
U.S. likely to expand airline laptop ban to Europe: government officials - drubio
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-electronics-ban-idUSKBN1862QS
======
dang
There will be plenty to discuss if it actually happens, but in the meantime
this is just a leak of a possible announcement. That's not substantive and
therefore it's off topic here.

"We might make an announcement" is even weaker than "We will make an
announcement", a gold standard of weakness to begin with.

Notice the words 'some', 'likely', and 'but' in the first sentence. This
article walks back its own headline, like the previous one
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14311073](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14311073)).

~~~
matt4077
"Likely" indicates a >50% chance. There are actual meetings planned, this
week. This is not "fake news", or some "internet rumor". The actual plan is
seriously considered, and only the risks of Li-Ion batteries in cargo holds is
holding it up, and possibly pushback from the airlines and countries
concerned.

This is valuable information because it's much easier to stop something like
this before it's officially announced.

At that time it's already implemented, requires the same march through the
bureaucracy to be repealed, has consequences for the administration's
reputation, may invite lawsuits if airlines and airports have started spending
money etc etc.

~~~
dang
If internet forums can affect that process, you'd be better off putting such
energy into larger ones whose mandates it fits. This isn't that kind that of
site.

There are always urgent things going on that are more important than almost
everything here. Letting HN be swayed by those means giving up on the idea of
a site dedicated to intellectual curiosity, and that would be a shame.

Look at it this way: if the story happens, we'll have a thread about it. It
will burn hot with toxic fumes (bad for HN) but the substantive aspects (good
for HN) will hopefully outweigh that, making it worth the hit. But since the
story hasn't happened yet, why burn all those health points for none of the
gain?

------
btilly
Wait, what? We're putting laptops in luggage because we're afraid that they
are bombs. But laptops stored closely together in luggage with pressure
changes can explode..and we don't know how to handle that.

In the name of safety we're introducing a restriction that makes people and
airplanes less safe!

~~~
devoply
Well if you think about it, it makes sense. Something could be potentially
improvised by a passenger. But to make a device, you would open yourself to
detection via X-Rays. However, I think that the rest of the world should
return the favor and ban all laptops from US incoming flights. Just as a quid
pro quo.

Soon though hopefully solid state cells will come into play and this will no
longer be a problem. China for instance has banned shipping all lithium ion
batteries via China Post and searches actively for them... as it's a risk. You
have to ship them specially declared which is pretty expensive.

~~~
desdiv
>China for instance has banned shipping all lithium ion batteries via China
Post

Fedex and UPS both treat lithium ion batteries as dangerous goods, _with the
exception_ of batteries shipped "with equipment" i.e. shipping a laptop with
its battery, without the battery being plugged in.

How does that make sense? If item A is dangerous, how does putting item B in
the same shipment suddenly make item A _not_ dangerous? Is the non-powered-on
laptop capable of putting out fires or something?

The Chinese rule is extremely annoying, but I'm forced to admit that at least
it makes logical sense.

[0]
[https://www.ups.com/content/ca/en/resources/ship/packaging/g...](https://www.ups.com/content/ca/en/resources/ship/packaging/guidelines/batteries.html)

[1] [http://www.labelmaster.com/fedex-battery-shipping-
policy](http://www.labelmaster.com/fedex-battery-shipping-policy)

~~~
sokoloff
The likelihood of shorting exposed terminals on a lithium ion battery is lower
if those terminals are enclosed in a device.

The likelihood of crushing a lithium ion battery is lower if the battery is
enclosed in a device.

~~~
desdiv
"With equipment" doesn't require the battery to be actually plugged into the
laptop. Most laptop manufacturers ship the laptop and the battery in separate
plastic bags, and this still qualifies for the exemption.

The rule would make a lot of sense if it requires the battery to be plugged
in, but it doesn't.

------
openmosix
We have offices in Europe and US. While today we travel multiple times a
quarter between the offices, I can see how people will not want to cross US
borders no more than once a year. I also wonder how this (plus all the
shenanigans on borders control, immigrations restrictions, etc) will affect
budget and headcount allocations for international companies. I think we will
see an expansion of companies building R&D centers abroad and call it a day.

------
enraged_camel
This is guaranteed to piss off the business community.

I can think of two possible reasons:

1- The administration is trying to distract people from the Comey scandal

2- The administration expects the current ban to be challenged in court and
defeated, so they are expanding it to include non-Muslim countries

We live in interesting times.

~~~
jjawssd
Could it be that the latest generation of laptop bombs are undetectable, and
these bombs could be taken on board a USA bound flight from European airports?

Yes, per Occam's razor. Sorry to discount your conspiracy theories though.

