Slashdot Mirror


Laptop Ban on Planes Came After Plot To Put Explosives in iPad (theguardian.com)

Last week, United States and United Kingdom officials announced new restrictions for airline passengers from eight Middle Eastern countries, forbidding passengers to carry electronics larger than a smartphone into an airplane cabin. Now The Guardian reports, citing a security source, the ban was prompted in part by a plot involving explosives hidden in a fake iPad. From the report: The security source said both bans were not the result of a single specific incident but a combination of factors. One of those, according to the source, was the discovery of a plot to bring down a plane with explosives hidden in a fake iPad that appeared as good as the real thing. Other details of the plot, such as the date, the country involved and the group behind it, remain secret. Discovery of the plot confirmed the fears of the intelligence agencies that Islamist groups had found a novel way to smuggle explosives into the cabin area in carry-on luggage after failed attempts with shoe bombs and explosives hidden in underwear. An explosion in a cabin (where a terrorist can position the explosive against a door or window) can have much more impact than one in the hold (where the terrorist has no control over the position of the explosive, which could be in the middle of luggage, away from the skin of the aircraft), given passengers and crew could be sucked out of any subsequent hole.

40 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks Samsung! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    From where you think they got this "exploding electronic" idea, humm?

    1. Re: Thanks Samsung! by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty much from the fact that business travelers greatly prefer flying on [luxury; government-subsidized] middle eastern airlines over our own shitty alternatives. If these folks can't do work on anything but a smartphone, they'll be forced to fly on different airlines. This is economic warfare at its finest.

    2. Re:Thanks Samsung! by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Funny

      you 're holding it wrong

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re: Thanks Samsung! by harrkev · · Score: 3, Informative

      This ban has NOTHING to do with what logo is painted on the aircraft, but depends entirely on the airports involved.

      Flying from Paris to Chicago? Middle-Eastern and American airlines have the same rules -- electronics allowed, even on a Middle-Eastern airline. Flying from Istanbul to New York? Once again, same rules for Middle-Eastern and American airlines -- no electronics, even on the American airline.

      So, explain to me how this is supposed to prefer one airline over another? I am really waiting to hear this one.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    4. Re: Thanks Samsung! by dfm3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It does make a difference if the ban covers a hub city for that airline. Say you are flying from Paris to Chicago and have a choice of flying on Emirates with a layover in a laptop ban country, versus flying an American carrier with a layover in Germany. This could sway that decision.

    5. Re: Thanks Samsung! by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      It could, but it kind of goes against the GP's narratives of middle eastern being better than "own shitty alternatives" because frankly most of the world's airlines are better than American ones, and there's a metric shitload of hubs to chose from.

      Unless you think this was some mass global conspiracy designed by the USA to push profits to Asian / European airlines.
      #americafirst.

    6. Re: Thanks Samsung! by Guspaz · · Score: 2

      Those are codeshared flights that are not operated by United or Delta. If you actually click on the "Check Your Flight" link next to United or Delta, you're taken to a page that does not include either airline in the dropdown.

      For example, while you can buy a ticket from United to fly from New York to Dubai, you'll be flying on a Swiss Air aircraft from Zurich to Dubai, or a Lufthansa aircraft from Frankfurt, etc. Do a search for flights to Dubai on United's website and you'll get a whole bunch of flights, and not one of them is operated by United.

  2. Reminds me of a conversation with a colleague by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A colleague of mine was **adamant** that because he could quantify the amount of harm Bush had done to the country in terms of lost troops, money, etc. and could not do the same with Obama (Arab Spring, Benghazi, etc.) that Obama was simply not in the same league. My response was that Obama was actually worse because while Bush weakened the old order that kept a lid on the extremists in the name of spreading dumbocracy in the Middle East, he didn't help overturn regimes like the Mubarak or Gaddafi regimes which kept a lid on some serious, organized problems.

    So now what we have is worse than a world where the problems can be quantified, we live in a disordered world in which people continue to derp about "free and open societies" with global travel, as their own elected leaders have all but played the role of the Joker (Ledger, not Leto) around the world, creating a fertile breeding ground for terrorism and organized, dangerous extremist movements. The terrorists didn't so much as win over the last sixteen years as they didn't lose.

