Slashdot Mirror


US To Ban Laptops in All Cabins of Flights From Europe (thedailybeast.com)

An anonymous reader shares an article: The Department of Homeland Security will ban laptops in the cabins of all flights from Europe to the United States, European security officials told The Daily Beast. An official announcement is expected Thursday. Initially a ban on laptops and tablets was applied only to U.S.-bound flights from 10 airports in North Africa and the Middle East. The ban was based on U.S. fears that terrorists have found a way to convert laptops into bombs capable of bringing down an airplane. It is unclear if the European ban will also apply to tablets. DHS said in a statement to The Daily Beast: "No final decisions have been made on expanding the restriction on large electronic devices in aircraft cabins; however, it is under consideration. DHS continues to evaluate the threat environment and will make changes when necessary to keep air travelers safe."

435 comments

  1. More reasons never to fly by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are plenty of reasons not to fly, this is the second best one yet (being beaten by the airline for a ticket you paid good money for is #1, not sure how that will be topped).

    1. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can swim across the atlantic next time you have business in the USA

    2. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why swim when you can simply take a boat? http://traveltips.usatoday.com/trans-atlantic-cruises-london-43034.html

      In a time when we are being pushed back towards more legacy forms of technology/transportation (bikes & trains vs personal automobiles), why not admit that the airplane isn't for everyone and go back to the form of trans-Atlantic travel in use for over 500 years?

    3. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of reasons not to fly, this is the second best one yet (being beaten by the airline for a ticket you paid good money for is #1, not sure how that will be topped).

      I guess you'll take the boat then.

    4. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bring back the travel by ship. I don't want a cruise. I just want a cheap way out of North America that doesn't involve the bullshit. Only things I need on the boat are a bed, washrooms, a place to stuff whatever bags I want to bring, and a cafeteria (I'll bring my own food, but you're welcome to sell me some if you like). I hear they got boat travel down to 2 days across the Atlantic.

      Would be nice to bring my car along, for a fee.

    5. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can just not do business with the USA.

    6. Re:More reasons never to fly by mellon · · Score: 1

      Don't forget satellite internet. This tends to _severely_ suck on boats.

    7. Re:More reasons never to fly by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Because your company won't pay for two weeks of cruise line when they can pay for 2 days of air travel? For the record, I'd prefer the cruise.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    8. Re:More reasons never to fly by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      While I'm sure they'd let you use your laptop, you are NOT free from the same kind of scrutiny to board a ship for international travel than you are an airplane.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:More reasons never to fly by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      With an ordinary ship, you never make 2 days.
      For that you would need hydrofoils.

      Fast container ships need about 7 days.

      Most freight ships btw. have passenger cabins, you can give it a try.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:More reasons never to fly by no1nose · · Score: 1

      I could go for this as well.

    11. Re:More reasons never to fly by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I hear the Titanic is setting sail from South Hampton next April...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, good luck with that.

    13. Re:More reasons never to fly by mysidia · · Score: 1

      How about you Fly into Mexico or Cuba, THEN take a Boat into the US? :)

    14. Re:More reasons never to fly by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      I keep seeing more and more RVs with European license plates (usually French or German) on the road here, presumably brought over for a long vacation. How are they getting here? Are they loaded onto a car carrier well in advance of their owners traveling here by other means, or is someone running a drive-on, drive-off service like what the AC above seeks?

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    15. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about 'fuck the USA' instead?

    16. Re:More reasons never to fly by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 2

      I believe they have them shipped in advance, and meet them by airplane. Here's a company that ships them. They talk about roll-on, roll-off. This might be via the same ships used to transport new cars from Europe to North America.

    17. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep telling yourself that, Chief.

    18. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of reasons not to fly, this is the second best one yet

      Flying is the only practical option for most of us.

      Using my own situation as an example, I live in Texas and will be taking a trip to Europe in a few months. Right now, it involves:
      - Home to airport: 2 hours
      - Airport to City 1: 13 hours
      - Meandering: N/A
      - City 2 to airport: 17 hours
      - Airport to Home: 2 hours

      So, 34 hours in total, and that's with layovers and everything else taken into account. But what if I did it without any flights? I was bored, so I took the time to look everything up:
      - Home to New York: 25 hours by car (no breaks) OR 45 hours by bus + taxi OR 52 hours by train + taxi
      - New York to England: 7 days (cruise)
      - England to City 1: 15 hours (taxi + bus + train)
      - Meandering: N/A
      - City 2 to England: 19 hours (train + bus + taxi)
      - England to New York: 7 days (cruise)
      - New York to Home: 25 hours by car (no breaks) OR 45 hours by taxi + bus OR 52 hours by taxi + train

      So, a bit more than 10x the travel time and at a much greater expense to boot. Granted, a lot of that would be because of the transatlantic crossings via cruise ship, but that whole "ocean" thing means that they're pretty much the only game in town if you rule out flights (to be fair, I also looked into booking passage on a freighter, which you can apparently do quite easily, but they were significantly slower, as you'd expect).

      All of which is to say, this ban affects Americans returning home as well, many of whom don't have a choice when it comes to their means of travel. Unless I want to shell out thousands of additional dollars while spending weeks of additional time traveling, flights are my only choice.

    19. Re:More reasons never to fly by blackest_k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An obvious stimulus for the american coal industry, what better than steam ships burning coal.

       

    20. Re: More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have our's shipped. It's a pretty neat process. You can actually travel with your RV, if you want. The lady friend and I went and did a goodly portion of Europe that way. It was less expensive than renting an RV for the duration of our journey.

    21. Re:More reasons never to fly by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I guess if I come via Mexico they shoot me at the fence and when I use a boat from Cuba they think the boat. Would be a shame ... for the boat ( /me imagines a nice Sloop )

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    22. Re:More reasons never to fly by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Sounds nice but it takes 15 fucking days.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    23. Re: More reasons never to fly by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Informative

      Transatlantic cruises have *incredibly* bad internet connectivity. As in, 19.2kbps when it works... and mostly, it doesn't.

      Caribbean cruises have fast internet because the Bahamas only has a few TV stations, but the same ~900MHz of UHF spectrum as the US, and cruise ships can have good antennas & high-power radios (unlike cell phones) to communicate with a LTE or WiMax site 40-80 miles away (few caribbean cruise routes are ever more than 100 miles from an island). There's also a huge market for Caribbean-cruise internet service, so the infrastructure got built. In contrast, the North Atlantic has a lot less cruise-ship traffic to pay for it, and sticking LTE towers in a glacier field in Greenland is several orders of magnitude harder than doing it on a caribbean island.

      There's satellite too, but for Caribbean cruises, the *really* fast connectivity is terrestrial.

    24. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mike Tython? Ith that you?

    25. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to add "More reasons never to fly .. to the USA"

    26. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got at least 48 hours of downloaded movies and TV shows backloged on the laptop, not to mention all of the single player Steam games as well as the console games for emulation, not to mention the books both readable and audiobooks. I've got plenty to keep me occupied without the internet even if the trip was 2 weeks instead of 2 days.

    27. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really fucking easy. It's called doing business with not-the-usa. There's loads of it.

    28. Re:More reasons never to fly by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Maybe Elon Musk will dig a tunnel? Elon, are you reading this?

    29. Re:More reasons never to fly by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's another reason: every plane will now have cargo holds full of potentially damaged lithium batteries that have been thrown around by baggage handlers. Don't count on the fire suppressant system to save you, it's completely ineffective against lithium battery thermal runaways.

    30. Re: More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a reason not to fly to the US. It doesn't matter if you'reâ going somewhere else.

    31. Re:More reasons never to fly by bazorg · · Score: 1

      Bring back the travel by ship. I don't want a cruise. I just want a cheap way out of North America that doesn't involve the bullshit.

      Are there no trains or roads that US people can use to get to Canadian airports?

    32. Re:More reasons never to fly by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I don't really care about having access to my laptop during a flight, but I don't trust the airline and the baggage handlers. I'd be perfectly willing to fly if they would cover the costs of all loss, including loss of data and of trade secrets resulting from from any loss or damage to my laptop while in the hold though. The value can't be more than a few million per customer, and I'm sure that the US government will reimburse them...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    33. Re:More reasons never to fly by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Nope, I'll fly to Canada and have the US people meet me there.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    34. Re:More reasons never to fly by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of reasons not to fly to the USA, this is the second best one yet (being beaten by the airline for a ticket you paid good money for is #1, not sure how that will be topped).

      FTFY. I fly all the time. Rock up at the airport 40min before departure self checked in, clear security in 5 minutes, on a plane and off on the other side. Flying in general is easy and painless ... just not within or too and from the states.

    35. Re:More reasons never to fly by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      Well a quick check on the Blue Riband Wikipedia page tells me the record for an eastbound Atlantic crossing is 2 days 20 hours held by an ocean-going *CATAMARAN* car and passenger ferry.

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

      Technically it would need to go westbound to get the actual Blue Riband, which would be somewhat slower. The USS United States was 10 hours slower westbound than east bound according to the Wikipedia page. Anyways hydrofoils are all out of fashion these days.

    36. Re: More reasons never to fly by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      Railroads are underrated. I will take a train or drive whenever I can. I hate flying and it is not for fear of it but for the terrible inconveniences and ordeals that you must go through.

    37. Re:More reasons never to fly by nomadic · · Score: 1

      The man's always trying to keep us down.

    38. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of reasons not to fly, this is the second best one yet (being beaten by the airline for a ticket you paid good money for is #1, not sure how that will be topped).

      At this rate, the next logical step (in their minds) is to ban humans from all flights, regardless of destination.

    39. Re:More reasons never to fly by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Driving to Toronto or Montreal is popular in central NY, where fares from Syracuse to anywhere are ridiculous.
      Or, go to Ottawa and see a national capitol that's clean. But the flights out are limited.

    40. Re:More reasons never to fly by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Meetings in the flesh are overrated.

    41. Re: More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I'm at, I usually drive several hours to get to the Minneapolis airport. It's not much farther to drive to Winnipeg. It's not an option I've considered in the past, but it's one I'll consider in the future. I've driven 8 hours to get a cheap flight before; I can definitely consider the 5 hour drive to Winnipeg, even if I have to cross an international border during the drive.

      It probably won't make sense to do it to get to Europe, since it would probably mean an extra transfer in Montreal. But if my destination were in Canada, I'm definitely going to try to fly out of Winnipeg.

    42. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, getting treated like a criminal by your own government just because you wanted to travel, including the removal of everyone's freedom and the constant violations of everyone's constitutional rights at the TSA's checkpoints, is #1.

      The threat of physical violence for failing to submit to and obey airline employees is easily #2.

      Forcing you to check your laptop and removing your ability to work and play while airborne is just #3.

      I'm a conservative and I'm still waiting for this nation to go back to being a free country. So far, I'm tremendously disappointed with our "political outsider" government. They failed to repeal socialism and failed to even mention a repeal of socialist purchasing mandates (car insurance) or the fascist police state that's currently installed in the nation's airports, football stadiums, courthouses, baseball fields, freeways, trains, some bus depots, and even amusement parks (emphasis Disney). When will we be free again?

    43. Re: More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but when did you get this information? I did a couple transatlantic cruises back in 2011/2012-ish when I worked for a cruise line and although the internet was slow, it wasn't 19.2kbps slow... and it worked for most of the crossing.

      I can't speak for all cruise lines, but Carnival Cruise lines uses satellite internet regardless of where they are, even if they're close to land.

    44. Re: More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, I've used United's satellite-based wifi on trans-pacific and ... whatever a flight to South America is called (trans-carribean?) and it was surprisingly fast, like downloading files at a couple MByte/sec. Perhaps satellite internet has advanced a lot in the last few years.

    45. Re:More reasons never to fly by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      You don't need a ship to get out of North America; you can just take a plane. Notice that this rule about laptops only refers to incoming flights. Be sure to take a flight with a non-US airline. I hear that Emirates, Lufthansa, JAL, and Korean Air are the best.

      For your car, you can ship it to Europe with a bunch of different companies for under $1k. It'll probably take a couple weeks though.

      Now if you're about to ask about getting back with your laptop and without a lot of hassle, or complain that 2 weeks to get your car is too long, my question to you is: why would you want to come back once you've escaped?

    46. Re: More reasons never to fly by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Good luck taking a train between Europe and North America.

      Flying does indeed suck, but trains are ridiculously slow. It takes days to cross the US by Amtrak, and the cost is astronomical. They work OK for regional travel, or maybe if you like sightseeing and have plenty of time and money for a sleeper car, but that's it.

    47. Re:More reasons never to fly by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Engine powered Catamaran is close enough :D

      Interesting finding though!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    48. Re: More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arent you supposed to insert We put a man on the moon somewhere in that post of yours? (Thank you Jerry Seinfeld) example: we put a man on the moon back in 1969, what do you mean we cannot put LTE on sticks in Greenland??

    49. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crossing the US-Canada border by bus or train is not pleasant. I hold US immigration staff in high regard and have only seen professional and courteous behavior at airports: on the bus and train not so much.

    50. Re: More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are pretty dense aren't you? It seems like you believe Obama is imposing this ban on laptops?

    51. Re:More reasons never to fly by mridoni · · Score: 1

      There is a reason cruise ships do not make an ideal target for international or domestic terrorists: while you can bring down an airplane with a theoretical tablet-sized bomb, the results on a ocean cruiser would be much less devastating, you could "score" a few deaths when people are in line at the cafeteria, but then you might as well avoid boarding a ship and attack a crowded bar instead.

      Of course you could try to pull an Achille Lauro-style operation, but that is a different beast than smuggling a bomb.

    52. Re: More reasons never to fly by Miamicanes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      SSL/TLS happened. In 2012, most sites & apps didn't use SSL. Now, they do... and a bunch of SSL handshakes for ephemeral connections from multiple users at once can make a formerly-tolerable slow data link grind to a complete halt. First, the handshakes start failing, because TLS has strict time limits to limit replay attacks & make MITM harder. Then, the repeated handshaking attempts end up saturating the link so nothing else -- not even DNS lookups -- can get through. Even with a few hundred kbps, it doesn't take many iphones & Android phones making nonstop background connections to bring a shared slow connection to its knees... or some other user attempting to navigate to an ad-saturated web page that literally needs to establish TLS connections to several DOZEN hosts just to finish loading. And most of those requests can't be cached, so they keep generating more and more.

      That's why there's now a RFC making its way through IETF to allow a server to be configured to send unencrypted-but-signed files over TLS (instead of encrypting everything)... the idea is that a bank's logo images, css stylesheets, or Javascript libraries aren't a secret, but have to be sent via TLS to prevent MITM. By allowing signing-without-encryption, networks will be able to inspect & cache files the remote host marks as 'not sensitive'.

    53. Re: More reasons never to fly by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      The company behind most cruise-ship broadband is "MTN". A few years ago, they launched a hybrid service that used satellites at sea, and fixed microwave links in port... then started adding more and more towers *away* from port, so that the number of ships that depend on satellite connectivity at any one time keeps getting smaller... at least, in the Caribbean & Alaska.

