the countries on the "Ban" list don't have known terror issues, unless you count the occasional bomb, in which case, ALL countries (With the exception of Singapore, New Zealand, and a few others) have had "terror" issues.. (the US has the most).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
small personal space when they whip up their laptop to do that presentation they should have done 2 weeks ago in the office.
Or they flew into London for a 2 day conference, then had a dinner meeting blowing their evening; but they plan to catch up their email, and review tweak the presentation they DID write 2 weeks ago in the office that they are presenting to a supplier straight after they land and want it fresh in their head because that's what a prepared person would do.
First the airlines crow about giving us internet access on flights, and then they take away our laptops?
There was a time not all that long ago when laptops didn't exist and you couldn't do that kind of work anyway
Wha? Did you just watch a movie where they just drank
Re: (Score:2)
Day trips to Jordan? Short hops to Turkey? Did you even read the summary?
Did you even read the title?
"UK Flight Ban On Devices To Be Announced"
From the UK, Turkey and Jordan are well within the range of a day trip for a businessman. You can catch a 6am flight, be in Turkey for lunch, attend meetings; do dinner with a vendor, and then fly home again in the evening. Or perhaps fly from Turkey to Italy or vienna, crash in a hotel, and attend a 2 day conference there before flying home... really this isn't exactly implausible.
Re: (Score:2)
Your quite right, flying is a PITA and a huge waste of time in general.
But sometimes, no, a video call just doesn't mean a fraction of what 'boots on the ground' means when you want to close a deal; or otherwise make an appearance.
And also for personal reasons... I know lots of people who have made 5 hour flights to attend a wedding or funeral and then flown back home the same day too. And getting some work done on the plane was part of making that 'work'.
What I thought (Score:3)
Yesterday there was a report that a Jordanian airline banned these devices, and the first thing I thought was someone figured out how to weaponize certain laptops. This news declares that much, so yesterday's news makes more sense.
Bomb sniffing dogs may get them, but in dozens of flights including International this year I have seen very few dogs.
Re: (Score:3)
A lithium-ion battery is basically a bomb with a small circuit saying 'don't explode, don't explode, don't explode'. They're banned from aircraft holds because the don't-explode circuits turn out not to be as reliable as previously thought. It amazes me that I'm allowed to carry a few of them onto a plane, but not a small bottle of water (though I can buy one at an overprices shop, or I can buy something a lot more flammable in Duty Free).
Re: (Score:2)
first thing I thought was someone figured out how to weaponize certain laptops
My guess would be Samsung. They already figured it out for the Note series of smartphones.
Remember that guy who had a bomb in his underwear? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Laptops in Luggage? (Score:3)
Like any other expensive and easily identified electronic item, laptops are routinely stolen from checked baggage by baggage handling staff. It has always been thus. Say goodbye to you Lenovo when you travel.
In a logical follow-up... (Score:4, Funny)
... all passengers will have to travel naked. Clothing can conceal bombs.
Re: (Score:2)
Just when you thought after the latest seat-size-shrinking event that sitting next to the fat guy can't get more irritating...
Will increase risks of theft and cargo hold fire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, it's also not entirely clear why a bomb in the cargo hold is less dangerous than a bomb in the passenger compartment and how this new regulation would make sense if it's not more secure.
I really don't want to fuel conspiracy theories, but maybe this is also to some extent about controls that are not seen by the passengers. Time to put tamper-evident seals on laptops?
Re: (Score:2)
Given that lithium batteries are specifically banned from being in checked baggage I wonder what the logical end to all this madness is, a black market for universal battery sales at the USA end of the flight?
Re: (Score:2)
All of this it doesn't make sense as the hand luggage is screened more thoroughly than the checked in luggage. On the x-ray they can see exactly what is inside the laptop.
Also on some airlines you have to have batteries in your hand luggage so this gets very confusing. On my last flight from Bangkok, they went through all my luggage to find some batteries which they "saw" on the x-ray. I only had 2xAA batteries. Chaos of regulations.
