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."

Comments

Insurance

[neilo_1701D]

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.

Re:Insurance

[Calydor]

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.

Re:Insurance

[bobbied]

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.

Re:Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Insurance

[imidan]

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.

Re:Insurance

[AvitarX]

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

Re:Insurance

[registrations_suck]

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

Re: Insurance

[saloomy]

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.

Re:Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Insurance

[ravenshrike]

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.

Re:Insurance

[aXis100]

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

Re:Insurance

[BlueStrat]

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

Re: Insurance

[Hachima]

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.

Re:Insurance

[dgatwood]

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.

Re:Insurance

[dgatwood]

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?

Re: Insurance

[chaboud]

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

Re:Insurance

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Insurance

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Insurance

[Cmdln Daco]

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

Re:Insurance

[camperdave]

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

Re: Insurance

[Joe_Dragon]

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

Re:Insurance

[NoKaOi]

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.

Re:Insurance

[Cyberglich]

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.

Re: Insurance

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Insurance

[MangoCats]

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

Re:Insurance

[AvitarX]

Because the DHS wants to snoop data.

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

Re:Insurance

[AvitarX]

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

Re: Insurance

[KGIII]

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.

Re: Insurance

[KGIII]

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.

Re: Insurance

[WarJolt]

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.

Re: Insurance

[KGIII]

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.

Re:Insurance

[harvey the nerd]

Because NSA wants to clone all our computers.

Re: Insurance

[oshkrozz]

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

Re:Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re: Insurance

[Voogru]

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

Re:Insurance

[arglebargle_xiv]

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!

Re: Insurance

[Dog-Cow]

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.

Re: Insurance

[thsths]

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.

Re:Insurance

[michelcolman]

Or the brand new Fedex Submarine service...

Re:Insurance

[Joce640k]

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?

Re:Insurance

[sargon666777]

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

Re:Insurance

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Insurance

[i.r.id10t]

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

Re: Insurance

[Entrope]

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.

Re:Insurance

[Mr Foobar]

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.

Re: Insurance

[currently_awake]

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?

Re: Insurance

[Jason Levine]

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.

Re: Insurance

[currently_awake]

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.

Re:Insurance

[Jason Levine]

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).

Re:Insurance

[Jason Levine]

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!

Re: Insurance

[Trailer Trash]

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.

Re:Insurance

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re: Insurance

[whoda]

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'.

Re: Insurance

[DarkOx]

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.

Re:Insurance

[perotbot]

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.

Re: Insurance

[DarkOx]

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!

Re:Insurance

[cthulhu11]

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

Re:Insurance

[almitydave]

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.

Re: Insurance

[almitydave]

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.

Re: Insurance

[TheStickBoy]

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]

Re: Insurance

[david_thornley]

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.

Re: Insurance

[KGIII]

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.

Re: Insurance

[houghi]

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.

They have seen the enemy

[Patent Lover]

They have seen the enemy, and it is us.

Re:They have seen the enemy

[msauve]

...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.

Re:They have seen the enemy

[thogard]

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.

Re:They have seen the enemy

[Zaelath]

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

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

Re:They have seen the enemy

[Falos]

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."

Re:They have seen the enemy

[Cmdln Daco]

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

Re:They have seen the enemy

[msauve]

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.

Re:They have seen the enemy

[MangoCats]

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...

Re:They have seen the enemy

[MangoCats]

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

Re:They have seen the enemy

[TechyImmigrant]

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.

Re:They have seen the enemy

[MrDoh!]

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

Re:They have seen the enemy

[msauve]

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

Re:They have seen the enemy

[mpercy]

Radio Shack?

Re:They have seen the enemy

[JohnFen]

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

What's a Laptop?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:What's a Laptop?

[0111 1110]

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.

Re:What's a Laptop?

[Opportunist]

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

Re:What's a Laptop?

[green1]

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.

Re:What's a Laptop?

[DaHat]

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.

Re:What's a Laptop?

[lgw]

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

Re:What's a Laptop?

[Etcetera]

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

Re:What's a Laptop?

[youngone]

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.

Re:What's a Laptop?

[bugs2squash]

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

Re: What's a Laptop?

[KGIII]

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.

Re:What's a Laptop?

[RockDoctor]

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?

Re: What's a Laptop?

[sargon666777]

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.

