
The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban - privong
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/03/the_tsas_select.html
======
sandworm101
Unlike all the other restrictions on material allowed in-flight recently, this
ban only applies to specific airports/countries. One must ask why shoebomber
or liquid explosive plots resulted in universal bans while this one is
country-specific. Imho this is business and politics. This everyday safety
mesure is being applied selectively in order to disadvantage some and
advantage others. If ipads are a threat, ban them. Dont ban them only on
routes dominated by non-US airlines.

I am glad to see that Canada hasnt joined the madness. Flying dubai-new york?
Connect through toronto and the kids can keep thier ipads. ... for now.

~~~
lostboys67
Or those airports have poor security or are at risk of penetration by bad
actors.

~~~
croon
Or not. I've never had them check my laptop once (other than the scans) in any
airport I've been through, and that's quite a few. (Not that I haven't seen it
done though)

This isn't about an assessment on airport capabilities in laptop security
vetting.

~~~
dageshi
My personal experience has been that Dubai (which I believe is one on the
list?) has some of the highest security I've seen. Everytime I go through it
as a passenger connecting on another flight (not leaving the airport) I've
been though security (shoes off x-rays e.t.c.) after leaving the plane and
getting into the terminal proper. In addition there were spot checks in the
waiting lounge before actually bording my onwards flight (on one trip, not
all) where my belt was swabbed (presumably for explosives?) and I was asked to
turn on my laptop to prove it worked. Never had that happen anywhere else.

~~~
sandworm101
The Dubai people have always been great to me. They are intrusive but they are
polite. They don't make you feel like a criminal or that you have done
anything wrong. Being spot-checked in Dubai isn't anything as embarrassing as
being surrounded by TSA agents angry because you forgot a thumbdrive in your
coat pocket. In Dubai I feel like a customer purchasing a product. At US
airports I feel like a peon asking permission to borrow bossman's car.

~~~
dageshi
Yes politeness goes a long way in such situations.

------
pieter1976
At some point we are going to have to realise that terrorists are always going
to want to target aircraft and just live with it. This ban makes no sense
because $BAD_GUY can just via some intermediate airport with their iPad Bomb.

It's interesting that El Al has not decided to ban laptops (despite
undoubtedly being a target) and, in fact, advises people _not_ to put
valuables in the hold:
[https://www.elal.com/en/PassengersInfo/Baggage/Pages/Policy....](https://www.elal.com/en/PassengersInfo/Baggage/Pages/Policy.aspx)

 _" EL AL reminds all passengers not to pack valuable items in baggage send to
the hold of the plane. These items should be carried in the hand luggage"_

~~~
logicallee
EDIT: I am not defending the policy. I would like to address the specific
argument you've used to attack it. (I don't agree with the laptop ban, and I
want strong arguments being made against it, not weak arguments.)

\---

>At some point we are going to have to realise that terrorists are always
going to want to target aircraft and just live with it.

I would like you to please pay attention for a moment (try to follow my train
of thought), maybe I can convince you of something. So, I think that what
you've just written is a particularly/incredibly weak argument and regardless
of your or my position on the issue I really would like to take a minute to
try to convince you not to make _this_ argument again. Make a better argument!

So, suppose that someone said, "At some point we should just accept that
ransoms will happen" and so simply stop supporting the FBI and let bad guys
kidnap any family of billionaires whenever they want, and to have these
billionaires start paying ransoms.

Or you can apply it to anything really. Suppose you said "violent rapes will
always happen", so we should just learn to live with it instead of having
infrastructure to deal with it.

I don't know - make a list of heinous things people can do to each other,
employers to employees, everyday people, whatever. Think of things there are
laws and policies against - and imagine someone suggesting that instead,
people just learn to live with the problem.

I think there is a large chance people will misunderstand the point of my
comment: the point of my comment is that as an argument, "terrorists are
always going to want to..." so "just live with it" is a very weak argument.
Instead of this argument, a different argument needs to be made.

It simply shouldn't be made on this, or any other subject, I feel. I would
like to expand the topic in question to show how problematic the argument is:
I think, conservatively, a sum total of $1 trillion (current dollars) will
have been spent on researching/curing/innoculuating against/preventing AIDS.
Suppose someone suggested that instead of spending $1 trillion on curing it,
we simply "learned to deal with it." (Or imagine the same attitude toward
cancer research.)

I hope at least this example will show why _the argument itself_ ("we should
just accept that there will always be AIDS") is particularly weak. It's simply
not true!