    The most rational policy at this point would be to break up the foreign enclaves in the West, deport all of the recent arrivals (like last 20 years) and set up a policy of aid in the form of both financing for repair in countries like Syria and direct military assistance to the damaged states to help them stamp out the Islamist uprisings quickly, brutally and with as little collateral damage to non-combatants as possible. If we would just take the kid gloves off the US Army and MC and let Mattis channel his inner Patton against ISIS, we could probably bring peace to Syria in six months.

    1. Re:Reminds me of a conversation with a colleague by Bongo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think most people really understand why the West is (more or less) organised, developed, peaceful, democratic (more or less).

      And I wish there was a simple answer. But the list of factors just keeps growing. There are many lands in the world where nation states just will not start up, no matter how much aid is given nor ordinance be dropped.

      A major factor is the tribal nature of societies, which don't transition well into nationhood because its government institutions become tribal, nepotistic, and so simply raise resentment amongst the youth who are not well connected. Look at the global corruption index for a measure of why having fair, open, meritocratic, institutions are essential for countries to "work". And how do you make an institution meritocratic and fair if everyone you hire is tribalistic and used to the tribal loyalty and connections way of doing business?

      Then, that's just one factor. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying tribes are bad. They have been humanity's answer to social order for 50,000 years or more. It ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

      A place like the UK started to rewrite the social rules starting with the Magna Carta 800 years ago. It has had time to work its way into the institutions.

      Then, on top of that, you have a regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. They run proxy wars though all sorts of groups, in a region where population growth and failed modernity has provided a lot of young unemployed men who love the idea of brotherhood and so readily form militias and want to kick ass. All that weaponry funding is coming from somewhere, namely the Saudis and Iranians and in turn, their Western allies and their Russian and Chinese allies.

      And that's just for starters, before we even get to the 100 shades of Islam and the authoritarian nature of that religion which on the one hand, makes people want to have a peaceful, ordered, highly moral life, yet on the other hand, is quite uncompromising and has a retro-revival ethos going, making it highly puritanical, and is being actively weaponised by various political and religious leaders.

      And that's before we even get into more complex factors.

      So basically, no, just repatriating migrants and getting tough with regimes isn't going to get very far.

    2. Re:Reminds me of a conversation with a colleague by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Yes, the answer to violence is usually more violence.

      Unfortunately, in many cases, yes it is. Not everyone on this planet belives in tolerance, or that peace through compromise is a good thing. While I very much wish this wasn't the case, I also understand that wishes are not reality.

    3. Re:Reminds me of a conversation with a colleague by jimbolauski · · Score: 2

      It must be nice to live in a fantasy world. I can't think a a single situation where a violent person or group was stopped without the threat of or actual use of violence, can you?

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    4. Re:Reminds me of a conversation with a colleague by slew · · Score: 2

      I don't think most people really understand why the West is (more or less) organised, developed, peaceful, democratic (more or less).

      And I wish there was a simple answer. But the list of factors just keeps growing. There are many lands in the world where nation states just will not start up, no matter how much aid is given nor ordinance be dropped.

      Well, we don't have to look to far to see historically what happened. There generally were a whole bunch of people with money that had a common enemy. Then they started up a war by themselves. Large geopolitical foes of the enemy then dropped some cash and troops to help them along.

      Winning is a bit random (depends a bit on the relative strength and will of the large geopolitical forces), but if the small country won, the country needed to be rich enough to survive without the support once the large benefactors lost interest. Those that weren't rich enough to begin with basically reverted and it all started over again. This implies that you can generally never expect poor countries develop into a peaceful democracy by an armed conflict as part of a larger geo-political struggle (although they might be able to make a peaceful democracy by themselves).

      This is probably why there cannot be peace in the middle east. As long as it's a geopolitical war between large parties, even if one faction were to emerge victorious, if it is not naturally economically self supporting as a democracy, as soon as the benefactors lose interest, the power vacuum will be filled by forces that are largely tribal because that is where the residual economic base of the region comes from (economic power begets political power).