      The main problem with transatlantic cruises is that most are just 'repositioning' cruises that happen twice a year (when many Cabibbean ships get moved to Europe in the late spring before hurricane season, then get moved back in the late fall before winter arrives. Most of THOSE cruises don't hug the coastlines of Greenland & Iceland, so they couldn't use line-of-sight terrestrial links anyway.

      When it comes to maritime broadband over the open sea far from land (especially away from busy shipping lanes), coverage is STILL pretty dire. Spot beams have improved things a lot in the areas with enough ship-density to justify coverage, but for about 80% of the open sea, you *might* have one or two satellites covering an area the size of the north Atlantic with about as much bandwidth for all users to share as Hughes.net had for rural American users circa 2000.

    54. Re:More reasons never to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anyways hydrofoils are all out of fashion these days."

      Well apparently you don't pay any attention to sailing, especially the America's Cup. That's ok, noone does.

  2. How long until we go all the way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am literally counting down the days and minutes until everyone will have to board a plane completely naked and be stored like cargo. (After thoroughly searching all body cavities, of course!)

    1. Re:How long until we go all the way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That could get interesting..... But likely I'd get stuck between the obese white guy and the bathroom...

    2. Re:How long until we go all the way? by rworne · · Score: 1

      Why would you care? You'd be anesthetized and have a catheter inserted for the duration of the flight.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  3. How much longer until... by mishehu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're all made to board nude and chained to our seats and made to row across the ocean? As it is, I'm just waiting for them to announce "credible" evidence that ISIS has converted baby formula into a bomb capable of bringing down an airliner...

    1. Re:How much longer until... by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh please, don't be so hyperbolic. Intravenous sedatives would work just fine without the additional weight all those chains would require. As an added bonus, the airlines would save a fortune, not needing to cook and carry all those meals and drinks. And they wouldn't have to deal with unruly and ungrateful passengers that demand to sit in the seats they paid for.

      All they'd have to do is having the plane crew walk around now and then, poking the passengers with sticks.

    2. Re:How much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be hot!

    3. Re:How much longer until... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Intravenous sedatives would work just fine...

      Too risky... and... ouch!

      Just gas them once they're seated. Or save even more money by simply depressurizing the aircraft while at altitude.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:How much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes United? I'd like to file a complaint. The number and pattern of bruises indicates I was not poked with a stick commensurately with what was indicated by my ticket.

    5. Re:How much longer until... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 0

      Intravenous sedatives would work just fine...

      Too risky... and... ouch!

      Just gas them once they're seated. Or save even more money by simply depressurizing the aircraft while at altitude.

      They do. I believe that they run at 0.7 atmospheres. It makes people sleepy and docile.

    6. Re:How much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Evidence shown that terrorists have found a method to turn, uh... um... skin! Yes, Skin, into incendiary materials. As a result, all security checkpoints will now require you to fill the flaying bin..."

    7. Re:How much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just gas them once they're seated.

      The right dose is the issue and constant monitoring is required anyway. People-pods with inbuilt monitoring systems and life support attachments would do nicely though. The pod loading process would do the critical measurements for safe anesthesia. The bonus would be that the passenger could be tested for dangerous pathogens and the spreading of epidemics could be prevented.

    8. Re:How much longer until... by brambus · · Score: 1

      They do. I believe that they run at 0.7 atmospheres. It makes people sleepy and docile.

      Even if it did (and I don't believe it does), that's not the point behind depressurizing the cabin.

    9. Re:How much longer until... by zamboni1138 · · Score: 1

      Stop giving them ideas!

    10. Re:How much longer until... by blackprint · · Score: 1

      And it would make it a lot easier for Leonardo Dicaprio to break up energy conglomerates.

    11. Re:How much longer until... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      They do. I believe that they run at 0.7 atmospheres. It makes people sleepy and docile.

      Even if it did (and I don't believe it does), that's not the point behind depressurizing the cabin.

      Of course it's not. It's to minimize metal fatigue in the aluminum tube that encapsulates everyone.

      The somnolescence is simply a convenient side-effect of this materials-engineering based decision. They don't go lower than a set value because otherwise some people would start to get altitude sickness from the sudden change in pressure after take-off.

      Ever fly into Denver, CO? Unless you do it regularly, you'll feel fatigued for a day or so after arrival.

    12. Re:How much longer until... by bankman · · Score: 1

      All they'd have to do is having the plane crew walk around now and then, poking the passengers with sticks.

      That's pretty much what they're doing now.

      --
      I feel so sig.
    13. Re:How much longer until... by dargaud · · Score: 1
      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    14. Re:How much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we compromise: Intravenous sedatives for crying babies?

    15. Re:How much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, don't be so hyperbolic. Intravenous sedatives would work just fine without the additional weight all those chains would require. As an added bonus, the airlines would save a fortune, not needing to cook and carry all those meals and drinks. And they wouldn't have to deal with unruly and ungrateful passengers that demand to sit in the seats they paid for.

      All they'd have to do is having the plane crew walk around now and then, poking the passengers with sticks.

      Uh, you are aware that this is sort of Science Fiction's standard model for interstellar travel?

    16. Re:How much longer until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, powdered baby formula makes a good incendiary.

    17. Re:How much longer until... by brambus · · Score: 1
      Aircraft cabins never exceed 8,000 ft cabin altitude and are often pressurized to between 6,000 - 7,000 ft. The FAA allows non-pressurized aircraft without oxygen up to 12,000 ft (EASA up to 10,000 ft), so I doubt much of anything happens at 8,000 ft. In fact, I flew at 9,000 ft for 7 hours last Saturday and felt fresh as a flower.

      Ever fly into Denver, CO? Unless you do it regularly, you'll feel fatigued for a day or so after arrival.

      Yep and never felt it. You sure you're not just jet lagged?

  4. God Emperor of Dune by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Have you not considered how much easier it is to control a walking population?"

    1. Re: God Emperor of Dune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the terrorist!

    2. Re:God Emperor of Dune by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      *Folds Space*

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  5. So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is there actionable intelligence to back up this ban or is this an attempt to whitewash the racist origins of the original anti-Muslim ban by including Europe?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laptops are now a racial differentiator? Whoodathunkit.

    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Is there actionable intelligence to back up this ban or is this an attempt to whitewash the racist origins of the original anti-Muslim ban by including Europe?

      No, but there IS evidence that you're an idiot.

      Muslims are responsible for many terrorist acts in the real world. If Muslims don't want to be profiled,
      they need to force an end to the bad behavior of the misbehaving Muslims.

      As for you, you would be smart to shut the fuck up before you get a visit from the Feds, motherfucker.
      Trump is president now, and tolerance for Islamic bad behavior is OVER.

    3. Re:So... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      There are actual terrorists here in Europe, and a couple of sympathizers who might become terrorists. If there is a credible threat from the Middle East, then that threat extends to Europe as well. I'd like to know how credible this threat is to begin with.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:So... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Islam isn't a race, so there's that.

    5. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some scientists told me there's no such thing as race. So there's that.

    6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's probably a couple hundred regular posters on Slashdot, but it seems like all the really stupid posts are by you. You have nothing to offer an intelligent conversation, please lurk more.

    7. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      As for you, you would be smart to shut the fuck up before you get a visit from the Feds, motherfucker.

      Take a guess which three-letter agency I work for — and pray that I don't pay you a visit.

    8. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Informative

      You have nothing to offer an intelligent conversation, please lurk more.

      You have obviously not paid attention to the Muslim ban controversies. Trump's policies are stuck in court because they weren't made on actionable intelligence as Obama's band was in 2011, but racist remarks that Trump made on the campaign trail. My question is relevant: does Trump have actionable intelligence or is he using Europe to whitewash his racist ban?

    9. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      We don't take kindly to stupid ugly rejects.

      I don't take too kindly to asshats. Slashdot is an open forum. You don't like me being here, complain to management. Since mods consistently up vote me more than they down vote me, I doubt anything will happen.

    10. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Laptops are now a racial differentiator? Whoodathunkit.

      The Chinese laptops are always suspect. You never know what's in the firmware.

    11. Re:So... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Garbage Haulers of Milpitas?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Garbage Haulers of Milpitas?

      I love bean burritos like anyone else, but I'm not responsible for how Milpitas smells when the wind picks up. ;)

    13. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy with sockpuppet accounts and all day on the taxpayer's dime to waste.

    14. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Easy with sockpuppet accounts [...]

      I don't sock puppet accounts, but thanks for the suggestion.

      [...] and all day on the taxpayer's dime to waste.

      As an IT Support contractor and entrepreneur, I'm judged by one metric: Do I get my numbers in every day? Yes, I do.

    15. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have nothing to offer an intelligent conversation, please lurk more.

      You have obviously not paid attention to the Muslim ban controversies. Trump's policies are stuck in court because they weren't made on actionable intelligence as Obama's band was in 2011, but racist remarks that Trump made on the campaign trail. My question is relevant: does Trump have actionable intelligence or is he using Europe to whitewash his racist ban?

      Trump has little enough intelligence in general that It's probably safe to assume even if all of it is actionable it wouldn't warrant any actual action.

    16. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If thats what you do, i dont think OP needs to pray you dont pay him a visit. Unless hes allergic to body odor and cheeto crumbs.

    17. Re:So... by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 2

      First of all, Muslim isn't a race.

      Secondly, those bans were halted due to activist judges. They didn't base their decisions on the actual text of the Executive Orders as one would expect.

    18. Re:So... by Ded+Bob · · Score: 1

      I think this cartoon illustrates[1] why the ban is not a Muslim ban. If it was, the list would be much larger. http://michaelpramirez.com/upl...

      My wife's first thought when the ban was made was, "If it is a Muslim ban, why is Indonesia not on the list?"

      1. Yes, I had to make a pun. :)

    19. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      They didn't base their decisions on the actual text of the Executive Orders as one would expect.

      Most of these Executive Orders are so poorly drawn up, they don't carry the weight of law and the judges have to look at Trump's intent to discern the purpose of the Executive Order. The Obama Administration spent months on Executive Orders to avoid problems that Trump keeps easily running into.

    20. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're a generic bigot, not a racist. Congratulations?

    21. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      If it was, the list would be much larger.

      The ban also overlooks Muslim countries that Trump has business interests in.

    22. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't a convenient label to describe prejudice against a religion, or at least not as catchy a label as racism. As a systematic prejudice, get used to the label of racism until something else comes along.

      And of course the judges didn't base their decisions on the text. The text of the executive order didn't lay down reasons, just the order itself. The judges struck down the order because it wasn't based in actionable fact. In absence of actionable fact, they found that the executive orders were illegally based on racial/religious prejudice.

    23. Re:So... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      "I like the smell of milpitas in the morning. smells like ... cisco!"

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    24. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslim is not a race, so nothing we do to them is "racist".

      Also we're at war with them, so we're going to need to do some bad shit.

    25. Re:So... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      "Islam" is also irrelevant. It's just the latest label attached to people who obviously look different. You don't give your religion when walking through security but you get special treatment because you "look like a muslim".

    26. Re:So... by ivano · · Score: 1

      Muslims are responsible for many terrorist acts in the real world. If Muslims don't want to be profiled, they need to force an end to the bad behavior of the misbehaving Muslims.

      Men are responsible for many terrorist acts in the real world. If men don't want to be profiled, they need to force an end to the bad behavior of the misbehaving men.

    27. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well haven't you read the news recently? Western Europe hasn't been the safest place on earth lately thanks to some, how shall we put this, "undesirables".

    28. Re:So... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      According to Trump the EU is over run by Muslims already and we all know he's always right

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    29. Re:So... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      First, we ban discrimination against religion at a more fundamental level than discrimination against race. The First Amendment bans government discrimination by religion.

      Second, the executive orders were so unclear that people didn't know what they meant. What of someone who was born in Iraq but was a Canadian citizen? Courts don't like unclear orders with the force of law. Also, since border regulation is Congress's responsibility according to the Constitution, Trump would have to justify any such order by reference to Acts of Congress.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    30. Re:So... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Let's see, muslims from the Caucuses are...caucasian. Muslims from huge parts of the world are caucasian actually. It isn't a 'look different' thing. And - gasp - it isn't a muslim ban. It's a ban from countries that DO export Terrorism - at least that's what Obama said.

    31. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could extend that to cover every country, including the USA. The obvious reprisal measure is for all of these banned countries to ban laptops of flights from USA to their country.

    32. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The street is an open forum. Do you walk up to groups of people, start talking at random with idiotic uneducated shit, and call them asshats when they tell you to fuck off?

      I'm sure there is a subreddit for people like you. We don't hang out there. We hang out here, because there aren't people like you here.

    33. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      actually, maybe I'll write a script that does a continuous wget on the jpeg of your photo.

      Go ahead. I'm actually paying for unlimited bandwidth.

    34. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh my fucking god how dumb do you have to be to not have gotten that fat joke. oh... right.

      I love it how you completely ignore that you making money from slashdot clicks is completely false.

    35. Re:So... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I love it how you completely ignore that you making money from slashdot clicks is completely false.

      I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

    36. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would that be the piggy bank, piggy?

      alright. i'll bite. I just clicked your site in firefox. It fully loaded with Adblock+. I downloaded the photo, pasted it to photoshop and put a pig snout on it. I closed the tab. How does that make you money?

    37. Re:So... by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the Milpitas Monster.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  6. I didn't think it was "all" by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this just a ban on Samsung laptops?

    1. Re:I didn't think it was "all" by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but going specifically for the known problem is politically incorrect, so they have to ban all laptops instead of just the ones that might blow up.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:I didn't think it was "all" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joke is getting old doncha think? Back to the walled garden with you, don't worry the other fanbois will think your joke is a hoot.

  7. Re:US is a global joke by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

    Not everyone in the US voted for Trump.

  8. Really? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is DHS really this easy to manipulate? And are they really this stupid? If a laptop shell packed with explosives is enough to "bring down an airplane" (and with the right explosive, it certainly is)(but it would have to be packed with explosive, in which case what's all that swabbing and x-raying of passengers for if it couldn't detect that modification?), how does having it in the cargo hold help? It still makes a giant hole in the fuselage and down goes the plane.

    I guess my real question is, are people stupid enough to be convinced by this security theater? And then I realize P.T. Barnum was right: you can't go broke overestimating people's stupidity.

    1. Re:Really? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Congressmen are basically stupid, scared children. They've got a surprising amount of shit to sift through, no bandwidth, and sheer impulse to run on; and they have to weigh in as experts on every issue, regardless of timeline or personal understanding. When national security, Internet crimes, or child pornography come up, they can't even understand what's possible and what's just nutty; they see the maximum threat, and they respond by screaming and flailing.