~~~
tajen
It's not the last version of bombs. There's no reason since the invention of
li-ion why terrorists wouldn't short-circuit the batteries. Guaranteed
entertainment outdoors, super dangerous in confined space.

~~~
jjawssd
Short circuiting a lithium ion battery rarely causes more than a fire and
venting

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbVHe5A6rJs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbVHe5A6rJs)

------
nhaehnle
Yeah... no. I've had a laptop stolen out of checked-in luggage together with
other valuables. Seems like the US really doesn't want to be visited by
anybody anymore.

~~~
imron
What they want is to be able to scan/image your hard drive.

Not every passenger, but as you've mentioned, it's trivial for people to get
at the contents of your luggage and for TSA agents with the keys to your TSA
luggage locks it's even easier still.

If this ban is ever extended I will likely never consider flying to the
states. I can only hope it doesn't infect the rest of the airline industry
like the water and liquid theatre did.

~~~
tajen
Aww man, if only an airline could target the "no-bullshit" niche... Minimal
screening, come on board with water and even soap and knifes if you need to,
just be aware that the liability of the company for murder/piracy is 100k. But
of course the major problem is the TSA, not the airline.

~~~
solidsnack9000
Liability would have to be hundreds of millions.

------
nhebb
> _DHS spokesman Dave Lapan said Kelly "hasn't made a decision but we continue
> to evaluate the threat environment and have engaged in discussions with
> airline representatives and other stakeholders about the threat."_

So, our homeland security department has acknowledged that there is a threat
and will discuss it with the airlines. This has been transformed into "likely"
by the writer, and the "some EU" countries part has been expanded to "Europe"
in the headline. This is why I'm skeptical about so many things I read in the
news.

~~~
matt4077
From the article:

    
    
        [...] officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.
    
        [...] Six U.S. and European officials said they expect the 
        U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make an 
        announcement but declined to say when.
    

This makes pretty clear that the article isn't based on the single-sentence
comment by the spokesman. This is why journalists think so many of their
readers lack the skills to read the ingredient list for bottled water.

~~~
nhebb
> [...] officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.

In context:

> is reviewing how to ensure lithium batteries stored in luggage holds do not
> explode in midair, officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.

"reviewing" is the key word.

> [...] make an announcement

But we won't know what the policy will be until they make the announcement.
There is nothing in those two excerpts to indicate that this isn't speculation
by the writer.

> This is why journalists think so many of their readers lack the skills to
> read the ingredient list for bottled water.

That was petty.

~~~
matt4077
In even more context:

"The Trump administration is likely to expand a ban on laptops on commercial
aircraft to include some European countries, but is reviewing how to ensure
lithium batteries stored in luggage holds do not explode in midair, officials
briefed on the matter said on Wednesday."

That means, literally, that officials said: "['We are' or 'The Trump
administration is'] likely to expand a ban on laptops on commercial aircraft
to include some European countries"

The uncertainty expressed by 'likely' is just that: uncertainty. It's not
speculation by the journalist, who is actually just repeating what his sources
told him.

To criticise such reporting means you will never hear about any policy until
it becomes law. That would mean nobody would ever get a chance to weigh in
until after the fact.

> There is nothing in those two excerpts to indicate that this isn't
> speculation by the writer.

What's even more important is what's outside those two paragraphs: namely the
name "Reuters", and the authors' byline: "Mark Hosenball and David
Shepardson". The are institutions/people, and to a certain extend the whole
system is build on the idea of trust, in the same way that you trust the
neighbour you've known for years to water your plants when you're away.

------
bertil
This sounds increasingly counter-effective or unenforceable.

~~~
imartin2k
Yep travel to the US from European already is extremely cumbersome due to all
the checks and long security procedures. This would not only annoy travelers
but put immense pressure on the airlines flying between both continents. They
must be unbelievably pissed.

~~~
hackuser
> all the checks and long security procedures

Could you provide more detail?

~~~
imartin2k
Sure. It varies a bit depending on the airline and airport that you depart
from, but this is how it looks like:

1\. ESTA application online form before the actual travel for those who don't
need a Visa (most EU countries e.g.) with extensive range of questions, even
about parents, social media profiles (still optional) and so on. You do only
need to apply again once every few years, but before a flight you need to
update the flight information (afaik).

2\. A 5 minute "interview" at check in/baggage drop (or otherwise at the gate)
in which a (contracted) security personnel asks you about your trip while you
wait in line. You might hear comments such as "oh so you are traveling alone
to place XY? That is uncommon...". "Where do you live?" "Do you speak language
XYZ?". Some airlines don't do this interview, but United does it always and I
assume all U.S. airlines do it.