      Penniless student protesters don't make a democracy. Monied interests make a democracy (or a cleptocracy, depending on your political view). The "peaceful-west" is an illusion, in the west there are major geopolitical conflicts that have involved the west all throughout the short history of democracy, it is simply that they have not recently touched our shores because of our economic/military might. Strength (economic and military) keeps the relative peace, democracy simply allows the tribal factions a temporary pressure outlet. Without the economic might to drown the dissent, democracy simply isn't enough of a pressure relief. You can't give a country an economy (or democracy), they need to learn to fish...

    5. Re:Reminds me of a conversation with a colleague by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A major factor is the tribal nature of societies, which don't transition well into nationhood because its government institutions become tribal, nepotistic, and so simply raise resentment amongst the youth who are not well connected. Look at the global corruption index for a measure of why having fair, open, meritocratic, institutions are essential for countries to "work". And how do you make an institution meritocratic and fair if everyone you hire is tribalistic and used to the tribal loyalty and connections way of doing business?

      Two problems:

      1) Tribalism is a massive problem because we (the west) didn't give any consideration to tribal boundaries when we carved the Middle East and Africa into "colonies", and we didn't try to correct that before we granted independence, so the modern countries share the same moronic borders as the old colonies

      2) Tribalism isn't even the biggest problem -- we've continually interfered in the building of power structures in the quest for cheap mineral resources for our countries' companies. We've installed dictator after dictator, constantly destabilising the region decade after decade.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    6. Re:Reminds me of a conversation with a colleague by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Tribalism is a massive problem because we (the west) didn't give any consideration to tribal boundaries when we carved the Middle East and Africa into "colonies"

      I always figured the west paid great consideration to it, then purposfully split things up to cause the maximal problems.

      Tribalism isn't even the biggest problem -- we've continually interfered in the building of power structures in the quest for cheap mineral resources for our countries' companies.

      There's dumping too. The we heavily subsidise agriculture (this is something I'm fine with btw, for strategic reasons), but then fuck over anyone who tries t oput substantial tarriffs on so their local industry isn't destroyed (not something I'm fine with).

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Reminds me of a conversation with a colleague by Dread_ed · · Score: 2

      I have heard of these "peace treaties." That's the part where your enemy rebuilds their logistical infrastructure, buys more arms, and recruits more militants, right?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    8. Re:Reminds me of a conversation with a colleague by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tribalism is going to take down the US yet. When the "melting pot" idea was dropped in favor of focusing on separate cultural identities the friction between groups increased. The increase shows no end in sight and the media cheers and eggs on the friction.

    9. Re:Reminds me of a conversation with a colleague by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And why do you think they want to kill everyone? Because they are just mean, mean people?

      Yes.

      How about 50 years of American imperialism turning their land to shit?

      Ever heard of Boko Haram? The west never attacked them, yet they are an anti-west Islamic terrorist group who kidnapped 237 girls from a school to use as slaves/sex-trade objects.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  3. Then why just 8 countries? by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's assume this is a real threat And obviously it is doable, you could open up an ipod, rip out the guts, and put other stuff in its place. Why just 8 countries then? If its a real threat, its a global threat. Its not all that hard for someone to fly to another country first and then travel from an allowed airport. If this is a real threat, it should be from all airports. Otherwise its just games.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    1. Re:Then why just 8 countries? by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      There's no way that banning countries has an effect on the global economy.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:Then why just 8 countries? by chispito · · Score: 2

      Otherwise its just games.

      First time flying?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    3. Re:Then why just 8 countries? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's obviously bullshit. Why would you try to use one of the thinnest tablets available? Why spend all that money?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Then why just 8 countries? by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let's assume this is a real threat And obviously it is doable, you could open up an ipod, rip out the guts, and put other stuff in its place. Why just 8 countries then? If its a real threat, its a global threat. Its not all that hard for someone to fly to another country first and then travel from an allowed airport. If this is a real threat, it should be from all airports. Otherwise its just games.

      I flew from San Jose, CA to Salt Lake City, UT on Friday last week. I was "randomly" selected for slightly-enhanced screening, even though I was going through the TSA Pre-checked line -- and so were the two people before and after me. In this case the screening enhancement was to apply a bomb sniffer to all of my electronic devices, after they'd been xrayed. So, based on what I saw, at that airport on that day, the TSA had turned the random selection probability way up (perhaps 100% -- all five of the people I saw go through were "selected") and implemented a specific check for bombs in electronic devices.

