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.

40 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 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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

    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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?

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

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

  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: 2

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

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.)

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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.

  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 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
    2. 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.
  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.
  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. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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!

  15. 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?

  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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.