Is Your Laptop At Risk While Traveling?

Editorgirl35 writes "Here's an interesting story on DesignNews.com With last week's announcement that the British government thwarted an alleged terrorist attack planned for flights from the U.K. to the U.S., news that travelers are required to check their laptops as baggage on some flights has raised a new level of panic as they try to figure out the best way to protect their laptops."

Comments

Baggage Check?

[nurb432]

Wow, thats really safe..

Some laptops ( and most pdas ) can turn them selves on at a predetermined time.. Just estimate the time for maximum impact, laptop turns on and detonates the 'extra' battery that is made up of C4.. now you have a nice big hole in the bottom of the plane..

Re:Baggage Check?

[Aadain2001]

If that happens, instead of the plane blowing up you get the airport terminal. Either one causes damange, loss of life, and really hurts the international economy (extra 'security' at the airports). We just need to face it, there is no silver bullet or extra security measure we can take that will guarenty safty from terrorist attacks. At this point, we are getting zero returns on the extra effort and cost. I would rather go back to more customer friendly airports than have this illusion of protection we have right now.

Re:Baggage Check?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty funny about the primary concern being vibration. My company had a person check their laptop on a flight a few years back, and SURPRISE it never appeared at the other end of the flight. THAT is my main concern about checking a laptop. You are checking in a relatively small item worth $1200-$2000 that is easily resellable. If checking in laptops becomes a requirement, airlines will need to have a special procedures for doing so, in my opinion. Its worth a lot more than a bag of clothes.

Re:Baggage Check?

[Alien Being]

The most important thing with regard to protection against airline terrorism is that the bad guy not be allowed to take control of a 3.3 terajoule aircraft (guided missile). The solution is to lock the cockpit door. El Al understood this 30 years ago and the FAA realized that it was true on the morning of 9/11.

energy density of jet fuel
fuel capacity of a 767

( 5.62 million btu/ barrel ) * 23980 gallons == 3.3 terajoules

Re:Baggage Check?

[Aadain2001]

That's the problem with actually paying attention: once you learn just how easy the systems are to defeat, you stop buying the illusion and acknowledge the reality of our security. If someone like Bin Laden wants to attack the US again, they will. And it won't be with an airplane, it will be from a cargo ship (*cough*Seattle*cough*). Or it will be some people hiking into the US from Canada or from Mexico. It will be a home-grown terrorist (Oklahoma) or someone on the inside (USPO). However it happens, all the money and effort put into the illusion won't stop it.

Re:Baggage Check?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yes, you can blow up any building in the world but it's a lot easier to fly a Boeing 767 into a building than delivering explosives to a tightly secured area.

Just you try it. It's actually very hard.

Additionally, it is hard to match the power of a large plane crashing into a building.

So what. Shot placement beats power.

Re:Baggage Check?

[dgatwood]

I'd give it six months before LiPo and LiIon batteries are banned for air shipment or cargo hold carriage. In the belly of a plane, they can do a lot of damage. In the passenger compartment, it is just a fire which can be extinguished... but not with the fire extinguishers that are carried on airplanes, which is the real problem.

If the ban persisted, business would suffer

[rufusdufus]

The ban was lifted already. As it had to be. Business travellers routinely carry laptop computers with confidential client information on them, they would be negligent if they checked them into the current baggage handling system. Forget about the laptop being damaged since it is possible to package it safely, but the possibility of lost client data would be too high of a risk.
While a permanent laptop ban would have a serious impact on certain types of businesses and travellers, it would have an even more serious impact on the airlines when their primary client base was forced to use charter aircraft.

Re:If the ban persisted, business would suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

If your laptop contains unencrypted confidential data then you're already being negligent.

Carry-On or Not At All

[ewhac]

"I refuse to participate in your shared hallucination." -- Dilbert

Fortunately I don't travel by air very often. And, as has been pointed out by others, the laptop ban has been lifted (wealthier, more powerful people than I have likely already informed the appropriate scaremongers what a losing proposition this was). Even so, there's no way I'm putting a laptop through checked baggage. Luggage gets lost. Luggage gets tossed around very roughly. And items are known to go "missing" from luggage.

No. Not my laptop. It stays with me, or it stays home.