Re:What's a Laptop?

[Mr Foobar]

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.

Re:What's a Laptop?

[mpercy]

Like every other government agency.

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

Re:What's a Laptop?

[Jason Levine]

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!

Re:What's a Laptop?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

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.

Re:What's a Laptop?

[almitydave]

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!

Vague threats

[kqs]

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

Re:Vague threats

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Vague threats

[Etcetera]

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.

Re:Vague threats

[kqs]

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.

Re:Vague threats

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Vague threats

[Imrik]

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.

Re:Vague threats

[DaHat]

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.

Re:Vague threats

[djinn6]

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.

Re:Vague threats

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Vague threats

[drinkypoo]

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!

Re:Vague threats

[Bob the Super Hamste]

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.

Re:Vague threats

[Bob the Super Hamste]

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.

Re:Vague threats

[SirGarlon]

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.

Re:Vague threats

[SCVonSteroids]

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!

Re:Vague threats

[DaHat]

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.

Re:Vague threats

[david_thornley]

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.

Le sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Le sigh

[TWX]

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?

Re:Le sigh

[adolf]

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.

Re: Le sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Le sigh

[c]

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...

Re: Le sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Le sigh

[freeze128]

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.

Re:Le sigh

[BiggerIsBetter]

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

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

Re:Le sigh

[camperdave]

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).

Re: Le sigh

[Matt.Battey]

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...

Re: Le sigh

[KGIII]

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

Re:Le sigh

[khr]

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.

Re: Le sigh

[Mes]

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

I don't know about this...

[Frosty Piss]

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...)

Re:I don't know about this...

[toonces33]

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.

Re:I don't know about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I don't know about this...

[Etcetera]

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.

Re:I don't know about this...

[ColaMan]

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.

Re:I don't know about this...

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:I don't know about this...

[AHuxley]

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.

Re:I don't know about this...

[Anne Thwacks]

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?

Re:I don't know about this...

[dunkelfalke]

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.

Re:I don't know about this...

[Sir Holo]

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.

Hey, I'd do the same

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Hey, I'd do the same

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hey, I'd do the same

[PoisOnouS]

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

Let's start chanting

[spikenerd]

"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.

I've had stuff stolen out of checked luggage

[kimgkimg]

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.

Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes

[toonces33]

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

Re: Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes

[Matt.Battey]

Exploding Trousers is a real thing, apparently.

Re:Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes

[TWX]

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

Re:Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes

[walterhpdx]

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

Re:Waiting for someone to make explosive clothes

[RotateLeftByte]

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

But will you protest?

[The Good Reverend]

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.

Re:But will you protest?

[iMadeGhostzilla]

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).

Re:But will you protest?

[v1]

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.

Re:But will you protest?

[lgw]

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.

Re:But will you protest?

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:But will you protest?

[TechyImmigrant]

>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.

Re:But will you protest?

[mallyn]

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.

Gate check the laptop?

[toonces33]

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.

Re:Gate check the laptop?

[TWX]

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

Re:Gate check the laptop?

[Obfuscant]

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?

Budget cuts

[mishehu]

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.

Re: Budget cuts

[Matt.Battey]

And this is why I submitted this story...

Re:Budget cuts

[orgelspieler]

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!

Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin

[Guillermito]

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?

Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin

[protest_boy]

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.

Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin

[HornWumpus]

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?

Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin

[kiminator]

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.

Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin

[Carnildo]

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.

Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin

[Zemran]

"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.

Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin

[mpercy]

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....

Re:Explosion on cargo compartment vs cabin

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:I recommend disbanding tsa.

[bobbied]

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?

AAA Should be enough

[NEDHead]

"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

seriously? ugg

[rogoshen1]

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".

Re: seriously? ugg

[Matt.Battey]

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.

Re: seriously? ugg

[HornWumpus]

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!

Re:seriously? ugg

[kiminator]

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.

Re: seriously? ugg

[Joe_Dragon]

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

Beavis and Butt-Head will want that job!

Re:seriously? ugg

[mrchaotica]

"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...

Remote

[Going_Digital]

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?

Re:Remote

[SoulMaster]

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 /.!

Re: Remote

[Matt.Battey]

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.

Re:Papers please !

[interkin3tic]

"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!?!

I don't trust their math

[lusid1]

"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.

Forcing checked luggage on everyone w/electronics?

