

Security or theater: no electronics on international flights? - slapshot
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/26/airplane-electronics-ban/

======
tibbon
I flew yesterday and had an interesting encounter. I accidentally had a small
set of lockpicks in my jacket pocket. I'm always VERY careful to completely
empty my bag after I accidentally brought a knife into the security area once
a few years ago in my camera bag (which they found of course, but didn't give
me much trouble about. I always keep one in my camera bag for cutting tape,
wires, tree branches in photo shoots, opening packages, etc)- however I didn't
check my coat this time as I was rushed. Opps.

Anyway, I took lockpicks through. Of course they noticed them in the x-ray
machine. The guy was super nice about it. He was like, "What are these?" and I
responded, "Lockpicks. I just have them for practice on stuff and learning, I
didn't mean to travel with them. I'm sorry if they are something that is
contraband from carrying on airplanes and I totally understand if you have to
keep them."

The guy looked a little puzzled. "Like you use to start or open a car?". Now
honestly I've never tried picking a car. I've tried picking my motorcycle when
the key fell out once, but never a car. I say, "I guess you could, but I've
never tried it." I was worried that he thought I was a car thief or something.
He then said, "Oh, well I've been having this trouble with my car ignition.
Its really lose. I've always carried heavy keys and I think its broken. Do you
know anything about fixing it?" He was intrigued and just was curious. Not
accusatory at all. I was kinda shocked. He looked at them and said, "They
don't look sharp or anything. They should be fine. We let people carry through
small scissors which are more dangerous than these because if you break them
in two they are two small knives if they are sharp"

He scanned them through the x-ray once more, and handed them to me and was
asking a few other questions about good locksmiths in the area to fix his car.
I apologized again for the trouble, but he said and this is the important
part:

"Look, I used to work for a prison. The security here is a joke compared to
real security at prisons. These wouldn't get through there, but we let all
sorts of stuff through that would probably get someone killed in prison fights
or would be instantly contraband there."

I'd thought about this before, but the bluntness and understanding that he had
behind this was a real shock to me. I'd never thought that the airports were
secure- but compare them to an actual 'secure' environment like a prison and
they seem wide open.

It is truly unfortunate that the higher ups at the TSA don't promote this guy
to the top and have the same understanding as him. You're not making a secure
place with these practices- you're making placebo.

If we wanted real security EVERYONE would probably need cavity searches and no
one could take anything at all onboard. I'm glad we aren't trying for that
obviously.

~~~
thwarted
I'm glad you had a good, reasonable experience. On Wednesday, I was told by a
TSO that I couldn't bring my baby on board. She was making a joke, because she
wanted to assert that the baby was cute, but telling someone they can't bring
their baby on a plane _at the security checkpoint_ is about as serious a joke
to parents as joking about carrying a bomb is to TSOs.

~~~
philwelch
For what it's worth, you apparently kept your cool. I imagine if your reaction
was anywhere near how you really felt about it you'd be detained and tasered
for awhile.

~~~
tibbon
I'll admit I was nervous. I normally pass through completely unnervous- but as
soon as they went to rescan my jacket, I knew what was in the pocket. I know
in some states simply carrying lockpicks is illegal (probably MA too for all I
know, but I do it anyway), let alone taking them on a plane. I was thinking,
"shit, shit, shit, shit" but knew that if I played as sincere, naive and
innocent (which to a degree I was all three) then I'd be fine.

I do know however, just as in any situation with any law enforcement (or quasi
law enforcement) that you do not lie to them. You talk around the truth like
an Aes Sedai if you must, but don't lie. If you are pulled into a room for
more questioning and you're forced to reveal that you lied, it will be much
worse to get out of.

~~~
philwelch
The best way not to lie to cops is not to say anything at all. If you lie
they'll pin you on your lies, and if you tell the truth they'll crucify you
with that, too. Thankfully you have a constitutional right to remain silent.

Personally, I only do that when it seems like serious business. When I'm
pulled over for speeding there's no gain playing mute.

------
tlrobinson
Security whack-a-mole.

Box cutters used in 9/11... ban anything sharp

Shoe bomber... make people take off shoes

Liquid explosive plot... limit liquids and gels to 4oz containers

Guy tries to explode bomb in his lap during the last hour of a flight... no
things in your lap during the last hour.