Schwab

Re:Carry-On or Not At All

[grcumb]

'"I refuse to participate in your shared hallucination." -- Dilbert'

Wise words. I wish more people would live by them

I would find this whole airport security thing rather amusing, if it weren't such a pain in the tuckus. I think Bruce Schneier summed it up rather nicely in his latest Crypto-gram when he characterised all these draconian restrictions as 'Security Theatre' - something that looks like security to those who don't know any better, but ultimately has no real effect.

He also points out that if we're to learn anything from this event, it's that classical police/intelligence operations work. Authorities knew about the would-be bombers well in advance, they learned as much as they could about the cell, then shut it down before it could do damage. Biometric IDs, airport baggage checks, no-fly lists and other kinds of security theatre contributed nothing whatsoever to the outcome.

Re:Carry-On or Not At All

[timeOday]

I would find this whole airport security thing rather amusing, if it weren't such a pain in the tuckus. I think Bruce Schneier summed it up rather nicely in his latest Crypto-gram [schneier.com] when he characterised all these draconian restrictions as 'Security Theatre' - something that looks like security to those who don't know any better, but ultimately has no real effect.

I tend to agree. Blocking off one small avenue of attack doesn't really do much to improve security when there are so many possible ways to kill people. And yet, I don't think public officials have any other choice. If terrorists were to launch some creative new attack tomorrow, everybody would say "wow, those terrorists never stop dreaming up ways to kill us," and would be understanding. But if they were now to hit us with bombs made from mixed liquids, even after we knew they were trying to do just that, can you imagine the outcry?

Re:Long Lines

[rufusdufus]

This is how we know that that 'terrorusts' don't want to 'kill amerkuns'. If killing was their primary goal, they could start blowing up any sort of public event that have no security like concerts, movies, town meetings, carnivals, or krispy kreme openings.
The goal is to blow up symbols to inspire fear in the populace by use of mass media. There have been bombs set in discos and the past, but those didn't effect public behavior much at all, people kept on dancin.

10 minutes * 60 passengers

[NotQuiteReal]

Please arrive at your gate 10 hours early so that our one certified laptop cavity searcher can accomodate everyone...

Not worried about damage, but theft...

[Hamster Lover]

I fly quite a bit in Canada and would never check my laptop, iPod, digital camera or anything else valuable as I would be afraid of theft more than damage. I've never had a theft, but I have heard horror stories from people, mainly international travelers, that have returned home only to find a video camera, liquor, jewelery or some other item stolen from checked luggage.

I do have a friend that works on the ramp, as it's called, stowing and retrieving bags from aircraft. He told me that theft isn't a problem domestically because they're watched so carefully with video cameras and security, but most importantly they just don't have the time or opportunity to pull someone's bag aside and rifle through it. He said international flights are a different story as bags are checked hours before the flight actually leaves, but he still doesn't think it's a big problem. I won't take my chances though and will continue to carry my digital/video camera and laptop onboard.

Re:Not worried about damage, but theft...

[abscissa]

Yup, you should be modded up.

I had a Palm Tunsgten PDA and an Apple iBook (old G3 blueberry model) stolen out of my luggage at La Guardia. Only reason I put it in there was because it was broken. I had also just bought a new iPod (thanksfully I carried it with me) but the stupid fucks stole all the iPod cables and dock, which I'm sure were worthless to them.

At the end of the day I was out the Palm PDA and the iPod stuff, and the laptop was probably worth something. Then of course, the airline folded. I suspect the only reason I lost the PDA was because the (broken) laptop was in there so the thieves decided to look harder, and of course stole the iPod power cables...

DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT, EVER put anything of any value in your luggage!!

Re:Would the airline insurance cover it?

[bwy]

no airline is going to accept any liability on electronic products like iPods, laptops and cameras because they know people would just use them as a cash cow to get upgraded hardware.

No airline is going to accept any liability on electronic products like iPods, laptops and cameras because they know they do not handle baggage carefully and it would cost them a fortune.

Re:No Laptop - No Fly

[Danga]

So if you wanted to make the trip between say Chicago and Amsterdam how exactly would you go about it besides flying and do so in a timely matter? You might be happy never seeing anywhere but the continent you live on but most people don't have your same mindset.