      So it appears to me that the TSA may actually have responded across all US airports, though not with more screening, not a device ban.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Then why just 8 countries? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Keep thinking that Bannon et al are stupid. You may not like them - but that doesn't make them stupid.

      However pretending to yourself that your political opposition is stupid; now that says something about you.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  4. Sucked out of an airplane? Not likely by mark-t · · Score: 3, Informative

    This myth was busted on Mythbusters' first season. You can *fall* out of an airplane that has had major structural failure, but you aren't going to get sucked out of your seat unless the opening is literally underneath you (and large enough).

  5. so we're basing these on inventiveness? by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    was the discovery of a plot

    if every time someones discovered plotting the demise of western civilization we are to enact some new pointless and myopic law for our airlines, we may as well scrap the whole idea of commercial flight. Someone could easily roll a grenade into the screening area, or the food court, or even the ticket counter and accomplish just as much if not even more than an i-pad bomb. or they could show up at a gay nightclub and kill 60 people. or shoot up a government building in San Bernadino.

    Los Angeles International even had a guy show up with a high power rifle and start picking off cops and TSA agents, which went way beyond a plot, but we still dutifully strip off our shoes and throw out our bottled water in homage to the all mighty security theatre. The point of terrorism is that once you concede to being terrorized, thats it, youve lost whatever war you thought you were fighting against it.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:so we're basing these on inventiveness? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      we still dutifully strip off our shoes and throw out our bottled water in homage to the all mighty security theatre.

      Not me! Paid the $85USD fee, and for the next 5 years leave my shoes on, laptop in bag, and pass through xray only security in 5min. (ps, no fully body scanning)

      Do you work for the TSA or something? Because the fact that Americans have to pay $85 to be afforded basic 4th-amendment rights (and common decency in their privacy) should be something you LAMENT, not lord over the plebs who haven't paid up to get basic freedom back.

    2. Re:so we're basing these on inventiveness? by ftobin · · Score: 2

      $85 was not the only price you paid.

  6. Re:plausible? by ReeceTarbert · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not an explosives expert, but maybe someone who is can comment on the plausibility of this? It seems like an ipad or laptop couldn't carry enough explosives to take the plane down.

    You don't need to take the plane down, causing enough damage will suffice (think sudden decompression).

    That said, I call bullshit on this one. At least here ("Large European City", second airport in the country traffic wise) they always ask you to power on notebooks, tablets and even cameras to verify that they're real. Heck, I even had to turn on my camera and let the man wave his hand in front of it to check that it was actually his own hand showing on the display! ;-)

    RT.

  7. Will increase risks of cargo hold fires by wired_parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If this ban had been in place in place when a Samsung Note 7 caught fire in an airplane cabin the result would have been more serious. Instead of being quickly caught and dealt with as the phone battery overheated in his hand while still on ground, it is possible that it would have smoldered undetected in the middle of the cargo hold until turning into a serious conflagration in-flight. A ban like this will increase the risk of in-flight battery fires and make flying less safe.

    1. Re: Will increase risks of cargo hold fires by paulhar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld

  8. Re:Sucked out of an airplane? Not likely by houghi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So please explain how a pilot fell out of the window of the cockpit after it broke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    The window is not underneath him http://www.bac1-11jet.co.uk/N9...

    While extremely entertaining, Mythbusters are pretty bad in using Google and I would never use them as an example of why things are not possible, only to say if they are possible. (Bit like a ping doesn't say much when you don't get anything back)

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  9. Re:Sucked out of an airplane? Not likely by AvitarX · · Score: 2

    More relevant to me, that's a pretty big hole in the plane

    1 person dead, the make a hole and suck people out strategy is not very effective. Probably why it hasn't been tried.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  10. Yeah, this was tried. by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On a Somali flight (Daallo Airlines Flight 159). A laptop full of explosives was smuggled aboard a flight and detonated against the airplane's hull, blowing a hole in it. The only fatality was the bomber, who was sucked out the hole.