I hope I've convinced you to avoid using this argument again. This does not
mean other arguments can't be made - just this particular specific variation.
Use a stronger argument against bullshit policies!

\----

EDIT: as expected people have misunderstood my point. I will give your
argument a name: "argument from helplessness." We can't solve it, so we should
just accept that it will open happen. Why would it be a given that explosives
can always be brought on planes? I am not defending this particular policy,
but the argument from helplessness should not be one of the arguments made
against it! It's a bad, weak argument, period. It won't convince anyone. Make
a better argument!

~~~
rplst8
> So, suppose that someone said, "At some point we should just accept that
> ransoms will happen" and so simply stop supporting the FBI and let bad guys
> kidnap any family of billionaires whenever they want, and to have these
> billionaires start paying ransoms.

No one is saying we shouldn't attempt to stop an attack that is known, or that
we shouldn't investigate who carried out and authorized an attack and seek
justice. The primary role that government serves to the people with respect to
crime is the serving of justice. Protection from all things harmful and crime
prevention are not guaranteed. Anyone trying to sell you such guarantee is
either lying or delusional.

The more we realize we are responsible for our own well being, take
responsibility, and keep a watchful eye, the safer and better off everyone
will be. When it's finally understood that people will protect themselves and
deny a terrorists ability to carry out a plot, the less of these monsters
we'll have to deal with.

~~~
paulajohnson
> The more we realize we are responsible for our own well being, take
> responsibility [...]

How, exactly, am I supposed to "take responsibility" for spotting someone with
a hidden bomb when I get on an airplane?

~~~
russdpale
You can always not fly! Seems silly to be so scared.

------
bm1362
I just transited through Qatar yesterday, bound for JFK, and had my
electronics forced into the cargo hold. They made us check a bag 3 separate
times: for a hair straightener, a Nintendo Switch and a Kindle.

Following a mind-numbing 25 hours; it turns out that our bags then got lost
and we're now awaiting some update from the airline.

~~~
jlg23
Ouch. Your story has already been the backing of my policy even before I knew
it: Never ever fly without my most valuable things in carry-on luggage (and
twice I refused to board the plane because of this - both times they relented
because getting my checking in luggage out of the plane (required by safety
regulations) would have been too much).

Good luck with your lost luggage :(

~~~
bm1362
Yeah I'm also wary and _never_ check a bag. But there is literally no option,
they were very thorough and serious about this. You do not want to be stuck in
Doha, Qatar- with no visa- arguing over your {iPad}. They had setup a new
scanner checkpoint _at the gate_ to our flight.

------
CoolGuySteve
According to this Guardian article, the ban was caused by a plan to hide a
bomb in an iPad: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/plot-
explosive...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/plot-explosives-
ipad-us-uk-laptop-ban)

I always thought it was weird that you could keep an iPad packed in your carry
on but a laptop had to be scanned separately even if it was a similar size to
an iPad.

~~~
camillomiller
Every security check in Europe and SE Asia I passed in the last few years (~60
flights) mandated to take every device out of the bag, iPads and smartphones
included

~~~
alistairSH
Weird. I've been to Italy, Scotland (via Dublin), and Iceland and never have
to scan small devices separately.

The laptop gets pulled out and placed in a bucket. The tablet and phone stay
in luggage.

It's all so inconsistent, it makes you wonder if any of the security agencies
half any clue at all.

~~~
phicoh
I tend to bring an insane amount of electronics in my hand luggage. The reason
that need big objects like laptops separately is that they block too much when
they are scanning the rest of your luggage. So if on average the scanner can
see through an ipad then there is no need to take it out.

I my case, all they see is a huge collection of wires and small devices, so
all of that needs to be put on separate shelves and scanned again.

~~~
alistairSH
Still weird. My carry-on for all of trips I listed above was MacBook Air,
iPad, iPhone, Olympus mirrorless camera, 2-3 lenses, Canon P&S camera, 2 USB
charging bricks, chargers for the camera batteries, charger for the MBA, a
bunch of USB cables. Some snack food, a light jacket, and toiletries.

Of course, the really maddening part is the inconsistency. I use TSA Pre-check
when possible, so I'm accustomed to not taking off my shoes, unpacking my
bags, etc. It's a giant hassle when I'm flying abroad and the rules change.
Especially since the rules change arbitrarily - I've passed through Edinburgh
a few times over the past 2 years and sometimes the laptop comes out,
sometimes it stays in the bag.