Re: TSA stealing from luggage

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you...or your stuff:
TSA Under Fire for Rising Theft by Baggage Screeners

"It's a huge security threat," said aviation industry consultant Michael Boyd. "If we've got the kind of people who would steal things out of bags, we're not sure if we have people on the job who will put things into bags. And obviously we don't have enough scrutiny of the bags once they're checked. It's huge."

Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending.

[JonTurner]

>>there is no silver bullet or extra security measure we can take that will guarenty safty from terrorist attacks.

Guarantee? No, but prohibiting Muslims from flying (or at least giving them an extra-thorough level of scrutiny) will make a huge improvement. Religion is the single defining characteristic of modern terrorists who use aircraft as weapons or seek to destroy aircraft full of passengers. And it's not Scientologists or Mormans we're talking about here, it's Muslims.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims. And quite a large percentage are sympathizers as demonstrated by recent polls in London showing support for the recently foiled plot to kill a few thousand westerners in-flight UK->US. Call it flamebait if you want, but it is true. Nearly all airplane hijackings and intentional attacks on civilians have been done in the name of Islam. The world can go on pretending that's not the case, but until we are willing to at least identify the well-defined group of people responsible for most of this mayhem, increased security will be a pipe dream.

Or you moderators can just mod this 'flamebait' and go on pretending. Call me racist. Hit the cultural 'snooze' button... roll over & go back to sleep. Whatever. Maybe once an attack affects you personally, your family, or your country you'll wake up. Sleep well.

Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending.

[bursch-X]

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.

Sure, and everyone eating Sauerkraut and wearing Lederhosen must be a German, if you see someone wearing a ten-gallon hat and chew chewing gum it must be an American, Asian in school uniform an naked? It's definitely a Japanese.

To adjust your splendid world view, here's some food for thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_org anisations.

Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending.

[Anonymous Coward]

McVeigh, thats got a nice Muslim ring to it, right? Only the second biggest terrorist attack in America. What about the Christian Fundie group in Texas who was arrested a few years back with potassium cyanide bombs? Should we be banning Christians too, after all, they DO worship the same God? And how about that guy from Oklahoma, the one who tried to carry the pipe bomb on board?

Your proposal is equivalent to relying on a jockstrap to protect your private parts. Sure, it works against quite a lot of threats, and then you get raped from behind.

Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending.

[Arivia]

Because everyone knows the IRA are just really big fuzzy bunnies.

Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending.

[1u3hr]

... prohibiting Muslims from flying ...

Idiotic. Then all the terrorists just give up? There are plenty of Muslims who don't look like your stereotypical Arab. And there are plenty of Middle Eastern Jews and Christians who could supply ID, or have it stolen from them. There are plenty of US citizens who are Muslim, it would be interesting to try to get a ban on their travelling through court. Not to mention the huge backlash the US would suffer.

Think of it like spam. A couple of years ago, you were getting lots of spam with the word "Viagra" in it. Simple. Filter out all messages with the word "Viagra". Two weeks later, you start to get spam about "V1agra", "V;agra", "Viiagra"....

Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending.

[Skrynesaver]

To bring up a bit of history, (Those who don't learn it are forced to repeat it and all that).

• The IRA were a small group of nutters in the mid 60's.
• The civil rights movement were demanding all sorts of outrageous things like equal access to education, employment and housing.
• The Northern Ireland statelet was discriminatory to it's core.
• Police and pseudo-military police were used to baton charge peaceful civil rights protestors
• The IRA "was standing up to them" unlike those dippy civil rights types
• The IRA gained lots of angry young recruits
• After 30 years of pointless bloodshed the civil rights demands are being met. Though a lot of hatred has been alowed to develop in the interm

If were honest about the way Palestinians have been treated we'd realise that we in the west are setting up a similar scenario on a larger scale and as a previous poster said in the end we'll have to talk to Hezbolah & Hamas, or if we hang on a while longer a more extreme group will be sure to come along.

Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the IRA was funded by America quite extensively, mainly through Noraid and other prominent Irish-American organisations. Not the government, but the US didn't clamp down on fundraising for terrorist organisations.

Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending.

[mdwh2]

Yeah, let's whip out all the lone wolves and their deacdes ago one off attacks.

Yeah, when someone makes a blanket absolute claim, heaven forbid someone point out a counter-example. And I'm not sure how they are any more "lone wolves" than muslim terrorists.

And just over one decade, I make it. I bet you people will still be citing 9/11 as an example of "Islamic terrorism" for long after 2012.

In every thread like this there is some academic robot defending that with that obsolete PC attitude

And in every thread, there is someone who claims their opponent is being "PC", because they can't explain why they are wrong...

Or do you advocate acceding to their demands which are 1) Destroy Israel and 2) Convert to Islam

Look, it's a strawman.

As someone who travels to Latin America...

[ChePibe]

As someone who gets to Latin America every once in a while (thus the name...), I would NEVER check my laptop, electronics, or ANYTHING of value in my baggage. NEVER.

Theft occurs often enough in the U.S. to make me at the very least give serious pause... in Latin America? In Argentina, for example, a country where you have almost no hope of receiving anything more than a disposable camera in the mail, there is NO way I would entrust my laptop to their baggage handlers, not to mention my camera, iPod, etc.

It looks like the security is being toned down a little bit now, and I hope and pray it stays at the present level.

I would also appreciate it if people would stop planning to blow up airplanes - can y'all just knock that off, please? Thanks, guys.

Re:Not so chic, but equality protective

[ScentCone]

and when the xray of the fecal samples shows dark spots and electronics the whole cooler is sent to the bomb squad for a "controlled detonation" using a small charge

I think that tip was aimed more at not having stuff ripped off from your vehicle, etc., now that I think about it. Honestly, I think I were to travel far with my camera gear, I'd probably put it all in a Pelican and FedEx it ahead of myself. I just don't trust the checked baggage these days. Not because of the handling (those cases are tough) but because of the theft risk.

And thus justify the extremists...

[the_raptor]

By doing that all you would achieve would be to justify the extremists claims that the west is persecueting Islam, thus gaining them even more support. Where do you go from there? About the only place to go is to take Muslims out behind the chemical sheds and shoot them, because you will have guaranteed even more terrorist attacks by a persecuted population. This is because security will never be good enough to stop a determined attacker, as that would cost so much money that air travel would cease to be economically viable.

Oh and flashback to last century anyone?

"Guarantee? No, but prohibiting Irish Catholics from going into pubs (or at least giving them an extra-thorough level of scrutiny) will make a huge improvement. Religion is the single defining characteristic of modern terrorists who seek to destroy pubs full of patrons. And it's not Scientologists or Mormans we're talking about here, it's Irish Catholics.

Not all Irish Catholics are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Irish Catholic. And quite a large percentage are sympathizers as demonstrated by recent polls in America showing support for the recently foiled plot to kill a few thousand British in pubs. Call it flamebait if you want, but it is true. Nearly all pub bombings and intentional attacks on civilians have been done in the name of Irish Republicanism (which is nearly exclusively Irish Catholic). The world can go on pretending that's not the case, but until we are willing to at least identify the well-defined group of people responsible for most of this mayhem, increased security will be a pipe dream."

Re:And thus justify the extremists...

[Anonymous Coward]

People get really scared of terrorists. "OMG they're everywhere!" people say. But think about it... how many terrorists are actually active right now? What, like a combined total of 40-50 people have tried to use bombs after and including sept 11 against the US and UK. And we worry like hell, make huge changes against civil liberties, go on wars, and spend trillions (TRILLIONS) of dollars over it. Over 40 to 50 people. Who might kill say, a few thousand people (worst case). How about we spend a few billion, go to Dafur, and save a few MILLION people.

Truly a troll post

[spoco2]

I mean really... just a complete troll.

a) How many of us don't have or want a PDA? Answer: Lots
b) Even if we did have a PDA we'd still need the laptop in order to either work on when we get to our work destination, or, in my case, use as a portable entertainment unit for watching movies etc. when at my travel destination, and also to be able to offload and edit photos I've taken while out and about.

Urgh, what a post!

Re:shouldn't that be..

