
Most Electronics Being Banned on Certain US-Bound Flights - BWStearns
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-20/some-electronics-to-be-banned-on-some-us-bound-flights
======
KirinDave
I see many people here trying to puzzle out why electronics are under a
partial ban _from cabins but not from checked baggage_. It's a good question,
since if there is a fire or explosion hazard on a plane the last place you
want it is wrapped in a wad of flammable cloth and synthetics, even if it is
oxygen starved.

The only motivation I can imagine is: They want these devices in checked
luggage because checked luggage can be inspected without recourse by customs,
and without an on-site confrontation. With care, it can be done without even
notifying the people who are being checked.

And given the pushback on social media credential disclosure and the reveal
that the CIA (and presumably FBI and other agencies) have physical access
exploits (probably via USB or DisplayPort) for most of these devices, this
seems like a move who's only logical motivation could be easier digital
inspection.

Remember, it's the position of the TSA and CBP that non-citizens don't have
rights of any kind until they're allowed through customs, and by simply
inspecting devices they're interested in quickly and without publicity or
confrontation they will certainly be more effective at it.

I'm going to start putting a USB nuke stick in my luggage in an envelope. Just
for fun. Maybe I'll label the envelope something nonsensical like "12-16" just
to make sure people know it's useless. And in case I (or someone investigating
my luggage) needs to plug something into a USB slot.

~~~
GuiA
This. And also people not having devices on their person means they can't
quickly text friends/family if they get detained/mistreated/etc.

It seems like we're getting closer and closer to being in a situation where
people who can should avoid going to the US at all, and make their reasoning
known. Ie, refuse to give talks, attend conferences, etc. in the US.

~~~
akie
This is already happening. I'm in Europe and I've heard quite a few friends
(mostly academics) state that they're actively avoiding traveling to the US.

~~~
emanreus
I have to admit some border crossing incidents[1] are what I would imagine
entering North Korea would be like, not the US.

[1][10min audio]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDYMw1p8s9M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDYMw1p8s9M)

~~~
mgbmtl
As someone from Canada, that guy was being a total dick, very aggressive,
mansplaining the agent, which isn't surprising that it would trigger the
customs agent. He would have had the same response from an agent at the border
in Canada.

Ex: "what shops are you planning to go to". It's fine to answer "I don't know
yet". They're just testing behaviour. If you start being defensive or
aggressive, pretend to know their jobs better than they, etc, it's suspicious.
Although yes, in general, the US agents are really bad at doing behaviour
testing.

Anecdotal: Last year, I crossed the border a few times by car, visiting a
friend I met on Tinder. I completely got away with it, giving honest answers
at the border. Recently met someone else (a girl) who was stopped and accused
of prostitution for doing the exact same thing. :/

~~~
cat199
> "I completely got away with it"

No, because you didn't do anything wrong.

Border crossing is not a crime, last I checked, despite the best efforts of
some to make it feel that way.

~~~
mgbmtl
Agreed, I was being bitter/sarcastic. I meant to say that they incorrectly
profiled the other person who was stopped.

------
jpatokal
The Big 4 Middle East/Gulf airlines (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Turkish) have
been giving legacy US carriers a lot of grief lately, since they're both
cheaper and better on essentially all counts, so I can't help but wonder if
they have their finger in the pie here. Few businessmen will opt to fly long-
haul if they can't use their laptops, and they're specifically targeting 9
_airlines_ here, not just airports or countries.

It's also beyond bizarre that the US trusts Abu Dhabi's security enough to
locate its only Middle Eastern Customs/Immigration preclearance facility, but
not enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring tablets...

~~~
et-al
As an anecdote, I've flown United and Turkish across the Atlantic and it's a
world of difference.

In _2016_ , the United airplane I was in still did not have a seatback screen
and they expected all 200+ passengers to connect to the wifi to try to get in-
flight entertainment. Of course no one got on. So all of us were left craning
our necks trying to catch a glimpse of whatever was on the CRT in the aisle.

Meanwhile, Turkish Airlines has a touchscreen interface with beautifully done
transitions and an amazing selection of movies and music. I remember seeing
Radiohead's _Kid A_ on there, along with the Blade Runner soundtrack.

Next month, I'm flying to Berlin via Turkish even though it will take 4 more
hours because the price and comfort are worth it. Only problem is, this
electronics ban may compromise my electronics.

(And yes, I'm aware of early adopter pitfalls and government subsidies for
airlines, but United has no qualms treating non-status passengers like trash.)

~~~
joshontheweb
I'll never fly United again. I had a similar experience for 14 hours. It isn't
just the in flight entertainment. In my experience their staff are rude and
borderline incompetent. There must be a poor culture in the company as a
whole. My wife just flew with them and went nearly 10 hours without a meal
while she was flying with our two year old.