      One day, I want to get myself voted into the House largely so I can respond to any topic that's not central to my interests with blunt detachment and input that's given on the stated condition that my understanding of the topic is limited and my interest is largely in bothering people with questions nobody's thought to ask. For most of it, I can cite firm attention to economics and risk as a primary reason to not take action for trivial things that might be real and scary, but also unlikely to happen with any frequency or to any great severity.

    2. Re:Really? by mellon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The theory is that if you press the laptop up against the fuselage in the passenger cabin, you can bust a big enough hole to bring the airplane down; if it's in the hold, there's no opportunity to do that.

    3. Re: Really? by Matt.Battey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you're right about being scared children and seeing the maximum threat.

      But, I think you give them too much credit. The only threat they are scared of is being voted out of office. No one ever got voted out of office for protecting someone's safety, but the first time you pass legislation that protects liberty, and some one gets a skinned knee, well the you're outa there buddy.

      Even the personal liberty screamers in Congress never get any bills passed to ensure privacy and liberty. To much chagrin, it takes an action by a judge appointed for life (personal survival always trumps the greater good).

    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the cargo hold, the attacker cannot control the location of a bomb in a laptop. It could be in the center of the plane where it would cause damage but not breach the hull.

      In the cabin, an attack could ensure where a bomb detonates to make sure it causes the correct damage inthe right location.

    5. Re:Really? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      IIRC, it had something to do with setting off the explosives. I've no idea how hard it is to detect explosives disguised as a battery, but apparently it is pretty hard to disguise an ignition circuit on the x-ray. If you have the explosives with you in the cabin, you don't need that circuit.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Really? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Not only would a laptop packed with explosives still bring down a plane while in the cargo hold, but anything else at least the approximate size of a laptop would do as well. So are they planning to ban anything laptop-sized or larger?

    7. Re:Really? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The theory is that if you press the laptop up against the fuselage in the passenger cabin, you can bust a big enough hole to bring the airplane down; if it's in the hold, there's no opportunity to do that.

      So you're stating that all that scanning, "nude" photographing and feeling up crap that makes you arrive at the airport 2 hours early is completely ineffective?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    8. Re:Really? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      In fact, I saw a show that had a segment about the cargo containers they use in planes (and this was a LONG time ago, maybe some point after Pan Am flight 103). They are supposed to suppress the damage caused by a cargo area explosion. When was the last time we heard of any such successful bombing?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:Really? by greatpatton · · Score: 1

      If they can insert a bomb they can insert an incendiary device which will also bring down the airplane as a fire in the cargo hold is deadly for an airplane....

    10. Re:Really? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A big laptop weights about a killogram.
      My Dell here is close to 2kg.

      If that is filled with C4, it does not matter where it explodes ... the plane is toast.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, it is not about a laptop bomb. It is about being able to "search" every laptop, including those they have no provable or due cause (US citizens, etc).

      Pretty much it means business travel to the USA requires now either disposable devices, or better yet, buy something nice there, use it to work there, and bring back to sell for a profit (since on the second or third trip, you will already have what you want).

    12. Re:Really? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      The argument I heard was that explosive carrying capacity is low, since the payload needs to be concealed. Thus, it could breach the fuselage if pressed against it when detonated but is unlikely to do so from the cargo hold. Either because the cargo hold is reinforced or because odds are it won't be close enough to the outer wall of the aircraft.

      I think all this is an over reaction, but the above is how the thinking process apparently goes.

    13. Re:Really? by dknj · · Score: 1

      planes have fire extinguishing systems, mr armchair analyst. and not just a single shot like NOS, they can fire extinguish for something like 30 straight minutes if necessary. also, the cargo is not pressured, so an explosion is not as dangerous and a fire smothers much easier when there isn't enough air to breathe.

    14. Re:Really? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I saw a program where they did some experiments, it was just after the shoebombers farcical attempt.

      IIRC the conclusion was that it might maybe - with a fair wind and if the gods wish it - puncture the pressure hull, but not catastrophically.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re:Really? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Cargo holds ARE pressurized... They are not heated or ventalated, but they are inside the pressurized area.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    16. Re:Really? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Has it ever occurred to you that they can subject baggage to more stringent screaming?

      You can use manual searching, stronger X-Rays and radiation to detect explosives, insert them into vacuum chambers to set off pressure sensitive triggers and a whole host of other techniques to catch explosives before they get on board. They also can take more time than would be convenient when screening people and their carry-ons.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    17. Re:Really? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Well... That's an interesting theory there... A theory you have little evidence for.

      Remember, last time I came into the USA, you picked up your baggage pretty quickly after landing, just before you clear customs. There is no time after the flight to search so I ask you... Who will be doing the preflight inspections outside the USA if what you say is true?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we're not allowed to pack spare lithium batteries in checked luggage. They must come along in carry-on... And worse, must be "on your person"...

    19. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has it ever occurred to you that they can subject baggage to more stringent screaming?

      Yup. You can yell at those bags for hours and they don't even flinch.

    20. Re:Really? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      They have developed (and may be using) new containers for luggage and cargo that will contain any explosion and prevent it from causing any real damage to the plane. So on a flight using those new containers, a bomb in luggage is not a huge threat. But a bomb in the passenger compartment would be.

    21. Re:Really? by Augusto · · Score: 1

      I think what this means is that DHS doesn't have confidence in the security checks outside the US, not that the measures in the US don't work. That's why this doesn't apply to flights from the US TO Europe.

      --

      - sigs are for wimps.
    22. Re:Really? by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't need to be full, it just needs enough explosives that if pressed against the hull and detonated that it would rip a hole in the fuselage. The information I saw said that they had figured out how to cut a chunk of the battery out and fill it full of some explosive that's been shaped into a shaped charge, set one of the keys or switchs to detonate it.

      The laptop would turn on a function like normal and would explode with enough force to breach the fuselage if pressed against the wall before being detonated. This arrangement was viewed to be virtually undetectable without disassembling the laptop. Experts that had reviewed the plans they recovered believed this was not only possible but that the groups in question were actively building these bombs. The crucial weakness is that the bomb wouldn't be strong enough to breach the fuselage if it wasn't pressed against the wall, so all you need to do is ban laptops from the passenger compartment to make the bomb worthless.

    23. Re:Really? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      In the cargo hold, the attacker cannot control the location of a bomb in a laptop.

      Right, because an attacker would never have someone working as part of the ground crew for the aircraft.

    24. Re:Really? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      My luggage was searched by the TSA on my return flight from overseas. Not sure if they have agents overseas or if they search after arrival. Perhaps tiny robots inside the cargo hold?

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    25. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that why they run the explosives tests to detect residue on suspicious laptops? My one laptop gets tested every time I fly because it has no 2.5" hard drive (ie it does have a M.2 SSD card though). As I "opt out" I also get tested.

    26. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying you didn't even read the summary? Which of those countries has those scanners? Which of those countries has the TSA?

      I'll wait...

      Flights into the US... INTO...

      Go to fucking Reddit, really.

    27. Re:Really? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      How do you know it was TSA exactly? IF it's done before the international flight, it must have been done overseas, which pretty much precludes any kind of intelligence searching by the USA... Unless of course the host country allows the USA to do this. Despite what you've been told, agencies of the USA generally don't openly and routinely break the laws of foreign countries when on their soil...

      And are you SURE the TSA search was done at the origin of your international flight? If you had a domestic leg, you had to re-check your bag, and TSA does pay special attention to baggage being rechecked from international fights, but that would have been done domestically and doesn't have anything to do with this new rule.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    28. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're stupid? It seems almost everyone responding to this article is stupid. Checked luggage can go through a manual screening process outside of your vision. It is trivial to bug/copy/hack a laptop while it's being shipping if the owner isn't in possession of it.

      I'd bet improved data mining is a large reason for this new ban.

    29. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't need to be full, it just needs enough explosives that if pressed against the hull and detonated that it would rip a hole in the fuselage. The information I saw said that they had figured out how to cut a chunk of the battery out and fill it full of some explosive that's been shaped into a shaped charge, set one of the keys or switchs to detonate it.

      Well, I guess that means no electronics on planes then. Can't wait until they find another way to hide another threat, we'll get that banned too.

      Nice, how that works right? We bend over backwards whenever a terrorist decides to make their presence known, so that we'll destroy another personal freedom. They can control the US without ever firing a shot at us. Have to hand it to Osama, he planed it perfectly, even in death, he'll be willfully given what he wanted by his enemies. All out of the fear of what could happen.

    30. Re:Really? by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could you please include a reference to a public source of this information?

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
    31. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a bomb would be "worthless" if it only killed some of the people in the passenger compartment without breaching the fuselage?? Prospective travelers would say "Well, as long as the plane doesn't crash, I'm cool."??

    32. Re: Really? by johannesg · · Score: 1

      The Netherlands has those scanners, for one. And American security officials are active on the airport.

    33. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't let anyone sit in the window seats. Put the aisles on the outside, six across seating on the narrow bodies.

    34. Re:Really? by mellon · · Score: 1

      I never said it made sense. I was just describing the reason behind it.

    35. Re:Really? by marka63 · · Score: 2

      Actually they are heated. They may or may not be heated to the temperature of the passenger cabin but they are heated. What they are heated to depends on the cargo being sent. If there are live animals they will be heated to approximately same temperature as the passenger cabin, if not they it may be set to ~5C. If they weren't heated all the cargo would freeze as the outside temperature is around -55C.

    36. Re:Really? by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A sadder part of this security theatre: a few weeks ago when boarding a flight from Taiwan my father had to hand in the scissors of his first aid kit, which happened to be in his hand luggage. Short (about 5 cm blades) with round tips. Apparently a dangerous weapon.

      It was sad to see how many much more dangerous weapons were sold after security.

      First I noticed make-up kits, with glass mirrors. Makes for nice sharp shards.

      Second chopsticks. Combined with a piece of sandpaper like those paper nail buffing boards it can make for a nice piercing weapon.

      Then I realised they also sell big glass bottles, usually with some alcoholic substances in it. Break the bottom off of them, and they become pretty nasty weapons - popular in bar fights as well.

      And finally we got nice metal cutlery on the flights. Even those knives (and the pointy forks!) looked more dangerous to me than those scissors. Or a bottle of water, for that matter.

      I'm sure there are a lot more of these "innocent" items for sale, that can be turned into weapons in the blink of an eye. I just haven't thought about it really, I just looked around a bit while wondering why he had to hand in those scissors. A dedicated criminal would for sure be able to find many other options.

      So why again aren't we allowed to bring small scissors? Security theatre optima forma!

    37. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has it ever occurred to you that they can subject baggage to more stringent screaming?

      "You worthless filthy piece of baggage!" I can totally see that.

      You can use manual searching, stronger X-Rays and radiation to detect explosives, insert them into vacuum chambers to set off pressure sensitive triggers and a whole host of other techniques to catch explosives before they get on board. They also can take more time than would be convenient when screening people and their carry-ons.

      It's as simple as "NSA to TSA: we have the tools to siphon off the data of any laptop fast and have it decrypted by the time of arrival. What stops us from bulk searching everyone's devices now?" "TSA: the passengers." "NSA: find a solution for that."

      I don't think that explosives really factor in here except as an excuse that people are already used to swallowing.

    38. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why again aren't we allowed to bring small scissors? Security theatre optima forma!

      They can be used for shaping finger nails into weapons once you are on board.

    39. Re:Really? by bungo · · Score: 2

      Congressmen are basically stupid, scared children.

      No, I think you're quite wrong. I've never met any, but from what I've seen and read, there are quite a lot of intelligent, rational people in Congress. Many appear to be highly qualified in areas like law.

      It appears that instead, the do pander to the electorate and are concerned to appear to be weak on terrorists (or crime, or foreigners, or commies, or whatever the next scare is).

      The problem is that the people who elect Congress are on who average stupid scared children, or at least outnumber the intelligent, educated voters.

      From what I've seen from the Alt-right and TEA partiers, it seems correct. I mean, pizza-gate, how could a rational person ever believe that?

           

      --
      "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
    40. Re:Really? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Many appear to be highly qualified in areas like law.

      Curious here. What other 'areas' are many of them highly qualified in? Because from what I've seen, it's pretty much just.... law.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    41. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing a few people does not generate the same amount of terror as bringing down a plane.

      In addition, if you just want to kill a few random people, you only have to go out on the street and shoot them. That's much easier than smuggling a makeshift bomb through airport security. If you're in the U.S., there will even be Republicans cheering at you for exercising your Second Amendment rights.

    42. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the argument about cabin vs hold is that the explosives would not be enough to rip a large hole in the fuselage. In the hold it would be shielded by other bags and may start a fire but in the cabin it could be held by a window which is a weak point of the structure Wikipedia

    43. Re:Really? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      It still makes a giant hole in the fuselage and down goes the plane.

      It doesn't even need to be a giant hole, just one big enough to allow the airflow to finish the destruction.

    44. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the explanation about laptops pressed to the wall were the real reason for the ban, then the obvious solution would be to remove all of the Li-ion batteries from the laptops and to ban all electronics including iPhone 8+ and Samsung 8+ which do not have removable batteries. But that solution is not being used. Therefore, the real reason cannot be about protecting the planes. The real reason is more likely something to do with wanting to have unattended access to laptops by officials during the baggage security screening process.

    45. Re:Really? by houghi · · Score: 1

      The Anarchist Cookbook. A reliable source of panic since years.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    46. Re:Really? by jittles · · Score: 1

      The theory is that if you press the laptop up against the fuselage in the passenger cabin, you can bust a big enough hole to bring the airplane down; if it's in the hold, there's no opportunity to do that.

      That's a silly theory since a bomb destroys a plane by overpressurizing the fuselage. Just having it go off in the hold is probably enough pressure to do that. Any bomb that can rip through the frame can probably cause the pressure required to make the airframe disintegrate.

    47. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Mathematics student at UC Berkeley with an IQ of >=132 and I believe there is probable cause to search James Alefantis' and John Podesta's house/computers for child pornography. I also believe that Loretta Lynch obstructed justice in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, and that James Comey deserved to be fired for inventing an "intent" element to prosecuting someone for mishandling classified documents.

      The immunity deals and lack of a grand jury, in that case, demonstrates how insincere the investigation was from the start. Between Loretta Lynch meeting Bill on the airport tarmac, and the WikiLeaks email revealing that the investigation was a sham from the start, the level of interference in the case from the Attorney General's office was unreal.

      She obviously should have recused herself if she had any integrity, for the same reason that Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the Russia Investigation.

      Regarding "Pizzagate", unfortunately, 4chan doesn't have the level of discipline and self-restraint exhibited by the investigative journalists from the movie "Spotlight", but I don't think it's a coincidence that Hillary Clinton was funneling campaign funds to a Pizza parlor accused of being a front for sex trafficking when her husband has been documented taking regular flights to the U.S. Virgin Islands (aka. the Pedophile-haven of North America) on Jeffrey Eppstein's plane, nicknamed "the lolita express".

      I also don't believe Vince Foster killed himself, and doubt the real reason for the invasion of Iraq was Weapons of Mass Destruction.

