Slashdot Mirror


TSA May Recommend Stowing Laptops In Cargo For US Domestic Flights (cbslocal.com)

Matt.Battey writes: According to WJZ in Baltimore, the TSA may force passengers to check laptops on domestic U.S. flights. Based on the common fear, uncertainty and doubt that supports the TSA's security theater, the terror attacks in Great Britain could result in laptop bans in the U.S. TSA officer Camille Morris is quoted as saying, "A AA battery is fine. A AAA. A 9-volt battery is a huge power charge. The size of the battery that can take down a plane when attached to an explosive." Backed up by comments from Ben Yelin of the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security, his statement confirms the problem: "Airplanes have been the common threat that we've seen over the past several years." Personally, I'm just glad we have the TSA to recommend we "arrive two hours before a domestic flight, and three hours before an international trip."

456 comments

  1. Insurance by neilo_1701D · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I assume the TSA will now be assuming liability for every laptop now put into checked luggage.

    I wonder how my employment contract will now stand up, where it reads that laptops must not be checked but carried into the cabin.

    1. Re:Insurance by Calydor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You should probably ask HR directly about that last part, linking to this article. Cover it as wanting to give them a heads up. It would be very interesting to hear what they say.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Insurance by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I assume the TSA will now be assuming liability for every laptop now put into checked luggage.

      No, but the airline will, up to the limits specified in the contract.. Which amounts to barely enough to pay for the luggage required to pack the laptop in.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For domestic flights within the US, airlines are liable for up to $3000 for lost or damaged property. That's plenty enough to replace a laptop.

      If flying international, you'll want to buy airline insurance.

    4. Re:Insurance by imidan · · Score: 3, Informative

      They absolutely can't impose this rule and maintain the current rate of pilfering valuables from checked luggage by TSA and baggage handlers. I learned long ago not to pack anything worth stealing in a suitcase that I'm going to check. In fact, last time I flew with my girlfriend, she didn't know about the level of theft and packed some jewelry in her checked bag. This was a totally domestic itinerary. The bag that contained all of her jewelry disappeared from her luggage. Happily, it was all relatively cheap stuff, so it wasn't a huge loss, but it's sad to me that I thought not packing valuables in checked bags was just common knowledge and didn't think to mention it to her.

      I absolutely would not check my own laptop. Or, for that matter, anything else that I value that some TSA loser might want to pawn.

    5. Re:Insurance by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm just excited that lithium ion batteries in the cargo hold are safe now. Otherwise I'd be worried.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:Insurance by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      TSA can just ban laptops on planes, period. Then you can ship your laptop via Fedex Ground every time you want to go somewhere.

    7. Re: Insurance by saloomy · · Score: 2

      That's the point. With GoGoInFlight, everyone is taking their valuable iPads and laptops into the cabin, reducing the poor baggage handlers and TSA agents opportunity to help themselves to it.

      It's pretty sad, kind of like watching polar bears struggle to catch seals on shrinking ice platforms. Think of this law as the Paris Accord for TSA agents... poor little guys.

    8. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Might be true in the case of a peasant notebook. Now, if it is a MacBook Pro...

    9. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those who think you can't ignite an explosive with a AAA/AA unless it is a 9V must not be electrical engineers or must not have heard of this new invention called DC-DC converters and capacitors to store large amounts of energy before released.

      Basically, they're either going to have to ban everything you take with you on a plane, or go back to the drawing board and think up a new idea.

    10. Re:Insurance by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Presumably they will require you to pack and declare a flare gun in hard-cased luggage along with your laptop, thus making it illegal for the TSA to open without your presence.That way, if it is opened, those responsible can be sued for damages.

    11. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually already do this. I ship everything, clothes, electronics, whatever a day or two before I leave to the hotel I'll be staying in all on my company's dime. It makes travelling so much easier and I can skip the whole baggage claim annoyance. Sometimes I get some "additional screening" because it is unusual but fucking with the screeners really does make it worth it.

    12. Re:Insurance by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      I get the point of your sarcasm, but regardless they are actually safer. The cargo containers are explosion and fire resistant.

    13. Re:Insurance by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      I'm just excited that lithium ion batteries in the cargo hold are safe now. Otherwise I'd be worried.

      The lithium-ion batteries will even have each other for company so they don't get lonely, likely as it is they'll all be placed in one container, so they can...share their feelings...feelings...of impending doom...doom...at 37,000 feet...[cough]...umm, yeah.

      Don't worry! Be happy! [whistles]

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    14. Re: Insurance by Hachima · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most airlines specify electronics are not covered for damage. This may have to change but for now don't expect electronics to be covered. If it's like the current international ban items lime DSLR cameras and even lenses (they contain electronics) are also banned.

    15. Re:Insurance by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For domestic flights within the US, airlines are liable for up to $3000 for lost or damaged property. That's plenty enough to replace a laptop.

      No, it isn't. It isn't even in the right order of magnitude. The maximum configuration of MacBook Pro is $4,000 before you factor in the value of the data on the computer, which offers the potential for nearly unbounded loss under the right circumstances.

      For example, if that laptop contains an unreleased feature film, and if that laptop gets stolen and the contents get leaked while in the airline's care, we could be talking about tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, and I would not expect their damage waiver to hold up in court under those circumstances.

      I don't think the TSA has really thought this through, and if the airlines agree to it, we need to subject them all to mandatory drug tests; there's not enough crack in the world for this to make sense, and we all want to know what they're smoking.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:Insurance by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, they aren't. In fact, it is illegal to transport even Lithium ion batteries in the cargo hold of an aircraft under current FAA regulations, precisely because the halon fire suppression system inside the cargo hold is not particularly effective at putting out lithium fires, whereas there are means of suppressing a lithium fire in the cabin of an aircraft as long as a human being can get to the fire in time. Thus, the general consensus among experts is that a Lithium fire is considerably safer in the cabin than in the cargo hold.

      Why is the TSA deliberately trying to make air travel less safe?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    17. Re: Insurance by chaboud · · Score: 1

      Great, now anyone named anonymous coward will be pulled out for extra screening...

    18. Re:Insurance by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The maximum configuration of MacBook Pro is $4,000

      That is the maximum but is far from the value of a typical laptop.

      before you factor in the value of the data on the computer, which offers the potential for nearly unbounded loss

      Two words:
      1. Backups
      2. Encryption
      My backup software does an incremental every hour. If I backup my data before my flight, and I use an encrypted drive (which I do), then I lose nothing, and nothing is compromised.

    19. Re:Insurance by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It makes travelling so much easier and I can skip the whole baggage claim annoyance.

      I haven't used baggage claim in more than ten years, just by packing sensibly. What do you need besides a laptop, cellphone, toothbrush, and two changes of clothes? All of that fits in my carry-on backpack.

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

      Don't forget cash. That can burn and should also be checked. Gold, as a heavy metal, can be used to break windows, and should be stored in checked luggage.

      Also, remember to use only TSA approved locks!

      TSA worker/part time pawn broker.

    21. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just stack laptops without padded bags. And laptop like my objects... Like my industrial strength MacBook shaped magnet.

    22. Re:Insurance by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      Random lithium ion batteries, all in varying condition and all packed randomly with other materials.

    23. Re:Insurance by camperdave · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Where do you put your jackknife/multitool? Do you just buy a new one each time?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    24. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put on your reading glasses. It's not about loosing valuable data. He's taking a stab at the MPAA and such claiming they loose millions of dollars because someone pirated one movie.

    25. Re: Insurance by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      chumlee will take that gold under the table rick will ask you lot's questions

    26. Re:Insurance by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Ok, it's a very atypical example. However, a more typical example would be in lost work, lost time, potentially lost revenue, etc. Let's say you're going on a work trip and need your laptop. So best case scenario, you take your backup drives in carry on, and after they lose your luggage or destroy your laptop, you now have to run straight to a store, buy a new laptop, and restore your backups on to it. We all know it's rarely that simple too, depending on what it is you need. And how much time have you now lost?

      Does it cost more than the laptop on every scenario? Of course not. Does it result in major fuck-me-over in a lot of scenarios though? Yes. Yes it does.

    27. Re:Insurance by Cyberglich · · Score: 1

      My employer ITsec / HR has already sent out the memo that says if this takes effect go ahead and check it but till then keep it with you at all times. This is more less common sense.

    28. Re: Insurance by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      the MPAA and such claiming they loose millions of dollars because someone pirated one movie.

      If your drive is encrypted, that is not an issue.

    29. Re:Insurance by MangoCats · · Score: 3, Informative

      In cases where company policy contradicts local laws, local laws prevail.

    30. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As usual the words uttered by TSA have no basis in fact. 9V batteries may have a higher terminal voltage but even the best 9V alkaline can't match the charge capacity of a decent AA. AAA's, on the other hand, are completely laughable.

    31. Re:Insurance by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      Because the DHS wants to snoop data.

      I hate to be conspiracy about it, but it seems to me the most logical explanation.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    32. Re:Insurance by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Is that why they make sure I don't have any in my checking led luggage?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    33. Re: Insurance by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Why would you assume that? They don't assume responsibility for anything else, do they?

      It seems a bit of a strange assumption to make, given the existing evidence.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    34. Re: Insurance by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Did you just cite a TSA rule to argue that the containers in the cargo hold aren't explosion resistant?

      They are correct, by the way. With the exception of some pretty old planes that haven't been had the containers replaced, they are explosion resistant. The TSA rules aren't usually indicative of reality. That's why they call it security theater.

      If curious, there have been a whole bunch of recent articles that mention that they are now explosion and fre resistant and have been for quite a while now. I have no idea why you'd think TSA regulations have any bearing on this, actually.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    35. Re: Insurance by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      Alarmist bullshit from the TSA and the University of Maryland prevails. How many airliners have blown up this year? Your chance of dying on an airplane from a bomb can go up several orders of magnitude and air travel still wouldn't hit the list of shit you should worry about.

    36. Re: Insurance by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I take that back, you cited the FAA. I am not sure if that actually changes anything. The containers used in the cargo hold remain bomb resistant, regardless of the regulations. I am also unable to find a citation for the claim that they can't be shipped in the cargo hold.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    37. Re:Insurance by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      Because NSA wants to clone all our computers.

    38. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make us all safer, you insensitive brick!
      Won't you just stop and think of the children?

    39. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bones can not only be used to break windows but as weapons and leavers to open a cockpit door. You will need to check all your bones that are longer than 6 inches

    40. Re: Insurance by oshkrozz · · Score: 1

      Bomb resistance and fire resistance are two separate things. There is not a concern that a small bomb in the current cargo hold design that will blow up a plane. However, a fire in one of the holds will damage lots of peoples bags and thus the airline will be on the hook

    41. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have levers that do not contain bones and are still longer than 6 inches you insensitive clod.

    42. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airlines stopped using containers 3-4 years ago. They load all bags through a conveyor to save time on the turn. If they have to put those in containers and take containers in and out a 25 minute turn just became 50 minute turn. Airlines are not doing that any more

    43. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It would be very interesting to hear what they say.

      Really? You don't think it might be something like "keep it with you if it's permitted, otherwise check it"?
      Just what "very interesting" thing are you expecting?

    44. Re: Insurance by Voogru · · Score: 3, Funny

      But if you encrypt your hard drive, you're probably a terrorist or child molester.

    45. Re:Insurance by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      For domestic flights within the US, airlines are liable for up to $3000 for lost or damaged property. That's plenty enough to replace a laptop.

      I use Apple gear, you insensitive clod! $3K barely covers the deposit!

    46. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last time I had luggage broken the immediate response from the airline is that because it left their hands and entered the TSA's hands at some point there is no way to prove the airline caused the damage, so tough shit, take it up with the TSA.

    47. Re: Insurance by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      If a lithium fire starts in a cargo hold, all those lovely suitcases full of cloth are going to burn. The entire plane will go down with a big, roaring fire in the entire underbelly of the aircraft.

    48. Re: Insurance by thsths · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is true. You are much more likely to be killed on the way to or from the airport than in the air. But those are individual cases, and nobody cares about those.

    49. Re:Insurance by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Or the brand new Fedex Submarine service...

    50. Re:Insurance by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      A 9V battery is "a huge power charge" and AAA batteries aren't?

      Somebody needs to open up a 9V battery and look inside. What do you think is in there?

      --
      No sig today...
    51. Re:Insurance by sargon666777 · · Score: 1

      They already did. All passengers (and laptops) must now be secured in the cargo hold.

      --
      Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
    52. Re:Insurance by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I don't think the TSA has really thought this through

      Sure they have. The TSA has problems recruiting staff (most of the people attracted to the job are disbarred due to already being sex offenders) and retaining them, so they have decided to offer an "unlimited free laptops" programme as an additional benefit. Staff just need to talk to Joe in baggage checks any time they want a new one.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    53. Re:Insurance by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      And of course with the right (or "wrong" I guess) explosive even static electricity can set them off - no serious amperage/voltage needed

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    54. Re: Insurance by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Isn't that obvious? You need to use really small volts to fit nine of them in a 9V battery. However, you can use much bigger volts in a AA cell because you only need to fit one and a half of them.

    55. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insurance is typically a dice roll. The point of insurance is to manage known risks through a distribution system. The part insurance companies always neglect is they will also fight most substantial claims because it's in the interest of their profit margins to reduce valid claims.

    56. Re:Insurance by Mr+Foobar · · Score: 1

      Or, for that matter, anything else that I value that some TSA loser might want to pawn.

      Just get yourself a large enough lock box and a flare gun. You have to declare your "weapon" (and not even tell them what type of weapon it is), so pack up everything you don't want lost into the lock box, lock it with your own non-TSA locks, chain it to the frame of your luggage, and make your weapon declaration when you check in. You must be present if the TSA wants to open your luggage and the lock box. And your stuff is in a secure box and is unlikely to be damaged or stolen. This is all well within the TSA's own regulations, too. It's a real shame we have to protect ourselves against our own federal airport security just to fly, though.

      --
      -> I dislike sigs...
    57. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put on your reading glasses. It's not about loosing valuable data. He's taking a stab at the MPAA and such claiming they loose millions of dollars because someone pirated one movie.

      But isn't spreading the data around to everyone letting it loose?

    58. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can still bring data encrypted on external storage into the cabin, be it magnetic optical, or NAND.

    59. Re: Insurance by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you can't take a laptop into the passenger cabin because of "bomb risk", but it's ok to put that same laptop in the cargo hold where an explosion could still take down the aircraft? Or is there some other risk here, like the NSA/CIA needs time alone with your laptop unobserved?

    60. Re: Insurance by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I saw this image online recently: https://i.redd.it/pcolaqktpx1z.jpg

      It shows in a nice, graphical format, just how many people die from various causes. Heart disease and cancer are huge circles. Terrorism is a tiny dot. Yet, politicians (and security theater agencies like the TSA) act like we should be living each moment of our lives in fear that a terrorist will kill us. If we did, then we should be paralyzed with terror over heart disease and cancer so much that we give ourselves a heart attack.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    61. Re: Insurance by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Fires go out when the oxygen runs out. It's an enclosed space packed with luggage and low/no airflow, the oxygen supply is very limited.

    62. Re:Insurance by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I've had friends who lost expensive camera equipment that was packed in checked bags on domestic flights. The suitcases made it there just fine but the bags were obviously rummaged through and the equipment was gone. I'd never pack something expensive like a camera or laptop in my checked baggage. I'd sooner box it up and FedEx/UPS it to my destination (building the cost for that into the budget for my trip).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    63. Re:Insurance by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. The lithium batteries won't make it to the cargo hold. The laptops will just "disappear" during the bag checks. See? They're still keeping us safe!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    64. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But mine is bigger than that... And it's attached!

    65. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That picture cites no sources or location. Is that the USA? The World? Paris, Texas?

    66. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't every company require employees to encrypt their laptop? Especially after all the headlines of data leaks/breaches because of lost laptops. Every company I've worked for in the last 20 years has had that requirement.

    67. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, no. You should get out of your bubble more often.

    68. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that when you declare a weapon, the airline physically inspects it, yes?

    69. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The xray machines used for carry ons don't detect explosives very well. The scanners used for checked baggage do. A laptop bomb is not likely to make it on board as checked baggage.

    70. Re: Insurance by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Which is true. You are much more likely to be killed on the way to or from the airport than in the air. But those are individual cases, and nobody cares about those.

      And it doesn't cause buildings to fall down.

    71. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shower gel, toothpaste, shampoo, shaving cream, after shave, deoderant and other liquids that you cannot pack in carry-on baggage anymore.

    72. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is just as much air flow in the hold as there is in the cabin. And fido in his crate is glad for that.

    73. Re:Insurance by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Shower gel, toothpaste, shampoo, shaving cream, after shave, deoderant and other liquids that you cannot pack in carry-on baggage anymore.

      All of these come in travel-size containers that can be carried on.