It's comical and tragic.

~~~
physcab
_Note: I do research in explosives detection_

With the exception of the last one, banning box cutters, requiring people to
take off their shoes, and limiting explosives are actually quite reasonable
for security. Current detection technologies can't really detect explosive
substances, except for the X-ray machine, but the best it can do is tell you
the density of the materials in question, not necessarily what type of
explosive it is. So running your shoes through the machine makes sense, as
enough dangerous solid explosive can be packed into the sole of a shoe.

Liquid explosives are extremely unstable. The explosive power is probably not
enough to blow up a plane, but it can definitely injure or kill many people or
set fire to the plane. Plus, no machine exists to distinguish explosive
liquids from non-explosive liquids at the scale that an airport requires.

For the curious, I'll just briefly list some of the detection systems that are
out on the market, and what their capabilities are:

\- Metal detector

\- X-ray machine - Densities of materials

\- Ion Mobility Scanner (eg. Puffers or Swipers) - Trace explosives detection,
but easily confused by other nitro compounds such as hand cremes, fertilizer,
and uh..jet fuel.

\- Millimeter Wave Scanner (eg. Whole Body Scanner) - Anomaly detection (eg.
can penetrate clothing), but cannot identify explosives.

\- Terahertz Imaging - Can penetrate clothing and can identify materials,
including explosives, but can be blocked by water and hasn't reached
commercialization.

\- Other wavelength imaging - Our group uses UV light and can detect trace
amounts of explosives, but does not penetrate clothing. It's only a surface
technique.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
"Current detection technologies can't really detect explosive substances ..."

There are plenty of direct explosives detectors, such as the ICx products:
<http://www.icxt.com/products/icx-detection/explosives/>

~~~
physcab
Fido isn't for airport security. It's for small applications where you want to
inspect explosive traces in particular situations. As far as I know it's
single use, and you have to replace the polymeric/chemical sensor on each
application.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
Fido sensing elements are generally good for many hours of operation. The
PaxPoint product is specifically intended for liquid screening in airports.
The main limitation is that they need a focused target to work on. The holy
grail is a walk-through chemical sensor, but the physics of that is
challenging.

------
c1sc0
I wish some of our politicians had the balls to stop this paranoid mess and
say "No, we can't guarantee 100% safety, learn to live with it".

~~~
kvs
It's not politicians. It's people. And, it is people who are paranoid and
irrational. Politicians just have to cater to the majority opinion to get
anything done.

~~~
axod
It'd be nice and refreshing if the media, and governments spent as much time
as possible educating people on the comparative risks.

The chance of dying from terrorism is far far lower than most other causes of
death. It's a rounding error.

The other one that gets me is the painting by the media that pedophiles are
going to snatch your child off the street, whilst the risk is miniscule, and
most sexual abuse is by family members. It makes people afraid to live their
lives.

If newspapers actually ranked news by how much it actually matters, we'd have
a massively different view of the world.

~~~
jamesjyu
Media outlets would label that as "boring." It's a sad state of affairs, but
sensationalism sells.

------
pmorici
If true this is insane. Why not just sedate everyone and handcuff them to the
seats because the way things are going that is the logical conclusion to this
inanity.

~~~
scorxn
Ugh, I'd much prefer that to all the dehumanizing and paranoia that is
present-day air travel. Knock me out and send me FedEx, please. Probably takes
about as long to recover from a horse tranquilizer as it does from plain ol'
jet lag.

------
JimmyL
Businesses that fly people internationally will freak out, as many have said -
although I would think that it would be because of people having to check
their laptops, as opposed to their inability to be productive while flying.

When I used to fly for business with a laptop, the company assumed I wouldn't
get much work done on the flight - but one of the cardinal rules was that your
laptop was never out of your physical sight when traveling. We encrypted
everything, but you always had to bring it carry-on, stash it under your seat,
and carry it with you when you went to the washroom.

I'd also be pretty cheesed off if I was an airline - making all these
investments in on-board Internet, and now having it banned.

As for the others, I think I could get used to them - I rarely use my iPod
when flying anyways (stick with sleeping or in-seat TV), could pack my bag
slightly better if needed to eliminate the "personal article" we're now
allowed to carry on, and time my bathroom breaks better (the no-standing rule
was in force flying into Reagan for a while post-9/11).