      I also don't think it is a coincidence that Rapiscan systems hired Michael Chertoff out of the D.C. swamp's revolving door shortly after he signed-off on a large government purchase of redundant and useless "enhanced screening" equipment.

    48. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you're in one of the thousands of flights per year which are not between the United States and Europe or Africa.

    49. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does an ignition circuit look different than any other PCB with a power supply attached to it? Through-hole components vs SMT?

    50. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people coming up with and executing these plots aren't particularly competent. Look at all of the actual plots which have either been caught in the act or were actually successful. They are riddled with planning, tactical and opsec failures, and the ones which succeeded did so entirely due to luck and outright negligence from the security services.

      If they actually had evidence that someone was making laptop bombs, then it'd be a simple matter to take them out, or to track them and arrest them. They don't: the just read someone on the terrorist version of 4chan claiming that they are, and rather do any actual investigation they're just ramping up the "terror" to shore up their political agendas and line their own pockets.

    51. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link speaks for itself: https://steemit.com/pizzagate/@munkle/the-evidence-jimmy-comet-didn-t-address-in-his-victimhood-statement

    52. Re:Really? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I recall seeing a stat:

      Democrats are 90% lawyers and journalists, 10% businessmen.

      Republicans are 50% lawyers and journalists, 50% businessmen.

      Consider which you'd prefer to be ruled by.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    53. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daallo_Airlines_Flight_159

    54. Re:Really? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "I mean, pizza-gate, how could a rational person ever
      believe that?"

      Oh, I dunno....

      "I mean, Russia hacked the election, how could a rational person ever believe that?"

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    55. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we have been saying that for a long time.

    56. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has it occurred to you how many bags fly everyday? They go through the same X-ray scanners and that is about it, with a half-asleep attendant at that. Just because checked baggage could get more screening doesn't mean security has the time or money to actually do it. It is just not practical.

    57. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daallo_Airlines_Flight_159

      Not all explosives are easily detected. Commercial TNT, C4 are all doped to make it easier on the dogs and mass-specs.

      Maybe only laptops on aisle seats :-)

    58. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gr8Apes, the fact that TSA checkpoints are completely ineffective has been known for over a decade. Please google "security theater" and/or "Bruce Schneier". Those 2.25 million results will get you started.

    59. Re:Really? by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      It'd have to be an awfully big hole; Aloha Airlines Flight 243 landed safely after losing 18.5 feet of its forward cabin. The only fatality was a stewardess who was serving drinks (i.e. not strapped in) who was sucked out when the cabin ruptured.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    60. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FALSE.

      If you blow a hole in the fuselage the plane will just keep flying. Someone please look it up -- on a flight between islands in Hawaii, I think it was the early 1990s (not sure about the date), the entire roof of a jet tore off in flight due to metal fatigue. One flight attendant fell out of the plane but everyone else survived as the plain flew to the nearest airport and safely landed with only the bottom half of the fuselage. There are photos out there but I'm at work and don't have time.

      That's the real problem. No one has time to look into these things so we all just go on our hunches and follow the most convincing story. Facts matter. Do the homework. (yeah, I'm being a hypocrite. But I'm also an educator with children to teach. We need to fight ignorance and a lack of critical thinking skills at multiple levels and I'm already doing my part. A little help please?)

    61. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy: neither. Most of us would do just fine without a "ruler".

    62. Re:Really? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      I've always wanted to reply to "Are you carrying anything dangerous?" like this:

      Of course I am. First, My baby powder or foot spray would blind you for a couple of minutes. Or my head lamp could disorient you.

      Then I go to work.

      My laptop could knock you out.

      My pens could penetrate your brain through either your ears, eyes, or nose.

      The straps on my bag could easily choke you.

      And the bag itself could probably suffocate you.

      My laptop charger cable could certainly choke you.

      And my car keys are great for causing blinding eye damage.

      And my pencil sharpener has a blade which I've already loosened up for fast access and use.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    63. Re:Really? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      First point: airplanes fly with holes in the fuselage, sometimes big ones. It isn't good, and a big enough hole can suck someone out who isn't buckled in, but it isn't going to bring the plane down.

      Second point: shaped charges are, well, shaped. Laptops are thin, and particularly if they have to still look functional there's not much room for shapes.

      Third point: pressed against the fuselage how? Explosions tend to vent in the easiest way, so you really do have to hold it to the fuselage pretty tightly. Assuming it's open, so the attacker can press a key, that means holding it with one hand.

      I'm not an explosives expert, but these claims are really dubious-looking in addition to being unsourced.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    64. Re:Really? by j-beda · · Score: 1

      In the cargo hold, the attacker cannot control the location of a bomb in a laptop.

      Right, because an attacker would never have someone working as part of the ground crew for the aircraft.

      And of course if part of the ground crew was working at it, they could probably just bring the bomb in by themselves - the ground crew is minimally screened.

    65. Re: Really? by caseih · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you mean by scared of being voted out. Thanks to decades of gerrymandering, nearly all seats in the house and most on congress are now "safe" seats that will never change, and the only threat to the individual congress person comes from competition in the primaries from other members of their own party. It would take a lot of public dissatisfaction to get these members voted out. Especially since voting them out depends on voting for the wrong color.

      If you mean scared of losing the majority, yes that has a lot more sway, and the party holds a lot of power over the individual congresscritters. As a team, they do want to appear to being the right things, even if they are exactly the wrong things.

    66. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AHHHH!!! There's your stringent screaming ;)

    67. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how much more dripping the sarcasm can get in GP.

    68. Re: Really? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      True, but at present that's not among the available choices.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    69. Re:Really? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The bombs are not powerful enough to kill people if they are in baggage compartment. They would damage a bunch of luggage and that's about it. They are hollowing out about 1/2 a battery which is only a few ounces of explosive. Even in a shaped charge that's only going to be destructive for the first foot or so.

    70. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here here. I'm a physics grad student at the University of Oxford with an unknown IQ, and I agree with everything in your post.

    71. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the overreaction to EgyptAir flight MS804:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_804

      http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/french-investigators-egyptair-ms804-crash-accident-170506065032076.html

      I remember quite clearly the reports at the time claiming that "US sources thought there was a terrorism link" and Egypt jumped on it themselves.

      Of course it wasn't terrorism at all.

      The US has lost all credibility in all things.

    72. Re:Really? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They can detect a laptop shell that's filled with C4. The concern is about hiding C4 (or whatever) in the nooks and crannies inside.

    73. Re:Really? by Megol · · Score: 1

      Don't forget your muscles that can be used to accelerate your limbs.

    74. Re:Really? by itchybrain · · Score: 1

      ... and fill it full of some explosive that's been shaped into a shaped charge, set one of the keys or switchs to detonate it.

      Would that be the 'Esc' or Ctrl-Alt-Delete?

    75. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bottles are actually better weapons when you keep them in one piece (and preferably full).
      They're much better clubs than daggers.

    76. Re:Really? by Do+You+Smell+That · · Score: 1
      My absolute favorite was in Switzerland.

      ...my container of Ovomaltine Crunchy Cream (think chocolate spread) was confiscated for "being a liquid" ("but sir, you could open that and turn it over and nothing would happen" - "yes but I could spread it with my knife, i'm sorry").

      3 minutes later, 50' from my gate, I can buy a glass 750ml bottle of 62%ABV liquor, and a lighter, in the same store.

      --
      I'm not good at making signatures...
    77. Re:Really? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      In most airports they confiscate lighters at the security gates...

  9. Who brings any electronict to the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't want them holding you up in customs. Put your data on the net, buy a new machine in the USA and download your shit.

    1. Re:Who brings any electronict to the USA? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Not everyone can afford to buy a new machine with every trip. Even if they can, that's a lot of additional expense. Easier to just wipe the same machine and reinstall an empty operating system when you go through, along with a tiny number of files so the customs people don't get cranky.

    2. Re:Who brings any electronict to the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to set up a laptop rental service in airports. Or maybe the car rental places can branch out.

        (For an exra fee, they'll download your data for you and it will be set to go when you pick it up. For an even higher fee, they won't pass on a copy to the NSA or add a bunch of malware in the process.)

    3. Re:Who brings any electronict to the USA? by tungstencoil · · Score: 1

      Isn't this... a different discussion or a different mitigation tactic? Wipe-and-bring means... wait for it... you have to bring it. Granted, you can pack it away, but then why buy a new, wiped machine? This is about having the laptop in the main cabin, not customs inspecting or confiscating your laptop (admittedly a problem, but a different problem.

    4. Re:Who brings any electronict to the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old thinkpads: $100-150. Clloud/git storage. That's how I plan to work this. Or just not take a laptop period and borrow/rent something at my destination and RDP into my local machines for work. Fucking pain in the ass.

  10. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn Laptoppers. With their high falootin' computers in a briefcase and their hi-fi why-fi.

    Ban them all!

  11. This is a big boon... by Nova+Express · · Score: 1

    ...to inflight alcoholic beverage sales.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:This is a big boon... by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      And joining the mile-high club.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
  12. Could be more sinister by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This gets laptops out of your possession at border crossings. Lock up your data. And as the airlines specifically say expensive items should be carried on, not general baggage will the government foot the bill for air travel related theft of your $4000 laptop? Unintended consequences.

    1. Re:Could be more sinister by qbast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is not uncommon for TSA agents to help themselves to valuables from checked luggage.

    2. Re:Could be more sinister by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it doesn't. I've never been through a border crossing where you didn't have to claim your luggage, go through the border crossing, then recheck it. And even if there is a country on earth that doesn't require this, having been through US customs many times, I promise you the US does.

    3. Re:Could be more sinister by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      How is it unintended? The TSA is part of the government. When the government makes it easier to steal your laptop then steals your laptop it's hard to call that unintended.

    4. Re:Could be more sinister by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      But you feel safe, right? Right?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    5. Re:Could be more sinister by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try travelling to EU and you'd be surprised.

    6. Re:Could be more sinister by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yea, that's EU's rules, but only if you are coming from another EU country.. Which are "special" (as in short bus special) and required as part of being a member...

      I assure you, MOST countries I've been to do it the same way the US does and the UK did it this way too last time I was there (although this was 10 years ago).

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Could be more sinister by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I travel mostly from the US to somewhere in the EU. Not once have I ever entered the EU without having to collect my luggage and then go through border control. Countries included in this list: UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands. Every one of those I had to. Now, once you enter the Schengen Treaty countries, yes, you don't have to, but that's because the EU has decided that there fundamentally aren't borders between Schengen Treaty countries. But seeing that the UK isn't one of the treaty countries, want to guess what you have to do with luggage when you go from the UK to mainland Europe or the other way around?

    8. Re:Could be more sinister by cnettel · · Score: 1

      I travel mostly from the US to somewhere in the EU. Not once have I ever entered the EU without having to collect my luggage and then go through border control. Countries included in this list: UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands. Every one of those I had to. Now, once you enter the Schengen Treaty countries, yes, you don't have to, but that's because the EU has decided that there fundamentally aren't borders between Schengen Treaty countries. But seeing that the UK isn't one of the treaty countries, want to guess what you have to do with luggage when you go from the UK to mainland Europe or the other way around?

      Incorrect, I've flown multiple times with British Airways between continental Europe and destinations in the US. I've never needed to touch my checked baggage at LHR, it's been checked all the way in both directions. I've also flown from continental Europe to Glasgow with an LHR transit. Checked all the way. But, hey, even if the UK is outside Schengen, the country is part of the customs union (for now...).

    9. Re:Could be more sinister by guyniraxn · · Score: 1
      And when you get home and report it, noting the number written on the TSA search notification, they give you the runaround and deny any responsibility.

      "Are you sure you packed it?"
      "Well, you need to notify us before you leave the airport, we don't know what's happened since then."

      Get ready for an even greater rash of thefts and zero accountability.

  13. But the terrorists are dumb! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Funny

    They could never ever figure out a way to bring down a plane with a laptop bag, if you check the bag in, instead of carrying it into the cabin. Man! Our security agencies are truly ingenious to find a chink in their armor and to exploit it fully! We need to thank our lucky stars we are under the vigilant and effective aegis of our alphabet soup agencies!

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:But the terrorists are dumb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea being if it were in the passenger compartment, they could hold it against a specific portion of the plane, in a specific orientation, for maximum effect, vs in the baggage compartment, they don't know it's location or orientation.

    2. Re:But the terrorists are dumb! by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      They don't need to bring down a plane to cause terror, they only need to cause mass public fear. I'm sure anything that actually explodes in the cargo hold, even if no one is hurt, would be counted as a huge success.

    3. Re:But the terrorists are dumb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorists are usually a separate group from fashionistas who could bring the wrongly colored laptop bags into the plane and cause such a commotion with their crimes against fashion that the plane have no change of staying in the air. The yelling, the crying and the hand bags at dawns will cause the flight crew to hang themselves on their less than color coordinated neckties and stab their eyes with their heels, if any.

  14. The only terrorists they've stopped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were those groomed by the FBI, in over twelve years. Now with Trump white nationalism is again at the fore-front.

  15. The baggage compartment, awesome fix by enjar · · Score: 1

    The evildoers will listen to the instructions of the flight crew and place their electronics in airplane mode so they can't communicate with anything. They would also never dream of bringing about communication devices that are not FAA certified and that might interfere with the airplane's electronic systems.

    Honestly my nine year old could figure out ways some evildoer could make this work.

    1. Re:The baggage compartment, awesome fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing that the amount of explosives that could be packed into a laptop (or laptop battery) wouldn't be enough to bring down a plane if it's at some random location in a cargo hold (as opposed to right next to the skin of the plane).

  16. Re:US is a global joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as are you, coward

  17. Security theater by qbast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why do I put my whole carry-on baggage including a laptop through x-ray anyway?

    1. Re:Security theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably nothin to do with explosives... it's just to decrease the amount porn they have to endure when forcing people to decrypt their shit.

    2. Re:Security theater by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      So the gate agents can marvel that your laptop has a graphics card. Like they did with mine. With a long line of passengers and only two gates. I was more flattered than I should have been but mostly really annoyed at how inefficient TSA is.

    3. Re:Security theater by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Why do I put my whole carry-on baggage including a laptop through x-ray anyway?

      So that the occasional, random x-ray can partially absorb, kicking up a electron to a higher energy level, especially one in the field of a memory-related FET in your laptop, resulting in a latch-up in your sleeping laptop, and totally screwing-up your business presentation that you were planning to give upon arrival.

      Rare, but possible, especially at the CMOS nodes we're at these days. X-rays are just mostly harmless to electronic devices. The newer your tech, the more susceptible.

      Caveat: Of course, a stray cosmic ray during flight might yield the same result, while your computer sits at your feet during the flight.

    4. Re:Security theater by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Devils advocate for this stupid decision but would you be able to tell the difference between a small explosive and a lithium battery? I would imagine not.