    74. Re: Insurance by whoda · · Score: 1

      That is why terrorism works and is the tool of choice. Little real damage causes extreme amounts of overreaction.

      If the government really wanted to save lives and protect people, they'd put alcohol ignition locks on every vehicle in the country.
      Instead, they do the dog and pony show, and you can take off your shoes and check your laptop into baggage hold while you're here. Because of 'terror'.

    75. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when does the TSA care about what is legal for them? Theft being technically illegal has also never prevented them from removing items of value from suitcases.

    76. Re: Insurance by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Right,

      We don't need the TSA. The trade off between their invasive nature, the economic costs imposed by what they do direct in terms of screening activities, and indirect in terms of missed flights and long waits at airports, isn't a good one. I'd say shit can the entire thing and go back to the basic screening we had before.

      However, the political will do that does not exist. Nobody (in power) will ever propose it because if it got done and than something happened they would be hounded from office. So given we are going to have to put up with this kind of BS, I actually would like to see some real security! Having already lost my freedom over my own vocal complaints and activity at the ballot box, now I say well at least give me the promised safety than.

      So I would like the see the TSA strictly limit what can be taken on commercial passenger aircraft and what materials are allowed inside the secure area of airports. The should watch: http://www.terminalcornucopia....

      and actually remove this stuff (well maybe not magazines and newspapers). No exceptions should not be made for liquids like baby milk etc without the passenger proving its save by consuming a portion. Various medical equipment that can be weaponized should be ban. If that means some people can't travel by commercial air, to frigging bad. They should have thought of that at the ballot box sooner.

      Maybe when mainstream life styles are effected, "what do you mean I can board with my smart phone" and "granny can't come visit this Christmas because her oxygen cylinder isnt allowed" people will finally say alright lets end the madness and go back to how things were. In the meantime we can at least have safer air travel.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    77. Re:Insurance by perotbot · · Score: 1

      this has nothing to do with "explosives" or "terrorists" . This is all to allow the TSA and their owners, Homeland Security, unfettered access to your laptop so they can "inspect" it without you having to consent to it.

      --
      ~corporate tool, but employed~
    78. Re: Insurance by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      That probably isn't true. You are more likely to be fatally injured drunk walking than driving.

      Provided you are going to still enable people to drink to excess (IE not return to prohibition type policies ), further restrictions and inducements against drunk driving likely cost lives. There is a typing point drunk drivers are obviously vary dangerous but their numbers are sufficiently reduced at this point the amount of harm they are causing is less than that of walkers. Who when intoxicated do things like step into traffic in front of sober drivers, fall off stuff, etc.

      Society also likes to err on the side of responsibility for ones own actions (well it used, than Obama got elected), so we actually adopt a policy that puts drinkers at greater risk because it reduces the risks to people who are otherwise minding their own business. If something goes wrong, when you drive drunk chances are you kill someone; when you walk drunk chances are you get killed. Its not so cut and dry as policy maker though.

      You can pass more drunk driving restrictions, it will reduce deaths among bystanders but kill more people in net. The ethics of drunk driving are simple, if you do it your a terrible person full stop. As a policy maker however additional drunk driving prohibitions mean more blood on your hands. You could do nothing and fewer citizens would die. Is your responsibility to minimize harm, or to provide maximum protection to the innocent?

      I think there is an argument to be made that since getting rid of the TSA is politically impossible, and since its already a violation of rights and an indignity. It might be worth simply making it actually effective!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    79. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't heard anyone mention it but lots of people don't even check bags these days. Should we just hand our laptops to the bag check person and let them distribute it to the needy ground staff.

    80. Re:Insurance by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I've seen firsthand what the TSA does to checked laptops. NFW. I'd FedEx my laptop both ways before I'd do this.

    81. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean like maybe "why did you turn my wife into a pillar of salt?"

    82. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they do - in your presence. Then you get to put your TSA-proof lock on it and they put a seal on top of all that. And if TSA wants to further inspect, it has to be in your presence.

    83. Re: Insurance by orgelspieler · · Score: 0

      It sure as shit ain't Texas. We don't get killed by terrorists 'round these parts. And it don't mention freak bull riding accidents?

    84. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If some terrorists showed up in Texas, you'd be screaming and begging for your life like a little bitch.

    85. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad it's not for the airlines to decide what is and isn't covered. The LAW says that airlines must reimburse up to $3500 for lost or damaged property without restriction.

    86. Re:Insurance by almitydave · · Score: 1

      My employer ITsec / HR has already sent out the memo that says if this takes effect go ahead and check it but till then keep it with you at all times. This is more less common sense.

      I agree, the TSA certainly is more less common sense.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    87. Re: Insurance by almitydave · · Score: 2

      My understanding from minimally following this, is that they're concerned about the explosive being held up against the wall of the plane, where an explosion could damage the structure. In the center of the cabin, the amount of explosive you could fit in a laptop wouldn't be so dangerous. So if your bombtop is checked, you don't know if setting it off would damage the plane, and odds are low of anything catastrophic happening.

      That's the thinking, anyway. Although setting off any kind of explosive in a crowded plane cabin, or in multiple plane cabins, would still have some kind of effect, one would think. Certainly psychological.

      But this just further goes to show that the combination of the wide availability of soft targets (including infrastructure and crowded public places), the woeful ineffectiveness of the TSA, and the complete lack of any realistic terrorist attack since 9/11 only highlights how miniscule the threat of terrorism really is. More people die in the US from car accidents per day (on average) than did on 9/11.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    88. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is illegal to make the TSA and it's security procedures effective.

      It was tried early on and failed miserably. So now, the TSA can only "do" Security Theatre!

    89. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "More people die in the US from car accidents per day (on average) than did on 9/11."

      Roughly 3k people died on 9/11.
      40k to 50k die in car accidents in the USA per YEAR.
      how do you get 3k a day (or over1 million car accident deaths per Year).

      Your maths suck...big time!

    90. Re: Insurance by TheStickBoy · · Score: 1

      So you can't take a laptop into the passenger cabin because of "bomb risk", but it's ok to put that same laptop in the cargo hold where an explosion could still take down the aircraft? Or is there some other risk here, like the NSA/CIA needs time alone with your laptop unobserved?

      I seem to remember that luggage/cargo within the plane is placed inside specially designed containers that absorb the forces of bombs?

      If so, it would be safer but by how much I do not know. Which airlines use these, not sure.

      ...performed a quick google search:
      US patent from 1994, Containers for use on aircraft for the protection of aircraft structures: http://www.freepatentsonline.c... [freepatentsonline.com]

      from 1999, Aircraft luggage bomb protection system: http://www.freepatentsonline.c... [freepatentsonline.com]

      from 2009, Explosion resistant cargo container: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/49... [docstoc.com]

    91. Re: Insurance by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      And it doesn't cause buildings to fall down.

      Neither do bombs on airliners. What does cause buildings to fall down are terrorists piloting airliners into them, which requires access to the cockpit and acquiescent passengers. We've changed those things, so what's at risk is the airliner and passengers. That's a much smaller risk, but the security theater gets worse and worse.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    92. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is NOT illegal to transport batteries if they are either
      *protected from damage and short circuit
      *installed in a device such as a laptop/tablet/camera that is protected from accidental activation

      Source:
      http://www.faa.gov/about/offic...

    93. Re: Insurance by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Umm...

      Now, I could be mistaken. I want to admit that right now. However....

      Unless there's a whole lot of deception going on, they still use containers AND those containers are still fire (and explosion) resistive.

      I'm sorry, but do you think they run the bags up a conveyor and just huck the baggage in behind a cargo net? Not to mention, *all* modern luggage is made of material that is fire resistant. On top of that, all modern luggage is explosion resistant - though it's not to a huge extent, but it's surprisingly effective. You can. without any effort, go watch videos of both explosions and see them contained within the luggage itself..

      Unless EVERY single news article (that I've seen) and EVERY single documentary (that I've seen) is full of crap, you're WRONG. You're not just wrong. You're wrong in all caps. Sheesh. The cargo hold is filled with individual containers, and has been for some time. They're both fire and explosion resistant. More so, since the events of 9/11.

      I am 99.9% certain that I'm correct. I have friends in the industry and have seen a whole lot of documentaries that demonstrate this. I'm not even sure what two-bit airline you speak of.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    94. Re: Insurance by houghi · · Score: 1

      Just add a post-it note with a password. Bit like the locks that the TSA can open.

      I personally just use a cable tie for my luggage. It is easy to break and will know the lock has been broken. Locks don't really stop thieves.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  2. They have seen the enemy by Patent+Lover · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They have seen the enemy, and it is us.

    1. Re:They have seen the enemy by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...and "we're" idiots:

      A AA battery is fine. A AAA. A 9-volt battery is a huge power charge. The size of the battery that can take down a plane when attached to an explosive.

      Uh, no. The energy storage for an alkaline AA cell is about 4.2 watt-hours. For a 9V battery, it's about 5.49. That is not a "huge" difference, and definitely not enough that one could rely on the difference constituting a go/no-go for a detonator. A D cell - that would make a difference. And, most devices which use AAs use multiples, 2 or 4 is common. It's pretty uncommon to find a device which takes more than a single 9V battery. Beyond which, the whole comment seems a non-sequitur. How many laptops/pads use AA or 9V batteries?

      And that's the caliber of people who claim to be protecting us, and that's giving a benefit-of-doubt that they were somewhat misquoted and can actually construct complete sentences.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:They have seen the enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their evidence is likely something like: I put a 9V battery on my tongue and it hurt. I grabbed a AA battery with both fingers and it did not. (Yes I bet it's this stupid.)

      They likely have not heard of this new invention (sarcasm) called a boost converter. (DC-DC converter). It was introduced a few decades back when silicon transistors came around, easy to miss.

    3. Re:They have seen the enemy by thogard · · Score: 1

      Polaroid cameras used a thin flat 6 V battery that could deliver 10 A for a short time. A typical 9V battery is 6 AAAA sized batteries in a case.

    4. Re:They have seen the enemy by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      Wait until they hear that people can buy capacitors at any RadioShack!

      Oh.. wow, the TSA moves in mysterious ways.

    5. Re:They have seen the enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use two 9 volt batteries with a 741 op amp to generate the +9 and -9 volts necessary to ... power ... the ...

      Uh oh.

      So am I now on the no-fly list or the terrorist watch list?

    6. Re:They have seen the enemy by Falos · · Score: 1

      The "size of something that can take down a plane"? Then why aren't we talking about nerve gas or whatever?

      And if they're talking about detonators, terrorists aren't dependent on laptops. Were they ever? You could probably macguyver a detonator out of the shit between your teeth.

      And I'm confident the terrorists are that capable. Because if they're not, all we need for security is an inkjet-printed PICTURE of a guard.

      "Sorry, you can't bring those wireless headphones into the prison, inmates could carve a shank out of them."

      Again: Did they EVER?

      This is probably theater. "Your program needs to claim accomplishments in the next quarterly report or we shut down."

    7. Re:They have seen the enemy by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Radio Shacks no longer exist. I think you can buy capacitors at Frys still.

    8. Re:They have seen the enemy by msauve · · Score: 2

      ITYM "Mouser", it's pretty hard to find a RadioShack these days. And it will be delivered to your doorstep.

      They'll also sell you a lithium AA for <$10, with over 8 watt-hours of energy, and which can also provide much more power than an alkaline.

      Sidenote: Mouser and Digikey are the modern versions of Lafayette and Allied Radio. Tandy/Allied/RadioShack was a downhill move, Mouser and Digikey have brought it back up.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    9. Re:They have seen the enemy by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      5 watt hours can be released as 300 watts for one minute, if the cell has the current output capacity, hot stuff, but won't be melting too much aluminum at 36,000 feet (and I think AA cells are limited to about 3A discharge, so they can deliver more like 5 watts for one hour).

      Ordinary alkaline batteries aren't the concern. The concern are 500+ watt hour LiPo cells that can discharge a continuous 50+ amps at 14+ volts. 700+ watts heating metal for 30+ minutes will make it quite hot. If the metal is a 12 ga wire, it will get white hot in seconds...

    10. Re:They have seen the enemy by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      You can buy capacitors all day long off the internet - we're going to have to shut that thing down before somebody gets hurt.

    11. Re:They have seen the enemy by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      All of these batteries are sufficient to drive a boost circuit that charged a low ESR cap at a voltage sufficient to trigger a detonator. It only needs a fraction of a second.

      Yet this doesn't seem to happen much. As a danger to my person, bombs on planes are off the bottom of the chart, even given that I travel quite a lot.

      My guess is that campaign contributions from travel related companies will fix this issue. If I can't take my laptop I'm not traveling, and as it stands I'm certainly not checking it. I'll make do with video calls.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    12. Re:They have seen the enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They likely have not heard of this new invention (sarcasm) called a boost converter. (DC-DC converter). It was introduced a few decades back when silicon transistors came around, easy to miss.

      That is "information potentially (sic) of use to terrorists". Anyone who has read this post is liable to jail time in the UK!

    13. Re:They have seen the enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Uh, no. The energy storage for an alkaline AA cell is about 4.2 watt-hours. For a 9V battery, it's about 5.49. That is not a "huge" difference, and definitely not enough that one could rely on the difference constituting a go/no-go for a detonator."

      You can power nichrome wire with a 9V but you can't with an AA without a voltage booster (ohms law, electric detonators are effectively resistors). This will be the idiocy this is based on. Watt-hours means nothing for detonating a bomb, it requires very little total power. You could power the same nichrome wire with a coin cell with a small circuit to boost the voltage, just not for long.

    14. Re:They have seen the enemy by MrDoh! · · Score: 1

      They probably saw a demo of an IED using a 9V so said 'oh, we gotta stop that'.

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    15. Re:They have seen the enemy by msauve · · Score: 1

      "...a very sinister appearance. It had a battery behind it, and wires." - more idiots from the government, here to "help.".

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    16. Re:They have seen the enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's the caliber of people who claim to be protecting us

      Remember this is an organization that advertised its jobs on pizza boxes.

      https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tsapizzabox.jpg

    17. Re:They have seen the enemy by mpercy · · Score: 1

      Radio Shack?

    18. Re:They have seen the enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want 9V out of AA, just use six AA (1.5V each) in serial. The twits at the TSA can only stop twits who are dumber than them.

    19. Re:They have seen the enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're completely right. Something else. Wattage is not the deciding factor to set off a blasting cap. It's voltage and 1.5 volts will do the job just fine. You can set off a blasting cap with an AA battery. Use two like in a lot of devices an have plenty of power to set something off.

      If I was to build a laptop bomb why not hook up a altimeter and have in go off in the cargo hold at 10,000 feet? Smart phones have built in altimeters. Bomb trigger? There's an app for that.

    20. Re:They have seen the enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This laptop uses AA batteries. :-)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100

    21. Re:They have seen the enemy by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Funny, there's a Radio Shack operating near me right now. Most of them are gone, but not all.

  3. What's a Laptop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    - classic 'Laptop' only?
    - Tablet ?
    - 14" Tablet with Keyboard?
    - Surface tablet without Keyboard?
    - Bluetooth Keyboard with Smartphone?
    - Desktop Mini-Tower with Smartwatch as Display ;-) ?

    1. Re:What's a Laptop? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      Presumably it will start with the classic laptop and then they will gradually close the edge case loopholes you mention so that everyone will be bored on flights just like before we had portable computing devices. The goal of the TSA is not only security theatrics but to increase human misery and suffering and discomfort in any and every way they can.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    2. Re:What's a Laptop? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Anything that keeps you from buying the in-flight entertainment, I'd say.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:What's a Laptop? by green1 · · Score: 1

      The previous ban for laptops from certain countries was worded as any electronic device larger than a certain dimension (which basically meany anything larger than a Samsung Galaxy Note series device). So yes, tablets were included. both with and without keyboards, and sold by Microsoft or not. As was technically the bluetooth keyboard (but not likely the smartphone unless you use something like the Samsung Galaxy Mega) and the Desktop Mini-Tower, but not the smartwatch.

      I can't see why they'd word a new one any differently.

    4. Re:What's a Laptop? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 0

      It's a fairness play, they are miserable and worthless human beings, the only way to reconcile this is to ensure we are also miserable and worthless.

    5. Re:What's a Laptop? by DaHat · · Score: 1

      The goal of the TSA is not only security theatrics but to increase human misery and suffering and discomfort in any and every way they can.

      Completely agree, doubly so as since the first talk of a laptop ban for certain international flights I kept thinking that you could easily detect bomb components in a laptop using much of the existing mechanisms.

      At least in the states, we are required to put the laptop in it's own tray which gives them a nice view of the internals. While there is an obscene # of individual makes, models & configurations... a good chunk should be able to be be pattern matched and given a pass. Sure, there will be differences WRT the same model having an SSD or HDD option, also machable. More/less embedded SSD or RAM, ditto I'd think.