    The issue was that, in order to get this laptop around checked bag security in Mogadishu (which isn't too good, but enough so that the terrorists didn't risk carrying it through), they had to have an airport employee carry it in and hand it to the passenger. Now if this is what the USA and GB are worried about, we have a really big problem. If an airport employee can sneak in a laptop, they can sneak in anything up to the allowed carry-on size. It doesn't have to be electronics. It could be a hollowed out bible or koran. The only way to protect against this kind of threat would be to shut down all flights originating at or passing through an airport suspected of being compromised.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. Re: plausible? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Too much Hollywood. I can't be the only person on /. that remembers Aloha Air 243

    You're not going to get a large enough explosion out of a device the size of an iPad that's going to blow any where near the 1/3 of the top off of a 737 like there was in that case. That flight was at 24k feet. The only person who was "sucked out" of the plane was a flight attendant who I believe was standing under the part that came off of the plane. There were injuries, but the plane landed. While the pressure is certainly different at high altitude, it's not like these planes are flying in the vacuum of space.

  12. Re:Sucked out of an airplane? Not likely by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    That wasn't the myth they were testing. As other people have pointed out, people can and have been sucked out of airplanes. As I recall, the episode you're talking about even mentioned that fact.

    What they were testing was that a bullet hole in a plane could lead to "explosive decompression" and cause a large hole to suck people out. Specifically the myth that a terrorist with a gun shoots a hole in a window and that causes a large hole that people get sucked out of. And they determined that such a scenario just wouldn't work: airplane glass won't fracture like that, and the hole the bullet creates wouldn't be large enough to cause enough suction to suck people out.

    But they never tested anything like an exploding iPad or laptop. They were specifically testing shooting holes in a plane with a gun.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  13. Re:Sucked out of an airplane? Not likely by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mythbusters tested a small bullet hole in a pressurized fuselage. The thing about pressure is it's a force per unit of area. So the larger the opening, the larger the forces involved (until the pressure is equalized). So something as small as a bullet hole doesn't result in large forces.

    Aloha Airlines flight 243 lost the forward section of its fuselage. The flight attendant standing in row 2 near the front of the failed section was hit in the head by debris and fell to the floor. The flight attendant standing in row 5 near the rear of the failed section, with all the force of the cabin air behind her, was blown out by the decompression.

    Airline fuselages are designed to suffer decompression only in a small section. You literally design weak sections surrounded by a lattice of strong sections, so a crack or failure cannot unzip the skin around the entire plane as it did in Aloha 243. The failure aboard Aloha is suspected to have started on the left side (one of the passengers noticed a crack by the door while boarding). And the theory is the crack failed producing a small hole. The flight attendant was blown towards the hole by outrushing air, and her body momentarily plugged the initial hole. This caused a pressure hammer from the air behind her rushing forward towards that hole blew out the entire forward cabin overhead.

  14. Terrorists don't know about connecting flights? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a good thing Terrorists don't know about connecting flights, otherwise instead of taking a flight direct from a banned city to the USA, they'd take their iPad on a flight that connects through a non-banned city, perhaps even transferring from a Middle Eastern airline to a Western airline so they punish even more westerners.

    Which is the same problem the USA has with domestic flights -- an attacker doesn't have to breach security at a large airport, they just need to bribe some random TSA worker in any of thousands of small airports to smuggle a box full of "drugs" that's really the explosive or weapon he wants. The person doing the smuggling doesn't even need to be in on it, they can think they are a well paid drug mule while they deliver a box of explosives to someone at JFK.

  15. Re: plausible? by GuB-42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    airliners are built to be dirt cheap

    Dirt cheap? Seriously? How much gold is there in your dirt?
    Aviation in general is ridiculously expensive. Large airliners go into the hundreds of millions, which make them about 100 times more expensive than cars, pound for pound. I work in the field and if there is a word that doesn't describe the industry, it's "cheap".
    The reason flying is cheaper nowadays is not because planes are built cheaper. That's because they are more efficient and require less maintenance. Plus everything that is not directly related to the plane itself such as : cabin crew, airport fees, service, taxes, yield management, etc...

  16. oblig xkcd by karlandtanya · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  17. Re:plausible? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2
    Every single time a new "threat" has been promoted (shoebombs, binary liquid juju etc), there are people all over the internet saying "yeah, but the easiest way would be to replace your laptop battery with a block of C4. They look the same on the X-ray.

    They've been saying this for the best part of 20 years, and only now has it become a credible threat? Terrorists don't read the internet enough....

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'