3\. Additional security screening at the gate for selected people (apparently
by random choice), can go quick, or might take longer. They take an additional
look in your luggage. Some airports even have a second official security check
& and scanner infrastructure near the designated gates for U.S. flights (I
have experienced this only once though, in Munich. Not sure how common it is).

4\. After arrival, immigration procedure (even for those who only want to
transit). The waiting time for non-residents is usually 1-2 hours until you
reach the booth. The immigration officer asks a couple of questions (or not).
If you are suspicious, you are being send to 2nd check (I can't speak about
that one, hasn't happened to me - but that's the stuff we often read about in
the media).

5\. Customs. Some people are chosen for detailed luggage checks. The decisions
seems to be made by the immigration officer (or his/her computer system),
because it is based on the type of signs they write on your customs card.

If you are transiting, 6: Rechecking the luggage, a new security check to
reach the gate. In most countries, there is a dedicated security check and
logistics infrastructure for transiting passengers, which makes the process
simple. On U.S. airports, you start again on square 1, as if you would just
begin your travel, which means you might have to go to another terminal and
queue up again for security. If you don't have airline frequent flyer status
and thus access to the fast lane, this can take another hour (depending on the
time of the day, airport and the number of TSA staff available). A 2 1/2 hour
connection in EWR gets extremely tight for example, but airlines keep selling
tickets with even shorter connecting times.

Overall, it is quite an ordeal. And I don't even belong to an ethnical or
religious group who might be specifically targeted. For them, the stress level
must be even higher.

~~~
Macha
Dublin also has a second us security check. Going Dublin to Baltimore gets the
immigration questions three times at least, once at the check in line, once
after the second security line and once on arrival in BWI. The queues for the
second and third time are reasonably lengthy and the TSA security in Dublin
airport is more pushy and invasive than normal Dublin airport security.

------
letitgo12345
Seems like Canadian and Mexican airports are about to get a lot busier!

------
walterbell
_> On the operational side, measures such as stopping online check-in for U.S.
bound flights or ensuring U.S. flights depart from a dedicated part of
terminals are among ideas being mulled, although no decisions have yet been
taken._

How would stopping online check-in help with laptops? Wouldn't a laptop ban be
enforced during security screening of hand luggage?

~~~
k-mcgrady
I guess it would force people to the check-in desk where they could be asked
'do you have a laptop in your carry-on?'. If they don't know about the ban
this gives them a chance to put it in hold luggage. If it wasn't noticed until
security it may be a bit of a nightmare.

~~~
walterbell
That question could be asked during online check-in, especially if the
passenger indicates they are traveling without hold luggage. There is already
an online check-in question for hazardous materials.

~~~
ghaff
Where it will receive the same close scrutiny to TOSs on websites are.

~~~
walterbell
Not comparable. You often need passport information for online check-in and
the entire experience is already tied to legal/immigration requirements. If
you're doing online check-in, your goal is to avoid the time cost of agent
check-in lines, so it's worth the effort to carefully enter all mandatory
data.

------
Mankhool
Flying to North America from Europe? Please fly to Canada first and enjoy
using your laptop onboard. Then take a short hop to your US destination on
which you can also use your laptop since your flight originated in Canada.

------
mmcconnell1618
Sounds like a detection technology problem. The article says it is very
difficult to tell the difference between dense items on X-ray (i.e. battery v.
plastic explosive). Anyone have suggestions for the TSA on better scanning
technology?

~~~
ac29
Checked luggage goes through a CT scanner which is much better.

------
gumby
DHS has already made it clear that you don't want to enter the USA with any
electronics if you value your privacy so perhaps this is a blessing in
disguise.

It reminds me of the pathetic pack of attorneys general who shutdown Backpage
and Craigslist's hookup page, simply making it harder to find and intervene in
human trafficking. DHS is simply making it _harder_ for them to find bad guys.
As if that were their goal.

~~~
Taniwha
ah - but when you "enter" the US you only have your carry on luggage, before
you hit the baggage carousel, how are they going to make you unlock your
laptop for them when it's not yet in your possession?

~~~
meddlepal
Setup a second checkpoint after you collect checked baggage. Problem solved.

~~~
Taniwha
you'll need twice as many immigration officers - travellers will get twice as
many places to get hassled

------
Oletros
That measure, if implemented, will boost USA business and tourism, isn't?

------
Sevii
Guess we won't be doing international business with the EU....

------
s73ver
So Trump basically just doesn't want anyone to come to the US?

------
r00fus
How is this even feasible? If Obama did this he'd be impeached almost
immediately.

~~~
ericcumbee
you would be surprised how much the appetite for Security Theater and looking
strong on security outweighs partisan politics.