      There would still be outliers which would require a second look (not unlike what we have today), but then we also allow quite a few small bottles of liquids through which too could be added together in a larger empty container (which they wouldn't give a second look to when going through security), so there already exist ways to get small amounts through.

    6. Re:What's a Laptop? by lgw · · Score: 1

      This ... is very hard to argue against. As a theory, it seems to have great predictive power.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:What's a Laptop? by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      The original threat was an iPad, so anything roughly that size that could have explosives placed in there would probably be the limit.

      Phablets? Maybe... Tablets and laptops, almost certainly.

      See also: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35521646

    8. Re:What's a Laptop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait, I'll pack a dekstop as carry on. Get the right case and it has a handle.

    9. Re:What's a Laptop? by youngone · · Score: 1
      I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm sure they are miserable and worthless, but in my view their problem is funding.

      The TSA seems to have a budget of something like $7.5 billion. What are they providing for that money?

      It sounds like a awful lot of money if it's just security guards at airports and air marshals, so they need to keep coming up with new ideas regularly so the money keeps flowing.

    10. Re:What's a Laptop? by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      a large hairbrush

      a book

      a wadded up shirt

      The genius is they can now ban anything carried by passengers, thank beelzebub the terrorists could never invent a timer to set something off in checked baggage. Or maybe they just need to wait for someone to check a galaxy smartphone

      --
      Nullius in verba
    11. Re:What's a Laptop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the thing that you put on top of your lap. No not that one, that one sticks out from your lap.

    12. Re: What's a Laptop? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      When the TSA first came into existence, one of the things they mentioned was that airports (airlines?) could opt out and maintain their own security staff, so long as they met certain criteria. I do not know what that criteria is, but I am curious if they would be required to follow a rule such as this one.

      Somebody here has to be an expert on these things.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:What's a Laptop? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Presumably it will start with the classic laptop and then they will gradually close the edge case loopholes you mention so that everyone will be bored on flights just like before we had portable computing devices.

      They're banning books too?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    14. Re: What's a Laptop? by sargon666777 · · Score: 1

      Basically its whatever they want it to be. Its an ever changing target since there is no body that oversees the rules they get to make.

      --
      Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
    15. Re:What's a Laptop? by Mr+Foobar · · Score: 1

      My little 7" color Nook I rooted? That has *all* my reading material.

      If disallowed, it's just one more reason not to fly. And I have zero reasons now.

      --
      -> I dislike sigs...
    16. Re:What's a Laptop? by mpercy · · Score: 1

      Like every other government agency.

      "You can't professionalize unless you federalize"...

    17. Re:What's a Laptop? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Someone could take the book, whack the flight crew over the head with it, and take over the plane! We must ban all books immediately!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    18. Re:What's a Laptop? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      The TSA seems to have a budget of something like $7.5 billion. What are they providing for that money?

      Jobs for the otherwise unemployable.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    19. Re:What's a Laptop? by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Someone could take the book, whack the flight crew over the head with it, and take over the plane! We must ban all books immediately!

      Or worse, if a terrorist took an explosive and a book on a plane, he could use the explosive to ignite the book, and then he'd have a flaming book that he could use to light other things on fire!

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
  4. I recommend disbanding tsa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The tsa security theater is bogus. This is insane. Will we ever stand up to government over reach?

    1. Re:I recommend disbanding tsa. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      True.. The TSA is about creating the appearance of security. Actual security would be too hard and invasive to make happen, so we get stuck with the public face of the TSA where grannies in wheelchairs an 6 year olds get full cavity searches in public while you have to unpack that carryon into their grey bins so they can X-Ray the contents while you get virtually strip searched...

      All this is more about appearances than actually making you more secure. Sure, it catches the idiot who accidently left that revolver in their carry on, but I'm pretty sure a determined attacker could get something on board. Heck, airlines routinely catch unauthorized drug shipments on their aircraft so one can assume there are a bunch that don't get caught. How's TAS not catching this stuff?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:I recommend disbanding tsa. by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Actual security would be too hard and invasive to make happen

      Well they could balance effective detection techniques for real threats vs cost. Something like explosive sniffing dogs and old fashioned metal detectors. Nothing else is really needed.

      I mean you could strip search everyone or make everyone exchange their clothes for TSA robes or something or even fill the cabin with something like isoflurane to knock out the passengers for the length of the flight, but such extreme measures are totally out of proportion to the threat. I mean it's not like there are planes being blown up every day.

      You could probably make flights cheaper by filling a cargo plane with capsules of unconscious passengers and that seems pretty safe but again is an extreme solution to a non-problem. Although I sort of like the idea of a kind of flying capsule hotel.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    3. Re:I recommend disbanding tsa. by green1 · · Score: 0

      Every time they do controlled tests where they put weapons (real or simulated) in to carry-on bags and go through TSA checkpoints, a huge majority of the weapons make it through completely undetected. This isn't a surprise if you've ever tried to actually make heads or tails of the images on the x-ray machine, especially if you've been staring at them for hours on end.

    4. Re:I recommend disbanding tsa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tsa security theater is bogus. This is insane. Will we ever stand up to government over reach?

      Well you've got the second amendment.
      Time to use those guns for something productive my dear hillbillies.

    5. Re:I recommend disbanding tsa. by Imrik · · Score: 2

      The majority of normal weapons would have little use on a plane now that passengers believe a hijacking will end in a plane crash. Unfortunately, the TSA's effectiveness on explosives or chemical weapons is likely on par with or worse than their effectiveness against guns and knives.

    6. Re: I recommend disbanding tsa. by KGIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It amuses me that there is no TSA screening for chartered flights. You can charter a flight and drive right up to the hanger, skipping TSA entirely. I'm pretty sure that a jet, freshly filled with fuel, will cause all sorts of consternation if you crash it into something like an occupied sports arena. It doesn't even need to be a big jet, either. Burning fuel would fly all over the place, as would bits of wreckage, causing a rather spectacular scene. No air marshals, no cockpit doors, and not a lick of official security required before boarding...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:I recommend disbanding tsa. by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      I expressed my first amendment rights at the TSA checkpoint once. Missed my flight. Only got let go because I sang the national anthem at the top of my lungs while they were dicking around. They even had my cell phone blocked while I was at the airport.

    8. Re: I recommend disbanding tsa. by houghi · · Score: 1

      If I where a terrorist (To the NSA: I am not) I would not bother about planes anymore. The TSA is doing Gods work here.
      I would just drive around hitting people. Much easier and more efficient as it needs almost no planning and anybody can do it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re: I recommend disbanding tsa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful KGIII you can be charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist act with talk like that.

      Sauce.

    10. Re: I recommend disbanding tsa. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Sadly, that doesn't surprise me. It might also be one of those charges where not even money and a good lawyer can help me.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  5. Vague threats by kqs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the going gets tough, the tough create vague terrorist threats. Does locking up our laptops make us great again?

    1. Re:Vague threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, and not one single thing the TSA does is making us great or safe either. The TSA has caught a sum total of ZERO people intending to do harm to anyone and they will never catch someone either.

      The TSA servers no other purpose than to employee otherwise unemployable people. Meaning they have created jobs for those who couldn't get a job in most other places and have inconvenienced 100s of millions of people and have done nothing else.

    2. Re:Vague threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is clearly an elaborate Apple ploy to control the portable computing market. Just today they were touting the new ipad pro with iOS 11 as a laptop replacement.

    3. Re:Vague threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA works to do the bidding of terrorists. They keep people in fear and disrupt their normal lives, just as the terrorists who indirectly installed them wanted.

    4. Re:Vague threats by DaHat · · Score: 0

      The TSA has caught a sum total of ZERO people intending to do harm to anyone and they will never catch someone either.

      True, they haven't caught any bad guys going through yet... but have found plenty of weapons which people forgot. Why do you think they haven't caught any bad guys yet? Similarly, how have so few bad guys (zero IIRC) snuck through and carried out their evil deeds?

      Richard Reid was on a Paris to Miami flight... Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was flying Amsterdam to Detroit, so again, not TSA.

      The TSA servers no other purpose than to employee otherwise unemployable people.

      Half true.

      While no fan, I at least recognize the deterrent they serve.

      We could declare planes to be 'gun/knife/bomb free zones', similar to most land based 'gun free' zones (ie schools)... but we know how well that works WRT the vast majority of mass shootings in this country being in a gun free zone which usually rely on the honor system.

      As we saw in Manchester recently & Brussels last year (and time and time again elsewhere)... if you have a decent enough security perimeter which is a sufficient deterrent to easily carrying a serious weapon past, you move the prospective attack surface elsewhere, which is just what we've seen over the years.

      Yes, the TSA is doing it's job, protecting the actual airplane and the people on it... even if they aren't the most competent and friendly when doing so.

    5. Re:Vague threats by Etcetera · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not so vague:

      The security source said both bans were not the result of a single specific incident but a combination of factors.

      One of those, according to the source, was the discovery of a plot to bring down a plane with explosives hidden in a fake iPad that appeared as good as the real thing. Other details of the plot, such as the date, the country involved and the group behind it, remain secret.

      Discovery of the plot confirmed the fears of the intelligence agencies that Islamist groups had found a novel way to smuggle explosives into the cabin area in carry-on luggage after failed attempts with shoe bombs and explosives hidden in underwear. An explosion in a cabin (where a terrorist can position the explosive against a door or window) can have much more impact than one in the hold (where the terrorist has no control over the position of the explosive, which could be in the middle of luggage, away from the skin of the aircraft), given passengers and crew could be sucked out of any subsequent hole. - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/plot-explosives-ipad-us-uk-laptop-ban

      And not theoretical:

      Somali authorities have released a video they say shows a laptop being given to the passenger after he has passed through the security checkpoint.

      A man in an orange hi-vis vest is shown walking with a man in a blue shirt holding what looks like a laptop. Another man in a hat approaches them and it is alleged that the laptop is handed over.
      - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35521646

      But sure... keep complaining.

    6. Re:Vague threats by kqs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not so vague:

      The security source said both bans were not the result of a single specific incident but a combination of factors.

      "Combination of factors"... that's kinda the definition of vague.

      But you seem to think that I said there was no risk. Please don't build strawmen. Of course you can put a bomb in a laptop. So we'll take away laptops, and someone will put a bomb in a camera. So we'll take those away, and so on, and eventually we'll all be flying naked and the terrorists will surgically implant bombs inside their bodies.

      WE ARE NOT SAFE. WE CANNOT BE SAFE. EVER. A terrorist could blow me up on a plane, or (more likely) a car could splatter me against a building, or I could have a massive stroke tomorrow. A terrorist could be driving that car, but probably not; I'm betting that far more people were killed by non-terrorists in cars this year in the UK than by terrorists. Life is unsafe, and you have a 100% chance of dying.

      BUT THAT IS NOT WORTH GIVING UP OUR FREEDOMS.

      I'm willing to trade a little bit of freedom for effective security; that's the definition of civilization, after all. But the TSA is not effective, and a laptop ban is not effective. So, no.

    7. Re:Vague threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is clearly an elaborate Apple ploy to control the portable computing market. Just today they were touting the new ipad pro with iOS 11 as a laptop replacement.

      Which is too big to be allowed in the cabin, so, no.

    8. Re:Vague threats by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      While no fan, I at least recognize the deterrent they serve.

      You are a supporter, because you imagine that they serve as a deterrent. They do not. The armed air marshals do that. The TSA exists to terrorize the populace and sexually molest them, nothing more.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Vague threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly does "as good as the real thing" mean? Could the ipad actually operate while having been rigged with explosives? If not, then a simple 2" demonstration that the device actually works should be sufficient to fix the "problem". In fact, this has been a standard procedure for laptops in some EU countries.

    10. Re:Vague threats by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Similarly, how have so few bad guys (zero IIRC) snuck through and carried out their evil deeds?

      Passengers are providing the security that the TSA isn't.

    11. Re:Vague threats by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Except that in the cases I mentioned above, the passengers acted only after the device was (unsuccessful triggered), had we not been extraordinarily lucky (one due to a cancelled flight, the other due to waiting until the end of the flight, in both cases, retarding the effectiveness of their devices), the 'security' provided by the passengers wouldn't have mattered as they would already be dead.

      True, 4-5 guys with box cutters isn't likely to take down a plane again... there are plenty of ways to do so still that passengers have no control over.

    12. Re:Vague threats by DaHat · · Score: 0

      You are a supporter,

      Should I resort to false accusations as well?

      because you imagine that they serve as a deterrent. They do not.

      Citation?

      We are nearly 16 years since 9/11... and in all of that time we've not seen another organized effort to take down a plane from onboard, after passing through domestic security checks. Granted, re-inforced cockpit doors were something that should have been there for ages... but other than that... to what to you ascribe the lack of attempts?

      The armed air marshals do that.

      The threat of the Air Marshals are like the laundromat with a sign saying "guarded by a shotgun wielding owner 3 days a week". You don't know if the threat exists, if that many days is true, or if this is an on day or an off day.

      If you are a baddie up to no good, why not grab some friends and roll the dice? Either as a group on a single plane (maybe you hit it lucky and landed on one without an Air Marshal), maybe you spread out and while many of you are foiled on board, some will be successful.

      Why hasn't this happened yet?

      Even in a world of secret police, when you don't know who around you may or may not be a spy for the government... a visible and in your face for is also visible to remind you of the power of the state... in case you forgot there may also be a hidden law enforcement agent in your midsts.

    13. Re:Vague threats by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      An explosion in a cabin (where a terrorist can position the explosive against a door or window) can have much more impact than one in the hold (where the terrorist has no control over the position of the explosive, which could be in the middle of luggage, away from the skin of the aircraft)

      So replace the battery with thermite instead. I guarantee you it'll burn a hole in the fuselage. Have a few of them go off at the same time and the plane will go down.

      Somali authorities have released a video they say shows a laptop being given to the passenger after he has passed through the security checkpoint.

      What does banning laptops have anything to do with this? The guy could've been handed a suitcase full of C4 after he passed security.

      You need to face reality and quit being a coward. There's no such thing as 100% safe. The moment you change your behavior due to terrorists, you lose and they win.

    14. Re:Vague threats by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That is why they introduced that rule that you could be asked to demonstrate electronics working. An iPad full of explosives won't turn on.

      In any case, it smells like bullshit. Why would you use an iPad, one of the thinnest tablets available, instead of a thicker one where you could more easily pack a larger amount of explosives?

      And even if you did such a thing, it probably wouldn't be as bad as they are making out. If you look up reports of aircraft getting holes in their fuselages at altitude the result is not like in the movies. The amount of explosive in the iPad is going to do limited damage too, especially since it is hard to shape the blast and the terrorists body is going to offer less resistance than the door/window anyway.

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

      Granted, re-inforced cockpit doors were something that should have been there for ages... but other than that... to what to you ascribe the lack of attempts?

      Look, I have a rock that keeps away tigers!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Vague threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are just working on their continuing mission of keeping the skies safe.

      See, once flying is such a hassle that no one does it anymore, there will be no more safety issues with flying.

    17. Re:Vague threats by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      While they find a lot of weapons it seems that they miss even more. By even more I mean about 19 times more. A couple years ago it was reported that they only found 5% of prohibited items and last year the reporting was that they had found 20% more when tested, which sounds great until you realize that they still missed 94% of things.

      Considering what I have brought through inadvertently over the years it doesn't surprise me. This includes an almost full box of 7.62x54r ammo, a couple of handfuls of 3" magnum goose load 12 gauge shotgun shells, my small pocket knife (2.5" is the largest blade) my 4" lock blade with a brass handle, lighters when they were banned, toothpaste in a tube larger than 3oz that isn't in a separate bag. None of it was deliberately hidden nor were special steps taken to make it harder to detect. The ammo was in a coat pocket that went through the x-ray machine and the pocket knives were in my pants pocket. However if I take my Pentax Spotmatic F and lenses and send them through the x-ray machine open it is time for 20 fucking questions and everything gets checked out and swabbed for explosives because they are a bunch of retards.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    18. Re:Vague threats by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      To be fair there are 3 things that have effectively prevented another 9-11 style attack. One is having hardened cockpit doors. Going along with that is closing and locking the hardened cockpit door. Finally the mentality of the flying population has changed. Now if a group of attackers tried that the passengers would turn them into a smear on the shitty carpet.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    19. Re:Vague threats by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      Thank you for this. I agree it is well past time for the American public to stop being afraid of terrorist bogeymen. I blame the media for amplifying the fear terrorists are trying to create. They're doing 90% of the terrorists' work for them. It's one thing to report on an event that happened, and quite another to keep harping on the attack until some new carnage takes over the news cycle. If it bleeds, it leads.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    20. Re:Vague threats by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      So we'll take those away, and so on, and eventually we'll all be flying naked and the terrorists will surgically implant bombs inside their bodies.