[aadvancedGIR]

Wether a terrorist attacked was tharted or not, the outcome is a massive chaos in airports, huge losses for the compagnies and PITA for travellers and a key member of the british government publically saying it is OK to reduce individual rights (whereas the alleged thwart was performed using regular investigation means). So I would still call it a fair success for the terrorists.

Re:Junk Food

[ceoyoyo]

Hanging random (almost random) people and burning crosses on people's lawns nicely fits the definition of terrorism.

Now, the KKK probably won't be blowing up airplanes SO THEY WON'T AFFECT YOU too much. Some of the other organizations listed have bombed airplanes and probably would like to again. The islamic terrorists are just a little irritated right now because they got one of their strongholds invaded.

How do you recognize a moslem to haul into the special line anyway? I know one with red hair and freckles.

Not high enough capacity?

[Silver Sloth]

Using trains to deliver bombs has been described in great (fictional) detail in 'A Big Boy Did And Ran Away' by Christopher Brookmyer.

Simply put:-

• Board train with suitcase filled with explosives at any station - minimal security.
• Leave suitcase in suitable location and leave train. Here in the UK no one would touch it
• Use timer/gps to detonate bomb at suitable location. Suggestions given were:-
  • As train passes suitable military base
  • As train passes through suitable urban area

And even without the gps/timer aspect, consider what would happen if a bomb went of in a major rail station of your choice in a city of your choice during the rush hour. Remember 7/7/05? Those were baby bombs delivered by amateurs.

And the kinetic energy of the aircraft

[Colin Smith]

You also have 180,000kg of aircraft traveling at 236m/s. Which gives you an additional 5 gigajoules. Hmm, insignificant in comparison to the fuel. As you were.

Re:Junk Food

[the_womble]

The list also includes some very deadly organisations, which was the point.

One of the non-mulsim groups on the list has killed far more people than Al_Quaeda (tens of thousands), and they have carried out "240+" suicide bombings - but as they only killed funny coloured foreigners I suppose you think that does not count.

btw BOTH the terrorist groups that have bombed places I lived in (and came close to getting me more than once) used to raise money in the US

Re:Long Lines

[the_womble]

Their primary aim is to manipulate the media - and of course the media happily play along.

Terrorism gets media attention far out of proportion to its real impact - the number of people terrorist kill is far fewer than cars kill.

The best thing to do is to ignore terrorism.

Is it just me ...

[rs25com]

Or did it strike anyone else odd that the article seemed to just be a big advertisement on why you need to go buy a new laptop case? I saw very little information about the actual policies, or doing anything about them, other than "Go buy a new case."

Irony: The article below it on the Slashdot homepage refers to fake news reports.

Coincidence?

Gandhi accomplished the same thing in only 5 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that those "dippy civil rights types" earlier achieved the same goal in that other British-controlled/occupied country in 1/5 the time it took the IRA, I'd say the IRA did far more to prevent civil rights improvements in Northern Ireland than they ever could to advance them.

Re:Junk Food

[Dr Damage I]

The remarkable thing is that we are arguing over the national identity of people who pose a negligable threat to us, while doing nothing about things that kill far more people every year, like falling down, and getting struck by lightning.

falling, lightning and even motor vehicle crashes are all risks which people can manage for themselves. Individuals can manage their risk of death by falling by:

• holding the handrail in stairways
• doing some form sporting exercise so as to become more physically adept
• being particularly careful in situations that pose a falling hazard

Individuals can manage their risk of lightning strike by

• remaining indoors during electrical storms
• avoiding trees during electrical storms
• avoiding tall metallic objects during electrical storms
• not using umbrellas during electrical storms

Individuals can manage their risk of motor vehicle accidents by

• abiding strictly by the law when driving
• taking defensive driving courses
• being more observant while driving

In stark contrast, people can only manage their risk of being blown up in airplanes only by not getting onto airplanes in the first place. The governments only legitimate purpose is to do for people those things that they cannot reasonably do for themselves: I don't need my government protecting me from risks which I can manage (no, I did not say eliminate) for myself. When I get onto a commercial airliner, I want my government to take reasonable steps to manage the risks involved. Otherwise, what is a government good for aside from stealing my money and giving it to crack whores and junkies?