

U.S. Bans Large Printer Ink, Toner Cartridges on Inbound Flights - ukdm
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372313,00.asp

======
bediger
This is such a predictable _reaction_ to the threat.

9/11 - ban all sharp edges, nailcutters and knitting needles included.

Richard Reid - make everyone take off their shoes.

The bipartite liquid bomb plot - strict controls on amount of liquid, except
for contact lens solution (!?!)

The Underwear Bomber (a.k.a. Mr Fizzypants) - intrusive pat down searches
("encounter resistance") or nudie X-rays.

Yemeni printer cartidge shipping plot - ban printer ink and toner.

Geez, you'd think that the TSA would learn since they've been burned 5 times,
or that whatever terror organizations exist would start doing stuff just to
see how far they could push the TSA.

Or maybe that the rest of us would learn that the TSA is _making it up as they
go along_ and not actually preventing anything, just inconveniencing everyone
with nonsensical civil liberties violations.

~~~
raquo
So, just for me to make sense of the TSA fury, do you imply that

– these aren't even real threats (more people die in car accidents) and not
trying to prevent them the way TSA does will not increase bombings

– if the terrorists want to blow up a plane, they will find a way to do so
anyway, albeit at a higher cost/etc.

– there is some better way to fight off these threats

Also, when 9/11 happened, I was still a kid, but I clearly remember everyone
always saying "they [bush/gov/cia/etc] knew X and did nothing, that's why that
happened". What would be the natural response from and average American, if a
couple months from now you had a printer cartridge bombing. Would not everyone
blame TSA et al for not banning them, especially since it's not as big of a
deal as these nudoscopes?

~~~
ams6110
_Also, when 9/11 happened, I was still a kid_

Wow you just made me feel old. To me it still seems like a recent event.

------
anigbrowl
_In a predictable move, as part of a United States Homeland Security directive
[…] includes the passage "…Toner and ink cartridges over 16 ounces will be
prohibited on passenger aircraft in both carry-on bags and checked bags on
domestic and international flights in-bound to the United States…."_

Sigh...I know people in authority have to be seen to be doing something (or
they'll be accused of doing nothing, no matter how assiduously they work
behind the scenes), but these robotically specific prohibitions verge upon the
farcical. Apparently this dangerous shipment was uncovered by good old-
fashioned intelligence work in the form of a tip-off, which is the message
that we ought to be sending - 'we have spies everywhere, fanatics can easily
be deceived or corrupted.'

Personally, I don't think there was actually any intent to blow up an
airplane. It's a possibility, of course, but an explosion in cargo airliner
doesn't upset people en masse beyond sympathy for the families of the crew.
And if it were a dry run, then the fake printer consumables would have been
addressed to a dead address or a collaborator. That they were sent to a Jewish
organization, and given that such devices have onboard electronics activated
by current, it's a much more reasonably supposition that they hoped to blow up
someone leaning over a printer.

The fact is that there are any number of electronic devices which could
conceivably be packed with explosives and fitted with a detonator designed to
go off when current is applied. I'm typing on such a device right now; I've
never opened up this keyboard and for all I know it could go off _at any
moment_. I count 13 similar devices on or underneath my desk right now, and
some would be very difficult to detect even on close inspection. High-quality
speakers, for example, are heavy, draw electrical power, and have big magnets
in them by necessity, which would probably throw off many kinds of
electrostatic detectors. Millions of them are shipped every day; we simply
cannot inspect every last package shipped.

It seems quite reasonably to temporarily block all shipments from failed
states like Somalia or Yemen. But adding each new bomb format to an ever-
growing list of prohibited items is an exercise in futility. At some point one
of these fanatics with a little more media savvy and imagination is going to
hit on the idea of exploiting this reactive behavior and start sending out
lots of dud bombs encased in popular or ubiquitous formats purely to provoke
bans and cause economic injury - digital music players, handheld videogames,
laptops all seem likely candidates. I avoided mentioning any popular brands
but I think we can all imagine the the consequences if a few well-engineered
explosive versions were 'accidentally' discovered by security professionals.

For that matter, with the holiday season coming it would be easy to throw a
wrench into Santa's supply chain that would lead to grim-faced security
workers impounding everything from Barbies to blankies. Let's hope nobody in
Al Qaeda has read _the Grinch That Stole Christmas_.

~~~
epo
Many people assume the primary goal of the TSA is some kind of safety
assurance. Their primary goal, like that of any other bureaucracy, is self
perpetuation. Thus each new threat needs a new counter-measure to show how on-
the-ball they are.

The future is video conferencing.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Politics>

"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy
itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy
is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are
eliminated entirely."

------
siculars
What happens when the terrorists put bombs in blackberrys or ipads or laptops?
No more tech in your carry on? No more tech in your checked bags? Come on.
This is so knee-jerk it is comical.

~~~
duck
I wish they would try putting a bomb in the seat recline button so all of
those would be removed. My knees would be thankful.

------
christkv
I'm waiting for the first terrorist to put bombs in as breast implants. Let's
see what the TSA does then.

~~~
blangblang
The next step is for a terrorist to put a bomb inside a TSA agent forming a
mighty ouroboros of security-theater.

------
yardie
The logical conclusion that can be reached is eventually we'll end up taking
our clothes off at the security checkpoint and putting them after we retrieve
them from baggage claims.

Interesting times people.

------
DjDarkman
Dear TSA, why not just ban airplanes altogether?

They just ban things, to make it look like they are in control, I think this
is a sign of weakness.