      Then they'll ban anyone with incisions from boarding planes! Brilliant!

      --
      I tend to rant.
    21. Re:Vague threats by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Now if a group of attackers tried that the passengers would turn them into a smear on the shitty carpet.

      Bingo, which does help reduce the likelihood of a hijacking, and incentivize an explosive... just the very sort of transition we have seen.

    22. Re:Vague threats by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Note that the device that appears to be a laptop (if it is what blew up; last I saw nobody really knew) is not put through any security screening. That would indicate that the terrorists didn't think they could get the bomb through even rather cursory screening, suggesting that the status quo in carry-on luggage is just fine. If there's any lesson to be learned from this, it's to make sure bombs don't get into the secured area without going through security.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    AA battery - fine
    AAA battery - ok
    9V battery - Danger Will Robinson!

    Please tell me that SOMEONE in that department is aware that a 9V battery is simply 6 AAAA batteries in a fancy wrapper...

    1. Re:Le sigh by TWX · · Score: 1

      Not all 9V batteries are that construction, but that's not the real issue, is it?

      The Estes model rocket launcher controller that I used as a kid only required a pair of Double-A batteries (sorry, "AA Battery" means something entirely different) in order to set off the chain-reaction needed to set off a rocket motor. The actual process that ignited the motor was passing current through a wire that was intentionally too thin to carry that current without generating heat, and the heat is what set off the engine.

      Additionally, if they have identified a lower-limit on voltage that is actually dangerous, what are they going to about cell phone batteries? 3.6V of Lithium Ion could probably be made to do something as bad and as dangerous as a laptop cell, especially if multiple cell phone batteries are brought together to make for more mass. Are they going to force phones into checked baggage too?

      At what point do we accept that the world we live in has some dangers, and that while attempting to mitigate the dangers is not necessarily bad, there are limits as to what we are willing to put up with?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A AAA.

      It sounds like an AAA battery is indeed an AAA battery. Okayness of it is still under a review.

    3. Re:Le sigh by adolf · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but "AA battery" is how we commonly write it.

      If you want to be pedantic and avoid ambiguation with war machines, then the correct nomenclature would be "AA cell", as a single cell cannot form a battery.

      If you really, really want to be an ass, then call it an IEC LR6 or an ANSI 15A.

      But spelling out like double-A? So the series goes:

      A
      Double-A
      AAA
      AAAA

      ?

      No. Get out. And then get the fuck off of my lawn.

    4. Re: Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this makes me wonder if they know about matches.

    5. Re:Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention.... DC:DC voltage converters are tiny.

    6. Re:Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't a single person working for or advising the TSA who has any sort of technical background, education, intelligence or knowledge. Just a bunch of old, clueless bitties thinking that because one bad thing happened we have to shut everything down and watch and secure everything.

      I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty. If we did nothing after 9/11, we'd be living in a safer world with more freedom. Everything that has transpired after 9/11 has simply been a power grab by those already in power to ensure their place and make sure someone with actual intelligence doesn't rise to power.

    7. Re: Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A disposable camera flash uses a single AA battery to generate a 300V charge.

    8. Re:Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... waiting for the mandate that all TSA personnel have an electronics background so they can tell the "good" capacitors from the "bad" capacitors and/or ones likely to discharge while in storage.

    9. Re:Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones I have (VARTA NiMh) are a stack of button cells, rectangular with round edges.

    10. Re:Le sigh by whoever57 · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but "AA battery" is how we commonly write it.

      One can infer that the original speaker actually said "double-A" from the way it is written:
      'TSA officer Camille Morris is quoted as saying, "A AA battery is fine. A AAA. A 9-volt battery is a huge power charge.'
      Note the use of "a AA .." instead of "an AA ...".

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    11. Re:Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "AA battery" is how it's written. I think it's weird how you write it out as "double-A".

      Are you one of those people who also writes "Artoo Detoo" and "See Threepio" instead of "R2-D2" and "C-3PO"?

    12. Re:Le sigh by c · · Score: 1

      The actual process that ignited the motor was passing current through a wire that was intentionally too thin to carry that current without generating heat, and the heat is what set off the engine.

      When I was young, we could reliably detonate pipe bombs by triggering a camera flash through a 1/8W resistor.

      If you've got a large capacitor and a power source, the size of the battery doesn't matter too much...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    13. Re:Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the original statement came from someone in the military AA battery --- Anti-Aircraft battery.

    14. Re: Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And the 300 volt charge is in turn used to generate the several thousand volt trigger pulse needed to ionize the xenon gas inside the tube.

      The TSA person making the safe/not safe declaration really has no actual idea what he/she is talking about.

    15. Re:Le sigh by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      I think the original quote was an answer to a question: "What kind of battery can set off a bomb?"

      The answer was "a Double-A battery is fine. A Triple-A. A 9-volt battery has a HUGE charge."

      OK, so what TSA officer Camille Morris is saying is that even a AA battery is fine for setting off a bomb.

      Please, nobody mention that every single cell phone and tablet have 3.7v Li-ion cells in them.

    16. Re:Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would make them aware of it, but you used "Le Sigh" as your title, so now I'm going to ignore everything you said.

    17. Re:Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Higher voltage = scarier to them, maybe?

      There's no logic behind it at all. And for this we're going to shove more dangerous batteries (lithium-ion) into the hold and just pretend that they're safer there, unattended.

      This is worse than generalized security theatre. It's security comedy.

    18. Re:Le sigh by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Higher voltage = scarier to them, maybe?

      The only thing scary about a 9V battery is putting your tongue on it.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    19. Re:Le sigh by camperdave · · Score: 1

      sorry, "AA Battery" means something entirely different

      We have this thing called "context" where a particular word or phrase can have different meanings under different circumstances. AA batteries, in this context, are the tiny cylindrical objects that provide electrical power to low voltage devices, not the things that shoot Messerschmidts out of the sky. Even though this particular battery is pronounced "double-A" it is never written that way. If you have a problem with this, you can take it up with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:Le sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be sure to tell all the battery makers that their packaging - which says AA Battery - is incorrect and they need to change it immediately.

    21. Re: Le sigh by Matt.Battey · · Score: 1

      Probably the actual reason 9 volt batteries are demonized is because they haven't been on regular use on consumer electronics since the 80's. Partly because we don't use discrete 2N2222s any more, and because they ate just really big compared to their mAH ratings.

      Here the TSA's training rationale, and it comes from the the way military was trained 50 years ago. 1 assume most trainees can barely read and that basic arithmetic is difficult. 2 train said employees to identify edge cases by building straw man arguments that include concrete examples. Be sure these concrete examples are things that "normal" people don't do. In this case, use laptops, wear shoes, or use electronics with square 9 volt batteries.

      There's also a secret code. My wife packed a Play Doh kit wrapped in Christmas paper for me to deliver to my nephews when on a business trip. The screener rightly asked to hand check the contents, removing the paper and viewing the contents of each container. As the best retiree was telling me that I would have to leave the Play Doh behind, the supervisor came over and said there was a new regulation and Play Doh was ok (it wasn't explicitly listed on the i.e. banned items list).

      Now that I've shared this, I'm sure I will receive the "enhanced" (finger tips in your pants) screening. At least that's what happened last time...

    22. Re: Le sigh by KGIII · · Score: 1

      When I skimmed the summary, I had to go back and read it. I read it as AA, and not the cell type.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    23. Re:Le sigh by khr · · Score: 1

      sorry, "AA Battery" means something entirely different

      We have this thing called "context" where a particular word or phrase can have different meanings under different circumstances. AA batteries, in this context, are the tiny cylindrical objects that provide electrical power to low voltage devices, not the things that shoot Messerschmidts out of the sky.

      And coincidentally, we're talking about these AA batteries, "the tiny cylindrical objects that provide electrical power" in the context of security and preventing them from taking airplanes down out of the sky.

    24. Re: Le sigh by Mes · · Score: 1

      I dissected a broken camera once that had been sitting for quite a while. I was able to determine the capacitor was still fully charged... HOLY FUCKING HELL

  7. I don't know about this... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    So... The bomb goes off in the hold and starts a fire? Jets don't usually recover from that... At least up top, you might confine the damage to a hole next to whoever has the laptop bomb (Egypt Air...)

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:I don't know about this... by toonces33 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only that - they just got through telling people that they didn't want people checking lithium batteries, because of the risk of a garden variety battery fire. Now they are thinking of *requiring* these things to be checked because of some unspecified threat.

    2. Re:I don't know about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bombs are less about fire and more about pressure or shrapnel; the fire aspect is a Hollywood creation. Such a device will be less effective baffled by all the other objects in the hold vs being pressed against the exterior while in the cabin.

    3. Re:I don't know about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because lithium batteries are MORE dangerous in the cargo hold exposed to more drastic changes in temperature and low air pressure... not to mention being abused by baggage handlers.

    4. Re:I don't know about this... by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      So... The bomb goes off in the hold and starts a fire? Jets don't usually recover from that... At least up top, you might confine the damage to a hole next to whoever has the laptop bomb (Egypt Air...)

      Jets possibly can recover from that, depending on placement and how reinforced the baggage hold is.

      Jets can't recover from sudden depressurization via gaping hole in the cabin. The only reason the Daallo Airlines flight in Somalia wasn't worse was because the bomb next to the window went off before they had reached cruising altitude and the cabin was pressurized.

    5. Re:I don't know about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything, the passenger compartment is sturdier than the cargo hold, but they are all part of the same basic tube and there is nothing special about the cargo hold. Keeping laptops in the cabin actually makes more sense than this proposal for several reasons:

      (1) if someone tries to put their laptop against the window and do something suspicious, at least nearby passengers have the opportunity to intervene, which is ultimately what stopped the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber.

      (2) The local action of the device against a window would likely create less damage, not more, which might be survivable. Aircraft can and have survived the departure of large chunks of fuselage without crashing, even when pressurized (Aloha 737 and United 747 incidents in Hawaii, for example).

      (3) It is harder to place a device in the cargo hold such that it is against the side of the aircraft, but if you make it big enough (large laptop battery size chunk of C4) it probably doesn't matter that much. Much more damage will be done by shrapnel from other cargo flying around the cargo hold and hitting critical flight systems down there than by soft bodies in the cabin, although I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the bodies.

      (4) I suspect it's probably easier to smuggle something aboard in checked luggage than it is through passenger security. Is checked luggage scrutinized at the same level as passengers, as basic as that process is?

    6. Re:I don't know about this... by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Jets can't recover from sudden depressurization via gaping hole in the cabin

      Jets certainly can, because it's happened a few times in the past - most notably that Hawaii Airlines one where a stewardess got sucked out. Flight crew have "proper" emergency oxygen masks and are trained in their use. Passengers, if they're strapped in, well they tend to black out in about 30 seconds at 30,000+ feet, and you won't be at that altitude for long, because the pilot be descending at 10,000+ feet per minute, pronto.

      Down there in the cargo bay however you have a lot of vital aircraft components going past - power and hydraulics, the avionics bay, centrally mounted fuel tanks, etc. If I had a choice between blowing out a door in flight (for example) or blowing a door-sized hole down below, I'd pick the hole in the passenger cabin every time.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    7. Re:I don't know about this... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Jets can't recover from sudden depressurization via gaping hole in the cabin.

      Have you seen pictures of Aloha 243? That seems like it would fit anyone's definition of "a gaping hole", and there was just one fatality in that incident. And the aircraft landed.

    8. Re:I don't know about this... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      South African Airways Flight 295 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      ValuJet Flight 592 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Air India Flight 182 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      UPS Airlines Flight 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      The changes now are better ways to confine the damage, detect issues and deal with issues.
      Testing and results over many years showed what happened, what could have helped and changes got made.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:I don't know about this... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      stopped the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber.

      The "shoe bomber" was a guy who tried to use a non-safety match to light a cigarette in the toilet, and accidentally lit his plastic sole, and then lied to the staff. (It was common to strike these on leather soles in the olden days).

      I don't know of the underwear bomber - maybe it was part of a sex movie plot?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    10. Re:I don't know about this... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      That flight was, in a way, lucky, because it was curising at low altitude due to the flight being very short. The pilots probably wouldn't even have needed oxygen masks to reach safe altitude.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    11. Re:I don't know about this... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      So... The bomb goes off in the hold and starts a fire? Jets don't usually recover from that... At least up top, you might confine the damage to a hole next to whoever has the laptop bomb (Egypt Air...)

      No, no. You don't put a bomb in the cargo hold – too short-acting. You choose instead an incendiary that will have enough time to get things really burning. Even a box of sparklers would probably do the job.

  8. Hey, I'd do the same by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    At least if I needed a new laptop and didn't give a fuck whether you accuse me of stealing it because I know that even if true you can't do jack shit about it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Hey, I'd do the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can do plenty to make some TSA drone's life miserable if he or she tries to steal your laptop on domestic flights.

      You can store your laptop inside of a secure firearm case along with your firearms and ammunition. You have to check the container before going through security. If the TSA wants to open it, then they have to make a reasonable effort to contact you. They will pull you off the plane, even after you've boarded or when it is taxiing, if that's what it takes. If they don't contact you, then they're on the hook for some serious liabilities. If the laptop goes missing, then it takes just a few calls to both the FBI and the ATF to tell them that either the TSA employees or the airline employees were mucking around with the firearm case and misplaced some of its contents. That will sort matters out very quickly.

    2. Re:Hey, I'd do the same by PoisOnouS · · Score: 1

      You better hope you don't land in NJ or NY.

  9. Let's start chanting by spikenerd · · Score: 1

    "TSA Go away" while we wait in their lines.

    Also, let's keep inventing new ways to take down airplanes and making YouTube how-to's about them until the TSA bans phones and clothes, and people finally start to get annoyed.

  10. I've had stuff stolen out of checked luggage by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

    I hope they're assuming liability for stuff that goes missing then. I don't put anything valuable in checked luggage anymore after getting shit stolen out of it years ago.

    1. Re:I've had stuff stolen out of checked luggage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the laptops are stolen from checked luggage by airline baggage handlers or TSA employees, they have been rendered safe. Problem solved.

    2. Re:I've had stuff stolen out of checked luggage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too, but it was only one Tasty Cakes box out of four. They left the brand new, unopened laptop alone. I didn't file a complaint. I guess they don't get enough time for lunch breaks.

  11. Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't wait until all we all have to ride nude in the plane because someone figured out how to turn a pair of jeans into an explosive.

    1. Re: Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been there. The shoe and underwear bombers didn't really cause much change in security. This is all about selling new bag scanning gear and starting a rental laptop and iPad market. So obvious it's pathetic.

    2. Re:Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      They will just issue TSA-approved hospital gowns for everyone to wear. The ones where your butt hangs out for everyone to see..

    3. Re: Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes by Matt.Battey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exploding Trousers is a real thing, apparently.

    4. Re:Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least it will be easier for them to search it for contraband that way.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re: Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shoe bomber is why you have to take off your shoes at the checkpoint. So yes , there was a significant change. Just not any sort of effective one.

    6. Re:Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes by walterhpdx · · Score: 1

      Curiously, that would actually make me want to travel more. And I already fly twice a week for work.

    7. Re:Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1

      Orange Jumpsuits are much more convenient. Then the flight can be diverted straight to Gitmo.

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  12. But will you protest? by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

    How many people will protest this by cutting out trips by plane? There are people who "have to" fly, but the vast majority of people who say they "have to" actually don't. The only way any of this changes is when the airlines start putting pressure on the government.

    Vacation locally, work remotely, drive where you need to go. As long as you keep buying those tickets, none of this will change.

    1. Re:But will you protest? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      If the airlines provided special treatment for laptops with protective cases separately from the regular bags and ID checking before giving it back to the passengers, I'd be OK with it. My concern is only that it would get lost or stolen. I would even accept having to pay a small fee for this laptop cargo care (though not $100).

    2. Re:But will you protest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't flown since this shit started. :)

      Fuck the TSA, fuck all the security-theater bullshit... oh, and by the way... it's SO reassuring that the people in charge of all this bullshit are so stunningly and embarrassingly incompetent that they don't know the difference between VOLTAGE and POWER, (E=IR and P=IE... where E is electromotive force (in Volts) I is current (in Amperes,) R is resistance in Ohms, and P is power in Watts,) when they make technically WRONG statements while talking about the restrictions they're placing on batteries...

      A 9-volt battery is a huge power charge

      NO, MORON. A 9-volt battery, assuming of course you mean a standard "9-Volt Battery" referring to the SIZE, the FORM FACTOR, and not merely that a battery has nine volts potential difference between the terminals, because technically, several batteries in sequence are ALSO a battery, a collection of 6 1.5V batteries, such as AA, AAA, C, and D sized cells, would ALSO be a 9 volt "battery", still makes no sense. The battery might HAVE a "huge power charge" but it is not itself, the charge in question.

