Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Flight Ban On Devices To Be Announced (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.

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.

140 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. All these bans are useless security theatre by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I'm not sure why they ban in the cabin, but allow it to be packed in checked luggage...?

      Wouldn't a bomb blowing up in the luggage hold do just as much damage?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by rfengr · · Score: 1

      The baggage scanners use some sort of high powered x-ray back-scatter that can detect explosives.

    3. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by houghi · · Score: 1

      People will point out that this is what happened in Brussels. Only partly true. The check lines are and where behind pilons that would have prevent them from getting near the Belgian TSA people. They did it in the check-in hall and in the Metro Station (Idiots even did it in the wrong Metro station, but that is besides the point)
      There now is a pre-check before you enter the airport. Not everybody is being checked.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by TWX · · 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.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's especially weird, as I'm not allowed to put a laptop in checked luggage because they don't allow large lithium-ion batteries in the hold.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      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.

      There is rarely a visual of an aircraft crashing to earth. Frankly, the visual of the aftermath of a small detonation inside a structure looks far more ominous than aircraft debris scattered in the woods. And if it occurs over water, there isn't much to see.

    9. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While it really does look like it's only security theater, your argument presumes some things which might not be true:

      1) From a terrorist point of view, terror(numDeaths) is maxed if you maximize the numDeaths parameter, which is the only parameter to the function. But what if there's an aircraftDestroyed parameter, or an aircraftHijacked parameter and twiddling these inputs can increase the return? What if people dying in the sky is more "terrorizing" than them dying in the airport lines? And remember on top of all this, you can't even address these factors with reason, since this is from the terrorists' point of view; whatever they say is most valuable to them, is what's most valuable to them.

      2) The theater manager's power might be limited. They might be empowered to ban things on aircraft that they simply can't ban in the lines. From an overarching view, their decision might not make sense, but within their domain and what they're allowed to do, they might be doing the best they can, even if it's mostly futile. They might be thinking, "sucks that people can get killed in line, but that's Bob's department, not mine."

      (BTW, do we even have consensus for what terrorism means anymore? A lot of people use it these days as a synonym for mass murder, ignoring the whole point that it's intended to persuade people to support the terrorists' politics. Does that even work in 2017 or are people too jaded by now? And most alleged "terrorists" never even communicate to the public whatever it was that they want people to do, which makes me think they're more like "nuts who went apeshit" than legitimate terrorists.)

    11. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, 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.

    12. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Actually what's more effective is a failed bombing attempt. It avoids the retaliation, but leave all of the fears, and proves how ineffective the TSA really is. As a bonus, billions of dollars will be spent on ways of detecting how it was done, and it will never have to be tried again.

    13. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, seems like one should check the laptop and carry on the battery.

    14. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by slew · · Score: 1

      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 able to implement it anyhow...

    15. Re: All these bans are useless security theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is not about bombs.
      This is about cloning hard drives. The ones that aren't stolen along with the laptops

    16. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      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 ASAP" One time cost.
      o Reduce cockpit-to-cabin comms to "belts on or off" One time cost.

      What we got was the incredibly and endlessly expensive, absurdist productivity and pleasure reduction of the TSA.

      On the other hand, they did finally convince me to do all my flying privately, so there's that. Unfortunately, most people can't exercise that option. But hey, vote your congress critter back in. Can't go wrong with that one, eh?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    17. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by jittles · · Score: 1

      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.

    18. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by TWX · · Score: 2

      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 depressurization of passenger cabin might force that the door be opened. In the cacophony that results and the necessary steps that the flightcrew has to take to remain conscious it might be possible for those prepared for it to force themselves into the cockpit.

      To isolate the cockpit from the passenger cabin sufficiently may require a more thorough redesign of the aircraft, rather than an inexpensive retrofit.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    19. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      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'll presumably end up doing significant damage to the baggage handling area too.

      So false positives are also a very big concern.

    20. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      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.

    21. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by infolation · · Score: 2

      Perhaps there is some scenario that involves bringing together multiple electronic devices to increase the effect

      like a LAN party?

    22. Re: All these bans are useless security theatre by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      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...

    24. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by TWX · · Score: 1

      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 card associated with a specific budget that can be spent anywhere that the credit card is accepted.

      The last method is pretty rarely used, but the middle method is pretty common with a half-dozen participating stores. It allows us to go buy driver bits and other small tools without having to get a fresh PO each time.