Edit: spelling

~~~
kw71
Yeah! I have been flying for decades. Delta seems to have a cycle of climbing
to excellence and falling. United Air Lines has always made me miserable
reliably.

------
hoodoof
I've seen it quite a few times.

Someone answers their cell phone mid-flight - BOOM! Down goes the plane, steep
descent, passengers screaming, masks drop from the ceiling, until that phone
call ends and the plane straightens up.

Blanket ban on electronics is the only way to stop this happening.

One time I was flying and someone had forgotten to turn off their phone until
the plane was in the air and it interfered with the navigation systems and we
landed in London instead of Paris. Very ocnfuisng.

~~~
hrrsn
I'm guessing you forgot the /s tag.

~~~
GrinningFool
I'm thinking when he says he's seen it multiple times, the /s tag is implicit.

------
maxxxxx
When I came to the US in 2000 it was a fairly optimistic and happy place. Now
when I read stuff like this I always get reminded how this country went from
pretty open to being scared, irrational and mean in the last 15 or so years.

~~~
pfarnsworth
Let's be honest here. Osama Bin Laden won. The US as we knew it pre-911
doesn't exist anymore. He caused it, but the worst thing about it is that we
did it to ourselves. First Bush, then Obama and now Trump is putting the nail
in the coffin.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
If bin Laden's victory condition was "many overly-reductive Americans
bemoaning negative events in their nation's existence by parroting that the
sky is irreversibly falling, throwing in the entire towel, forgetting or never
bothering to study several existential threats to the United States in its
brief history, and shrugging that our doom is all due to a Big Bad who managed
to take down the world's occasionally most powerful nation with four
airliners," then sure, he won. Since it wasn't, your comment is pretty much
meaningless despite its appearance of wisdom.

It's weird, for all this terminal rhetoric I read about the end of America I
still drove to work this morning and still had faith in American values, not
to mention a crazy belief that what's right will ultimately prevail in the
face of great adversity. What's more, I feel uniquely empowered as an American
to roll up my sleeves and create the America I want to see and believe is good
for the rest of us, and I didn't even need Gandhi to teach me that one.

I guess I need a sandwich board instead, because what's the point? Are we
merely South Canada now, waiting for an eventual invasion that will take our
economic, military, scientific and cultural leadership away, leaving a
skeleton of a sovereign state that barely made it out of puberty? What coffin
do you think Trump is building? I'm about as disapproving of the current
administration as you can get, but I've also studied just enough of the world
to understand that things tend to endure, even when the situation looks most
hopeless to all involved.

Look at the Big Bads that the British survived throughout their centuries of
history. Sure, Pax Britannica and their colonial adventures around the world
have come to a close, but I don't see any comments saying "the world won,
Britain lost, might as well yield the Crown and just absorb into the EU."
Nope: they _still_ fight for what they believe to be good and properly
British, including giving the finger to the rest of Europe when they feel it
necessary. We should learn from that example, of those with the learned memory
of an empire from which they descend, deflated by the world changing around
it, yet avoiding the adoption of a fatalist nostalgia that impedes all
progress and hope for the future.

If the British aren't a good example, look at the Germans who _still_ live in
the punchline of uncomfortable jokes. They're still here, still making some
mean beer, and still a valuable member of the world. Not even a particularly
misguided government pissing off the entire planet could get rid of a German
ideal that lived in its citizens' hearts, and they had a God damned wall down
the middle in the wake of that mess to constantly remind them of how hopeless
it got.

We are due to be knocked down a couple more pegs than we already are. If
you're of the mind to give up when that happens, then you can identify
yourself as a member of the "winning" army. Saying UbL won and giving up
_makes him win._ How do you not see that?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Let's put it this way: 9/11 achieved exactly what was intended - it sent the
US into a tailspin, and it's dragging the rest of the first world down with
it. The current condition of US politics wrt. terrorism is best described as
acute case of autoimmune disease. The damage of overreaction being much,
_much_ worse than the original attack.

That doesn't mean Bin Laden won - history is not a game, the round didn't end
yet. US can still recover - if it choses to.

~~~
gambiting
I'd actually argue that Bin Laden failed terribly at his stated goal - he
wanted to make Americans stop for a second and consider why they are being
targeted, and then hopefully discover all the atrocities their own government
has inflicted on Bin Laden's people, and well, hopefully revolt.

But America in general didn't spend even a second considering this.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/z/c5cabqo](https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/z/c5cabqo)