      It may sound like I'm picking nits here, but there are big differences, and people trying to decide whether or not to ban them in carry-on luggage in flights without understanding the basics of mAh ratings of batteries, and what they mean, what POWER is, in terms of electrical engineering, versus current, voltage, and the like.

      Just saying.

    3. Re:But will you protest? by v1 · · Score: 1

      It makes me wonder if they are considering the potential for something like an explosion or fire from the battery itself, or what the battery could work in conjunction with. (such as a detonator) In the case of a detonator, it's trivially easy to buck up voltage from even a 1.5v AAA to charge up a capacitor to fire off even a large detonator. In that case, it's the power capacity of the battery that's the issue. But I bet you could get away with that using a CR2032 watch battery also.

      As for the 9v, it has less power than a pair of AA batteries, owing to its design to provide greater voltage at a lower current and for less time. Older 9v's used to be made of six AAAA batteries - I used to take them apart for fun. (do they still do that?) Then the cheaper ones started stacking flat cells vertically top to bottom (still, six of them), I think radio shack was the first I saw do that. I was quite disappointed to find that stack in there when I tore open a radio shack 9v years ago. But using individual cells internally wastes space that could be used to increase the total power in the cell, more room for electrolyte. I generally judge batteries like that by their weight, and you can clearly see that a 9v weighs less than two AAs. The power in a single D cell however... would apparently make the TSA wet their pants. (go look it up, it's quite surprising!)

      I'm not really sure how they think you can directly convert battery power into an explosion though? Most batteries are good at high density storage yes, but not rapid charge or discharge. (if you want that, get a supercap!) Something tells me they don't science much.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re: But will you protest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fly a lot on short notice for work, and can't take three days to drive, and need my laptop. And I need it when I arrive, in working condition, and not a week later all busted up.

    5. Re:But will you protest? by lgw · · Score: 1

      How many people will protest this by cutting out trips by plane?

      If this happens, I'm done flying. It's borderline now, and this BS would cross the line.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:But will you protest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the big problem with lithium ion batteries is that they "smolder" when they burn up. Look at how the "exploding" Samsungs got hot enough to melt plastic and scorch glass... all the while as the battery gets hotter it dumps more energy into whatever is already shorting out. So it starts fires in materials that are generally "flame resistant" like car interiors and once you actually get those "resistant" items burning they are very hard to put out.

      I don't know what you save by packing away the batteries in checked luggage. Now you just surrounded it with tightly packed flammable clothes. So if a fire starts you'll get a bigger one. At least in carry on luggage the device has less stuff around it and it can be extinguished. I suppose you get an hour-long cooldown time because the device is powered off, not charging, and sitting in baggage.

    7. Re:But will you protest? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      How many people will protest this by cutting out trips by plane?

      I haven't flown out of the US since they put in body scanners. Yeah, it's cost me opportunities, but just because the country is full of unprincipled cowards doesn't mean we all have to be.

      If people stop flying because of laptops, it's not going to be from courage, it's going to be out of inconvenience.

      Anyway, wasn't TSA supposedly justified because "airplanes aren't blown up anymore, they're used as missiles?" Are we back to airplanes not being taken for missiles? Because TSA can fold up and go home then, returning airplane security to airlines.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:But will you protest? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >How many people will protest this by cutting out trips by plane?

      I won't protest by cutting out trips. I will just cut out trips because the business value plummets once I can't be productive on the plane and my laptop is stolen from checked baggage so I can't be productive at my destination.

      It will destroy the airlines if half the business travelers desert them.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:But will you protest? by mallyn · · Score: 1
      I am already doing this. It is now June 2017. I have not flown anywhere since April, 2015. That flight was for my mother's funeral. Both of my parents are now passed away, so no more funeral flights until both my sibs and myself get of that age.

      I am retired in Bellingham, Washington, which has everything I need and I have absolutely no desire to go anywhere which I cannot get to via AmQuack (Amtrak) or my bicycle. It's a one day bicycle ride to either Seattle or Vancouver from here.

      I have given up on flying long before Trump. It's just too darn miserable. Not because of laptops. I very rarely use my laptop on the plane. In fact, I checked it once just because I did not want to lug it.

      It's the airports. The people. The horrible food. The nasty energy surrounding everything. Now add the TSA and Trump.

      My life has plenty to offer without going anywhere near and airport of plane.

      --
      Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
  13. Gate check the laptop? by toonces33 · · Score: 2

    If you could gate check the laptop bag, you would minimize the potential for mischief, and also make it possible to do something useful while waiting for the flight to take off.

    1. Re:Gate check the laptop? by TWX · · Score: 1

      If you can gate-check it then you've already brought it through security, and could likely smuggle it onboard without checking it.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Gate check the laptop? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      To get around that, they'd simply record the fact that you are gate checking something and the boarding pass reader would have yet another reason to beep when you went through. "Are you ok in an exit row, and where's the gate-check computer you went through security with?"

      And then you'd just go through into the bathroom while waiting to board, remove the explosives from the hacked computer, gate-check the shell, and carry your bomb on board with you.

      Here's the real issue. What happens to all the people who use electronic boarding passes when they have to check their boarding pass before going through security?

  14. Budget cuts by mishehu · · Score: 2

    As soon as somebody tries to cut off the blood money that TSA gets, the TSA starts shrieking about every shadow out there. Seriously, wtf is the connection between what happened in London and what you're allowed to bring into the cabin of an airplane? And what the f'ing f, a 9V battery is somehow worse than 6 AA batteries???? If they try to enact this, I hope they get run out of the airports and told to stick it where the sun don't shine.

    1. Re: Budget cuts by Matt.Battey · · Score: 1

      And this is why I submitted this story...

    2. Re:Budget cuts by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      I hope they get ... told to stick it where the sun don't shine.

      I thought they do this on a regular basis. You never know where terrrris might try to hide a bomb!

  15. Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by Guillermito · · Score: 2

    What's the idea here? If terrorists can disguise a bomb as a laptop, is it any safer if the explosion occurs in the plane cargo compartment? Would a timer trigger be easier to spot using x-rays, as opposed to a manual trigger? They plan to fly the luggage in a separate plane without passengers?

    1. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The threat considered is shaped charges that a terrorist could hold against the inside cabin surface to create a hole in the fuselage. If the terrorist cannot predict where and how the explosive will be positioned, the amount of explosive (given those they can acquire/make) would have to be increased to achieve the same damage, probably beyond the available space in the laptop.

    2. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by protest_boy · · Score: 1

      Apparently the battery of a laptop can be partially replaced by an explosive material. The laptop still works and will power on and presumably, not appear suspicious in the x-ray machine. But it's a small amount of explosive, and so for it to be effective, it has to be placed up against the outside of the fuselage. If the bag were checked there's no telling where it would be and it probably wouldn't cause serious structural damage.

    3. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense. A laptop worth of high explosives is _a lot_. A 3.5 inch hard drive worth of high explosives is a lot.

      Didn't you go through a pyro stage as a teen?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the bag were checked there's no telling where it would be and it probably wouldn't cause serious structural damage.

      No, but a rapid oxidation event ("fire") in the cargo hold might well take down the plane. Packed among flammable materials, your hypothetical laptop bomb could still be catastrophic.

    5. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so it just has to have legs so it can move around in the baggage area and be able to anchor itself to the side of the plane? That doesn't sound impossible difficult from an engineering standpoint. How about just ban everything instead though? Hospital gowns for all!

    6. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the laptop is checked, who's turning it on? And if it doesn't have to fake being turned on, there's more room for explosives.

    7. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by kiminator · · Score: 1

      That's honestly a tall order, at least for the time being. Autonomous or semi-autonomous robots are still a pretty niche item, and I sincerely doubt terror groups will want to use one any time soon. For one, they'd likely be highly unreliable.

      I don't see why it'd be any more difficult to just pack a bit more explosive in the luggage than smuggle a shaped charge through security.

    8. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      It's possible to create a shaped charge occupying part but not all of a laptop's battery compartment. This leaves enough battery to power the laptop for a "turn it on to prove it's a laptop" check, so if you dress it up right, the laptop bomb could theoretically get through security.

      Thing is, this shaped charge can't be made very large, because you need to leave room for the truncated battery. If you hold the laptop up against the side of the airplane while detonating it, you might be able to make a hole big enough to bring down the plane. If you detonate the laptop in the middle of the cargo hold, the blast will diffuse itself against the surrounding luggage.

      Now, Aviation Herald reports an in-flight battery fire every few weeks. It reports a terrorist attack bringing down an airplane once every decade or so. Given the relative frequencies, I know which threat I'd prefer the TSA protect us against.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    9. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably you cannot pack the whole laptop with explosives, or it will be detected by traditional means. Maybe they are planning on replacing a few battery cells with a bomb, so the laptop still works and looks normally.

    10. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by Zemran · · Score: 1

      "But it's a small amount of explosive" tell that to the victims of Pan Am flight 103. OK, it was disguised as a radio battery but same idea.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    11. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The power it takes to turn on a laptop is so small you could power it with a small lipo in one end of the battery case. Getting a laptop to power on for the 60 seconds it takes to prove it's legit is maybe 500mWh of capacity. That's one CR123. 90% of the battery case can be explosive.

    12. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by mpercy · · Score: 1

      So we're going to exchange that remote possibility for the prospect of putting all those lithium batteries in the hold?

      2016: The international regulations applicable to air shipments of lithium batteries have changed. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council has approved amendments to the lithium battery provisions in the ICAO Technical Instructions. Compliance with the new regulations is mandatory effective April 1, 2016. These amendments include:

      Passenger Aircraft Ban for Lithium Ion Batteries: All shipments of lithium batteries without equipment are prohibited as cargo on passenger aircraft. As a result, all lithium ion battery shipments must display the Cargo Aircraft Only label. Due to UPS's reliance on passenger aircraft to transport packages in some parts of its network, this change will restrict the origins and destinations available for lithium ion batteries. This limitation does not affect lithium ion batteries packed with or contained in equipment.
      State of Charge Limits: A 30 percent state of charge (SOC) limit on lithium-ion cells and batteries, including Section II cells and batteries. This does not apply to batteries packed with or contained in equipment.
      Restrictions on Package Quantity: A shipper is not allowed to offer more than one Section II package (batteries only) per consignment.
      Restrictions on Overpacks: Overpacks may contain no more than one Section II package - 8 cells or 2 batteries - (batteries only).
      Battery Package Separation: A shipper must offer lithium battery shipments (batteries only) separately from other cargo.

      These amendments are detailed in a lithium battery update document found on the International Air Transport Association (IATA) web site: http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/c....

    13. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Which is why I pointed out that a 3.5 inch drive worth of high explosives is still a lot. Boot the machine off a microSD card and the hard drive is easy free space. Wrapped in metal too so partially X-Ray obscured. The bastards could melt the high explosives and pour them around the physical hardware in the drive, leaving it looking almost stock.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of space that can be used for shaped charges is small, if the passenger must demonstrate that the laptop functions (boots up, opens applications).

      Terrorists do not always have access to the most potent explosives

  16. Same game they play with water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bottled water is no threat. They make you toss that $0.99 bottle of water purchased on the way to the airport and buy the $7 bottle from the convenience store that is always so coincidentally just outside the checkpoint exit. Get ready to see Best Buy rentals kiosks or mini stores next door soon.

    1. Re: Same game they play with water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that Best buy already has vending machines in most airports?

  17. If terrorists can hide a bomb in a laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you think they could hide the fact that the laptop is actually on, when it is stowed in cargo?

  18. AAA Should be enough by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    "The size of the battery that can take down a plane when attached to an explosive."

    I image a AAA battery running a timer could set off a well designed nuclear device - In fact a watch battery could too, maybe even a windup Mickey Clock!

    BAN THEM ALLLLLLLL

    1. Re:AAA Should be enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That envelope opener or plastic butter knife can be used as a shiv against the flight attendants! Ban everything except your nakedness!

  19. Two to three hours ahead of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's 210 miles at posted highway speeds. Figure another hour or two in the air and at your destination and you may very well save time by driving.

    1. Re:Two to three hours ahead of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think again, genius. Two hours in the air comes to around 750 miles (assuming that the two hours includes time to reach altitude and descend again). At highway speed that's 10+ hours of driving at highway speeds - likely more than that if you hit traffic at either end of that driving trip.

    2. Re:Two to three hours ahead of time by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      To airport 45 mins
      Wait for flight 2 hours
      Get luggage half hour
      Get rental car half hour
      Get to destination 45 mins
      The car has a 4.5 hour headstart.

      I generally put the cut off at 8 hour drive, but that's more six hours door to door with the flight, driving just being more pleasant.

      I generally am closer to 1-1.5 hours before my flight too.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Two to three hours ahead of time by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It will kill commuter airlines.

      The middle hour of that two hour block is likely about 450. Leaving about 300 for the first and last half hours. And that's a jet, breaking even at about 1 hour flight time (and neglecting airport delays on arrival). Turboprop puddle jumpers will be out of business. Jet flights under 1 hour will be greatly reduced.

      All for theater.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Two to three hours ahead of time by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Think again, genius. Two hours in the air comes to around 750 miles (assuming that the two hours includes time to reach altitude and descend again). At highway speed that's 10+ hours of driving at highway speeds - likely more than that if you hit traffic at either end of that driving trip.

      The problem is, two hours in the air comes to 750 miles, but unless there's a direct flight, half of your travel is probably in the wrong direction, and you have layovers during which you're just sitting there.

      For example, suppose you want to travel from Nashville to Daytona Beach. By car, the trip is about 10 hours. By plane, you get to the airport and wait at least an hour. Southwest has the only direct flight, so if you don't want to be packed into a cattle car, you'll have a stopover in Atlanta. So you spend an hour and 10 minutes for that flight, followed by a 1.5 hour layover, then another 1.5-hour flight to Orlando.

      After five hours and ten minutes, you get to the airport in Orlando and spend about an hour waiting for luggage, getting a car from the car rental place, and getting out of the parking garage. Then you drive backwards towards your destination for another hour. So it took you 7 hours and 10 minutes instead of a 10-hour drive, but for that ~28% reduction in time, you've spent a couple hundred bucks per person plus over a hundred bucks per day for a car rental, and you're still stuck driving an unknown vehicle instead of your own.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Two to three hours ahead of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on who's paying, take Uber for the trip from the destination airport to the actual destination, so you don't have to worry about wear-and-tear on you and your car nor about driving an unknown vehicle (not that should be a problem, in any case). And if I had a choice between taking Southwest and almost doubling the travel time, I'd take Southwest (I assume that Southwest is no better than Spirit or Frontier).

    6. Re:Two to three hours ahead of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't buy that article, in any case. First, I think that the person in that article is talking out of her hat - she is just making stuff up. Secondly, they are not going to enforce any two- or three hours ahead of time, as it's patently ridiculous on the face of it. I always get to the airport two hours ahead of time, but that's because I'm taking SuperShuttle and being honest about the actual flight time when I make the shuttle reservation on-line.

    7. Re:Two to three hours ahead of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already skip the commuters/connections at my local airport. It's a 2:45 hour drive for me to get to the closest hub, and the regional is 45 minutes. Connection from the regional to the hub is about 1 hour nominal (flight departure time to deplaning), and the best connection is about an hour layover (dangerous too, as the regionals are often delayed). So it's a wash to drive straight to the hub to meet the same plane, the ticket is $200 cheaper, and I don't have to worry about the regional being delayed, the flight being cancelled, or any checked luggage getting mis-routed at the connection. Anything within ~6.5 hours - which is close to 450 road miles at today's interstate speeds - is faster to drive. If/when automated driving comes along, it also will be no more tiring than a plane ride, even if it's just the highway miles that are completely autonomous. With cost as a factor, that will stretch the value proposition even further.

    8. Re:Two to three hours ahead of time by mpercy · · Score: 1

      And you have the additional expense of the rental car, plus the rental car return. And for the whole bus-to-the-rental-car building, and then renting the car, doing the walkaround, finding someone whom to report the half-empty gas tank, adjust the mirrors, get the phone-to-car link set for tunes...half-hour seems short.

      My circle is at least 6 hours, and much of my travel is at least 4+ days. I can rent a car from a neighborhood rental location for a week with unlimited miles for 3oz the entire trip, don't have to try to pack into carry-on or worry about checked luggage. Just chuck everything into the big suitcase (or two). Plus, because most of my travel is through and within states which have reciprocity for my carry permit, I can keep the firearm too. Not to mention toting a set of golf clubs in case I find some free time on the trip is a lot easier.

      TSA can suck it.

    9. Re:Two to three hours ahead of time by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Try taking Southwest with kids. The inability to guarantee seating next to your traveling companions makes Southwest a major hassle, and even though sometimes people are willing to swap around to help you out, there's no guarantee that your kids/spouse won't end up twenty rows behind you.