More broadly, however, it pisses me off on the grounds that it assumes
everyone is a criminal, and would do almost nothing in terms of actual airline
security.

~~~
ghshephard
"carry it with you when you went to the washroom."

You aren't suggesting you need to carry your laptop case with you into the
_airplane_ washroom are you? Talking about security theater...

------
ojbyrne
Note that if you correctly parse xenijardin's tweet (and her boingboing post
here: [http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/26/yo-dawg-i-heard-
you.htm...](http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/26/yo-dawg-i-heard-you.html)),
then it becomes clear that you're not allowed to use electronics during the
last hour of a flight, not the entire flight. Let's play telephone...

------
cstross
I'm hoping this is a temporary over-reaction, _or_ over-stated, _or_ both.

However, I've got a trip to the USA in mid-February (coincidentally flying in
from Schiphol) that is probably going to be cancelled if this is (as the more
extreme rumours have it) a permanent ban on in-flight use of electronics
during all stages of flights to the US.

And I really don't think I'll be the only person cancelling discretionary
visits.

Given that the numbskull suicide bomber in question apparently tried to inject
some sort of accelerant into the powder in his trousers using a syringe, I
pity any diabetics trying to fly anywhere in the next few weeks ...

------
asciilifeform
Perhaps the first nut with an implanted (say, abdominal cavity) bomb will save
us from this.

~~~
fnid
After that, we'll have to send our entire bodies through the x-ray machine.

~~~
asciilifeform
It isn't difficult to create explosives with the same x-ray transparency as
body fat.

The detonator squib will be in a pen, a glasses frame, or some other everyday
item which has not yet been forbidden.

------
tibbon
I'm also wondering if the TSA will allow airlines to start selling "clean"
electronic devices for high prices- just like they did with water and other
"fluids". No water through security- but you can buy it for a special price
inside!

------
rimantas
Can't wait till someone tries to get explosives on the plane weaved into
clothes.

~~~
NikkiA
According to the BBC report on this incident, we're there already...

Techchrunch seems to think it was 'electronics' related, but the BBC is
reporting that he had explosives sewn into the elastic band of his underwear.

So if anything, TSA are likely to ban clothes on planes.

~~~
adw
"Moulded around his body parts" (source: BBC One News at Ten). Start your
sausage-sizzle jokes now, dudes.

------
mixmax
If this is a move from the TSA to counter attacks like the man who recently
tried to set himself on fire on a plane the irony is that books burn much
better than electronics.

~~~
cperciva
Books burn much better than electronics; but they're far less explosive than
laptop batteries.

------
icey
Does anyone know if charters are exempt from TSA rules?

What about private jets?

I just wonder when it starts being profitable to start trying to find the TSA
loopholes.

~~~
ratsbane
Charter flights fall under FAA Part 135 rules; scheduled flights are Part 121.
With charter flights you don't have to put up with all of the passenger
screening stuff. It's also surprisingly affordable if you are traveling with a
group, e.g. a Gulfstream IV carries around 14 passengers and rents for about
$6k/hour. A King Air 200 carries 6 or 7 about half as fast for around
$1.5k/hour.

~~~
icey
That's pretty interesting... Tony Hsieh made a funny joke about starting a
"Zappos Airlines" at Startup School this year. Airlines are already notorious
for terrible customer service, and if you add on all the ridiculousness of
these new TSA rules (if true) then maybe there's some room for a little
disruption. Of course, this assumes there are loopholes that can be taken
advantage of.

I know I'll be flying a lot less if I can't use electronics internationally;
and I'd certainly be willing to pay more money to make those flights if I
could continue to use my gear when traveling.

------
NikkiA
I doubt there's any validity to this claim, just another TC bad reporting most
likely.

Banning electronics on flights would be the final nail in the coffin for air-
travel, even just on international flights it would piss off so many corporate
travellers that the airlines wouldn't cope with the losses - many large corps
only accept 8hr+ flights for business trips because the employee(s) can work
while in flight.

~~~
Zev
Its valid: <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27security.html>. Which is
actually linked to in the article.

~~~
imurray
That link says nothing about electronics, the headline claim. The sources for
banning electronics all seem to refer to Twitter, which may result from
isolated incidents, or speculation.

------
ghshephard
You all realize that this just means the TSA reads XKCD?

<http://xkcd.org/651/>

~~~
erso
Anyone reading the TSA blog already knows they do:
[http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/response-to-bag-check-
cartoo...](http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/response-to-bag-check-cartoon.html)

------
rbanffy
Prohibiting media players and computers turns selling on-board movies into a
great way to make money.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
Cue the inevitable XKCD link: <http://xkcd.com/651/>