~~~
SerLava
Well I suppose, in a sense, it would be wrong to significantly change our
behavior towards alignment with OBL's goals. That would probably trigger a lot
more terrorism.

~~~
gambiting
Well, yes, of course. I'm not saying that we _should_ have aligned with his
goals - but the world certainly failed to get _why_ the attack was done in the
first place - for most, it only had a religious motivation, or they think that
terrorists hate American freedom so they had to attack.

Like the comment I linked says - terrorist goal wasn't that you get patted
down when traveling, or surrendering your privacy to the encroaching
surveillance state. Those are goals of the US government, and here, the
government is winning. The terrorists however, are definitely not.

------
mnm1
Note that some airlines, like Delta, do not allow computers or lithium
batteries in checked luggage (for example:
[https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-
us/ba...](https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-
us/baggage/before-your-trip/special-items.html) &&
[https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-
us/ba...](https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-
us/baggage/before-your-trip/restricted-items.html)) so this essentially means
that other than phones, these things are completely banned and will have to be
shipped separately or not shipped at all.

EDIT: Also, no airline that I know of will insure these items when checked in
for more than $100 on international flights (please correct if I'm wrong). So
if you can get them in at all, like the article says, they will be stolen.

~~~
vmarsy
> Note that some airlines, like Delta, do not allow computers or lithium
> batteries in checked luggage [...] so this essentially means that other than
> phones, these things are completely banned and will have to be shipped
> separately or not shipped at all.

This is incorrect, only spare batteries aren't allowed in checked baggage,
computers are fine. From your second link [1]:

> Lithium ion batteries installed in a personal electronic device _can be_
> transported as checked or carry on baggage. Lithium ion batteries not
> installed in a device (spares) must be in carry-on baggage and no more than
> two (2) spares between 100 and 160 watt hours are allowed.

[1] [https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-
us/ba...](https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-
us/baggage/before-your-trip/restricted-items.html)

~~~
mnm1
The first link says: "Computers or computer-related equipment are not allowed
as checked baggage. You can, of course, bring your laptop computers as carry-
on." It's unclear between the two links which one applies. Anyway, I'd check
with the airline before trying to check in such equipment.

------
jpatokal
The Big 4 Middle East/Gulf airlines (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Turkish) have
been giving legacy US carriers a lot of grief lately, since they're both
cheaper and better on essentially all counts, so I can't help but wonder if
they have their finger in the pie here. Few businessmen will opt to fly long-
haul if they can't use their laptops, and they're specifically targeting 9
airlines here, not just airports or countries.

It's also beyond bizarre that the US trusts Abu Dhabi's security enough to
locate its only Middle Eastern Customs/Immigration preclearance facility, but
not enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring tablets...

~~~
waqf
_[duplicate comment, admins merged two stories]_

~~~
hueving
>Plus, can confirm that the ME airlines are highly competitive

Very, they are subsidized by their governments.

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2015/03/airline-
subs...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2015/03/airline-subsidies-
gulf)

~~~
goodplay
Guess the US government should do the same. You either play by the rules of
the game, or don't play altogether.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
They could work together to rewrite the rules of the game to be better for
everyone. But since the G20 just had to take out wording about the dangers of
protectionism to keep the US happy, I'd guess we're going for the tragedy of
the commons version.

------
JamilD
I'm convinced this ban is motivated by a protectionist desire from the US-
based airlines, to dissuade business travelers from flying on Middle Eastern
airlines like Emirates and Qatar, which necessarily transit through countries
like the UAE.

If you're someone who flies for work, there's no way you're going to take a
flight where you can't use your laptop.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Are the listed airlines the only ones that have direct flights to the US?

~~~
metanoia
United and Delta cut their nonstops to Dubai a while back, so yes, most
likely.

------
untog
This is how they implement the Muslim ban. Piece by piece, bit by bit, they
make it utterly infuriating for any Muslim person to travel to the US. Next
they'll ban absolutely all liquids, or something.

~~~
marcoperaza
Given that someone already tried to bring down a plane with a laptop bomb, and
was nearly successful, maybe a little less cynicism is justified. Here's the
relevant excerpt from the CNN article on this:

> _The official said the move is partly based on intelligence that they
> believe indicates Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is close to being able
> to hide explosives with little or no metal content in electronic devices in
> order to target commercial aircraft. It 's a particular concern at these
> airports because of screening issues and the possibility of terrorists
> infiltrating authorized airport personnel, the official said. Flight and
> cabin crews are not covered by these new restrictions. In February 2016, a
> bomb hidden inside a laptop detonated aboard a Daallo Airlines flight out of
> Mogadishu, Somalia. The bomber was killed and a hole was blown in the side
> of the fuselage. The aircraft landed safely._

~~~
untog
Then why limit it to non-US carriers? Are United planes bomb-proof?

~~~
marcoperaza
It's not based on carrier, but on the country that the flight originates in.
Flights from the affected carriers, originating in other countries, are not
subject to the new requirements either.