      The first airline that splits the difference between preassigned seating and free-for-all will get a lot of business—choose aisle/center/window/don't care; choose front/back/middle/don't care, and rank those two factors plus sitting near your traveling companions in order of preference. Provide info about whether you expect to bring an overhead bag to allow even distribution. Then compute the final seating arrangement right before boarding passes become available by evaluating those weighted constraints and resolving any otherwise unresolvable conflicts in favor of the person who bought a ticket first. That way, when you have a family of three, they'll end up grouped together by bumping the person who requested a window seat back just one row to the same row with somebody who chose an aisle seat (or vice versa), and that all happens before you board.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  20. seriously? ugg by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and everyone with a brain who read this says to themselves "I'm now officially more concerned about the TSA than any terrorist organization on earth".

    1. Re: seriously? ugg by Matt.Battey · · Score: 1

      As I've been reading comments, I fully suspect the STA is being trolled just like the leftivist SJWs that think the OK Hans sign is a secret white supremacy gang sign.

      We are in a state of affairs where beaurocrats in will take any sliver of evidence to establish and extend their political power.

    2. Re: seriously? ugg by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      How do we convince the TSA to ban women wearing bras on flights? Require yoga pants, commando. Exceptions for old and otherwise not hot women.

      And turn up the AC!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:seriously? ugg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and everyone with a brain who read this says to themselves "I'm now officially more concerned about the TSA than any other terrorist organization on earth".

      FTFY

    4. Re:seriously? ugg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the Terrorism School of America run by RSHA? Because that's what they're doing. They're refining the garden-variety cuba-and-a-million-dollars terrorists into actual threats to life and liberty. There were once devils we knew, but the TSA trained them to be something we don't know anymore. Fuck the TSA in the ass with a rusty grill brush.

    5. Re:seriously? ugg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and everyone with a brain who read this says to themselves "I'm now officially more concerned about the TSA than any terrorist organization on earth".

      That has been true ever since the TSA came into being.

    6. Re:seriously? ugg by kiminator · · Score: 1

      I've long been more concerned about the TSA than terrorist organizations. Terrorism of this sort is not a significant threat in the US period. All that we get out of this kind of bullshit is more uncomfortable interactions with TSA agents, and more inconvenience. People in marginalized groups get the worst of it.

    7. Re:seriously? ugg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? It's minor annoyances when I make a flight a few times a year, vs. people trying to kill me.

      Let's not exaggerate. This would be a bummer, but so fucking what in the grand scheme of things. You can't use your laptop for a few hours. The local movie theater asks the same thing.

    8. Re: seriously? ugg by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      they will just add an strip search room to the airport.

      Beavis and Butt-Head will want that job!

    9. Re:seriously? ugg by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      "I'm now officially more concerned about the TSA than any terrorist organization on earth"

      You write that as if it wasn't equally true on the day the TSA was invented...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  21. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no seriously, slashdot referenced an article that has the paragraph:

    "That kind of threat prompted a ban on laptop and computer pads from airplane cabins flying from seven African and Middle Eastern countries this past spring. It could spread to domestic flights."

    Computer pads? is this some kind of new fangled feminine product?

    Also why are laptops being banned from flights when the majority of terrorist attacks happen on the ground and the last one that involved a plane was years ago. This world is so scared of its own shadow that it just doesn't make sense to participate any more. Its been a great run, so long and thanks for the fish

    1. Re:WTF? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Computer pads? is this some kind of new fangled feminine product?

      Once a month i have to swaddle my Macbook in depends for this very reason.

  22. Remote by Going_Digital · · Score: 1

    So, they are frightened that a laptop may contain a bomb or incendiary device. Has it never occurred to them that a terrorist could use a remote control device to detonate it?

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

      Has it never occurred to you that they are concerned about other aspects of the threat than the means of initiating the detonation? Like perhaps where the explosion occurs (in a random location in the hold versus definitely pressed against the skin of the airplane), or whether there is some scheme to combine several devices to create a larger or different type of explosion? At this point nobody responding here has the slightest idea of what it takes to assure the downing of an airplane (versus possibly downing), whether the uncertainty of the results might deter the bomber, etc, so the outraged protests over the speculations of TSA actions are based solely on fear and ignorance.

    2. Re:Remote by SoulMaster · · Score: 1

      I don't have the time to find any particular source, but I believe the scanning checked luggage goes through is more advanced than the screening for hand luggage, which part of the reason why you're not supposed to put film in checked luggage.

      -SM

      Ha! I said "film" on /.!

    3. Re: Remote by Matt.Battey · · Score: 1

      Nope, just a higher rad x-ray beam. Which means it penetrates further, but any rad-tech will tell you, more photons does not make a prettier picture.

    4. Re: Remote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why hide it in a laptop when it can be hidden surgically inside someone's lap. Then push the ass cheek against the window in the correct vector for the charge. What's next? Ban people from airplanes?

  23. Re:Papers please ! by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "In order to fight terrorism we will commence terrified running around and tossing away our freedom..."

    “With today’s terrorism, you can’t trust anybody,” one passenger said.

    I'll show that fucking unamerican asshole some terrorism. IF YOU CAN'T TRUST ANYONE WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING OUT OF A FUCKING STEEL BUNKER SHOWING YOUR WORTHLESS ASSHOLE TO A REPORTER WHO MIGHT BE WITH ISIS YOU SPINELESS IGNORANT COWARDLY FUCK!?!

  24. Re:I don't much care for it, but I agree with them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree! Anybody who objects to this should not be allowed to fly, and probably should be thrown into prison on a subtropical island in the Caribbean.

  25. Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Luckily this is just fear mongering on the part of the OP. The actual article didn't mention laptops and domestic flights at all.

    1. Re: Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never expect the current /. Cried to read the articles. You're right of course but they don't care.

      The TSA is pointless but let's discuss facts please.

      Anyway, the only way we will ever stop determined terrorists is to arm every person on the plane.

    2. Re:Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair the article does hint at this applying to domestic flights with warnings that you should expect longer delays and wait times so arrive 2 hours earlier. It doesn't explicitly state it but it definitely is inferred.

  26. I don't trust their math by lusid1 · · Score: 1

    "A AA battery is fine. A AAA. A 9-volt battery is a huge power charge" ?? really?
    Sticking with NiMH for consistency, a 9v is 250mah, a AA is 2100mah. hmm. AA looks to be winning. Maybe they think 9v invokes more fear? What is the official color coded fear level for a 9v battery anyway? Copper? Try it in watt-hours and the AA still wins the day. Maybe they should worry less about the size of the batteries, and more about not letting people bring on the explosives.

    1. Re:I don't trust their math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because having the poles on one side makes it easier for terrorists to short circuit it against someone's tongue.

  27. don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bomb hell, there has been more than 1 just ignite. One just the other day and even the nightly news worried about this happening in a cargo hold.

    How many plane fires are ok, if we stop a bomb? How many if it MIGHT stop a bomb. Gotta do something about the rash of planes blowing up...errr

    What the fuck would putting them in checked luggage do anyway? Isn't a fire/bomb in cargo still a rather large problem?

    Still have no clue what that battery shit was about. The 3 AAA batteries in my penlight are probably enough, heck a few button batteries would work. Wire around a match head needs 6 volts* or less. I came up with this 40 years ago as a kid, I hope it isn't too much info....sigh. I got tired of buying the overpriced ignitors for my model rockets. Also bottle rocket launchers on my car used em...ah it was different world....

    *given the quality of matches now, no guarantee ...and i never tried with less voltage :O

    1. Re: don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're assuming a manual trigger. If it'd I'm the cargo hold you can't set it off. Which is completely idiotic of course. Real bad guys use more advanced stuff even in the desert.

    2. Re: don't get it by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      They're assuming a manual trigger. If it'd I'm the cargo hold you can't set it off. Which is completely idiotic of course. Real bad guys use more advanced stuff even in the desert.

      Indeed. The technology necessary to count for a specified period of time and then apply a voltage to a wire may seem like science fiction today, but in a few years and a few more generations of silicon scaling, we might get there.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  28. land of the free to be fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US moves ever backward towards a totalitarian regime. How any American can say with a straight face anymore that they are the land of the free and home of the brave is beyond me. I guess when all you have known is the lack of freedom in the US and you are told that is what freedom and braver is then they never know any better.

  29. Re: I don't much care for it, but I agree with the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OP, I have never met an anonymous coward who lives up to the name as well as you.

  30. Forcing checked luggage on everyone w/electronics? by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

    Is the TSA taking into account just how much this could cost American travelers in time and luggage fees?

    WAY too many people travel with laptops these days - especially business travelers. You're going to take away the best tool for getting work done on an airplane while sitting for hours?

    I'll take my chances with Achmed and his shaved-faced crew...

  31. Vehicles not Planes is the Common Threat by mrmaster · · Score: 1

    "Airplanes have been the common threat that we've seen over the past several years."

    Vehicles. Vehicles are the common threat we have been seeing. No one flew a plane into the london bridge, Nice, or any of the other attacks in Germany. It was vehicles.

    1. Re:Vehicles not Planes is the Common Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, it hasn't even been that. It's been Muslims.

    2. Re:Vehicles not Planes is the Common Threat by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      White supremacists kill more people than Muslims in the US, last I looked.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  32. Just stop it. AAA is fine- how about daisy chains? by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    You can daisy chain batteries to get required voltage or connect in parallel. You can use capacitors - most planes provide USB plug for entertainment and use AC outlets that are available on airports and some planes. How far you want to go?

  33. Fly naked! by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    Show up 15 min before departure ...naked, quick pass thru security check and board plane directly.

    1. Re:Fly naked! by Guillermito · · Score: 1

      quick pass thru security check

      ... but not before a full body cavity search.

  34. stupid quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, here's big nasty secret -- you could combine a 6 AAA's in series and get that critical and dangerous 9Volts. And golly you could maybe put two of those in parallel and get a tremendous current. And then you could take a piece of wire between the ends and have it be a hot filament. But don't tell anyone since it's a secret those stupid terrorists would never figure out on their own.

  35. Great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That way if no one sees the fire, it can't harm the plane. Also - yeah right, I trust the n1ggers at the airports not to steal my shit.

  36. Coming soon by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's only a matter of time before the TSA realizes that the common denominator threatening aircraft security is the passenger and they start banning all passengers from flying. Out of an abundance of caution, of course.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Coming soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they'll just put them in the cargo hold.

    2. Re:Coming soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how some are already stacked like cattle cars, would it be much different?

    3. Re:Coming soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: they start banning all passengers from flying

      No, but they would require passengers wear transparent clothes only when boarding the plane.

    4. Re:Coming soon by jmv · · Score: 1

      Nah, passengers are perfectly safe as long as they're properly loaded into the cargo hold. That would then make it safe to have all the laptops and other bags in the main cabin.

  37. The passenger they interviewed - what?? by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

    FTA: “With today’s terrorism, you can’t trust anybody,” one passenger said.

    Today's terrorism? Were 20th century terrorists really more congenial and neighborly than 2017's Islamic fundamentalist crew? Was the passenger 12 years old?

    “It’s a determined enemy,” according to Farbstein. “They’re targeting transportation hubs, and so what we want to do is make sure you get to your destination safely, and go home safely.”

    Talk about pre-practiced, BS-meter triggering, politico speak from a trained fearmonger. I stopped taking her seriously as soon as I read "determined". She should throw in the word "safely" a couple more times to really drive home the point...

    1. Re: The passenger they interviewed - what?? by Matt.Battey · · Score: 1

      I prefer the 18th century terrorist, who covered collaborators in hot tar and feathers, and disposed of taxes products by making salty tea.

    2. Re: The passenger they interviewed - what?? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The 19th Century terrorist black bombs were cool, too.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  38. Most airlines... by DewDude · · Score: 2

    have policies against having electronics in checked baggage. If the TSA says you have to check them...and the airlines say you can't; now what?

    1. Re:Most airlines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. Either don't fly or don't take a laptop.

    2. Re:Most airlines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA will not fold, so airlines after a few scandals will. As simple as that.
      Or airlines will ban altogether laptops and will offer a "premium" service to business class : for a "small" price they will offer to rent a laptop for the duration of the flight.
      (and then corporate computer security engineers will begin to sweat a lot).

    3. Re:Most airlines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For my case it is fairly easy.... yet: Just don't go to USA.

      I hope the level of stupidity is not contagious....

    4. Re:Most airlines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the airlines fire the TSA and put private contractors back.

      win/win for everyone.

    5. Re:Most airlines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you get to find out what brown can do for you.

    6. Re:Most airlines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the bin with all those lethal bottles of water.

  39. That battery-comment is complete BS by gweihir · · Score: 5, Informative

    A 9V battery does not deliver more power than an AA cell. It delivers less. (AA alkaline cell: 1.5V@0.38A = .57W, AAA alkaline cell: 1.5V @0.3A = 0.5W, 9V alkaline cell: 9V@0.05A = 0.45W, all taken from Varta datasheets for fast discharge currents.) A 9V battery delivers more voltage, which in times of cheap, low-input voltage capable and super efficient (90% efficienty) step-up converters means exactly nothing. Also, depending on detonator-type, you can detonate with 1.5V directly.

    The TSA has stepped from merely ridiculously incompetent to fully incompetent.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:That battery-comment is complete BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows if the person in TFA was authorized to speak? Maybe she is just some random low-level agent randomly spouting off.

    2. Re:That battery-comment is complete BS by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Another way to think of it is that if you open up a 9V battery, you'll find all it is is six batteries 1.5V batteries slightly smaller than a AAA, arranged in series to generate 9V. The chemistry and energy content of a 1.5V and 9V battery is the same by mass.

    3. Re:That battery-comment is complete BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electric detonators are effectively just resistors.
      You can get greater current, and therefore heat, across the resistor by increasing the voltage.

      This is why you could power lots of flash bulbs off a relatively small battery. They would slowly charge the capacitor from the low voltage battery, and then dump the high voltage output to the flash in a very short period, causing high current on the flash wire for a very short time.

      High heat for a very short period of time is all you need for a detonator.

    4. Re:That battery-comment is complete BS by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Or if you want voltage, there are also 12V batteries that are a lot smaller than 9V batteries and they are 8 button-style cells in there.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:That battery-comment is complete BS by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, there are also spark-type detonators and ones that basically pump so much energy into a wire it basically blows up. But unless you need a very precise detonation time, a slow thermal detonator will work reliably and these can be made for any voltage by any halfway competent tinkerer. Somebody that is willing to blow themselves up could also use a classical fuse-and-match setup.

      There really is no way to prevent this. Fortunately, the suicidal/homicidal maniacs that do things like this are rare. The problem with what the TSA does here is that it gives further validation to these idiots, by further creating a David&Goliath-like situation. Hence these supposed "countermeasures" may well make terrorist attacks more likely.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:That battery-comment is complete BS by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      A 9-volt battery is simply six AAAA batteries connected in series, and stuck into a rectangular package.

      But 'the terrorists' are too dumb to buy a six-AAA holder with solder-leads. Or six 1.5 V watch batteries, for that matter.

  40. Re:Forcing checked luggage on everyone w/electroni by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    Is the TSA taking into account just how much this could cost American travelers in time and luggage fees?

    No. They were too busy thinking about all the new jobs and new expensive equipment they can justify.

  41. Exciting New Offer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In-flight laptops now available! Only $49.99 per flight and we'll throw in the headphone for free*!

    *Some terms and conditions may apply.

  42. Monorail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monorail! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

  43. About Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now that many plane seats have touch screens in them, it's ok to start the slippery slope of slowly banning personal entertainment devices (yes, I know some people do work on their devices. Those guys in business class will probably be exempt from the ban.). Though if you thought people got mad during flight delays and lost luggage before, I'd expect to see a drastic rise in domestic airport violence going forward if this policy actually went into effect.

    What about the power sockets? Lots of planes have actual plugs by your seat. Are those weaker than a battery?

    1. Re:About Time by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      What about the power sockets? Lots of planes have actual plugs by your seat. Are those weaker than a battery?

      shh you don't want to tell tsa about those. it literally is very fucking stupid.

      anyways, it's not the battery or 9v thats the real thing. the real thing is that you cannot tell apart a bomb and the battery of the laptop in xray. stowing them doesn't help.

      it helps the airlines though. pay per view on infotainment is already a thing.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  44. Boondocks nailed this kind of fearmongering by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

    Terror Alert Level Intense Orange Red

    When is there ever going to be enough of a guarantee to make air travel "safe enough"? When the TSA finally says, "We're finally going to make air travel 100% safe - by banning all airplanes on flights..."?

  45. 9v by darkain · · Score: 1

    9v batteries are DANGEROUS oh em geez https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  46. Hooray! by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Thanks Israel and Trump!

  47. So explosives are okay, but batteries aren't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...The size of the battery that can take down a plane when attached to an explosive..."

    Isn't the point of the TSA to stop the explosives getting on the plane in the first place??