      The last method isn't wholly dissimilar to how people that use their credit/debit cards exclusively operate. Maybe restricting to all purchasing power is excessive, but it may not be unreasonable to limit cash to petty-cash levels. I've shopped at businesses that cover the whole spectrum and it's pretty uncommon to find even places catering to the poorer classes that don't accept electronic payments. Hell, even the dented-can clearance grocery store that we shop at from time to time takes plastic.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    25. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by judoguy · · Score: 1

      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,

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    26. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Unskilled yes, but anything that takes 18 years to develop usually comes with a decent price tag anyway.

    27. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by TWX · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    28. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      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, so we completely ignore another gaping security flaw. The number of terrorists it would take to bring down a plane could probably be more "effectively" used at separate airports in the pre-security line.

      Hope I'm not giving Trump ideas here for how to unite the country behind him...

    29. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Nope, they've been redundant for years - who can use a 320x240 2003-esque 'touch-pad' embedded in a headrest over their modern smartphone ?

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    30. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind that this is logic, seen from a TSA employee's perspective - yes folks, that's all passengers.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    31. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by mjwx · · Score: 1

      These days terrorists could kill more people detonating their explosive belts while standing in the waiting lines of TSA screening in airports.

      The point of terrorism isn't to kill people, it's to make people afraid of you.

      Detonating a bomb in a crowd doesn't produce the same horror as doing the same on a plane.

      Also you wont kill that many because explosions lose power over distance very quickly. Only those closest to the blast will be killed outright, the majority will only be injured and most of those will survive their injuries. Kinetic force is the killer and the majority of that goes upwards, away from the crowd. That's why terrorists in the west bank in the 80's and 90's would favour busses. Busses gave very few escape routes and the frame of the bus would direct trap the kinetic energy.

      The only way this will sew actual terror is if you can repeat the attack often enough that no-one feels safe anywhere and if they had the resources to perform that kind of unrestricted terror campaign like the IRA used to... why aren't they doing it?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    32. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It's especially weird, as I'm not allowed to put a laptop in checked luggage because they don't allow large lithium-ion batteries in the hold.

      I'd be more worried about sticky fingered baggage handlers.

      Flying through SE Asia on a regular basis has taught me never to leave anything valuable in my checked luggage.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    33. Re: All these bans are useless security theatre by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      This is about cloning hard drives

      I figure it's a sop to the airline industry, forcing passengers to rely on their crummy in-flight "entertainment". They'll be banning books in the cabin next.

    34. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      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.

      That assumes the terror planners are competent.

      The "DC sniper" attacks had the Washington, D.C. area in a tizzy for three weeks. They required two "operatives", a rifle, and an old car. No training or planning. And if Muhammad and Malvo hadn't gotten greedy, they could have kept it up for years, particularly if they occasionally moved on to other cities.

      There are plenty of other well-known terrorism strategies that have low initial and ongoing costs and don't require suicide operatives (a high cost in itself). Think tanks like RAND have been writing papers on them since the 1960s. A number of the "movie terror plots" from the contests Schneier used to hold are practical. Any so-called mastermind should have been able to achieve out dozens of effective attacks, with considerable dismay among the populace, in any country of his choice.

      The evidence suggests that most of the people interested in conducting terror attacks wait for instructions from the planners, and the planners are obsessed with a relatively small class of attacks that are based on irrational emotional positions rather than any rational calculus of potential affective or material effect.

      Unless, of course, their real goal is just to annoy us.

    35. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      More likely, the beancounters.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    36. Re:All these bans are useless security theatre by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      but it may not be unreasonable to limit cash to petty-cash levels.

      You're talking about people's daily lives. It is unreasonable. I suggest that you talk to people on welfare before you make assumptions about how they'd be happy living their (already very limited) lives.

  2. In-seat entertainment price rise by Palms1111 · · Score: 5, Informative

    In completely unrelated news, charges for in-flight entertainment units have gone up.

    1. Re:In-seat entertainment price rise by utahjazz · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:In-seat entertainment price rise by aquabat · · Score: 1

      Panasonic is a Japanese company.

      --
      A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
    3. Re:In-seat entertainment price rise by judoguy · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    4. Re:In-seat entertainment price rise by mjwx · · Score: 1

      In completely unrelated news, charges for in-flight entertainment units have gone up.

      Most of the airlines affected by this will have in-seat entertainment.