    5. Re:Security theater by Coopjust · · Score: 1

      To scan for prohibited items, but a CT scanner (used on checked baggage) can see everything three dimensionally which (according to the articles I've read) makes it a lot easier to distinguish prohibited/dangerous items in baggage, versus x-rays which see from one angle that cannot be easily changed. They're piloting CT scanners in the US at passenger security screening checkpoints but this is barely anywhere yet.

      I'm not sure how generally it would help in this case, e.g. how a normal battery would appear versus one filled with something else.

    6. Re:Security theater by AaronW · · Score: 1

      I think cosmic rays would be more of a problem since the X-rays used are fairly low energy.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  18. Propaganda much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Daily Beast is hardly a credible source of information - secondly the clickbaity headline is false by even Daily Beasts OWN ARTICLE - AND IN THE POSTED SUMMARY

    DHS said in a statement to The Daily Beast: "No final decisions have been made on expanding the restriction on large electronic devices in aircraft cabins;"

  19. Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a US academic who is deeply concerned about people not willing or wanting to go to US conferences, this is going to make everything much worse. We've had enough trouble as is trying to get people to keep going to conferences here given the current climate. This is going to make it much harder.

    1. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Hizonner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Move the conferences. The US is no longer a viable venue.

    2. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a US academic who is deeply concerned about people not willing or wanting to go to US conferences, this is going to make everything much worse. We've had enough trouble as is trying to get people to keep going to conferences here given the current climate. This is going to make it much harder.

      Are there no sufficient qualified people within the US who can attend your conferences? I have read lots of papers written by graduate students and presumably academics over the years. I notice a lack of originality and quality in most of those research papers often with persons educated in certain overseas countries.

    3. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunately that doesn't really help. The problem then becomes one of how conference attendees from the US bring their laptops with them to overseas venues as, for better or worse, the US currently has a lot of people that are in demand at or need to attend global academic/industry/scientific conferences. The most likely outcome of this is that interaction between US delegates and those of other nations will decline - both through US delegates being unwilling to travel overseas or overseas delegates being unwilling to travel to the US. That, in turn, has a fairly obvious eventual net result that an increasingly isolated US will eventually start to lose out on the benefits that interaction brings.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Hizonner · · Score: 1

      Well, so far, you could hold it anywhere else in the Americas. Canada's nice.

      I mean, I imagine they'll get around to screwing that up, too, but they haven't said that yet.

      The thing is that the US really isn't a viable venue any more without the laptop thing.

    5. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially if you are brown or your name ends in an i.

    6. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Canada or Mexico, where the Americans can drive to join in?

    7. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by OldMugwump · · Score: 1

      Where have you been since 9/11? That happened 15 years ago.

      --
      "Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."
    8. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Goes beyond academia. I visit the US regularly for work and traveling with goddamn cellphones has been a concern for months now.

      I have no idea what you guys are doing anymore.

    9. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      The problem then becomes one of how conference attendees from the US bring their laptops with them to overseas venues

      Couldn't you just mail it to your hotel?

    10. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely right, since global academic/industry/scientific conferences were totally impossible and unheard of before laptops were invented...

    11. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      The problem then becomes one of how conference attendees from the US bring their laptops with them to overseas venues

      Is this a trick question? They check the laptop in with the rest of the luggage.

      Am I missing something? I am planning on going to a scientific conference to the US this year, and the issue seems trivially "solved", but maybe you had something other in mind?

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    12. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Baggage simply going missing in transit. It happens a lot, despite regulations about planes taking off without a match of luggage to boarded passengers.
      Laptops are fragile. Baggage handlers often do not treat checked luggage as if it's remotely fragile, especially if it looks as if can "take it".
      Allegations of TSA agents using their magic keys to steal expensive items that show up on x-rays of checked luggage.
      Possibilities for espionage - if they know who and why you are travelling (which they do) it's trivial to pull the bag and backdoor the device, but see below.
      Laptops/tablets are the majority case, but the ban also applies to other electronics too. $4,000 laptop? Try $40,000+ of pro-camera gear...
      It's blatent security theatre that could be removed with more intensive screening of the suspect equipment, using dedicated security aisles if need be.

      Yeah, you're missing something. Best solution, assuming you can't afford to risk losing your data/gear, is to freight it in a case with some tamper detection facilities before you travel - that can also include insurance against loss/damage, so you'll get much gentler handling as a result. For instance, put some of that anti-tamper tape that comes apart when you try and remove it over the clasp of your laptop case within the main package - this also works as a countermeasure for the espionage possibility above as you'll at least *know* they might have done something. And no, downloading your data from the cloud doesn't help against TSA inspection of the device if they've managed to backdoor it.

      Maybe this fear of laptop bombs is justified, maybe it's actually/also a cover for something else - espionage, airline protectionism, whatever - but there are much better approaches for dealing with this that don't entail the kind of blow-back, passenger confusion, and frustration this will bring. The US (and the UK, who will no doubt dutifully follow suit given May's penchant for overzealous anti-privacy/security legislation) just seem determined to shoot themselves in the foot as a destination that people actually want to travel to from choice - the US at least can probably deal with the fallout of that, but with the UK leaving the EU and looking to forge new relationships with other countries this is about the dumbest thing they can possibly do. Hopefully, the rest of the world isn't going to go along with this - or will adopt a more sane security approach - at which point we'll have an absolute data point to whether or not the approach is justified or not - the terrorists will go after the softer targets, won't they?

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    13. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by cazzazullu · · Score: 1

      This has already happened. Many conferences are on a yearly Asia - Europe - USA cycle (one year in Asia, next year Europe, next year USA, repeat), for instance several large IEEE conferences and workshops. Some of these have already decided to cut out the USA, and go on a Asia - Europe cycle. The number of registrants for this year's conferences in the USA has dramatically declined, with many countries simply no longer bothering to attend at all. Several Pakistani and Iranian colleagues already had major trouble getting visa for attending conferences in the USA (as in, they never get any), and now they simply gave up completely. Others who work at US universities no longer dare to go home for vacation or family visits, afraid that they cannot return. These are some brilliant scientists by the way.

      Even many European colleagues no longer bother, as they have simply become afraid of the USA border and security theater. Last year in Los Angeles, two out of five of my colleagues got held up for 12 hours at the airport for no apparent reason (it turned out one of them had a name familiar to someone on a list, and the second's passport was erroneously on some list as well). They had Israeli and UK nationalities, and nothing that could flag them as suspicious (well behaved, well spoken, well dressed white folks, on an incoming European flight). These stories move quickly in the conference crowd, drawing nothing but disgust, and going to a USA conference is now almost considered a liability.

      Also the opposite seems to happen: Recent workshops in Europe seem to draw lots of American attention now, with many American researchers now traveling to Europe, which they didn't do in the past. Even these American researchers no longer plan to attend the USA conferences anymore, and I am not talking about some random PhD student, these are the big shots that organize the conferences and give the plenaries.

      --
      int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
    14. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      That's looking like the best option - I've been looking into suitable cases the last few days, because while I'm not actually too fussed about my laptop/tablet compared to my camera gear as I'm seriously into my photography and frequently fly with $40,000+ of camera gear which is also impacted by this, but being without my gear while it's in transit is also a major burden. Assuming that the airlines don't step up to the plate and force a more practical alternative (like optional additional security scanning, for a "small" fee naturally) / get their lobbyists fired up about how this is impacting their business, or other nations threaten en masse to reciprocate against US airlines flying to their countries, then I suspect this is going to become the new global norm. At which point, chances of a rollback are probably right around zero - same as pretty much every other over reaching "because of the terrorists" legislation/regulation passed since 9/11.

      All is not lost though; if that global rollout does happen, then I suspect we'll see a cottage industry spring up of "hardware for hire" and "ship to airport" type services (collect your pre-shipped equipment directly from our facility in the Arrivals Hall!). Of course all that is going to involve a lot of expense that, for many, will probably be factored right into the reasons for just not going, or going somewhere else - it doesn't help at all with the problems of increasing isolation from the global community that this policy will foster.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    15. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of Golf Resorts outside of America pick one

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    16. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, though even this is a rather US-centric vision. Traveling to the US already is a pain in the ass because of the (useless) checks, fingerprints etc. As far as I can see the hassle and bullshit introduced by the US for foreigners is WAY worse than the other way around. Therefore you are correct: if the US keeps bullying others the way it does, it will end up isolated.

    17. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buwahahaha... Trump and science.

    18. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well most Americans can't really, it's a big country, but they can still fly there.

    19. Re:Sigh. As a US academic this is terrible by houghi · · Score: 1

      Most of the world accepts political refugees. I am sure e.g. Europe will accepts these US delegates as well.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  20. Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by tychoS · · Score: 1

    If the hypothesis is true and some evil badguys can turn a laptop into a bomb capable of bringing down an airplane, why will laptops be banned from the cabin only?

    Why is a "bomb-concealed-as-laptop" not a threat to the airplane when carried in the cargo compartment of the airplane inside someones checked luggage?

    1. Re:Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are using explosion absorbing containers in the cargo compartments these days. I would like to see the test of such container as it is being exposed to a laptop concealed shaped charge. For the peace of mind and the excitement, of course.

    2. Re: Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Containers in the cargo compartment? Don't be ridiculous, they aren't using cargo containers in years

    3. Re:Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have it with you in the cabin, you can hold it up to the wall of the plane in your window seat. If it's checked, it will be packed in a container full of other baggage, in the middle of the hold. The first can do much more damage to the plane than the second likely would.

    4. Re:Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you can use bomb-proof (more accurately, "explosion resistant") baggage containers in the hold.

      Yes, they exist.

    5. Re:Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the cargo hold, I have no incentive to make it look like a laptop. If we assume I can get stuff past the scans (which I would equally have to be able to do to use a laptop bomb), then I can put 50 pounds of explosive in there, disguised as whatever plausible object I want.

      50 pounds of RDX or whatever is a lot. I don't know, but it seems like it probably wouldn't be feasible to contain that, period.

    6. Re:Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I prefer "explosion mitigating," but yes, they DO exist. I can't recall the last time a plane was lost due to a cargo area bomb.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    7. Re: Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fuck? They use containers TODAY.

    8. Re:Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by Strider- · · Score: 1

      The bombing of Air India flight 189. It was the deadliest terrorist incident involving an aircraft prior to the September 11th attacks. The bomb was concealed inside a piece of stereo equipment being shipped as baggage. It detonated in the forward compartment of the aircraft, and caused it to break up at 31,000' off the coast of Ireland.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    9. Re:Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I can't recall the last time a plane was lost due to a cargo area bomb.

      I can: Pan Am 103.

    10. Re:Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Exactly... nearly 30 years ago. That and Pan Am 103 spurred the creation of these bomb mitigating cargo containers. Haven't heard of another such incident in decades.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    11. Re:Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Exactly - a LONG time ago.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    12. Re: Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're complaining that it has had the desired effect?!?

    13. Re: Banned in the cabin but OK in checked luggage? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pointing out, if you follow this thread, that it's not just as dangerous to put a potential laptop bomb in the cargo hold (not that I agree with this at all).

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  21. Next up: by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Banning stand-alone DVD players, cell phones and hand-help games (basically anything with a battery). Traveling with kids is going to be really fun. Also, anyone looking forward to checking their laptop along with baggage?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Next up: by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      seat back scenes to come back?
      maybe even have sky Vegas with slots / blackjack and more at your seat with comps like free flights / free beer / free food and more just swipe your card and play!. must be 18 to play the tables or slots. For the kids we have the fun games zones for only $2.99-$10.99 a flight.
      movies from $2.99 to $19.99 for stuff still in the theaters.

    2. Re:Next up: by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Traveling with kids is going to be really fun.

      That's why God invented Benadryl.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Next up: by snookiex · · Score: 1

      And they will eventually ban my terrorist watch :(

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
  22. No problem Donald by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just use my oversized phone with my Bluetooth keyboard.

  23. Re:lulz by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Yeah, this is actually kinda funny. I suppose it's too late to short your airline stocks though. I guess there's enough domestic business to keep them afloat.

    I hope there would be significant economic fallout from this, but given the history of such things, I don't really expect much reaction at all.

    Maybe the airlines can build tablets into the seat backs.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  24. Just dose everyone with ketamine by swb · · Score: 1

    It'll make it easier for the crew, too.

    1. Re:Just dose everyone with ketamine by avandesande · · Score: 2

      Extra ketamine for the crew!

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Just dose everyone with ketamine by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      It's called mescaline. It's the only way to fly.

  25. Mission Creep by Froggels · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if that's the right word for it, but this seem to be yet another step in the wrong direction. I wonder how much more restrictive our lives will become before people start to wake up to what is going on?

  26. they won already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the terrorists already won, the US isn't free anymore. mission accomplished.

  27. Completely untenable by kschendel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this is true, I'm horrified that the airlines would put up with having all those lithium batteries in uncontrolled luggage in the cargo hold. If it were my airline I'd refuse the fly the routes. I certainly won't get on a plane full of cargo hold batteries. I'm equally horrified that any business would put up with the loss of time and potential loss of assets due to theft, never mind the potential loss of employees if a cargo fire brings down a plane.

    This will be a huge boon to Canadian air travel. If this astounding idiocy is enacted, my Europe travel will all be going through Toronto, assuming that it occurs at all.

    1. Re:Completely untenable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot agree more... most transporter forbid Lithium batteries when shipping and we are going to put all this nice unsecured batteries in the cargo where nothing can be done if the catch fire. We will thanks DHS for the first airplane to go down in flame (very likely in the same way as the EgyptAir 804).

    2. Re:Completely untenable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that there is much danger from Li-ion batteries in isolation in the cargo hold, as a single battery catching fire is not likely to cause a catastrophic fire. I think that it's only a bunch of batteries in close proximity that pose a danger, where one battery on fire would cause a much bigger fire by setting all of the adjacent batteries on fire. But I may be too trusting...

    3. Re:Completely untenable by kschendel · · Score: 1

      Laptops will get shoved into suitcases, where they will ignite clothing. Just one isn't likely to crash an airplane, but just one in the passenger compartment -- whether fire or explosive -- isn't bringing down a plane either. It's a lot easier to properly contain a battery fire when you can handle it. Even a smoky cargo fire would be a massive loss to the airline, which will already be hurting due to reduced flights. This whole notion is crazy and I really don't know what sort of asshole would think it's even semi reasonable.

    4. Re:Completely untenable by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Well, you're generally correct. The problem is that, when everyone has to check their laptops, there will be many such batteries in close proximity where they can chain-react.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    5. Re:Completely untenable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly what i was thinking.. exchange explosives for thermite. plane burning to the ground just as effective as plane blowing up.

    6. Re:Completely untenable by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1

      This will be a huge boon to Canadian air travel. If this astounding idiocy is enacted, my Europe travel will all be going through Toronto, assuming that it occurs at all.

      I guess the US will arm-wrestle Canada into introducing the same regulation, as has already happened with visas for citizens of "visa-free" countries (a.k.a. electronic travel authorisation).

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
  28. Will they cover damage / theft and loss by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Will they cover damage / theft and loss? of them in checked bags? Will they only do it with an $20-$50 laptop checked bag service?