  48. How absolutely stupid. by thesandtiger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If people wanted to take down aircraft, they would be able to take down aircraft. They don't want to take down aircraft - they want to terrify the easily frightened so that the easily frightened will overreact and do insane stupid shit like we have in the US.

    If the shoe bomber or the underpants bomber or any other kind of person they sent had been ACTUALLY tasked with taking down a plane rather than sowing fear and absurd responses, guess what? They would have set the fucking things off in the bathroom, not tried to do so while sitting in their fucking seat where people could see them. They sent morons to do something moronical, and the morons in charge ate that shit up.

    If they actually wanted to kill people, they would have suicide bombers go and wait for security screening lines to inevitably get backed up. They'd kill way more people that way and they wouldn't have to go through the security theater at the airports that weeds out the dimmest bulbs in the bunch.

    What they're doing now - attacking soft targets by ramming into crowds with trucks and shit - can only be meant to do one thing: terrify morons and get them to overreact, just like the morons are doing.

    Fucking cowards. By that I mean the "terrorists" and the pants-pissing weaklings who vote the "leaders" into office who try this shit. Literally anyone who is legitimately afraid of being killed by a terrorist and doesn't live in a literal war zone is a fucking moron.

    Know what killed and injured more people than the attack on London Bridge last week? FUCKING EVERYTHING. More people - by a fucking MILE - get killed every day from drunk driving in the US. More people get killed - by 10 fucking miles - by tobacco use in the US, every day. Domestic violence kills more people than terrorists do. Fuck, having to DRIVE instead of FLY because the airports are so fucking toxic kills more people, I'm sure.

    --
    Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    1. Re:How absolutely stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 2,996 people died in the 9/11 terrorist attack on US soil.

      According to the ACRO data, there have been 19,655 deaths related to airplane incidents between the years 1999 and 2017 world-wide.

      According to the US DMV, there have been 35,092 deaths related to car accidents, just in 2015, just in the USA.
      (2015 was the latest statistics available)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents#Statistics
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

    2. Re:How absolutely stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving instead of flying gives me 2 or 3 days to relax. Hint: Don't go to the east coast of the US, because that's not relaxing. But doing 80MPH across north Texas is.

      As a bonus, I get to ask for 4-6 extra days of time off with a valid excuse to do so. It's not like I use all of my PTO each year anyway. Might as well burn what I can of it.

    3. Re:How absolutely stupid. by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What they're doing now - attacking soft targets by ramming into crowds with trucks and shit - can only be meant to do one thing: terrify morons and get them to overreact, just like the morons are doing.

      TL;DR: the terrorists won the day the USAPATRIOT Act was signed into law.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:How absolutely stupid. by PoopyMerl · · Score: 1

      agreed on every point

    5. Re:How absolutely stupid. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      According to the ACRO data, there have been 19,655 deaths related to airplane incidents between the years 1999 and 2017 world-wide.

      Only 2,996 people died in the 9/11 terrorist attack on US soil.

      So, nearly 15% of the total deaths related to airplane incidents over an almost 8 year period happened in a single day.

      Are you sure "only" is the word you meant to use?

    6. Re:How absolutely stupid. by trawg · · Score: 1

      I completely agree but I'd note:

      They would have set the fucking things off in the bathroom, not tried to do so while sitting in their fucking seat where people could see them.

      If you're sending a feckless incompetent terrorist to do something you know they'll probably fuck up, it's probably better to have them fuck up in plain sight. Even if they fuck up people won't remember their incompetence - they'll just remember the scary part (someone tried to blow up a plane again and the security had no idea).

    7. Re:How absolutely stupid. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      If people wanted to take down aircraft, they would be able to take down aircraft. They don't want to take down aircraft - they want to terrify the easily frightened so that the easily frightened will overreact and do insane stupid shit like we have in the US.

      I have actually wondered if this isn't some sort of weird terrorist counter-intel scheme. Come up with a dozen hair-brained but possibly conceivable attack methods that should require action by the US. Spread them individually through separate cell branches of the terrorist network to work on. See which ones are acted upon to prevent to determine where the leaks are and then they could concentrate on that cell.

    8. Re:How absolutely stupid. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      ... Fuck, having to DRIVE instead of FLY because the airports are so fucking toxic kills more people, I'm sure.

      Your drive TO the airport is more dangerous than the flight itself.

    9. Re:How absolutely stupid. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      If people wanted to take down aircraft, they would be able to take down aircraft. They don't want to take down aircraft - they want to terrify the easily frightened so that the easily frightened will overreact and do insane stupid shit like we have in the US.

      I have actually wondered if this isn't some sort of weird terrorist counter-intel scheme. Come up with a dozen hair-brained but possibly conceivable attack methods that should require action by the US. Spread them individually through separate cell branches of the terrorist network to work on. See which ones are acted upon to prevent to determine where the leaks are and then they could concentrate on that cell.

      You're actually pretty close. I used to work in the Defense Industry. Had a conversation with another DOD-funded person. Her job was to dream up new ideas for threats, go pitch them, and bring home funding to work on a counter-measure program for imagined threat. She was so proud of her job; I wanted to punch her in the face.

    10. Re:How absolutely stupid. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We have measures adequate to stop another 9/11 attack. We have passengers who expect to die if the terrorists take over, and we have much stronger barriers against getting into the cockpit. It's not happening again.

      There's no way on Earth you can use a bomb to fly an airliner into a building like that. You can't threaten someone into a clearly suicidal action by putting them in danger of their lives. You can't blow up the plane so it flies into a building. No way.

      So, you're talking about a situation that almost certainly won't happen again, and which can't happen because of the sort of threat we're discussing.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:How absolutely stupid. by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      Dude, no gay, but I love you.
      You seem to express your anger in a very similar way as I.

      --
      I tend to rant.
  49. But Wait..... by kgoods · · Score: 1

    Regardless of how much power this idiot thinks it takes to ignite a bomb, how did the *BOMB* get through the TSA check in the first place? Perhaps they should concentrate on keeping the bombs off the plane and then worry about how dangerous batteries are.

    It's exactly crap like this that has kept me from flying since the TSA was implemented. Long trips are much more enjoyable on the Harley. If I need to go overseas I'll get a flippin' sailboat!

  50. On the plus side... by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I won't have to fly anymore for business, since who's going to send employees anywhere without their laptops? Thanks, TSA, for making teleconferencing even more appealing!

    1. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me fix that for you:

      "Thanks, TSA, for making me use shitty teleconferencing all the time. How appealing!"

  51. TSA are idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reinforced cockpit door is all we ever needed. The terrorists won because TSA took over and made flying an idiotic nightmare.

  52. One silver lining... by SteveWoz · · Score: 1

    We should see fewer laptops being forgotten at TSA security checkpoints if this happens.

    --
    OK a new size TV
    1. Re:One silver lining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? Who "forgets" their laptop at a TSA security checkpoint? I've never heard of anyone who has. I certainly can't imagine this happens often. I fly weekly and it's once in a blue moon that I even hear the random "left item at security checkpoint"...and it's most often called out as a phone.

  53. Bye by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"the TSA may force passengers to check laptops on domestic U.S. flights"

    When that day comes I can't use at least my tablet, I will just never fly again. Utterly ridiculous security theater crap. Flying and airports are already near intolerable as it is.

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

      Get ready, these so-called "laptop bans" actually do include tablets. Basically anything larger than a standard sized smartphone is too big and must be checked.

  54. I can't wait to buy a really cheap laptop! by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
    If this goes into effect I know I will be able to buy a "used" high end laptop for almost nothing online. The market will be flooded with the latest gear, because all the stuff looted from airline baggage has to end up somewhere.

    Don't look at this in a negative light: it's not about loosing your laptop computer, it's about being able to buy someone else's computer for pennies on the dollar. Free enterprise for the win!

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:I can't wait to buy a really cheap laptop! by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking this as well. It will kill the market for expensive laptops too. After the third macbook pro gets stolen even relatively wealthy people will start buying cheaper laptops or just buy the stolen ones from ebay to be restolen and resold on ebay yet again.

      Note that this is more than just an issue of not being able to actually use your laptop. You can't reliably fly with one at all. You have to expect it's going to get either damaged or stolen.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  55. Am I the only one that see's this as a jack pot $$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If people have to check in their laptops and tablets then the airlines have a captive audience they can now charge massive fee's for inflight entertainment. This is all BS. Most modern airplanes have power running to each seat. More power than a 9V and totally enough to start a fire or ignite "something". Its just another diversion to squeeze every penny they can from travelers. Plus, maybe even start to scan or covertly intercept laptops from "suspect" people. A total win win for them - like it always is.

  56. I may recommend... by Philotomy · · Score: 1

    I may recommend that the useless blueshirts get stuffed.

  57. Anyone remember Valuejet 592 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only a matter of time before a laptop stowed in the cargo bay brings an airliner down.

    I'll drive my car for travel within the US, instead of subjecting myself to this level of idiocy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592

  58. revenue by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    I dare say that for a "small fee" the TSA will add you to a list of privileged passengers that can carry laptops aboard, clearly their current preferred program was not earning them enough.

    If this results in making phones bridge some of the functionality gap with laptops I'd be happy, I can't say I like carrying it around even when I can carry it aboard.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  59. apple is f* with there hard to remove HDD's by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    apple is f* with there hard to remove HDD's will kill people who may take out and disk from the laptop before checking it.

  60. Re:I don't much care for it, but I agree with them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we're serious about protecting thousands of innocent lives from terrorists, laptops (and any devices that could secrete a bomb) need to be stowed. I don't fly often, but I would certainly be willing to endure the inconvenience for safety's sake. Most would.

    A stowed laptop rigged with explosives and a timer detonator could still bring an airliner down. Stowing laptops in cargo doesn't increase safety one bit.

    Have you ever considered not commenting when you have no knowledge of a subject ? You know, like people who aren't idiots do.

  61. Airline Baggage Check Fees by Eristone · · Score: 1

    Wow. Not one mention to the windfall all the airlines would get once everyone has to check one bag because they carry electronics. $25/electronics bag x 100 passengers that would normally not check anything - easy money.

  62. Profiting by gorbachev · · Score: 1

    Is there a way for me to invest in laptop theft rings at US airports? I'd be a millionaire after this rule goes in effect.

    This business model has been perfected by Somali pirate gangs.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  63. You are missing the point by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think you are missing the point here. Taking the statement completely at face value the argument seems to be that they want to ban batteries which have enough charge to detonate an explosive. If a terrorist has a battery and some explosives on a plane the problem is NOT that they have a bloody battery!

    1. Re:You are missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The report conflates two different problems.

      Batteries can ignite, and this is dangerous. A Lithium fire in the cargo hold would be a serious problem.

      The comment about detonators is a non-sequitur. Detonators can be powered by small power sources (think flash bulbs), They can also be physical (contact exploding munitions have been engineered without power sources).

      The Nigerian airline incident involved an explosive device concealed within a laptop.

      Shipping laptops properly will be a very significant impediment to business travel. I would recommend removing the hard drive and carrying it on my person.

    2. Re:You are missing the point by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      To be fair they are trying for defence in depth, which is reasonable. People have managed to sneak explosives on to aircraft, e.g. in the lining of their pants. What stopped them detonating them was that they couldn't also sneak an effective detonator on board, so had to use an ineffective one that gave other passengers time to notice and restrain them.

      Realistically you will never be able to have 100% perfect security that blocks all explosive material from getting on aircraft. What you need is a system that makes it really, really hard to get enough explosives and a good detonator on at the same time, which we have had for a long time now. Current metal detectors and explosive sniffers are good enough, the rest is just theatre.

      The bizarre thing is that when the system is proven to work, e.g. the pants bomber guy who was foiled, the reaction is not "oh good, we got it right", it's "oh shit we need more pointless and expensive equipment to degrade the experience of flying even further!"

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:You are missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This should be the top post. Why are we spending hours in lines and being searched and scanned? This organization _knows_ it is shit and can't do the one job it has, so lets just put more rules in place to protect ourselves when we fail to ID a bomb in a scanner that's peering into the internals of our devices.

    4. Re:You are missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't there also electrical outlets at every seat? Surely a couple wires (or paperclips, hairpins, anything thin and metallic) could be inserted to get some adequate voltage delivered?

    5. Re:You are missing the point by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      After the shoe bomber, the TSA demanded that everyone remove their shoes. After the underwear bomber, I was half-expecting the TSA to order everyone to strip naked in the security line.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:You are missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are missing the point here. Taking the statement completely at face value the argument seems to be that they want to ban batteries which have enough charge to detonate an explosive. If a terrorist has a battery and some explosives on a plane the problem is NOT that they have a bloody battery!

      If taking a statement completely at face value means that the person who uttered it is a complete and utter moron, then you should prefer some other explanations and not take it at face value, as the odds that there is some sort of miscommunication along the way are quite big.

      Unless you have other evidence that the speaker is a complete and utter moron, of course.

    7. Re:You are missing the point by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      To be fair they are trying for defence in depth, which is reasonable.

      In principle yes but not in this particular case because many airlines handily provide a 110V power socket at your seat.

    8. Re:You are missing the point by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, I had forgotten about that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:You are missing the point by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Unless you have other evidence that the speaker is a complete and utter moron, of course.

      It's a report from a local US TV station's news talking about a message from the TSA. I think it very likely that there is at least one utter moron involved.

  64. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they're fucking morons.

  65. Re:Papers please ! by Falos · · Score: 1

    Home* of the brave

    Not all of us demanded the trillion-dollar theater. But protecting your desk in politics is all about pacification.

  66. Talks just got cheaper by Trogre · · Score: 1

    So does this mean Eric S. Raymond won't need to fly First Class to his speaking engagements any more?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  67. The Real Reason "TSA NEEDS MONEY" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reason for the TSA and Airlines to ban laptop computers in the cabin is because the number of stolen laptops by the TSA is severely low. This means that TSA cannot garner money from the the laptops that they steal in baggage.

    To circumvent the low money problem, TSA is partnering with Domestic and International Airlines (those entering and exiting the USA) to share the money they can generate by stealing laptops from checked baggage and share, about 10% or the booty with the airlines.

    TSA accountants estimate that a total ban on laptops in the cabin could net them $10 Billion dollars per year after sharing 10% with the Airlines. Airlines like American, whose CEO is an illegal alien from Mexico, are GO GO GOMEZ for the laptop ban.

  68. Fedex Ground by n329619 · · Score: 1

    Hey pal I've just arrived Hawaii and I've got a call from Fedex Ground. They've said that they're having a technical issue 100ft below sea level and might be delayed.

    You got any laptop for me? I don't think I can use a coconut as a laptop replacement.

    1. Re:Fedex Ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got any laptop for me? I don't think I can use a coconut as a laptop replacement.

      Mary Ann is that you?

    2. Re:Fedex Ground by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      I don't think I can use a coconut as a laptop replacement.

      You need to install Windows 10 on the coconut before you can use it. They don't support Linux.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    3. Re:Fedex Ground by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

      I heard exactly the opposite: Win10 won't install on a coconut, because there's no secure boot, but Linux works fine!

      [now, go oil your Teletype, or I will taunt you a second time]

  69. Re:Papers please ! by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll show that fucking unamerican asshole some terrorism.

    And that's where I am right now, and where I have been for some time now. I'm left on the European scale, to give an idea of my political leanings. But fuck all these unamerican pussies. This pants-wetting, hand-wringing, gun-clutching, freedom-surrendering bullshit needs to die, and everyone who espouses it needs to die as well.
     
    We didn't skip trying to go to the moon because a rocket blew up in another country. We didn't skip rebelling against England because they were mean to us. We didn't let the South succeed or not try to succeed as the South because we were afraid that someone might get hurt.
     
    My fucking ancestors and relatives fought, bled, and died for this country to be free. I'm liberal to the point of making US liberals uncomfortable, and I haven't owned a gun in years. Why? Because I'm a gun hating liberal? Sure, a bit of that. But a bigger reason is that I'm not afraid of shit. Because I know that I live in a very safe country, and that if I die, it's likely because shit happens sometimes.
     
    I'm not going to run around trying to hide my shriveled balls behind as many guns as I can carry. I'm not going to give up my goddamn freedom because a bunch of unamerican pussies are afraid.
     
    So fuck everyone who has made it so that I need my balls fondled to get on a plane. Fuck everyone who made it so I can't bring a coffee into the airport with me. And fuck everyone who is not rebelling at this newest load of bullshit. Maybe people will die if we remove these restrictions. So. Fucking. What. People die every day from the cold, flu, car crashes, and falling in the tub. If you're that afraid of the safest way to travel, then I concur:

    WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING OUT OF A FUCKING STEEL BUNKER

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  70. Yeah, no by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    I learned some 30 years ago that anything valuable goes into carry on luggage. Checked luggage is for stuff like clothing, relatively worthless. Cameras, laptops, anything worth more than $50 goes into carry on. Having the TSA forbid locks on luggage was the death knell for checking in anything worth more than a steak dinner.