      I know this seems like an odd concept for Americans but a lot of airlines outside the US care about strange things like customer service and their reputation.

      In fact I'm utterly convinced that is the driving force behind this. BA are currently struggling with Iberia losing so much money, they aren't able to compete with Middle Eastern airlines on price or performance, so they have the government do their dirty work.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  3. WTF by vux984 · · 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?

    1. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for other companies - but the one I work for is quite large and the company does not allow us to put out work notebook into checked luggage. Interesting to see how this works out. Obviously if this stuff sticks, the corporate rules will have to change since we need to travel. But they are at odds right now.

    2. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      3/10 anti-Trump post. Demerits for lack of Russian conspiracy element.

    3. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Maybe Trump isn't wrong after all?

      Just because something isn't politically correct doesn't mean it's wrong.

    4. Re:WTF by aristotle-dude · · 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.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    5. Re:WTF by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      But not any countries which have actually sent successful terrorists. And definitely no countries where the current president has business interests.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:WTF by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It only applies to countries that are part of Trump's Muslim ban.

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:WTF by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      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 for those of us who still have to deal with the circus that is flying on account of work commitments.

    8. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      False dichotomy is false.

    9. Re:WTF by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:WTF by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And what would you suggest to "not entertain" it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:WTF by monkeyxpress · · Score: 3, 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.

    12. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But not any countries which have actually sent successful terrorists. And definitely no countries where the current president has business interests.

      Oh really? King Abdul-Aziz International Airport and King Khalid International Airport, two of the busiest airports in Saudi Arabia, are listed on the "ban". 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorist hijackers were Saudi citizens. And I believe that Trump has business interests in all countries whose airports are covered.

    13. Re:WTF by AthanasiusKircher · · 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.)

    14. Re:WTF by RobotRunAmok · · 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.

    15. Re:WTF by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, 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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:WTF by Sassinak · · Score: 2

      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).

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    17. Re:WTF by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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 larger electronics on them. Dubai is on the list, it's just too much inconvenience. Like back when you could take matches on the flight because people needed to smoke.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:WTF by ruir · · Score: 2

      Worse yet, valuable electronics in checked luggage are routinely stolen at least in south Europe and in African countries...or probably anywhere.

    19. Re:WTF by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Business travelers should unionize and go on strike

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:WTF by vux984 · · Score: 1

      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 cocktails and screwed flight attendants? Where are you getting your information? In the 'long-ago before-time' they had briefcases with paperwork in them, and they'd review presentations, read and annotate contracts, write notes, review financial reports and ledgers, and do all sorts of work while in flight...

      Taking away laptops in 2017 actually gives them less ability to do work in flight than they could have done in 1970 because now the contracts and presentations, charts, and graphs are on the laptop instead of in a folder.

      It's not like coach...

      Wait... What? So first class and business class are allowed to have their laptops; its just coach that has to sit there twiddling their thumbs. And what are you talking about... a modern ultrabook is lighter and less bulky then the folders of paper etc people used to carry around.

    21. Re:WTF by vux984 · · Score: 1

      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.

    22. Re:WTF by RobotRunAmok · · 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.) There is not a legal scholar, Left or Right, in the U.S. who believes that the partisan Hawaiian ruling will withstand appeal.

    23. Re:WTF by Maxo-Texas · · 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.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    24. Re:WTF by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      False dichotomy is false.

      What false dichotomy? Are not all travellers affected by this?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    25. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since you live in america, your family is more likely to die as a result of a police standoff gone wrong or at the hands of a "responsible legal gun-owner" instead of that poor woman in a hijab you like to imagine yourself tearing off. But phobias are not necessarily rational so your avoidance of the facts are sadly predictable.

    26. Re:WTF by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      Y'know, there was a thousand thoughtful ways you could have furthered this debate, but instead, you chose to just go all anti-gun Snowflake and forfeit any credibility. Sad. Still, I'd love to see your cites and stats re "police standoffs gone wrong" in 2016.

    27. Re:WTF by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:WTF by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Indeed, as an AC, you are demonstrating your irrationality by insisting that a responsible legal gun owner is going to kill someone. This is idiotic.

    29. Re:WTF by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      You really shouldn't describe yourself this way.

    30. Re:WTF by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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 aircraft themselves.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:WTF by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      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 have escaped the ban.

      This country should not adopt policies that are based in false fears.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    32. Re:WTF by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      >>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?