[bjdevil66]

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...

Re:WTF?

[rogoshen1]

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.

Vehicles not Planes is the Common Threat

[mrmaster]

"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.

Re:Vehicles not Planes is the Common Threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it hasn't even been that. It's been Muslims.

Re:Vehicles not Planes is the Common Threat

[david_thornley]

White supremacists kill more people than Muslims in the US, last I looked.

Re:I recommend disbanding tsa.

[0111 1110]

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.

Just stop it. AAA is fine- how about daisy chains?

[kiviQr]

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?

Fly naked!

[kiviQr]

Show up 15 min before departure ...naked, quick pass thru security check and board plane directly.

Re:Fly naked!

[Guillermito]

quick pass thru security check

... but not before a full body cavity search.

stupid quote

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Coming soon

[Dunbal]

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.

Re:Coming soon

[jmv]

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.

The passenger they interviewed - what??

[bjdevil66]

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...

Re: The passenger they interviewed - what??

[Matt.Battey]

I prefer the 18th century terrorist, who covered collaborators in hot tar and feathers, and disposed of taxes products by making salty tea.

Re: The passenger they interviewed - what??

[david_thornley]

The 19th Century terrorist black bombs were cool, too.

Most airlines...

[DewDude]

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?

That battery-comment is complete BS

[gweihir]

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.

Re:That battery-comment is complete BS

[Solandri]

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.

Re:That battery-comment is complete BS

[gweihir]

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.

Re:That battery-comment is complete BS

[gweihir]

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.

Re:That battery-comment is complete BS

[Sir Holo]

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.

Re:Forcing checked luggage on everyone w/electroni

[liquid_schwartz]

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.

About Time

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:About Time

[gl4ss]

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.

Boondocks nailed this kind of fearmongering

[bjdevil66]

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..."?

9v

[darkain]

9v batteries are DANGEROUS oh em geez https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Hooray!

[dohzer]

Thanks Israel and Trump!

How absolutely stupid.

[thesandtiger]

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.

Re:How absolutely stupid.

[mrchaotica]

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.

Re:How absolutely stupid.

[PoopyMerl]

agreed on every point

Re:How absolutely stupid.

[mark-t]

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?

Re:How absolutely stupid.

[trawg]

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).

Re:How absolutely stupid.

[painandgreed]

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.

Re:How absolutely stupid.

[Sir Holo]

... 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.

Re:How absolutely stupid.

[Sir Holo]

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.

Re:How absolutely stupid.

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:How absolutely stupid.

[SCVonSteroids]

Dude, no gay, but I love you.
You seem to express your anger in a very similar way as I.

But Wait.....

[kgoods]

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!

On the plus side...

[Theaetetus]

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!

Re:Two to three hours ahead of time

[AvitarX]

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.

Re:Two to three hours ahead of time

[HornWumpus]

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.

One silver lining...

[SteveWoz]

We should see fewer laptops being forgotten at TSA security checkpoints if this happens.

Bye

[markdavis]

>"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.

I can't wait to buy a really cheap laptop!

[Required Snark]

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!

Re:I can't wait to buy a really cheap laptop!

[0111 1110]

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.

I may recommend...

[Philotomy]

I may recommend that the useless blueshirts get stuffed.

revenue

[bugs2squash]

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.

apple is f* with there hard to remove HDD's

[Joe_Dragon]

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.

Airline Baggage Check Fees

[Eristone]

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.

Profiting

[gorbachev]

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.

You are missing the point

[Roger W Moore]

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!

Re:You are missing the point

[AmiMoJo]

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!"

Re:You are missing the point

[Jason Levine]

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.

Re:You are missing the point

[Roger W Moore]

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.

Re:You are missing the point

[AmiMoJo]

That's a good point, I had forgotten about that.

Re:You are missing the point

[Roger W Moore]

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.

Re:Papers please !

[Falos]

Home* of the brave

Not all of us demanded the trillion-dollar theater. But protecting your desk in politics is all about pacification.

Talks just got cheaper

[Trogre]

So does this mean Eric S. Raymond won't need to fly First Class to his speaking engagements any more?

Re:Two to three hours ahead of time

[dgatwood]

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.

Fedex Ground

[n329619]

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.

Re:Fedex Ground

[Anne Thwacks]

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.