    Will business people sneak them on board.

    Will business pay for overnight shipping with fedex / ups for them to have insurance on them that the airlines will not have?

  29. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evidence of the issue and counter it solution.

    But its easier to cause scare then charge more for tickets for a non working solution.
     

  30. Can't Check Either by crow · · Score: 3, Informative

    The big catch here is that you aren't allowed to check li-ion batteries. So you can't bring a laptop from Europe to the USA at all.

    1. Re:Can't Check Either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If memory serves you can't check li-ion batteries that aren't in a device. I.e. loose batteries. The reason is that it is easy for them to come into contact with something that will short their terminals and ignite the battery. If it is a built in battery, or even just a battery inserted properly into a laptop I don't think there will be a problem.

    2. Re:Can't Check Either by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      They didn't say you couldn't carry on the batteries. So check the laptop and carry one the batter? Maybe it's an anti-Apple play for them not playing ball on backdooring phones. ;-)

    3. Re:Can't Check Either by Repentinus · · Score: 1
      Incorrect.
      49 CFR 175.10(a)(18):

      [...] Portable electronic devices powered by lithium batteries may be carried in either checked or carry-on baggage. Spare lithium batteries must be carried in carry-on baggage only. [...]

    4. Re:Can't Check Either by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t...

      FAA says batteries in equipment are OK. Spare Li-ion carry-on only.

    5. Re:Can't Check Either by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The big catch here is that you aren't allowed to check li-ion batteries.

      Yes you are providing they are within a device. You're not allowed to check spare li-ion batteries. There's an FAA Q&A here:
      https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...

    6. Re:Can't Check Either by Coopjust · · Score: 1

      A lot of laptops these days like modern Macbooks and many PC Ultrabooks like the Lenovo X1 Carbon / X1 Yoga don't have removable batteries.

    7. Re:Can't Check Either by Coopjust · · Score: 1

      Never mind, misread your comment. In equipment is okay, those would qualify as in equipment.

      The rule (laptop ban) still seems mind boggling to me. Will affect tons of people from the company I work for. And batteries in equipment are still subject to issue. Look at the Galaxy Note 7.

    8. Re:Can't Check Either by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the exception being e-cigs.

  31. Actually, many business travelers will like this by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Back in the day, flying was one of the few times the traveling businessman got to him(her)self. No computer to work on, no phone calls to make or receive. Then came laptops making it possible to do work on the plane, then in-flight phone calls, and now wireless Internet on flights.

    Banning laptops would mean that the business traveler once again legitimately can't get any work done while flying, and has a good reason not to be reachable for the 8-10 hours of the flight (no computer = no real reason to pay for in-flight wifi). Nothing to do but take some time off work, kick back, relax, and catch a movie or two.

  32. You get what you deserve. by fred6666 · · Score: 0

    They voted for Macron instead of Le Pen, so we might as well make the whole continent pay for that mistake, isn't it?

    1. Re:You get what you deserve. by Lisandro · · Score: 2

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

      Looks like he's on the right track if you ask me.

    2. Re:You get what you deserve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the floors of the EU Commission:
      -All for one, one for all!
      -Shut up, Porthos!

    3. Re: You get what you deserve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't you think Putin would choose something more direct as a revenge? Few French people would realise this would be their punishment for not voting for the Kremlin-backed lunatic, so it seems somewhat pointless.

  33. Well... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

    If there weren't enough reasons already, this completely cinches it. No way in hell I'm flying to the US so long the current administrations lasts.

    There's no way I'm checking in my laptop, and there's no reason to bring my money to a place that is going to great lengths to make me feel unwelcome.

    1. Re:Well... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      " there's no reason to bring my money to a place that is going to great lengths to make me feel unwelcome."

      This new restriction isn't even necessary. We already have the TSA to make everyone feel unwelcome, even other Americans.

    2. Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are unwelcomed. Seriously, stay home. We don't want you. We don't want your money.

    3. Re:Well... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      trump hates lithium batteries.

      "make alkalines great again"!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. They'reâ not getting a cent from me as long as they treat their visitors like criminals.

  34. Why just Europe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note - I haven't read tfa.

  35. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    Back in the day, flying was one of the few times the traveling businessman got to him(her)self. No computer to work on, no phone calls to make or receive. Then came laptops making it possible to do work on the plane, then in-flight phone calls, and now wireless Internet on flights.

    Have you tried to work on a laptop in a plane? Unless you're in first class or well under 6ft and near anorexic individual, forget it.

    Nothing to do but take some time off work, kick back, relax, and catch a movie or two.

    And what movie would that be? The in flight entertainment (where available, not guaranteed, etc)

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  36. Typical knee-jerk SLASHDOT reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Don't read the article and links provided there in.
    2) Pretend your an expert on everything.
    3) Assume the government is ALWAYS out to get YOU.
    4) Complain about something the government has done that doesn't actually materially affect your ability to travel/live.
    5) ?...not sure how though

    Asking questions that a answerable by simply reading the article & related articles should be banned from Slashdot.

    I'm not fan of 'security theater' any more than anyone else on /. but:

    1) There is clear evidence that terrorists figured out how to make a laptop battery in to a bomb that is not easily detectable via standard screening.
    2) Putting them in the cargo-hold may not help much but a 'little bit' may help as the cargo hold where they are kept may not be pressurized.
    3) Requiring airplane manufacturers to build better cargo holds to guard against an explosion better is FAR easier than doing the same thing for a pressurized cabin full of people.

    1. Re:Typical knee-jerk SLASHDOT reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is clear evidence that terrorists figured out how to make a laptop battery in to a bomb that is not easily detectable via standard screening.

      Sure there is son. Sure there is.

    2. Re:Typical knee-jerk SLASHDOT reaction by ledow · · Score: 2

      I'm not an expert. Nor do I care about the government out to get me. If they want me, it's quite easy to get me.

      However... this would greatly affect my ability to travel. My laptop is my only saviour from the noisy, rude idiots around me, the cabin crew that want to CONSTANTLY interrupt me and make me do things, and the sheer boredom of many hours of sitting in a too-small seat that I have to disturb a stranger to move from.

      Literally, you just removed my state-of-the-art entertainment system with movies, TV, radio, games, working environment, and replaced it with...? A pack of fucking cards, basically.

      Already I would have to ensure my laptop had NO WORK MATERIAL WHATSOEVER to travel to the US. Literally, I would have to break EU law to comply with US law in that case. I would possibly be asked to give up details that literally no-one else on Earth has any need or just cause to know without requiring a warrant issued by a court.

      And now you want to take the only vestige of being able to entertain myself away. This adds massive amount of stress to an incredibly boring journey, which can only be escaped by using functions which may well start to become pay-for (e.g. in-flight movies, loan of tablets and the like).

      Literally, this kind of crap would eliminate air travel for me just from the UK to, say, France. I just wouldn't bother. I'd rather get in my car, take five times as long and drive it myself. I already hate the 2 hour flight to Italy because of all the crap associated with wanting to sit in a metal box and be in Italy in 2 hours time (which often requires 4 additional hours of travel, parking, bus from the parking to the terminal, getting in plenty of time before arrival, sitting around doing fuck all, collecting luggage, etc. etc. etc.).

      I am buy no means a stressed-out loon, but that kind of unnecessary crap drives me mad. If I had malicious intent, I could get on a train with the SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE, with ALMOST ANY LUGGAGE THEY WANT (in any amount their car can carry, including the fuel tank), get enclosed in a similar metal box and still blow it to smithereens and kill the same amount of people and get the same amount of press... and not one bit of the same security theatre applies. The only thing I don't think you can carry in the Channel Tunnel (that's legal to have in the UK, at least) is an LPG car (LPG bottles are fine so long as they are stowed properly in the vehicle - another bit of bollocks that I do not understand).

      I honestly don't give a shit that the terrorists built a bomb. That's what terrorists do. They put them in waste bins in London throughout the 80's. We removed waste bins. Now we have nowhere to throw fucking rubbish away. But people could still commit acts of terrorism.

      The terrorists already won. We're like the kid in the playground who's worked out that if he doesn't bring in his ball, the bullies won't take it from him at break time. Well-fucking-done. How about we reclaim a bit of our dignity?

      Every single "this could be made into a bomb" piece of crap from carrying little silly bottles in little silly plastic bags, to having my shoes scanned, to having to drink baby milk in front of a security officer to "prove" it's milk just makes me fucking hate people that think up the rules, tolerate them, and think we're somehow "winning" against the terrorists by "thwarting" their attacks.

      Guess why there are so many different plots? Because every time you do something, we guard against that. And then people just go "Right, what next? Oh, look, laptops!". Now you have a new threat, massive expense on stupid rules and countermeasures, new crap to make people stand in queues for longer, new bollocks to make me hate my own government and country more for capitulating to it. And then all they do is say "Right... next up... let's put a bomb in a set of headphones."

      This sort of crap puts me off domestic flights in my own country. I'd rather drive for 10 times as long than deal with this kind of shi

    3. Re:Typical knee-jerk SLASHDOT reaction by bankman · · Score: 1

      I am really sorry to say this, but you are making far too much sense for anyone in a position to change things to listen to you. :-(

      --
      I feel so sig.
    4. Re:Typical knee-jerk SLASHDOT reaction by Do+You+Smell+That · · Score: 1

      Guess why there are so many different plots? Because every time you do something, we guard against that. And then people just go "Right, what next? Oh, look, laptops!". Now you have a new threat, massive expense on stupid rules and countermeasures, new crap to make people stand in queues for longer, new bollocks to make me hate my own government and country more for capitulating to it. And then all they do is say "Right... next up... let's put a bomb in a set of headphones."

      You shot me back to "Foster, you're dead": https://cochranesfsophomores.f... - one of my favorite Philip K Dick shorts.. more "the soviets" than "the terrorists" but the idea's familiar at this point :-/.

      --
      I'm not good at making signatures...
  37. Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://xkcd.com/651/

  38. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Eh? Back when portable computers came with an implicit assumption that you have a towing hitch there was paperwork. It was work, and it was on paper. I'm not that decrepit and I've spent the odd train journey trying to threeconcile timesheets, invoices & bank statements, reading bastarding bug reports written by bugbrained bastards and the like.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  39. No crayons for the kids either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    since they could be made out of C4.

  40. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by dknj · · Score: 1

    Spotted the guy with a 15" or larger laptop.

    My 13" laptop (macbook air equivalent) allows me to work comfortably in first class, bulkhead and regular economy seats. Seriously, the best upgrade I ever made was a laptop that fits on my lap while seated on a plane. I don't have to hold my arms like a muscular dystrophy patient to use my laptop anymore and I actually WANT to to dev work on the plane. If I get an empty seat next to me (happens a lot on SWA, apparently people don't like my resting bitch face) then bonus, I get to use a mouse!

  41. More damage to US airlines by seoras · · Score: 1

    If you really -must- use your laptop en-route to the US from Europe then Iceland Air, with a little stop over in Keflavik, should at least give you screen time for the 1st half of the journey. Plus you can go take a dip in the blue lagoon in between flights. :)

    This is just another nail in the coffin for US airlines.
    I stopped flying via the US (NZ - UK) due to the un-necessary harassment travellers have to endure just changing flights in the US, let alone entering the country.
    I fly via Dubai with Emirates.

    1. Re:More damage to US airlines by Xest · · Score: 1

      I recently made this mistake, of booking a flight to Canada via Iceland.

      It all sounds very good, until you realise it's a trap. Come via Iceland they said, get more luggage and cheaper flights they said.

      £700 for 2 fucking nights in a hotel they didn't say. Stopping over Iceland would be good if it wasn't for the fact Iceland is a phenomenal rip off in part because they were allowed to fix their currency for years when it should realistically have been allowed to depreciate as a result of their defacto self-imposed bankruptcy.

      Iceland is a great option if you're happy to pay way over the top for everything and lose far more in accommodation, food, travel, and activity costs, than you'd ever save on the cheap airline.

      It's not that Iceland isn't nice, it's not that I can't afford it, it's that cost/benefit ratio doesn't compute - if I'm going to spend £1500 on accommodation, food, and some activities en-route to North America then I'd rather buy 7 days in the Bahamas with that money, than 3 days in Iceland.

      The only reason we went with it is because we really wanted to dive Silfra, I'd never do it again though as whilst good, it's not remotely good enough relative to the cost.

  42. LOL make up your damn mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First you can't put them in the hold because the battery will catch fire.
    Now they have to go in the hold because they might explode.

  43. Just let them Kill us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. fears that terrorists have found a way to convert laptops into bombs capable of bringing down an airplane

    FINE!!!!!

    Just let them blow us up. I'd prefer it to more security theater. At least we'd go quick.

  44. I can see the logic here by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    After a wave of airline-related incidents like the Dao dragging and the Schear ejection, the FAA is defusing the situation by cutting down the number of people willing to fly to and from popular tourist destinations to perhaps 50 or fewer per flight. A reduced passenger count means that people will be able to sit farther apart, most passengers will get aisle seating, there will be fewer brawls over seat reclining and toilet usage, and the security lines will be shorter.

  45. Can I have the password for your laptop by taniwha · · Score: 1

    Can I have the password so I can look through your laptop?

    No it's in my checked baggage I haven't got to the baggage carousel yet

    They haven't thought this through have they

    1. Re:Can I have the password for your laptop by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Any scanned baggage with a laptop in it will be opened 'randomly', the drive cloned, and everything put back - and you may or may not get a tag on your luggage letting you know they did it.

      Then they'll apply standard cracking against the drive image, which in 99% of cases means mounting it in an OS that doesn't respect its security settings. In the other 1% of cases, they'll decide whether or not to be a little more thorough, and in 99% of THOSE cases, standard utilities will crack them open.

      The other 1%... they'll scoop you up on the return flight if they really want to.

  46. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Reading and movies are things passengers could do on tablets. If these go too, you just have to hope the inflight entertainment will work. The way service is going these days, fat chance.

  47. I just knew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows 10 S was da bomb!

  48. Data extraction, not explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is obviously more about getting laptops out of people's hands, so they can suck the information from them without anyone knowing... It's nothing to do with explosives

  49. Or it's an NSA ploy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hard to tell if the NSA/CIA/FBI accessed your laptop once you can't see it for the next several hours. You may or may not get a "searched by TSA" notice. You know... national security and all...

  50. Security obsession by perfectn · · Score: 1

    Some 30 000 people are killed in car crashes each year in the us alone. Somewhere around 0 people have been killed in terrorist attacks on airliners the last 15 years. The obsession of airport security clearly have nothing to do with saving people's lives, and everything to do with controlling them.

    1. Re:Security obsession by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      there were plenty of terrorist attacks though in that time period, some with explosives. just because they were foiled doesn't mean discounting them. if you expand your cherry-picked timescale to 17 years we get another result, don't we?