    33. Re:WTF by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      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.) 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).

    34. Re:WTF by vux984 · · Score: 1

      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'.

    35. Re:WTF by brantondaveperson · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    36. Re:WTF by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Intent is a very, very large component of law.

    37. Re:WTF by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      If they've got to pack more checked luggage, that artificially creates more demand for TSA-like "security" services to check that luggage. It's what they call "genius" nowadays. Or "courage". Someone was able to "innovate" within an existing market.

    38. Re:WTF by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Nope, as usual, it's the powerless that are affected.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    39. Re:WTF by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Heh, the under-staffed supreme court the president still needs to appoint a judge into. Talk about a farce... where you get to appoint the judge who judges you.

    40. Re:WTF by mjwx · · Score: 1

      >>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.

      No, what you suffer from is being an idiot.

      if you're worried about your family being killed, start campaigning for mandatory jail time for people who drive on the phone... because you're far more likely to lose your family to a distracted driver in the next week then you are to a Muslim in their entire lifetimes.

      You don't have a legitimate complaint, you have an irrational bais that you're trying to support with spurious reasoning. In short you're a complete tosspot and I have a condition that makes me allergic to tosspots.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. What I thought by s.petry · · Score: 2

    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.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:What I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >first thing I thought was someone figured out how to weaponize certain laptops

      It's believed that terrorists did just that last year. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35521646

    2. Re:What I thought by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      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).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:What I thought by phorm · · 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.

  5. Remember that guy who had a bomb in his underwear? by Zorpheus · · Score: 3, Funny

    And we all know what rules must have followed on this incident.

  6. Laptops in Luggage? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Laptops in Luggage? by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      It's backed up and encrypted. I would consider it a favor if they took my Lenovo away from me.

      It's a piece of crap!

    2. Re:Laptops in Luggage? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I assume you won't be using the TSA locks then. I understand you pain.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  7. In a logical follow-up... by Archtech · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... all passengers will have to travel naked. Clothing can conceal bombs.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    1. Re:In a logical follow-up... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Just when you thought after the latest seat-size-shrinking event that sitting next to the fat guy can't get more irritating...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:In a logical follow-up... by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      Now you're talking terrorism.

      I don't want to see most of the people in airports naked.

  8. Re:A Bit Of Racism Here, No? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  9. Re:A Bit Of Racism Here, No? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Theft is a bigger problem than damage.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    There are people who will be delighted at all the new stuff there is to steal.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  10. Will increase risks of theft and cargo hold fire by wired_parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And as TFA says, the UK tried a similar ban in 2006, and the result was that theft of electronic devices skyrocketed. The risk of in-flight fire also increases, as it is easier to detect a battery fire in the passenger compartment while the fire is restricted to the device and easy to contain , than in the cargo hold. If anything, this ban will make flying less safe.

  11. Don't they X-Ray these things? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

    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."

    1. Re:Don't they X-Ray these things? by n329619 · · Score: 1

      Common sense is overrated. Better to apply stupidity.

    2. Re:Don't they X-Ray these things? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Fogging film isn't a concern unless you have 800 speed or higher film and most of the people who used 800 speed film now use the shitty camera on their cellphone. Most of those who still use film now do it for the art of film photography and will typically be using slow high quality films usually 200 speed and slower to maximize image quality. For example I exclusively shoot 100 speed color and 50 speed B&W film and even then I make the TSA hand examine my film instead of sending it through the x-ray (they have to do this if you request). Furthermore the people who would likely care about film s-ray exposure likely know about how to avoid it and the few people still using a point and shoot film camera would likely just think they took yet another roll of shitty pictures.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  12. Re:A Bit Of Racism Here, No? by dryriver · · Score: 2

    Turkey is a country where you HAVE to go through airport-style metal detectors and X-ray machines every time you step into a fricking shopping center. You have to remove your keys, wallet, smartphone every time you enter a shopping center. If you are parking your car at a shopping center in Istanbul, security personnel makes you pop open the trunk of your car to check that there is nothing dangerous hidden in it. This is to keep shoppers safe from would-be attackers, because the country has suffered under terrorist attacks since the 1980s. What makes you think that in such a country, Istanbul airport has laxer screening than, say, JFK or Heathrow? Or that Istanbul doesn't have the latest X-Ray machines and other gear? I can understand being nervous about lax security at, say, Mogadishu airport. but Istanbul? Seriously?