Don't they X-Ray these things? (Score:2)
I mean, last time I flew, I had to take my laptop out of it's bag and have it X-Rayed. I'll grant you, I didn't have to do this with my iPad or phone, granted.
So just say, "Okay, sorry gang, but now you have to have your tablets/phones X-Rayed, too."
Collateral damage (Score:3)
There appears to be collateral damage, in that these bans are impacting countries other than the US (and by extension the UK). Royal Jordanian has announced that flights between Jordan and Canada are also subject to the ban. It appears to be because those direct Jordan-Canada flights then do a hop to the US afterwards.
Laptop free for all in the back. (Score:2)
Laptop free for all in the back and we are not at fault for any lost or damaged laptops in checked backs.
Completely pointless (Score:3)
They're only banning electronics on flights from certain destinations. Surely the bad people would *never* think to just fly from a non-banned airport, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see... maybe it's because the other airports have better security to prevent people from taking bombs on planes?
Just an idea.
Re: (Score:2)
If the security in the named countries is so bad, what's to stop people from just sneaking their laptop in their carry on luggage? What's the US going to do at arrivals? Confiscate what turned out to be a harmless laptop? I mean if it made it all the way here from Jordan without blowing up, what's the point?
So, why us, and not others (Score:3)
The UK and US seem to be the most frequent targets. Rather than trying to scramble to anticipate every possible method of attacking a plane (which is impossible), perhaps we should be talking about the motives and reduce attacks by addressing those. The UK had to constantly worry about Ireland until the actual issues finally got discussed. The US (and UK to lessor extent) had a way of saying "we do what we want where we want, and if you don't like it, too bad". We've probably hit some nerves. Airline threats have constantly escalated since our little invasion into Iraq (it should be noted, against UN vote) under the false pretence of their having weapons of mass destruction and created a mess. If we dropped the "Never give up, never surrender" stance we seem to have taken and ask "have we been unreasonable" maybe we'll find better answers than "react mode/keep people frightened (and potentially trigger happy)".
Re: (Score:2)
The UK and US seem to be the most frequent targets.
Have you forgotten France? Spain?
Trump again.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No racism. It has to do with the level of screening at those locations and the trust the TSA and UK equivalent have in those screenings.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A Bit Of Racism Here, No? (Score:4, Interesting)
Theft is a bigger problem than damage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
There are people who will be delighted at all the new stuff there is to steal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well its obviously Islamophobic as are so many things like, for example, not wanting to live under Sharia law.
Christian extremist law is a far more realistic threat to the United States than Sharia law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>Christian extremist law is a far more realistic threat to the United States than Sharia law.
Really? That sounds crazy! How do you figure?
Re: (Score:2)
Get with The Narrative, dude. No Muslim bakery in America has ever refused to make a gay wedding cake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They believe more in the 'love & embracing' of the downtrodden, meek, weak etc.
That'll explain how the so-called 'Christian Right' are so into welfare, and women's reproductive rights. I guess love and embracing means different things to different people.
Re: It's so NSA can copy hard drives (Score:2)
They can feel free and go to town on my laptop. I hope they have fun with 512GB of AES encrypted data.
Indefinite detention until decrypted (Score:2)
And if you forget the password, you'll die in jail (source [slashdot.org]).
Re: (Score:2)
One has to wonder, what if a malware researcher takes his work with him and they manage to infect their network with his "tools of the trade", so to speak, do I get to keep their network? I mean, it's not like I told you to infect yourself...
Re: (Score:2)
Most baggage has to make a flight with a passenger as airlines have a policy to link baggage to a passenger on the same flight.
How many seconds would power up and reading from a consumer device take given the needed speed and quantity of moving luggage that has to move around an airport?
Just a removal of contact data e.g. emails, IM, Skype from a device? All images and text files and then
Re: (Score:2)
Men on planes use laptops to create powerpoint slides, Women on planes use iphones to play candy crush.
I am struggling to determine which of these is the larger waste of time.