~~~
phicoh
The ultimate reference point is whether the person watching the screen at the
scanner can see everything or not. If most of the time laptops are transparent
enough then why bother asking people to remove them.

On the other hand, if routinely they can't properly scan it and have to deal
with delay, they will instruct people to take it out of the bag.

In the end it still is security theatre so it doesn't have to make sense as
long as it looks convincing enough.

------
throw2016
These policies continue to infringe more and more of people rights of free
movement, privacy and communication and exposes serious limitations of
democracy.

The government can continue to take anti-people actions without anything
approaching debate and discussion under the 'frenzy of an external threat' as
all authoritarians in history have done and tend to do, untill it is operating
for all intent and purposes like a quasi-authoritarian state.

As we can in the UK and here this has come to pass and democracy has no
response for 15 years and counting. Elections are 5 years apart, and even then
political parties advocate near identical policies. By the time people can
organize, and they would have to take a break from their day-to-day lives -
which many would have to think seriously about - and try to effect change,
decades could pass with the situation getting progressively worse and without
making headway.

------
junto
> Why not require passengers to turn their laptops on as they go through
> security? That would be a more effective security measure than forcing them
> to check them in their luggage.

The reason that security checks aren't going to ask you to turn your laptop,
ipad or mobile on, as a standard process, is that it takes too much time.

~~~
makomk
The other reason is that it's going to be of limited use these days, since I'm
pretty sure some devices such as iPads effectively have multiple cells in
parallel and should power on just fine with all but one of them replaced with
explosives.

~~~
londons_explore
Also those laptops with detachable screens, which then operate as tablets.

There clearly isn't any critical hardware in the base bit...

------
SamBam
I'm interested in the idea that turning on your laptop somehow "proves" that
the laptop isn't just a box for explosives.

Presumably the "on" test is considered sufficient both for a mid-2000s brick
of a laptop, and a thin modern laptop like a 2016 MacBook. But you could pack
a MacBook into a bulky laptop's body and have plenty of room to spare.

------
YCode
> And lastly, why is there a delay between the ban being announced and it
> taking effect?

Would this not simply be to give airlines and people time to adjust policies?

Was there a delay on the Note7 ban? Or perhaps they decided to implement one
after some lessons learned from it?

------
captainmuon
One explanation I haven't heard, is that this is about the idea that somebody
could hack a plane from the passenger compartment. There doesn't even have to
be evidence of a concrete plan - it would be enough for someone who knows
about these kind of attacks to get the ear of somebody influential in the
government, who then proactively enacts this ban. (The hacking story might be
a good pretext to convince people internally, while the real motivation might
be economic.)

~~~
Willamin
This (and the whole "airplane mode" issue) could easily be solved by a few
things. 1\. Adding a faraday cage around the passenger sections of the plane
would stop wireless connections from passengers to the panes main systems. 2\.
Completely separate the passenger systems from the plane systems - not unlike
separating a monolithic application into a few smaller applications.

~~~
bitwize
Adding a faraday cage would cost money and weight.

------
Symmetry
Is there any reason to think that Trump doesn't have investments in airlines
that are competing with the ones hurt by this ban?

~~~
desdiv
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978[0] mandates annual financial disclosures
for high offices, so we'll see soon enough. Here's Obama's 2015 disclosure
forms[1], for example.

It's times like this that I'm actually glad that the Middle-eastern oil-funded
airlines are all private, since this way there's no way for Trump to short
them off the books.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_Government_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_Government_Act)

[1]
[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/05/16/preside...](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/05/16/president-
and-vice-presidents-2015-financial-disclosure-forms)

------
krmbzds
Apparently, it's not a free market.

------
golemotron
In the news recently we've seen that illegal border crossings from Mexico have
gone down substantially just because the administration has signaled that
there will be more deportations. This laptop ban could have the same effect.
Increase the barriers for visitation from some countries and people think
twice.

If this is what the administration is doing, it's very Machiavellian.

~~~
beat
Illegal crossings from Mexico had been going down for years prior to the
current administration. And I imagine the numbers are seasonal, tied to
harvesting work that probably gets a little slow in February.

Not that I exactly trust the current administration to tell the truth on the
subject in the first place.

~~~
sukilot
Border apprehensions are way down, unseasonably. You can critique the metrics
if you have reason to, but 'golemotron is correct as far as official metrics
go.

[http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-
huge...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-
trump-tough-talk/)

