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."

18 of 456 comments (clear)

  1. 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. 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 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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".

  5. 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.
  6. 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!?!

  7. 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 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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!

  10. 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
  11. 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!
  12. 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.
  13. 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."
  14. 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.

  15. 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?