Re:Fedex Ground

[AntronArgaiv]

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]

Re:Papers please !

[apoc.famine]

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

Yeah, no

[Snotnose]

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.

Explain in to me, because I'm dumb

[holophrastic]

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.

Re:Explain in to me, because I'm dumb

[viperidaenz]

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.

Re:Explain in to me, because I'm dumb

[holophrastic]

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.

Re:Explain in to me, because I'm dumb

[viperidaenz]

You need a much bigger bomb to do damage in an open space. Take a look at the news from Manchester.

Solution

[Nehmo]

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.

Re:Solution

[viperidaenz]

Why would you need an internet connection to access you cloud data while you're literally in the clouds?

$49.99 better have playboy!

[Joe_Dragon]

$49.99 better have playboy!

as long the seatback has free directv!

[Joe_Dragon]

as long the seatback has free directv!

as long as 1 or 2 checked bags are free!

[Joe_Dragon]

as long as 1 or 2 checked bags are free!

Some kind of timed bomb like device

[Sperbels]

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?

Is it April Fool's day?

[fox171171]

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"?

Re:I recommend disbanding tsa.

[Imrik]

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.

Great opportunity for the TSA

[fox171171]

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.

Just a thought: Li-Ion batteries

[Chewbacon]

That'll make TSA's head spin when they think about what they want.

Re:Papers please !

[MangoCats]

So, we trust the TSA, because they're so carefully screened?

United Break Macbooks.

[Cyberglich]

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.,,

Anyone consider this???

[Neuronwelder]

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.

I need to leave.

[thedarb]

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.

It's not safer

[RubberDogBone]

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.

Re:It's not safer

[Zemran]

"safer"? What has safety got to do with this theatre?

Re:It's not safer

[TheStickBoy]

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...

Re: I recommend disbanding tsa.

[KGIII]

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...

Digestive system ...

[ElRabbit]

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

Re: Opportunity for machine learning

[KGIII]

Huh... I have no idea why your post is at a -1.

Free Laptop Program

[oshkrozz]

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/...

Re: don't get it

[TechyImmigrant]

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.

Ben Yelin should be tortured to death

[Dog-Cow]

"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?

Nice to know

[nospam007]

It's nice to know that exploding laptops in the cargo bay don't matter.

USB chargers

[mmdurrant]

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?

TSA suggest people stow...

[Marful]

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.

Sorry

[Hognoxious]

A AA battery is fine. A AAA.

Was this written by a Canadian?

"Attached to an explosive"?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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? ;)

ignite explosives with battery? Power sockets

[Gunstick]

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.

An AA battery; An AAA battery (An not A)

[PaulHammant]

Slashdot story summaries: it mush be a badge of honor to let typos slip though.

ThereSA May

[wildstoo]

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.

Christmas has come early...

[Zemran]

... for the baggage throwers. All those lovely laptops will be available soon on ebay.

Mobile phones

[stooo]

Next item on the ban list : Mobile phones.

Phones

[stooo]

Next item on the ban list : Mobile phones...

A different approach

[AttillaTheNun]

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.

Re:Papers please !

[Jason Levine]

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?!!!

Re:Two to three hours ahead of time

[mpercy]

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.

I'm glad we have the TSA's recommendation

[Trailer Trash]

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.

checking any bags? I don't think so.

[bill.pev]

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

Pointless

[wolff000]

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.

Re:The problem is Muslims

[wolff000]

Actually, Japan has a rather large Muslim population. I hope you are not capable of breeding we don't need any more of you.

Re:The problem is Muslims

[wolff000]

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/...

Re:Papers please !

[Bob the Super Hamste]

So this about sums up your feelings then.

There go the power outlets !!

[ripvlan]

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.

Re:Papers please !

[apoc.famine]

That's beautiful.

115v outlets vs. 9v batteries

[Green Salad]

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.

Re:I recommend disbanding tsa.

[orgelspieler]

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.

Re:Two to three hours ahead of time

[dgatwood]

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.

Score:-5, Pwned

[Anonymous Coward]

Witness BitZtream getting pwned!

So?

[BitztreamNotARealNam]

How's life in the hypocrite lane?

Re: I recommend disbanding tsa.

[houghi]

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.

Too much

[JohnFen]

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.

Re: I recommend disbanding tsa.

[KGIII]

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.