------
tempestn
I have no evidence to support this, but one possibility is that they'd like
the opportunity to study those devices without the owners' awareness. It
sounds a little tinfoil hat, but in the absence of a better explanation (aside
from really poor security theater) it starts to look plausible.

------
rebootthesystem
Reminds me of something from about fifteen years ago.

I was training getting into R/C helicopters. No, not the toys they sell at the
mall but the more sophisticated models flown by R/C pilots. Needless to say,
they are not easy to fly. Even with twenty years experience flying R/C
airplanes of all kinds I had to start from scratch.

R/C heli's can be very expensive to crash. A set of carbon fiber rotors and
related mechanics will easily set you back well of $200. I was intent on
learning without crashing. How? Use an R/C flight simulator and log hundreds
of hours before flying the real thing.

I was flying back and forth to Europe a bunch during that time. It was only
logical to take my flight simulator with me and practice during the long
flight. That meant my laptop along with a special full size R/C controller
with a USB cord instead of the antenna.

This rig always called attention to itself and was a pretty good conversation
starter. I always had to explain what it was while going through security. On
two flight the pilot came over to my seat to check out what I was doing. In
both cases they asked to see if they could fly the simulated heli. And, sorry
to say, in both cases they failed miserably. It was a great way to get 16+
hours of practice.

Not sure I could do that today.

~~~
ohazi
RealFlight? I had a similar control box that used a game port (D-sub) before
USB was common.

~~~
rebootthesystem
I have both RealFlight and PhoenixRC. For heli training Phoenix feels better
to me. Also, you can use your real RC transmitter to run the simulator, in my
case I run JR transmitters. The down side is that you can't (shouldn't) run a
real transmitter while flying in an airliner. Yes, when plugged into Phoenix
the TX circuitry turns off, but I wouldn't want to answer those questions so I
use RealFlight and their dummy transmitter for that purpose.

There's something uniquely geeky about flying in a flight simulator while
flying on a real plane. Like I said, good conversation starter.

------
kartickv
This affects people from many countries, not just the seven or eight targeted
initially. For example, I stay in India, and if I visit the US, I may fly via
Dubai.

Which means, in turn, that I'm less likely to visit. Why take a 20-hour flight
and subject myself to "extreme vetting"?

------
notliketherest
likely Homeland Security wants to be able to search the contents of the
laptops - easier to do this when they're checked.

~~~
ryukafalz
On the plus side, it's harder to compel you to decrypt your disk if you're
nowhere near it at the time.

~~~
jamoes
On the minus side, they can install malware on your machine without your
knowledge (even if your disk is encrypted).

~~~
ploggingdev
Source? How is it possible to install malware when the disk is encrypted?

~~~
throwaway7767
You modify the bootloader to grab the password on next decryption. The
bootloader is in cleartext on the disk, otherwise the machine couldn't boot.

More advanced versions would involve modifying the BIOS to add a SMM-mode
hook. That way the malware runs completely outside the view of the OS.
Alternatively, any device with DMA access could have its firmware altered to
read sensitive information from memory.

Physical security is an unsolved problem.

~~~
ryukafalz
>You modify the bootloader to grab the password on next decryption. The
bootloader is in cleartext on the disk, otherwise the machine couldn't boot.

Mine isn't - I have GRUB installed to my BIOS chip, and I decrypt the single
encrypted partition from there.

>More advanced versions would involve modifying the BIOS to add a SMM-mode
hook.

That one could still get me though, yeah.

------
dawnerd
This is just asking for trouble... Between theft and potential battery fires,
it almost feels like they want something bad to happen so they can say people
coming from these countries are dangerous (using a hull fire as proof).

~~~
brajesh
This is probably a "travel ban" by inconvenience, since the earlier bans were
stayed in courts

------
jacquesm
So, assuming this is because of some credible threat: does that mean DHS
thinks that terrorists can't afford a couple of weeks lay-over in Amsterdam or
Paris before traveling to the United States?

~~~
Const-me
They might think airport security personnel at Amsterdam or Paris do their job
better than their colleagues from those 8 Middle Eastern and North African
countries.

And/or they might think Netherlands and France is just as attractive for the
terrorists as the US, i.e. the terrorists won’t bother taking that second
flight.

BTW, I think Russia should be the 9-th country on that list, as they have long
history of sponsoring terrorism.