  71. Explain in to me, because I'm dumb by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    The TSA adds security somewhere between the airport front doors, and the airplane. I get that.

    But they don't stop anyone from entering through the front doors. So they clearly aren't protecting the thousands of people waiting in-line before check-in and before security. So I can clearly not choose the wine in-front of me.

    Then they check my luggage, which goes through airport tunnels, and ultimately gets loaded onto the aircraft, long before I board the plane. So my luggage is on the plane when I'm not on the plane. So they clearly aren't protecting the planes on the tarmac. So I can clearly not choose the wine in-front of you.

    If the people aren't being protected, and the planes aren't being protected, then what actually is being protected? The "flight" itself? So I can destroy the people, and I can destroy the planes, I just can't destroy them when they are mid-flight?

    So, my city has a very large, very international airport. The airport is surrounded by a chain-link fence, eight feet tall. On the other side of the fence is a two-lane road. On the other side of the road is a two storey building. Landing planes fly ~500 feet above the roof of this building. Maybe closer to ~200 feet.

    I guess it's a good thing that bad people are don't have big guns, or any interest in stuff on the ground.

    Of course, there are four highways that enter the city of 10 million people. It's a good thing the TSA isn't responsible for securing our highways. Can you imagine? Check every car that enters the city, that could, in theory, shut down the roads with a simple traffic accident. Can you imagine the mayhem of commuters not being able to leave the city to go home at the end of the day? And yet, zero security.

    There's something to be said for not making yourself a target.

    1. Re:Explain in to me, because I'm dumb by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      They're protecting the plane and passengers while the plane is cruising at 40,000ft

      A small explosion next to the skin of a pressurised aircraft can be catastrophic.
      A fire at altitude in the cargo bay is also very bad, this was the reason for requiring laptops to be taken as carry-on, so a fire can quickly be contained.

      An iPhone caught on fire back in May mid flight over the pacific, it was quickly dealt with and the plane didn't crash. If it caught fire in a suitcase surrounded by combustible material, it could have caused a much bigger problem.

      A bomb the size of a laptop battery pushed against the side of the cabin could make a hole large enough to cause explosive or rapid decompression. Good luck landing the plane safely.

    2. Re:Explain in to me, because I'm dumb by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      But that's just one plane and ~100 passengers, and you need to get through eight layers of security to do it. Contrast that with killing a thousand people at the front door.

    3. Re:Explain in to me, because I'm dumb by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You need a much bigger bomb to do damage in an open space. Take a look at the news from Manchester.

  72. Re:Am I the only one that see's this as a jack pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes this!

  73. Solution by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    The solution is to allow everybody an airline-supplied computer, which is connected to the internet. Everybody needs to use their online storage for their files. If the person has special software on their laptop, that's something to be dealt with in the next version of the solution.

    The solution for bombs concealed in clothing is simply to have everybody fly naked.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
    1. Re:Solution by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Why would you need an internet connection to access you cloud data while you're literally in the clouds?

  74. $49.99 better have playboy! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    $49.99 better have playboy!

  75. as long the seatback has free directv! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    as long the seatback has free directv!

  76. as long as 1 or 2 checked bags are free! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    as long as 1 or 2 checked bags are free!

  77. Re:Am I the only one that see's this as a jack pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Swoosh! Do you actually think that the article is legit? I really doubt that the person quoted in the article has the slightest idea about what the TSA is considering or not considering.

  78. So much for WiFi and power outlets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess there's no point now to have airplanes with WiFi and a nice power plug at every seat. That perk didn't last long. I guess we have to read paper books again.

    The terrorists have won :-(

  79. Some kind of timed bomb like device by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    If only there was a way to check your bomb with your luggage and have it detonate later...that would be something. It would revolutionize domestic terrorism. It would be the best thing box cutters. Where is all the terror innovation folks? Have we just already invented (and thwarted) all the different ways to blow up an airplane?

  80. Is it April Fool's day? by fox171171 · · Score: 1

    All joking about the TSA being incompetent aside, I would never have imagined that they would ever have said something so blatantly stupid.

    (When I was typing "aside" in the first line, autosuggest said "assholes".)

    Also, what ever happened to "batteries in checked bags is bad"?

  81. Great opportunity for the TSA by fox171171 · · Score: 1

    Probably thinking about access any laptop they want. Great for a little bonus for laptop theives. Maybe make some extra money from the FBI putting child porn on laptops. Extra cash rewards from installing three letter agency malware.

  82. Just a thought: Li-Ion batteries by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    That'll make TSA's head spin when they think about what they want.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  83. Re:Papers please ! by MangoCats · · Score: 1

    So, we trust the TSA, because they're so carefully screened?

  84. United Break Macbooks. by Cyberglich · · Score: 1

    The amount of liability the airlines will be opening them selfs up to would be staggering. Contact of carriage or not they are looking down the barrel of so many claims the legal hours alone will kill them.,,

  85. Forced to check in my carry-on = broken laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On a business trip to NYC, the cabin crew informed me that the overhead bins were full. They forced me to check in my bag. Guess what? My laptop screen was destroyed. Checked exactly one time and
    Resulted in one expensive brick. There is ~100% chance this will happen to you as well if checked. They just throw those bags like lead weights. Have fun trying to collect a reimbursement.

  86. yup airplanes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Airplanes have been the common threat that we've seen over the past several years."

    there was one in kabul, two in manchester and one in the london bridge, oh and the one in the iran attack that was a light aircraft

  87. Anyone consider this??? by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    USPS it or UPS the laptop ahead of you to a safe person, employee, or your company branch your going to, so you don't have to be harassed at the airport.

  88. I need to leave. by thedarb · · Score: 1

    Seriously. WTF is wrong with my country? It's now being run by a bunch of paranoid schizophrenics, afraid of everything, and trying to ruin our lives 'to be safe'. I'm really sick of it.

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
  89. It's not safer by RubberDogBone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is carrying a laptop in luggage any "safer" than carrying it in the passenger cabin?

    The same laptop is still on the plane, either way. It has the same potential to explode thanks to shady battery manufacturing or because of malicious intent. Putting it in the cargo hold doesn't change any of that.

    What it DOES do is prevent anyone from attempting to fight a fire if the laptop battery ignited. At least in the passenger cabin, there is a chance someone will notice the thing burning and take action to put it out or smother it as best they can. Meanwhile the same thing locked in cargo below will just burn until it sets off the fire detector, at which point nothing else happens because nobody can get to it. We know from history fires like that tend to take out the controls or emit enough toxic fumes to kill all on board. In flight fire is BAD.

    --
    Sig for hire.
    1. Re:It's not safer by Zemran · · Score: 1

      "safer"? What has safety got to do with this theatre?

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    2. Re:It's not safer by TheStickBoy · · Score: 1

      How is carrying a laptop in luggage any "safer" than carrying it in the passenger cabin?

      I seem to remember that luggage/cargo within the plane is placed inside specially designed containers that absorb the forces of bombs?

      If so, it would be safer but by how much I do not know. Which airlines use these, not sure.

      ...performed a quick google search:
      US patent from 1994, Containers for use on aircraft for the protection of aircraft structures: http://www.freepatentsonline.c...

      from 1999, Aircraft luggage bomb protection system: http://www.freepatentsonline.c...

      from 2009, Explosion resistant cargo container: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/49...

  90. Digestive system ... by ElRabbit · · Score: 1

    If anybody at the TSA ever reads about the amount of explosive gases a human digestive system can produce everyday, people will not be allowed in plane anymore

  91. Re: Opportunity for machine learning by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Huh... I have no idea why your post is at a -1.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  92. Free Laptop Program by oshkrozz · · Score: 1

    Clearly the TSA feels they need new laptops at home and no the Airline is not responsible when the TSA steal your stuff ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  93. Ben Yelin should be tortured to death by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    "Airplanes have been the common threat that we've seen over the past several years."

    This is factually incorrect. Motor vehicles have been the common threat we've seen. Israel has ramming attacks on an almost weekly (for a good stretch it was daily) basis. We have Paris and now London. What kind of fucked-up shit wad thinks airplanes are the vehicle of choice for terrorists?

  94. Nice to know by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    It's nice to know that exploding laptops in the cargo bay don't matter.

  95. USB chargers by mmdurrant · · Score: 1
    I don't need a battery, I can get 5V DC from the USB charger provided by the airline.

    And am I wrong all capacitors don't look like batteries?

    --
    I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
  96. Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now what?, you ask us?

    That's easy - just don't fly.
    Or in my case, don't visit the USA.
    Problems solved :)

  97. TSA suggest people stow... by Marful · · Score: 2

    TSA suggests travelers stow their cash, jewely, and other valuable in a container they're not legally allowed to lock so that other TSA agents can steal them...

    If it's ok to store in the cargo of an aircraft it's ok to take in carry on.

  98. Sorry by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    A AA battery is fine. A AAA.

    Was this written by a Canadian?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  99. "Attached to an explosive"? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    A 9-volt battery is a huge power charge.

    You mean like this one? That's not actually huge, that's just a large picture.

    The size of the battery that can take down a plane when attached to an explosive.

    Trump could take down a plane when attached to an explosive. Should we ban Trump? ;)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  100. ignite explosives with battery? Power sockets by Gunstick · · Score: 1

    You can find USB charging or even power outlets in a plane. So removing batteries from the game is not stopping the threat.

    The real threat is that the "battery" in a laptop can be the explosive. DAESH recovered an x-ray machine and engineered their explosive hiding technique to be indistinguishably from a battery.

    Now that all batteries are banned, they will put the explosives inside their bodies. Where you can hide drugs, you can also hide a bomb.

    --
    Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
  101. An AA battery; An AAA battery (An not A) by PaulHammant · · Score: 1

    Slashdot story summaries: it mush be a badge of honor to let typos slip though.

  102. ThereSA May by wildstoo · · Score: 1

    I read that headline as "Theresa May recommend stowing laptops..." until my brain processed the rest of the sentence. I blame the election.

    TSA May might not be a bad nickname, actually.

  103. Christmas has come early... by Zemran · · Score: 1

    ... for the baggage throwers. All those lovely laptops will be available soon on ebay.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  104. Mobile phones by stooo · · Score: 1

    Next item on the ban list : Mobile phones.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  105. Phones by stooo · · Score: 1

    Next item on the ban list : Mobile phones...

    --
    aaaaaaa
  106. A AAA. A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA officer Camille Morris is quoted as saying, "A AA battery is fine. A AAA. A

    Was TSA officer Camilie Morris, by any chance, in the middle of a dentist appointment when this interview happened?

  107. Rarely a showstopper in business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fedex first AM service is what you're looking for with Mil 810 packing. It's simple, reliable, and can be done for maybe $300 for the reusable case and $120 each way in FedEx fees. That's $540 for the first trip, even if you never took another. For a trip of more than 5 driving hours, you're probably going to be billing the client at least $1000 for travel reimbursibles and $1800 for travel time (2 hours door to board, 1.5 hours in the air, 1 hour landing to site, twice, at a nominal $200/hr) PLUS the actual time you spend on site fixing something, which is likely 4-8 billable hours. I mean, if you're already 4 grand into a fix, another $500 to courier the laptop only really matters if you get a call that would absolutely require same day field service and at that point you just bump the rate and fly private. If it's so important it has to be fixed right now, you don't fly commercial, and $50k is pocket change compared to lost business.

  108. A different approach by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 1

    Perhaps laptops should be a local-for-hire service at airports for frequent travellers. Carry your SSD drive with you and plug it in at your destination.

  109. Re:Papers please ! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    What gets me is that the chances of dying from terrorism are tiny. I saw this graphic showing leading causes of death in perspective. Heart disease and cancer are the two big ones. Terrorism is a tiny dot. I decided to look up the hard numbers too, figuring that the graphic could be exaggerating things.

    There were about 28,000 deaths from terrorism world-wide in 2015 (Source). (If we limit it to US only, the number is much smaller.) Meanwhile, 610,000 people in the US die of heart disease every year. 17.7 million in the world (Source). You would need over 630 YEARS of terrorism deaths to equal 1 year of heart disease death.

    So if we're supposed to be quaking in our boots over terrorism, what should we be doing over heart disease?!!!

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  110. The problem is Muslims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is Muslims.
    Does Japan have to do any of this crap? No.
    They don't invite in invaders who seek to kill them.
    Why do we?

    Wake up White male!

    1. Re:The problem is Muslims by wolff000 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Japan has a rather large Muslim population. I hope you are not capable of breeding we don't need any more of you.

      --
      WTF?
    2. Re:The problem is Muslims by wolff000 · · Score: 1

      Not only a sizable population living there but also a tourist hotspot for Muslims. Thanks for showing how ignorant you are. It makes it easier for others to know you are not worth paying attention to.

      http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/...

      --
      WTF?
  111. I'm glad we have the TSA's recommendation by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    I have a recommendation, too.

    I recommend that the TSA be disbanded, whatever building their management occupies be demolished (there's no way to clean that much stupid out of a building to make it habitable by anyone else) and their now former employees be banned from ever having a job again that is related to either "airplanes" or "security".

    It's funny, I like my recommendation better than theirs, and mine will actually have a more positive impact on airport and airplane security.

  112. checking any bags? I don't think so. by bill.pev · · Score: 1

    I don't check any luggage, ever. But even if I did, asking me to check my computer is like asking me to check medications. I can't risk it won't come out the other end. I doubt I'm alone

  113. Pointless by wolff000 · · Score: 1

    More pointless pseudo-security that makes no one safer. I have forgotten my pocket knife multiple times and walked right on the plane with no problem. The whole idea that AA and AAA batteries can't have a big enough charge to bring down a plane is laughable. I have only a little experience with electronics and explosives and I could easily create something that used button cell batteries and had more than enough power to disable a plane. A trained bomb-making expert could do even better. At this rate, we will be forbidden to bring a potato on the plane since they could be used as a battery.

    --
    WTF?
  114. Re:Papers please ! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1
    --
    Time to offend someone
  115. There go the power outlets !! by ripvlan · · Score: 1

    Geez - is TSA really worried about a battery of a certain size? Or is it a bomb disguised as a big battery?

    If it simply the requirement of a powerful energy source -- then what about those darn power outlets that were added to planes so we could use our laptop on long flights?!

    Seriously - I think you've all latched onto the wrong threat. I'm assuming the real issue is the laptop is the bomb and needs power to detonate. It isn't the battery - its the size of the package. A Cell phone is too small, but big thick 1990's Dell Laptop can carry enough material to make a big hole. And apparently so can an iPad. People have problems bringing blocks of cheese on a plane because they show up as C-4 on the x-ray. Batteries probably look like cheese like -> C-4

    Well - "they" thought underwear had enough room too. These people are failing and iterating looking for something that will work. Basic business: fail-fast, iterate,.... succeed? Sneakers didn't make a hole. iPad? try it.

  116. Re:Papers please ! by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

    That's beautiful.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  117. 115v outlets vs. 9v batteries by Green+Salad · · Score: 1

    TSA wants laptops in cargo hold where they can't be observed by other passengers or extinguished. Phone batteries and 115v outlets obviously produce more power than 9 volt batteries.

    The people in the seats next to me are getting fatter. The seats are shrinking.

    If TSA won't let me be engrossed in my high-end laptop on a coast-to-coast flight, I'm pretty sure some optional meetings just aren't going to happen anymore...at least in my case.

    I'd consider longer-duration ground travel once self-driving cars are routinely and economically available.

  118. TFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just hold on a minute here... the source has a quote from an official that the DHS is "considering a possible expansion of the ban." Period. It is the JOURNALIST who surmises "it could spread to domestic flights;" this was not the statement from the interviewed TSA official.

    What if "expansion" means covering international flights from more destinations than those originally included in the laptop ban?

  119. This won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lockerbie.

    Nuff said.

    You can't detect them even now.

  120. Planes are not targets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it. The TSA/airports require that people cluster into very large groups outside the 'secure' area of the airport.

    My 11-year-old boy asked me why no one is worried about those groups getting attacked in the airport.
    More people than on a plane would be affected, and someone could walk into the center of the group with a concealed weapon with ease.

    Every aspect of the TSA security theatre is unwarranted and cannot be justified by an actual Adult.

    Since 9/11 I have not flown, or taken any transportation that involves the TSA.
    This would end tomorrow if everyone would do the same.

  121. Score:-5, Pwned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  122. Land of the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every passing year americans seem more and more retarded seen from an European point of view.

    The America that allowed Steve Wozniak to thrive is never coming back. Melting pot my ass. More like humanitarian catastrophe.

  123. Someone finally read XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://xkcd.com/651/

  124. How's life in the hypocrite lane?

  125. Too much by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    So now they're considering making our laptops available for TSA baggage screeners to steal them. Nice.

    Seriously, if things are so bad that we have to do this sort of thing, then it's clearly too dangerous to fly at all.