  51. New TSA restrictions within US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flew out of a small Pacific Northwest airport Sunday, and TSA wanted all electronics larger than a cell phone removed from carry-on and placed in a tray like you currently do with a laptop. Passengers were told that this rule would be instituted in the US shortly. Because I live overseas in a country where it is hard obtain electronics, I was laden with about 10 single board PC's, 6 2.5" SSD & HDD's and many misc. items... much hilarity ensured. The TSA seemed most interested in a 3.5" HD I was carrying and my kindle fire. This is probably a first step to a laptop ban within the US also.

    CAPCHA:merciful

  52. Bennett Haselton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone remember Bennett and his frequent use of /. to post his blog that no one cared about and hated?

    Anyone notice a pattern with Creimer? He frequently posts his blog and never has anything intelligent to post to /.. In addition he is doing it all day while at his "government job". You taxpayers in CA are being ripped off illegally by this idiot charging CA hours while posting his bullshit here.

    Bennett Haselton has returned!

    1. Re:Bennett Haselton by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      You taxpayers in CA are being ripped off illegally by this idiot charging CA hours while posting his bullshit here.

      What three-letter agency do you think I work for in the state of CA?

    2. Re:Bennett Haselton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're clearly a loser at FAT (as opposed to of fat). Hot damn your life is depressing shit. Good job not having ambition for anything besides cheese dogs from birth. Do you chew them or just deep throat that shit? What is it like to have no neck? What's it like to have even the ugliest of girls look at you and want to throw up? Have you looked in the mirror at any point and gone "holy shit, how did I get to look like a stuffed children's toy?"

      Most importantly - why do you think having been in special ed, getting kicked out of college, and having the job of an intern, qualifies you to talk to programmers with a CS degree, AIX admins, storage architects, and DBAs?

      Oh... Need some clarification here on a previous comment of yours. Please explain to us again how you think FCoE means upgrading your Windows OS to the next version. That was creamer gold. I think that's the post where you said installing a tier 1 storage array is giving it a push to it's spot on the grid. Tell me - you two being the same weight and you being a vigrin at 40 - did you fuck it when no one was looking? Did you fuck it in the receive side of the FCoE port? Give it an upgrade did you? A "creamer" if you will. Admit it. Creamer is because you jack off 3 times a day.

    3. Re:Bennett Haselton by Megol · · Score: 1

      MiB?

  53. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by thsths · · Score: 2

    You have not seen the new economy seating then. The seat in front is right in your face, and your elbows are entangled with the neighbor. How would you fit a laptop in there? I never managed to use more than a tablet, and even that is going to be banned now.

    Except it isn't, because the headline is pure click bait. Seriously, can slashdot get any worse?

  54. simulated altitude: 4000m by DrYak · · Score: 2

    They do. I believe that they run at 0.7 atmospheres. It makes people sleepy and docile.

    I'm a ski instructor, you insensitive clod!*
    3'800m is a pretty normal altitude for me.

    I'm not abnormally sleepy at 4000m.

    ---

    Well at least that's my week-end hobby.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  55. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    time to starting dodging the US when crossing the Atlantic, Canada is a good alternative.

  56. TSA's nightmare by DrYak · · Score: 1

    The Chinese laptops are always suspect. You never know what's in the firmware.

    ...nor whats's in battery, and if that one isn't going to spontaneously combust.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  57. Re:US is a global joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone in the US voted for Trump.

    Not only that, most of the people who did take the time to vote didn't vote for Trump.

  58. Re:US is a global joke by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Not only that, most of the people who did take the time to vote didn't vote for Trump.

    I read somewhere but never confirmed it with another source that 2/3 of Americans didn't care who won the American Revolution. If that's true, it would explain 2/3 of Americans not voting in most elections.

  59. Soccer Mom mentality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soccer Mom mentality.
    This is the same craziness that the anti-vaccine types use to scare people.

  60. Gotta ship em back in separate non psgr flights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huge cargo drones?

  61. Re: Actually, many business travelers will like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course Slashdot can get worse. They could hire more editors like msmash and BeauHD.

  62. Europe needs to ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... reciprocate.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Europe needs to ... by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      No need. All those Americans wanting to get back home are going to suffer the same restrictions.

    2. Re:Europe needs to ... by cazzazullu · · Score: 1

      ... reciprocate.

      No, someone has to be the adult. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

      --
      int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
    3. Re:Europe needs to ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Except for the last guy because the second last guy is already blind and will unlikely be of threat to the last guy with his eyes still intact.

    4. Re:Europe needs to ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:Europe needs to ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Some people need tough love.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  63. Please go all the way and just ban all flights. by ffkom · · Score: 1

    After all, the rest of the world has plenty of nice, welcoming places to go to, and I'm perfectly fine to restrict business contacts to the the Hysterial States of America to video conferencing.

  64. It would be better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... to just ban the passengers. They're the real problem.

  65. Re: Actually, many business travelers will like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My US company's policy is that I must have control of my laptop at all times. That includes putting it in a locked area. But it does not include putting it in luggage and handing it over to random baggage handlers. Because they are allowed to break locks on luggage, and regularly do.

  66. Re: US is a global joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet this actually transcends party lines and was planned by officials who were put in place by the Obama administration.

    We continue to approach a state of constant surveillance and control and Americans continue to refuse to accept any personal responsibility.

  67. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    Back in the day, flying was one of the few times the traveling businessman got to him(her)self. No computer to work on, no phone calls to make or receive.

    Having seen many a business traveler back in the day working his way through a stack of papers at 30,000 feet... you have no idea what you're talking about.

  68. Comes with Safety Risks by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Is there actionable intelligence to back up this ban...

    Even if there is actionable intelligence for the plan to work the terrorists have to be able to get the explosive filled laptop past security. If they can do get explosives past inside a laptop case why can't they do the same using clothes, books, shoes etc.? ...and if they can do that unless you ban all electronics you still have a major security problem for which the only solution is background checks for all passengers.

    Requiring laptops to be put in the hold also increases the danger of an unnoticed lithium battery fire which is why we are currently required to have laptops in carry-on baggage and not in checked luggage. So this new security measure is one which carries a increased safety risk so it's something they should only do if there really is a significant terrorist threat.

    1. Re:Comes with Safety Risks by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      If they can do get explosives past inside a laptop case why can't they do the same using clothes, books, shoes etc.?

      The last time someone put explosives in his shoe and try to light it on fire was in 2001. I don't recall a similar incident since then.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_failed_shoe_bomb_attempte

      The only reason exploding batteries are an issue was because of Samsung exploding phones, which you can now buy explosion-proof bags to carry in.

    2. Re:Comes with Safety Risks by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The last time someone put explosives in his shoe and try to light it on fire was in 2001. I don't recall a similar incident since then

      The guy did not put explosives in his shoe. He tried to light a cigarette in the toilet by striking a non-safety match on the sole of his shoe. That requires leather soles, and he had plastic soles, so when the sulphur in the match caught, bits of burning sulphur were embedded in the plastic, and it caught fire.

      The idiot then lied his head off because it is illegal to smoke in the toilets, and the plane crew had probably been over-hyped about terrorist risks and were not old enough to know about non-safety matches.

      In simple terms, the entire business of taking off your shoes for the search is entirely based on gross stupidity - like almost all the airport security policies.

      You are about 100 times more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to the airport than in a terrorist incident in flight. These people have no grip on reality, let alone risk management.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    3. Re:Comes with Safety Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid
      http://theriskyshift.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/shoe-bombs.jpg

      WTF are you talking about? Did you read that on Buzzfeed?

    4. Re:Comes with Safety Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any evidence for this theory? All the mainstream reports say that he had TATP and PETN.

    5. Re:Comes with Safety Risks by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      The last time someone put explosives in his shoe and try to light it on fire was in 2001. I don't recall a similar incident since then

      The guy did not put explosives in his shoe. He tried to light a cigarette in the toilet by striking a non-safety match on the sole of his shoe.

      [citation needed]

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    6. Re:Comes with Safety Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last time someone put explosives in his shoe and try to light it on fire was in 2001. I don't recall a similar incident since then

      The guy did not put explosives in his shoe. He tried to light a cigarette in the toilet by striking a non-safety match on the sole of his shoe. That requires leather soles, and he had plastic soles, so when the sulphur in the match caught, bits of burning sulphur were embedded in the plastic, and it caught fire.

      The idiot then lied his head off because it is illegal to smoke in the toilets, and the plane crew had probably been over-hyped about terrorist risks and were not old enough to know about non-safety matches.

      In simple terms, the entire business of taking off your shoes for the search is entirely based on gross stupidity - like almost all the airport security policies.

      You are about 100 times more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to the airport than in a terrorist incident in flight. These people have no grip on reality, let alone risk management.

      Not according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid

      Unless there was >1 shoe bombers in 2001, the guy was in his seat, had explosives in his shoe, and a fuse. Doesn't sound like a smoke and a strike-anywhere accident to me. The guy pleaded guilty to 8 criminal counts, including attempted destruction of a mass transit vehicle.
      Nobody would plead guilty as a terrorist to avoid a smoking on a plane charge.

    7. Re:Comes with Safety Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

              Re:Comes with Safety Risks (Score:?)
              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, 2017 @02:11PM

              Errrrr... Richard Reid was the failed shoe bomber, and there were indeed explosives in his shoes.

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

              What were you saying about having a grip on reality?

    8. Re:Comes with Safety Risks by bogd · · Score: 1

      Do you have a reference for this? Because Wikipedia (also linked by the parent) seems to contradict you... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    9. Re:Comes with Safety Risks by Megol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about reading the wikipedia article linked in the OP before writing something that is not consistent with the evidence presented at the trial, nor consistent with the information about the case released before and after the trial?

      "Authorities later found over 280 grams (10 oz) of plastic explosives TATP and PETN hidden in the hollowed soles of Reid's black shoes"

      But I guess that's how a normal shoe is constructed according to you?

      BTW checking shoes have been a standard security measure since forever - my uncle commented on the search of his shoes after visiting USSR in the 80's. Guess that's because the Soviets had learned to foresee the future and didn't want anyone to be able to light a match?

  69. Re:US is a global joke by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Why should anyone care who won the American Revolution? Obviously the colonies did. But as that can't be changed, why care? It's like caring about who won the World Series in 1952.

  70. Re:US is a global joke by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Why should anyone care who won the American Revolution?

    You missed the point. If 2/3 of Americans didn't care who won the American Revolution and 2/3 of Americans didn't care who won in 2016, then America is doomed to being controlled by 1/3 of the population that gives a shit.

  71. Re:US is a global joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone in the US voted for Trump.

    Every honest and faithful voter supports Trump because Trump was lawfully elected by the political system in which they put their faith. Voters that reject Trump as president were either voting tactically or they're hypocrites.

    The only people that were not responsible for the outcome are the non-voters. The US could do with more non-voters in my view. It doesn't matter which flavour of monster the system selects, if the voter turnout is south of 1% then that monster will have very little power.

  72. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by AndrewFlagg · · Score: 1

    amen.. i like that.. just unplug.. of course no pay for that day of travel some mucky mucky will say.. there a lots of low fidelity activities that are work related..

  73. Re:US is a global joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if you don't give a shit, why would you necessarily care who is controlling it?

  74. Not racist? by johannesg · · Score: 0

    I gotta ask. The travel ban from _some_ muslim countries was called racist in no uncertain terms by a great many people. What is the travel ban from _all_ European countries going to be called by those same people?

    Given the number of planes blown up by Europeans (zero, as far as I know), are Europeans really considered to be a greater risk than muslims? Or is it merely the immigrant muslim population of Europe that presents a risk here?

    If the last, why are European politicians constantly denying there is any risk from immigrants?

    1. Re:Not racist? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The risk is that the EU is handing out new clean passports to random people who just wonder into the EU and demand new papers with a fictional life story.
      Different nations in the EU have long term travel agreements with the USA, so some random person with a brand "new", clean EU nation passport could just use it to enter the USA.
      The US cant trust the EU nations to look back into the original of all its new "citizens" as they are given perfect new documents by EU nations.
      The EU is randomly handing out some of the most trusted travel documents to random people after a few years of wondering into the EU and having telling a good "story".
      Interesting people are using the EU to create a new clean document trail and then trying to enter the USA on paperwork the US historically trusted.
      The EU has no way of looking back over an illegal migrants history and just creates new documents for them.
      Unless the interesting persons face or biometrics got picked up at some point in the past their new paper work is EU clean.
      Thats the problem for the USA, nations in the EU is offering their own national documents to too many random people without any questions after a few years.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Not racist? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      An interesting theory. Got any actual evidence for it?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:Not racist? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The US Visa Waiver Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... goes back to the late 1980's.
      Nations that once had tight documentation on their own citizens and laws on who could become a citizen.
      e.g. France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and West Germany
      The US thought such nations would have good document control and only let people get their nations travel documents who would pass some security requirements.
      More EU nations got added to the EU and the US considered more EU nations for the same easy travel access to the USA.
      It was all good back in 1991. The EU still had governments that functioned and the US expected travel paperwork issued by a EU nation was secure in each nation.
      Now the EU is flooded with random people demanding EU travel documents.
      Stay in the EU for a while with a good story and create your own new EU documents.
      The US now has to face the reality that EU nations are handing out full EU nation travel documents to random illegal migrants over the years.
      Citizenship of the European Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... has a nice chart with the time it takes to get the needed EU paperwork in different EU nations.
      What the US expected from the EU nations was working system of valid travel documentation within a EU nation as in the late 1980's
      Not a constant flow of illegal migrants getting new travel documents after a few years in the EU with no ability to consider each persons origins or past history.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  75. Re:US is a global joke by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    But if you don't give a shit, why would you necessarily care who is controlling it?

    I vote in every election. If 2/3 of the country doesn't care enough to vote, than we get situations like Trump winning an electoral victory while losing the popular vote. Something that only happened five times in U.S. history.

  76. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by rworne · · Score: 1

    If they ban laptops and tablets, we can revisit the 90's where they charged for in-flight entertainment. No sense to do it now, but if the choice is to sit there for 8+ hours and stare at the free lice capades show on the seat in front of you or pay a fee for the use of the screen in front of you. Or they'll just bring back the weird headphone with the hollow tubes again.

    I've travelled so much over the past few years I've finally learned to sleep on planes. So I actually don't use IFE anymore. I just put on my noise-cancelling headphones and read a book until I get tired if I don't just zonk out before the plane leaves the gate.

    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  77. They want to steal your data by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    This is all about giving three letter agencies a chance to rummage through and or hack your electronic shit without you even knowing.

    Everyone knows a bomb in a laptop leads to substantially similar outcomes no matter location inside the aircraft. If this was actually for safety they would ban laptops from aircraft outright.

    1. Re:They want to steal your data by Megol · · Score: 1

      Yes "everyone" that have no fucking clue knows that. It isn't true and you are either lying or trying to spread your infectious ignorance. The amount of explosives a passenger can get on board is very limited due to the type of chemical screening done today. That means the explosive force have to be placed just right to be a general danger for the plane. By not allowing potential explosive inside the passenger compartment it isn't possible to place the explosive at a sensitive point and the potential danger of the explosive placed into a safety cargo container is limited by being away from passengers, away from sensitive points where a smaller amount of explosives could do critical damage and inside a container that is designed to _partially_ contain an explosion.