~~~
linkregister
I'm ignorant of Russia's historical role in sponsoring terrorism; I'm only
getting recent Ukraine / Syria links. Can you share some resources to learn
more about it?

~~~
Const-me
They are doing that at least since foundation of USSR.

Russians ordered bombings in Warsaw, Poland in 1920-s. Shipped weaponry to
Irish Republican Army and Palestine in 70-s. Speaking about Palestine, some
say Russians have invented plane hijacking as a terrorist tactic:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20130102051626/http://www.nationa...](http://web.archive.org/web/20130102051626/http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218533/russian-
footprints/ion-mihai-pacepa)

Killed many political opponents abroad, Alexander Litvinenko in UK, Sulim
Yamadaev in UAE, Stepan Bandera in Germany.

If you want more, read books and articles by Stanislav Lunev, Ion Mihai
Pacepa, Viktor Suvorov. Those are high-ranking KGB officers who surrendered
and were cooperative. Alexander Litvinenko also published stuff about state-
sponsored terrorism in modern Russia, but he concentrated on domestic not
international.

~~~
linkregister
Thanks! I'm not sure why you were down voted; maybe the down voter could
publicly dispute your statement instead.

------
whyenot
If it is going to place burdensome carry on restrictions on people the US
government could at least explain why the measures are necessary.

At the rate we are going, it's not going to be long before you will not be
allowed to bring any carry on luggage at all when flying from certain
airports. Maybe everyone should fly naked. Who knows, someone might have
plastic explosives sewn into their clothes. Wait, what if someone swallows the
explosives? Maybe everyone should be forced to take an emetic and get a
colonoscopy before flying.

~~~
marcoperaza
They did explain why they're necessary. You wouldn't know that from the
cynical comments on HackerNews though. From the CNN article about this:

> _The official said the move is partly based on intelligence that they
> believe indicates Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is close to being able
> to hide explosives with little or no metal content in electronic devices in
> order to target commercial aircraft. It 's a particular concern at these
> airports because of screening issues and the possibility of terrorists
> infiltrating authorized airport personnel, the official said. Flight and
> cabin crews are not covered by these new restrictions. In February 2016, a
> bomb hidden inside a laptop detonated aboard a Daallo Airlines flight out of
> Mogadishu, Somalia. The bomber was killed and a hole was blown in the side
> of the fuselage. The aircraft landed safely._

------
astrodust
This makes almost zero sense, and it's likely that there will be zero
explanation as to why any of this is necessary.

If there's a threat this only introduces a minor inconvenience to those
looking to carry out an attack. Is getting a connecting flight in some country
like Germany going to be hard?

~~~
zeroer
This is probably a first step towards a ban on all flights for that exact
reason.

~~~
greglindahl
... which would increase risk, because battery fires are worse in checked bags
than in the main cabin/overheads.

~~~
astrodust
Considering zero fires in carry-on have caused plane crashes, but a non-zero
number in cargo have, yeah, basically this makes it _way worse_.

------
ocschwar
What utter bullshit.

If they allow phones at all, then the threat cannot be an issue of a passenger
sending a command out of one of these. The threat has to be the device itself.

Now, a standard issue iPad is no threat, so we're talking about a customized
device made to look like on.

Except, if terrorists are going to the trouble to do this, they can just as
easily put whatever bad thing they want to put into the case of an insulin
pump, and bypass the ban.

This. Is. Bullshit.

~~~
marcoperaza
That's some strong criticism, especially since you're not even considering
that someone already successfully detonated a laptop bomb on a plane.

From the CNN article on this new policy: > _The official said the move is
partly based on intelligence that they believe indicates Al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula is close to being able to hide explosives with little or no
metal content in electronic devices in order to target commercial aircraft. It
's a particular concern at these airports because of screening issues and the
possibility of terrorists infiltrating authorized airport personnel, the
official said. Flight and cabin crews are not covered by these new
restrictions. In February 2016, a bomb hidden inside a laptop detonated aboard
a Daallo Airlines flight out of Mogadishu, Somalia. The bomber was killed and
a hole was blown in the side of the fuselage. The aircraft landed safely._

~~~
dang
Would you please not repeat the same thing over and over? This is excessive.

------
dogecoinbase
This is... crazy. I can't even recall the last time I travelled with checked
luggage of any kind, and make a point of not letting my laptop/etc out of
arm's reach while traveling. I guess this does make it easier to search/bug
devices, though.

~~~
peterwwillis
This is actually one of the few credible attacks a hijacker could perform, and
reducing the size of the batteries (assuming most cellphones don't have 72Whr
6-cell batteries) is a practical method to prevent such an attack in the
cabin. However, it doesn't seem to rule out the exact same thing happening in
the cargo hold with a timer. It's less stupid than water restrictions.