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
  13. Re:Muslim laptop ban? by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  14. Collateral damage by Guspaz · · Score: 2

    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.

  15. Security theatre is a feature, not a bug by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

  16. Re:Muslim laptop ban? by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    Yes, but the vigilante penalty for disobeying Allah's laws tends to be rather medieval.

  17. Laptop free for all in the back. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Laptop free for all in the back and we are not at fault for any lost or damaged laptops in checked backs.

  18. Re: It's so NSA can copy hard drives by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    They can feel free and go to town on my laptop. I hope they have fun with 512GB of AES encrypted data.

  19. Re:It's so NSA can copy hard drives by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    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...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Completely pointless by barc0001 · · Score: 2

    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?

    1. Re:Completely pointless by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Let's see... maybe it's because the other airports have better security to prevent people from taking bombs on planes?

      Just an idea.

    2. Re:Completely pointless by PPH · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  21. Why only certain (non-US, non-UK) airlines...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe it has more to do with the subsidies on Gulf airlines, so that business travellers would spend their $ with a US or UK airline instead.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/21/trump-wont-allow-you-to-use-ipads-or-laptops-on-certain-airlines-heres-the-underlying-story/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.0b762bf3c354

  22. Re:Muslim laptop ban? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    >>Christian extremist law is a far more realistic threat to the United States than Sharia law.

    Really? That sounds crazy! How do you figure?

  23. So, why us, and not others by evolutionary · · Score: 2

    Okay, we've seen this drama before. It keeps people scared and nervous. But there is a detail that everyone including the media seems to miss (on purpose?). Why are we such targets if the threat is real? Why are other countries, like Japan and Korea, less picked on?

    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)".

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
    1. Re:So, why us, and not others by PPH · · Score: 1

      The UK and US seem to be the most frequent targets.

      Have you forgotten France? Spain?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  24. Re:Muslim laptop ban? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Get with The Narrative, dude. No Muslim bakery in America has ever refused to make a gay wedding cake.

  25. Trump again.. by will_die · · Score: 1

    There he goes placing some anti-islamic ban in place.

  26. Re:Clearly Discriminatory Laws by tsqr · · Score: 1

    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.

  27. Re:Will increase risks of theft and cargo hold fir by admin7087 · · Score: 1

    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?

  28. No common countries on the two lists by Comboman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    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.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  29. Baggage handlers must be giddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As someone who's had items stolen out of my checked bags, this has got to make handlers giddy.

  30. Re:A Bit Of Racism Here, No? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    The Holy Crusades were not an attempt at world domination? What about Britain's colonization of every continent in the world? What about America's "Manifest Destiny" and "American Exceptionalism"? Seems like you're OK with world domination as long as you're on the dominating side.

    The crusades occurred "after" all of the christian lands had been conquered and Muslims were already invading Spain. They Muslim crusaders had already been on the offensive for 4 centuries.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  31. Re:Muslim laptop ban? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    Actually, there is not. 28.9% of the U.S. population or 91.76 million, according to Wikipedia. And only 59% of those believe that the bible should be taken literally. And there is nowhere in the New Testament where a theocracy is called for -- just the opposite in fact. So I'm not really sure what a "Christian extremist" is, or more importantly, what his "law" would be. The law as preached by Jesus, "Love one another yadda yadda" and the other Mosaic Antitheses over-write any of that OT stuff, so I am not sure what you would be afraid of, even if there were enough "Christian extremists" to enact "laws."

  32. it's been done. by nastyphil · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    this is why in most airports in EU and elsewhere, there are heavily armed troopers in armor patrolling check-in.

    --
    Dialectician. Archology.
    1. Re:it's been done. by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Thank you for saying 'Troopers' rather than 'Troops.' Of of my many pet peeves about language is that a 'troop' is a meaning less term; a 'trooper' is associated with a 'troop'

  33. Re:Remember that guy who had a bomb in his underwe by rastos1 · · Score: 1

    Checking in the underwear?

  34. Re:Remember that guy who had a bomb in his underwe by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

    Better taking off your underwear at security? Or only travelling without underwear. And with kilt, to make sure.

  35. Re:Will increase risks of theft and cargo hold fir by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    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?

  36. US protectionism. by thesupraman · · Score: 2

    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 and pathetic really.