      But that is the same thing as having a terrorist wanting to be a "martyr" aiming a shaped charge to maximize the damage to the aircraft, everyone knows that...

  78. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by dknj · · Score: 1

    I use an HP Specrte x360 and I have used it on the new American seats that are the smallest of all the airlines. Bonus, when the flight attendant comes by yelling at me to turn off the laptop, I simply flip it around like I'm in a dell commercial and continue to use it like normal.

    The laptop consistently passes for a tablet (doubly so if I put it in the tsa bin in tablet form) so just as my 1997 Sony Vaio has proven, 10-13" is the sweet spot for laptops. Anything smaller is a toy, anything larger is a desktop.

  79. wtf?! by xokapuz · · Score: 1

    why don't make everyone fly naked and ban all things then? =)

  80. This is stupid. by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

    This is just stupid.

    I'd much rather reduce security, reinforce the cockpit door, and take a 1 in 10 million chance of someone blowing up a plane, even if I am on it. DHS has gone too far on the pendulum between convenience and security. By the way, this is also a great way to kill tourism dollars.

    It's also not like the exploit/vulnerability hasn't been around for decades.

    A moratorium might make sense if they have incredibly specific intelligence, but that's about it.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
  81. Government Printing Office... by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

    Take a guess which three-letter agency I work for — and pray that I don't pay you a visit.

    Not cool, however called for. Oh! Unless you're with the Government Printing Office. :)

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re:Government Printing Office... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Unless you're with the Government Printing Office. :)

      Now I have to bury another body in the Federal Register. :P

    2. Re:Government Printing Office... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we know you call your stomach the "Federal Register." What do you call your dick? Your long lost brother whom you haven't seen in a decade? Hey half-n-half - how much total weight have you lost on your walk-n-candy 5 year diet?

  82. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The title Slashdot and "The Daily Beast" (whatever that is supposed to be) use is sensationalist.

    According to Reuters the ban hasn't occurred, it's being considered.

  83. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by Barnoid · · Score: 2

    True, but what about the all the travelers who have no checked luggage because they don't want to wait for an hour to get it back at the destination (if at all) ?

    I often visit the US for 2-3 days to attend conferences with no other luggage than a small carry-on backpack. Depending on the location, the flight takes between 8 and 12 hours - I am definitely not interested in watching 5 movies back-to-back.

  84. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    "...read a book until I get tired"

    That's exactly what I do on flights, but now I'm going to have to start lugging around physical books again and squinting for the right light to read them by.

  85. Doesn't make sense by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

    How does being forced to check a laptop that is going to explode make the plane any safer? Next up, you will no longer be able to travel with a laptop, period.

    1. Re:Doesn't make sense by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How does being forced to check a laptop that is going to explode make the plane any safer?

      A laptop could not contain enough explosives to bring down a plane from a random location in the plane. It would need to be placed against the fuselage to do enough damage.

      An explosion in the luggage rack merely means that the checked bags end up in the same condition they would have been after the TSA were done with them anyway.

  86. I call BS on that one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a bomb explode the action and reaction goes in both direction. Why pressing a bomb against a fuselage would allow the force to be directed toward the fuselage, when a much weaker point is behind ? Those fuselage are not fragile , the pressure you apply will not be that good. Furthermore slicing the battery while maintaining won't bring you much place and does not have much explosive. I am guessing this is like those "liquid explosive" plot : it was pretended to be doable and thus water confiscated, but when you scratch the surface as a chemist you quickly find it was utterly bullshit.

    1. Re:I call BS on that one by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      A bomb that was apparently in a laptop casing blew a hole in the fuselage and injured two people aside from the suicide bomber. The plane returned safely to the airport. The CNN article says there was a danger to the entire plane, bu the Wikipedia article doesn't. The apparent laptop did not board the plane by normal means, but was given to the bomber by airport workers.

      In this case, the "laptop" needed to pass as one only to a cursory inspection. It didn't have to function, or even open up. The bombers apparently didn't trust it to get on board normally.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  87. The airlines are behind it by stevenm86 · · Score: 1

    You can't bring your laptop, but the airline will rent you one for the low price of $179.99*. Soon they'll be doing it with headphones, too.

    * Gogo in-flight WiFi costs extra

  88. Re:US is a global joke by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

    The only people that were not responsible for the outcome are the non-voters

    They are also responsible for the result, because they were capable of acting, but chose not to act. The people who voted for the loser are not responsible for the outcome, because they acted, and their action did not result in their choice. How can you be responsible for the actions of the winner, when you acted to not put him/her in power?

    if the voter turnout is south of 1% then that monster will have very little power.

    We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Direct Democracy. If only 1% of the population votes in the US, and results in a PotUS, that PotUS has all the power that the CotUS bequeaths to him. It would be a significant amount of power, whether there was 99% participation, 75% participation, 55% participation, 25% participation, or 1% participation.

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  89. Here's a radical and unworkable idea... by wildstoo · · Score: 1

    Why not have passengers and cargo fly separately? All your checked baggage flies on a cargo plane the day before you fly. It's waiting for you at your destination. If you're unable to check your baggage the previous day then you have to expect a delay between your arrival and your baggage's arrival.

    Passenger planes are exactly that: passengers only. Yes, you can take a small carry-on bag with essentials but that's all. Modify plane layout so that you can fit 2 levels of passenger seats into the fuselage, or just fly with an empty cargo hold and enjoy the benefits of a less heavy plane that uses less fuel.

    I admit this is probably unworkable for myriad reasons.

  90. Discouraging air travel is good by Oneflower · · Score: 1

    Anything that discourages and eventually destroys air travel is good for the planet.

    Gaia thanks United, Spirit and the TSA.

  91. only laptops or all larger electronics? by 4im · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering if it's really only about laptops, or more generally any electronic stuff larger than a smartphone, similar to the restrictions already put in place regarding the middle east.

    I for one couldn't abide putting my expensive DSLR plus lenses into the hold, where you can be pretty sure they'll be exposed to rough handling - not counting the fact I actually want to use it during the flight - and no, quality of smartphone camera pictures doesn't come close.

    As long as it's only the USA insisting on killing off scientific or business relations or tourism, so much for that, their security theatre insanity since 9/11 has made sure I don't want to visit anyway, even if I'd love to see the landscapes (national parks especially). I sure don't want to see such restrictions elsewhere.

    And I do remember a time I even went to visit the White House with my swiss army knife in my pocket (summer of 1991), which wasn't even detected there (at Wall Street it was).

    1. Re:only laptops or all larger electronics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering if it's really only about laptops, or more generally any electronic stuff larger than a smartphone, similar to the restrictions already put in place regarding the middle east.

      I'd venture a guess that smaller stuff like an iPod or a Semtex detonator would be fine.

  92. US citizens can't. by ngnMan · · Score: 1

    Am I wrong if I say US people can't bring laptops to Europe as well? Unless they want to leave their laptop in Europe when they'll get back to USA (using a plane)

    1. Re:US citizens can't. by Coopjust · · Score: 1

      The ban is on laptops/large electronics in passenger cabins (carry on baggage/personal items brought in the passenger cabin) You're allowed to check it in your checked baggage and hope that airline/airport staff don't steal it.

  93. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    I have, yes. It's just about possible, though not especially comfortable on any aircraft other than a 787. On the 787, I managed to get a good 6 hours of productive work done on a transatlantic flight.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  94. That's the end by bursch-X · · Score: 1

    That means I can't watch my favourite movies during the flight anymore and have to watch the godawful crap that's even edited to be consumable by toddlers during the flight :-(

    --
    There are two rules for success:
    1. Never tell everything you know.
  95. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Yeah banning a laptop will allow people to sit back and watch movies. Except you can't do that on many short flights, and you can't afford it on the ones you can.

    Laptops are what many people use to watch their movies and relax.

  96. Re:US is a global joke by ivano · · Score: 1

    > south of 1% then that monster will have very little power. How does that work out? The Constitution is precisely the same. The powers it gives to those in the 3 branches is precisely the same. Could you explain what you mean?

  97. Why only flights from Europe? by bluegutang · · Score: 1

    Isn't this equally a threat on any flight, even domestic flights?

    If the concern is that terrorists and laptops-with-undetectable-bombs are only created in Europe (or the Middle East), then what's to stop a terrorist from flying to the US with a laptop-bomb in checked baggage, then bringing their laptop-bomb into the cabin on their next domestic flight?

  98. Re:US is a global joke by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I heard it was a pretty even split between rebel, loyalist, don't know and "what's in it for me?".

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  99. Turkish Airlines by LQ · · Score: 1

    I flew from Istanbul to London last week and was very impressed with Turkish Airlines handling of this. They impounded all large electronic devices at the gate and wrapped and packed them straight into a special container and gave the owners bar-coded receipts. And, hey presto, that container was by the carousel in London with ground crew handing out the devices. All very slick. (That's not to say I agree with the policy)

  100. Alternative routes will boom by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

    I foresee a surge in routings via Canada and Mexico.

  101. Media Hyperbole on full display by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    If you read the linked article it's a massive speculative hyperbole that tells us that with this ban, the plane will catch on fire when all the laptops in the baggage compartment catch file and you'll die for sure.

    LOOK! SQUIRREL!

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  102. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a European, I can't say I'd want to go to North Korea for business or pleasure either, this feels equivalent to me...

  103. teh terrierists have finally won by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

    Those filthy dog lovers have finally shown the world that our once free country is now really a bunch of terrified little rats scurrying at the slightest sound. It is embarrassing that the rest of the world can see what pathetic cowards we really are. It's just sad. No other country in the world has this problem. Americans are the most cowardly in the entire world apparently. I wonder why. Also this highlights our incredible stupidity. How could anyone be so stupid as to think this is in any way reasonable or effective. No one with any common sense would do this. Somehow we have literally retarded people running things in our country. Also if they are willing to do this they are willing to do ANYTHING. How are they even allowed to do this? Isn't there a basic human right that is being violated here? I think there is.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    1. Re:teh terrierists have finally won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume it's because in the TSA's infinite wisdom, only 'Muricah has stringent enough security to detect these laptop bombs. Those crazy Europeans don't know how to do security. Something like that. I assume this is also why we get to waste time leaving the secure zone and then re-entering it when coming in from overseas--because TSA doesn't trust any other country's security. (If TSA did more actual security and less theater, they might possibly have a point here, but their security theater has been shown to be a sieve--see http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851 and yeah, that story's a couple years old but does anyone honestly think it's dramatically better now?)

  104. First and Business is Airline air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Airlines make money on First and Business.
    No laptops mean their premium market will shrink - and so shall their profits.
    May send some broke. Really,

    Check in laptops containing company confidential in the baggage hold?
    Wait to collect bags?
    Be unable to do work in the lounges. Get out of here. Lets hope airlines kick up a royal stink.

  105. An explanation by laughingskeptic · · Score: 1

    TSA must be counting on their European counter-parts stealing the bomb. Maybe "odds of the theft" >> "odds of detection in the carry-on process". Which would explain why TSA prefers the bomb to head for checked luggage.

  106. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes and not be able to do any work after the flight because their shiny laptop was stolen.

    It is their choice; they can do as much work they want or not; there is no need to rob other people of making meaningful choices about themselves.

  107. Re: lulz by QuadEddie · · Score: 1

    Not sure if you're joking but Emirates has already seen a big drop off to the US because of this.

  108. Re: lulz by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    No joke. That is a good thing. I would love to see general 'strike' by the traveling public until sanity returns, but so far that still doesn't seem too likely.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  109. Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't have some type of device at the airport to look at the inside of these type of devices, maybe using X-rays? /s

  110. Passengers by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    Eventually, they'll just ban passengers on passenger flights.

  111. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Back in the day, flying was one of the few times the traveling businessman got to him(her)self. No computer to work on, no phone calls to make or receive. Then came laptops making it possible to do work on the plane, then in-flight phone calls, and now wireless Internet on flights.

    Banning laptops would mean that the business traveler once again legitimately can't get any work done while flying

    And legitimately not able to work when you get there because if the sticky fingered baggage handler decided he didn't want your laptop, the carelessness of how it's thrown about would ensure it arrived broken.

    Every travel insurer on the planet tells you never to put valuables in checked luggage, this is because airlines have no visibility over what happens to your luggage when it's being handled.

    For this reason alone, I expect business travellers to make A LOT of noise over it and it'll be a noise the government cant ignore. I believe that the Bush Administration proposed something similar right after 911, the entirety of the business community rebelled and it was quickly scrapped.

    If you want time not working, simply make it. If you cant you are either not important enough to make these decisions (in which case you're basically a serf) or you're choosing not to make time. Most of the time it's the latter and you don't have anyone but yourself to blame for that.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  112. ok as long as they don't ban phablets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how about smart phones? a phablet? you can get serious work done on a phablets like Note series with bluetooth keyboard, a mouse and a magnifying stand (so you don't have to squint so much!). Note series even has multi windowing and microsoft office suite built in! Except for Note 7, I don't think any other Note series or other phablets are banned

  113. Re:Actually, many business travelers will like thi by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    This is just plain dumb.

    First, as for your "catch a movie or two", that sounds great, except that you need a laptop (or at least a tablet) to do that, unless you want to be stuck with whatever shit the airline is showing. Don't forget, the airline's shit will cost you $$$; with your laptop, you can watch whatever you brought with you for free.

    Secondly, the only way you can be reached in-flight now is through WiFi. Maybe I'm a little out of touch, but last time I flew that cost extra, and it wasn't that cheap either. So if you don't want to be in contact, don't: don't pay for the optional WiFi service, and just use your laptop for a movie, or working on a personal project, or whatever. If someone complains, ask if they're willing to give you cash to pay for the WiFi, and if not, to shut the hell up. Personally, in all my years of working, I've never had any employer or business contact give me grief for not using something unless it was actually provided by the company, not paid for by me personally. No reasonable employer ever expects an employee to personally pay for stuff that's just for business use.

  114. Fingernail trimmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My favorite is the ban on fingernail trimmers. Not the scissors, the classic nibbler design.

    How in the name of all that is holy, does anyone make a weapon out of those?? Would a terrorist, um, give the stewards a pedicure? Threaten the passengers with good grooming? "Aha, your dangerously long & sharp fingernails will be short, non-threatening and attractively polished when I'm done with you!"

  115. EPA replacement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that the EPA has been throttled back, I guess convincing people to fly less by making flying even more shitty than it already is has become the substitute environmental policy.

  116. If only someone would put a bomb in a crying baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A ban on infants on planes for national security is something I could get behind!

  117. Trump's latest startup opportunity? by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing this move coincides with the launch of President Trump's latest startup: LAPTOP RENTALS!

    --
    This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for