~~~
stevenwoo
The rationale for water restrictions seems OK to me on the face of it. It's a
PIA for traveling. [http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/02/more-on-liquid-rules-why-we-
do-t...](http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/02/more-on-liquid-rules-why-we-do-
things.html)

~~~
peterwwillis
_> Was this a real threat? Yes, there was a very serious plot to blow up
planes using liquid explosives in bombs that would have worked to bring down
aircraft._

Yeah. With Nitroglycerin, the stuff that explodes when you move it too fast.
You could still bring this on a plane undetected in 3.4oz containers. And you
can check a bag with much larger amounts.

But there was not just "a plot" to blow up a plane with liquid explosives.
There was a successful attack on a South Korean plane that killed everyone on
board with liquid explosives, _used in 1989_. Yet they don't even mention
this, probably because the policy was put in place after 9/11, partly as a
fear tactic to get US citizens to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
partly to prevent fear from ruining the airline industry, and partly to
support the new jobs program called the TSA (which was also created after
9/11).

Without fear and extensive unnecessary security measures, the TSA would not be
the size it is, nor would it get the investment it gets. If you don't believe
TSA is primarily a jobs program, consider that according to NPR in 2006, a
government report showed that Research & Development programs were delayed
when TSA funds were redirected in order to pay for personnel costs for
screeners. And the TSA receives 8 billion dollars a year.

There are many ways to detect liquid explosives. By removing them from their
container (or requiring specific kinds of transparent containers) and using
laser scatter plotting or microwaves, or by detecting vapor emissions from an
opened bottle, for example. But nobody cared about them when planes _were_
bombed using them, and they're still not using any of these methods, 17 years
after the policies were put in place. These policies are just tools used to
control people.

------
coldcode
I have no idea what the point of this is.

~~~
harlanlewis
> the ban will apply to nonstop flights to the U.S. from 10 airports in eight
> countries in the Middle East and North Africa

Personal electronics are near-indispensable. By restricting their carry from
Muslim countries, freedom of movement to and from those countries is
significantly curtailed. This is about getting around the illegality of the
Muslim ban without banning any persons or groups. This is about "cultural
protectionism" through isolationism, not terrorism, and it's not even trying
particularly hard to pretend otherwise.

~~~
diminoten
...this is absurd. It's a 96 hour ban, this has _absolutely_ nothing to do
with the travel ban.

~~~
maxerickson
Could you link or explain where you are getting further info?

Neither Bloomberg nor this Reuters article mention the period it will be in
effect.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-
electronics-i...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-electronics-
idUSKBN16R2JN)

~~~
diminoten
[http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/324846-feds-
tempora...](http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/324846-feds-temporarily-
ban-electronics-on-certain-flights-to-us)

~~~
maxerickson
Fox has since updated their coverage.

[http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/03/21/electronics-ban-
on-...](http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/03/21/electronics-ban-on-flights-
to-us-is-indefinite-applies-to-8-muslim-majority-nations.html)

------
gibbitz
I'm curious what threat an iPad poses that a cellphone doesn't and what a
terrorist can't do with a chron job that they would otherwise do with a
laptop. It's not like they use a teleporter when they check your bags. It's
clear that if our regulations and bureaucrats are all we have to protect us
from "evildoers" we're all doomed by their ignorance of the simplicity of
working around this...

~~~
ars
A cellphone is small, and doesn't have much room, that's all.

It's not the electronics per say, it's the difficulty of checking inside them.
That's why only certain airports are included, those that check things
properly are not.

------
marcoperaza
There's lots of snarky and unjustified cynicism here, given that concealing
explosives in laptops is not a theoretical risk; it was recently done. Here's
an excerpt from the CNN article:

> _The official said the move is partly based on intelligence that they
> believe indicates Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is close to being able
> to hide explosives with little or no metal content in electronic devices in
> order to target commercial aircraft. It 's a particular concern at these
> airports because of screening issues and the possibility of terrorists
> infiltrating authorized airport personnel, the official said. Flight and
> cabin crews are not covered by these new restrictions. In February 2016, a
> bomb hidden inside a laptop detonated aboard a Daallo Airlines flight out of
> Mogadishu, Somalia. The bomber was killed and a hole was blown in the side
> of the fuselage. The aircraft landed safely._

~~~
TillE
1) We already have screening processes for that.

2) So the bomb is now in the hold. That's not really much of an improvement.

~~~
marcoperaza
Remote or timed detonation is trickier than manual detonation. I'm not
familiar with how checked luggage is screened, but it's possible that it is
potentially controlled by the US for flights heading to the US, or otherwise
more reliable. Again:

> _It 's a particular concern at these airports because of screening issues
> and the possibility of terrorists infiltrating authorized airport personnel,
> the official said._

~~~
stuaxo
Those guys were doing it non-manually when nokias were the phone of choice,
and back in the day the IRA probably used plain clocks, it's not going to be
much extra hassle for them.

------
kylehotchkiss
The reason people are most upset is because of how widespread theft from
baggage is. In many of the destinations you need a gulf carrier to connect you
do, you don't want to put a $1000+ device in a checked bag.

I guess you could do the crazy plastic bag warp thing. But that doesn't answer
the question of your things being stolen in the USA, which seems even more
likely due to the people on the line knowing the value of the things in your
pack.

