Slashdot Mirror
UK Flight Ban On Devices To Be Announced (bbc.com)
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.
In completely unrelated news, charges for in-flight entertainment units have gone up.
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.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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!
>>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.
I'd love to see your cites and stats re "police standoffs gone wrong" in 2016.
According to the Washington Post, 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.
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.
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.