  37. Indefinite detention until decrypted by tepples · · Score: 1

    And if you forget the password, you'll die in jail (source).

  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. Re:Muslim laptop ban? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    To what "birth control related laws" are you referring?

  40. Re:Muslim laptop ban? by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

    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.

  41. Re:It's so NSA can copy hard drives by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    How many new Tailored Access Operations staff can park at an airport to work in the secure part of an of airport?
    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 repack in time for the flight?
    Seconds? 60 seconds allowed per device on the fastest consumer grade device connection to get some of the data and alter the OS to a NSA/CIA standard?
    Then repack and allow the luggage, to move to the next device.
    How many work stations per flight to access interesting consumer devices and the repack?
    Pre sort all baggage that only has books, clothing, traditional gifts. What is the ratio of luggage will have interesting electronic devices in it in 2017 if all devices have to be pre packed?
    Flights to the UK and US per hour given an average device count per flight and interesting people.
    How to reduce that "every device" count down? Profile each passenger and select only the interesting people. Is the passport, face, voice print linked to a friend of a friend who is interesting to the security services? Alter the device and recover all data at 3 or 4 hops from an interesting person?
    The last question is how to hide a large amount of new US gov cleared Tailored Access Operations staff from the everyday random airport staff?
    A new secure site or building to push every interesting bag with a device to with a complex network of new, much faster mil grade conveyor systems? Then return the baggage in time for the flight?
    A baggage handling system could just move out a lot of bags in a more secure, isolated part of the airport. The inspected and altered devices return at another isolated part of the main airport conveyor system.
    How far and fast can a new US/UK funded gov modern conveyor system move a bag from the main conveyor system?
    A new very secure cargo site with 100 new workers who never mix with existing airport staff? 1000 workers and the staff parking issue might get noticed.
    Hard to hide 1000 new jobs at an airport that never got mentioned in the public or private sector?
    Use a "secure" cargo company as a front company that brings in all its own staff?
    An unexpected flood of funding for upgrades to the main conveyor system? Teams of new contractors working 24/7 on new tunnels to a new secure cargo site?
    Given the human access the device all the normal NSA, CIA physical software access could be allowed. No firewall or limited network issues like in the airport or hours of random in person interviews to cover for device access, alteration and cloning.
    Will the next generation of US consumer devices support soft power on/off wake on wireless LAN so it could be done without opening and on the move?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  42. Re:Will increase risks of theft and cargo hold fir by Archimonde · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
  43. ban on laptops, tablets and DVD players by n329619 · · Score: 1

    At least they didn't ban the cassette player. let's hope it's not already in the museum.

  44. Re:Remember that guy who had a bomb in his underwe by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Hey I like my "Fruit of the Boom" brand undies.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  45. Re:Will increase risks of theft and cargo hold fir by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    If anything, this ban will make flying less safe.

    So just like almost every other measure they have put in place since 9/11 then. There are exceptions like having the random air marshal on some flights and having hardened locked cockpit doors but things like going from 6 check points down to 2 checkpoints at the MSP airport (also other airports but they aren't my local one) only makes larger crowds of targets.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  46. Safe flight by dddux · · Score: 1

    We can't have a plane blow up every week. It's just too much. I would simply strip people naked and put them into a cage for their safety. It's all for the best, people! No way you will be able to hijack a plane or blow it up! Have a pleasant flight. d= ;)

    --
    "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
  47. Cockpit access by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    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

    No, they don't. And you can't, completely. You can shoot one down, and nothing at all prevents that. And the TSA doesn't do anything worth doing at all. But the problem that arose in 2001 was using the aircraft as a ballistic weapon with intelligent guidance. Everything that came about post 9/11 was in response to that. We'd had various aircraft destroyed by bombs, and no one felt we had to go anywhere near the lengths we did after 9/11. So what I was saying was that in response to 9/11, we should have done what I suggested, and that would have adequately addressed the actual issues that 9/11 brought to the table.

    One of the concerns about the cockpit door is a rapid depressurization of passenger cabin might force that the door be opened.

    Fine. If this is a real problem (unlikely, but possible), start building new aircraft without cockpit doors, and replacing the entire bulkhead in older aircraft. Have an external hatch access the cockpit; another the cabin. The pilots and engineer(s) don't need to be in the cabin, and the passengers and stews don't need to be in the cockpit.

    Then toss the (un)PATRIOT(ic) act in the sewer where it belongs.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.