Maybe it's time for a kickstarter for an accelerometer/wifi network
logger/audio recorder/camera that all activate when the bag is open so you can
receive audio and video of the person stealing your things.

------
itchyjunk
When I was passing through Singapore once, two Americans in front of me
started taking their shoes off right before the security check. The security
officer gave them a weird look and said they can put it back on because he
uses a scanner and doesn't need to look inside everyones shoe. Fast forward 3
years and i'm reading comments on HN about double security check not being bad
heh.

Checked in bag is not free. Checked in bags also get manhandled unless you pay
hefty to get the fragile tag and insurance. For someone cheap like me who
carries a backpack which is free so far, the extra cost is my biggest concern.
Hope something like this doesn't happen in domestic flights.

Edit: typos

~~~
jacquesm
> Checked in bag is not free. Checked in bags also get manhandled unless you
> pay hefty to get the fragile tag and insurance.

Assuming it arrives at all... it could be a very expensive bag. And laptops in
checked luggage is just asking for them to walk off. There is absolutely no
way I'd check my laptop, then again, I'm not planning on going to the United
States before the madness stops and if I would I probably would not fly
through any country that this is all about.

Even so, it does not strike me as a policy that has been thought about for a
very long time. Having laptops in the passenger area means that if something
bad does happen something could be done about it.

Having them in the cargo compartment means that if a fire should start it
could get quite bad before it gets noticed and the extinguisher gets used.

If they're scared of bombs then they should not be on board at all, cargo hold
or passenger compartment doesn't matter.

So I really don't understand the point of this, maybe time will bring me to
see the reasoning but right now I can't.

------
denom
This wouldn't have anything to do with a certain congressional hearing going
on today?

------
komali2
I believe the UK tried this once and I remember reading that thefts were
skyrocketing as a result. I'm struggling to find a source though, so this is
just my poor memory and hearsay right now.

~~~
kens
The article itself mentions thefts after the UK did this in 2006.

~~~
komali2
Oh neat, true. I still wish I could find a source on it :/

------
JBerlinsky
I have a feeling that sales of glitter nail polish are going to go up a
bit[1].

This is a good time to make sure that you have full-disk encryption enabled,
and to brush up on what few rights remain yours at a US border.

1: [http://lifehacker.com/use-glitter-nail-polish-to-make-
your-l...](http://lifehacker.com/use-glitter-nail-polish-to-make-your-laptop-
tamper-proo-1493599646)

~~~
giarc
I've used destructible labels before, not for my computer, but for barcoding
equipment. They work quite well, only issue might be wear and tear over time
will start to naturally destroy the label.

[http://images.tamperevidentlabels.com/companies/tampereviden...](http://images.tamperevidentlabels.com/companies/tamperevidentlabels/slide-01.jpg)

------
salesguy222
You look at this and say to yourself, "this doesn't make any sense! i don't
get how allowing cell phones and 'medical devices' (nebulous term) into carry
ons, but demanding that laptops go into checked baggage is keeping us safe!"

And you're right! It isn't.

But then you realize that the special interests that came up with this policy
were paid LARGE SUMS OF MONEY to impress Trump and all of his supporters and
career politician allies. And then you once more realize how incredibly stupid
this policy is in reality.

But then it dawns on you that Trump and his allies are either criminally
idiotic, or criminally wasteful in their policy pursuits.

Or both!

~~~
modeless
Look, I hate Trump. But air security policy hasn't been rational for a long
time. Don't tie every government dysfunction to Trump.

~~~
zzalpha
They may not be responsible for past policy, but I don't think it unreasonable
to blame successive executive branches if they make the policy even _more_
irrational.

------
pmontra
> Royal Jordanian said the electronics ban affects its flights to New York,
> Chicago, Detroit and Montreal.

Montreal, USA?

~~~
cperciva
Apparently some flights to Canada are affected due to passing through US
airspace.

~~~
madcaptenor
Nothing so complicated. Royal Jordanian flights from Amman to Detroit stop in
Montreal.

[http://flightaware.com/live/flight/RJA267](http://flightaware.com/live/flight/RJA267)

[http://flightaware.com/live/flight/RJA268](http://flightaware.com/live/flight/RJA268)

------
exabrial
I'm waiting for media to spin this as "anti Muslim" yet again.

I wonder if the true reason is because USA does not trust overseas security
(which doesn't make a lot of sense, you have to recheck your carry-ons/luggage
after customs), or if it's a means to get a closer look at your electronics
when you're not there, or just because there's been an incident (the TSA
actually managed to catch a threat) that we're not privvy to. From what I
understand, laptops are a bit harder to xray which is why they're screen
separate from other items.

------
sbuttgereit
The article makes passing reference at the end, but isn't forcing these
devices to be in checked bags actually more dangerous than some vague
terrorist threat? While still relatively rare, it seems that Li-ion batteries
catching fire in the cargo hold is still a bit more risky than the likelihood
of what they're trying to address happening.

(I suspect they are acting on some more credible intelligence in this matter,
but clearly not so specific that they can target their actions and have to
come up with something that itself poses a risk.)

------
BrailleHunting
Hassling visitors arbitrarily, haphazardly and somewhat discriminatorily makes
a country less cool and more autocratic. And talent, capital and tax revenue
finds other places to which to flock.

------
diminoten
...I feel like no one here read the article. Based on these comments, one
might think that A) this had never happened before (it has), or B) it was
permanent (it's a 96 hour ban).

~~~
andrioni
The linked article (at least right now, AP via Bloomberg) actually says the
ban is indefinite.

>The ban was indefinite, said the official.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-20/some-
elec...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-20/some-electronics-
to-be-banned-on-some-us-bound-flights)

------
nikdaheratik
This is so frustrating because, even if there _is_ a credible case for putting
these limits on these specific airports, the Administration has done so much
to trash the reputation of both its own appointees and CBP. You can't help but
wonder if there's an ulterior motive to this and they're still understaffed
and so poor at getting the message out that we may never be sure.

------
bzbarsky
What I find interesting is that neither the article nor any of the comments
mentions that the UK is doing the same thing. See
[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-
electronics-i...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-electronics-
idUSKBN16S11Q)

------
TuringNYC
Personally speaking, laptops I can do without, but Kindles are like oxygen on
long-haul flights. This is incredibly disappointing.

------
fpoling
What is remarkable is that the order bans electronics on flights from Saudi
Arabia. I thought Saudi Arabia was still untouchable especially after the
travel buns that excluded the country where terrorists harmed US most
originated or got financial support. So however weak, it does add a
credibility that the ban is based on some intelligence.

------
jaimex2
Wonder how long before you have to check in everything, including clothing
where you have to fly in jumpsuites given to you.

------
Gargoyle
Can anyone think of an attack this would prevent? Anything a pad (or even a
laptop) could do could be done by a phone, at least hackingwise or whatever.
So something with the physical aspect. A jammer of some sort? A way to
intentionally explode batteries in a harmful way?

~~~
KirinDave
It's not about preventing attacks.

But our new fun game should be putting usb nuke sticks in a small, conspicuous
envelope in our luggage, maybe with a few crips hundred dollar bills.

------
somethingsimple
Sometimes I think this is going to get to a point where they'll have people
remove their clothes prior to boarding and dress a special suit so they're
allowed to fly without being considered a threat.

~~~
s5fs
That's why in old scifi movies everyone wears jumpsuits on spaceships, makes
getting through security much faster.

------
youjelly
Permanently infect the EFI on the laptop, while its enroute without your
permission. Removing the hard drive is not a remedy, maybe remove the battery
as well?

------
praneshp
Which countries? From the article, I can glean Saudi and Jordan. Pretty poor
journalism (or reading ability on my part)

~~~
BWStearns
Seems the source couldn't/wouldn't disclose the list. Given it's 8 countries
in Middle East/North Africa,my bet is old travel ban countries plus one.

~~~
ars
> Given it's 8 countries in Middle East/North Africa,my bet is old travel ban
> countries plus one.

That's impossible since neither Saudi nor Jordan were on the old list.

~~~
BWStearns
Fair point. I didn't take away that both were part of the electronics ban from
my original reading but that is a reasonable conclusion.

------
nthcolumn
I'm surprised there still are US-Bound flights.

------
ge96
Possible business, rentable laptops.

------
qordoba
If the new law does not apply to flights operated by American companies it
only shows that this is the beginning of trade war and sanctions against
Muslim nations.

It is nothing to do with safety of people. Period.

------
beedogs
What brave people Americans are lately.

Afraid of an iPad being used on a plane.

~~~
castis
Only naivety would lead someone to lump all Americans together and claim they
are collectively responsible for this.

Also, America is a big place [1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas)

~~~
anigbrowl
Oddly, that's exactly how I feel about profiling of people from the Middle
East.

------
snowwrestler
Maybe TSA was up late one night surfing back through the XKCD archive:

[https://xkcd.com/651/](https://xkcd.com/651/)

~~~
jaimex2
First thing that came to my mind :)

------
ccrush
Is it really that hard to see that laptops and tablets could be disassembled,
sharpened, and re-assembled pre-flight, and then come apart to make a set of
very dangerous knives? How is this not expected to be a problem? Maybe, if ass
holes didnt hijack airplanes, we wouldn't have these ridiculous restrictions.
In the meantime, "I'm gonna need to look inside yo' ass hole, sir."

