US to ban electronic devices from flights
Discussion
GT03ROB said:
...except it's not targeted at airlines, its airports & non-stop flights... there have been major US concerns regarding security at these airports that pre-date Trump.
So the fact that NO US carriers fly out of ANY of these locations, and the impacted carriers ALL seem to be "Muslim majority country" carriers, must be pure coincidence then?Sure...there are always going to be "concerns" but I don't see how this initiative makes things any safer and could, in fact, make things more dangerous (e.g. Cargo hold now full of lithium batteries whilst not, that I can see, reducing the likelihood of bombs getting on board disguised as an electronic device).
So...in short...that does make me suspicious of Mr 'merica first's motives.
Edited by RBH58 on Wednesday 22 March 08:51
RBH58 said:
So the fact that NO US carriers fly out of ANY of these locations, and the impacted carriers ALL seem to be "Muslim majority country" carriers, must be pure coincidence then?
Sure...there are always going to be "concerns" but I don't see how this initiative makes things any safer and could, in fact, make things more dangerous (e.g. Cargo hold now full of lithium batteries whilst not, that I can see, reducing the likelihood of bombs getting on board disguised as an electronic device).
So...in short...that does make me suspicious of Mr 'merica first's motives.
I can only offer a view based on what I know of one country on the US list. And in this case it IS airport specific not airline. Some while back the US carrier that came in non-stop was "advised" not to based on security concerns. The national carrier here was advised they would not be granted further non-stop services to the US until the airport security situation was substantially improved. Indeed the national carrier was "advised" to introduce pre-clearance stops on some of their existing non-stop services around a year back, which they now do via Shannon. Sure...there are always going to be "concerns" but I don't see how this initiative makes things any safer and could, in fact, make things more dangerous (e.g. Cargo hold now full of lithium batteries whilst not, that I can see, reducing the likelihood of bombs getting on board disguised as an electronic device).
So...in short...that does make me suspicious of Mr 'merica first's motives.
Edited by RBH58 on Wednesday 22 March 05:47
Edited by RBH58 on Wednesday 22 March 05:47
babatunde said:
Call it what it is........It's Muslim ban 3.0
If there were a logical technical reason for the ban it would apply to all airlines.
Basically Trump administration is saying we don't want persons with a permanent tan in "our" country
I concur, if they can't detect a bomb in a laptop at security how is asking people to put said "laptop bombs" in hold luggage any safer? If there were a logical technical reason for the ban it would apply to all airlines.
Basically Trump administration is saying we don't want persons with a permanent tan in "our" country
Edited by babatunde on Tuesday 21st March 18:21
No mention of Lithium batteries either going in the hold! How is any of this safer?
jmorgan said:
menguin said:
I thought they didn't want lithium batteries in the hold because they tend to explode?!
And there could be lots of batteries. Not good for the batteries either.And stuff never goes missing......
And we all know that the bombs hidden in the lap tops that are checked in don't do damage if they explode in the baggage hold......
I see a hole in this security plan.
Ask anybody who used to work for Pan Am.....
King Herald said:
BBC this morning keeps repeating that the lap top or tablet has to go in your check in.
And we all know that the bombs hidden in the lap tops that are checked in don't do damage if they explode in the baggage hold......
I see a hole in this security plan.
Ask anybody who used to work for Pan Am.....
You're presumably assuming there will be zero changes to processes for checked in luggage? Or that current processes for checked in luggage are no different to those for carry on? And we all know that the bombs hidden in the lap tops that are checked in don't do damage if they explode in the baggage hold......
I see a hole in this security plan.
Ask anybody who used to work for Pan Am.....
Personally I don't see what the big problem is. Will it make travel any safer? No idea... But my general tendency is to believe that people with significantly more detailed information than I have are making these changes in the hope it will.
"Muslim ban 3.0" - nothing quite like a bit of rhetoric. All Muslim countries/airports/airlines are covered by these changes? Are only Muslims and expected to follow the rules? Correlation/causation. And even the correlation here isn't that strong.
Frankly I also have no issue with positive vetting. As long as the end result is inconvenience rather than automatic preclusion then I find it hard to get upset about. Getting stopped by police regularly as a young driver is the only real experience I've had of that to date. Felt the same way then.
Oceanic said:
babatunde said:
Call it what it is........It's Muslim ban 3.0
If there were a logical technical reason for the ban it would apply to all airlines.
Basically Trump administration is saying we don't want persons with a permanent tan in "our" country
I concur, if they can't detect a bomb in a laptop at security how is asking people to put said "laptop bombs" in hold luggage any safer? If there were a logical technical reason for the ban it would apply to all airlines.
Basically Trump administration is saying we don't want persons with a permanent tan in "our" country
Edited by babatunde on Tuesday 21st March 18:21
No mention of Lithium batteries either going in the hold! How is any of this safer?
You've just jumped to a conclusion without any knowledge of the why's and wherefores as it suits your agenda - sound familiar?
If they do nothing about something they've been told about and something happens then they are in the poo, even if that something is ineffective.
RBH58 said:
I'm stuffed if I can figure out how a fake PC bomb exploding in the hold is any safer than one exploding in the cabin.
They do (at least some airlines do) have 'bombproof' cargo bags in the hold. Obviously wouldn't do a lot against a large bomb but capable of containing the explosion of a smaller device.The bad person with a fake laptop in the cabin can hold it against the skin of the plane and detonate it, pretty much guaranteeing a big hole.
In the hold the same exploding laptop might be reasonably well contained by the luggage packed around it and the explosion resistance of the baggage containers. Or it might still make a big hole depending on where it is and the strength of the blast. Or it might just be intended to catch fire...
In the hold the same exploding laptop might be reasonably well contained by the luggage packed around it and the explosion resistance of the baggage containers. Or it might still make a big hole depending on where it is and the strength of the blast. Or it might just be intended to catch fire...
GT03ROB said:
LaSource said:
So I assume in order to maintain commercial symmetry some of these countries (e.g. Dubai) will also ban incoming flights from the US from carrying such equipment? (After all a threat to use laptops etc could originate in the US)
Thereby they would also ensure there is not a skew in Business travellers using US airlines only....they'll be screwed on any airline
...and then someone may say this is getting a bit impractical!
...except it's not targeted at airlines, its airports & non-stop flights... there have been major US concerns regarding security at these airports that pre-date Trump. Thereby they would also ensure there is not a skew in Business travellers using US airlines only....they'll be screwed on any airline
...and then someone may say this is getting a bit impractical!
The UK has excluded these two.
RBH58 said:
BlackLabel said:
Airlines like Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad should threaten to pull out of some multi billion dollar Boeing deals - that should get them off the list quick enough.
Well....that may help LOL. ' merica first!Edited by BlackLabel on Wednesday 22 March 08:29
RBH58 said:
BlackLabel said:
Airlines like Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad should threaten to pull out of some multi billion dollar Boeing deals - that should get them off the list quick enough.
Well....that may help LOL. ' merica first!Edited by BlackLabel on Wednesday 22 March 08:29
jamoor said:
I can understand some of them, but Doha and Dubai (the worlds busiest international airport) are there really security cocerns?
The UK has excluded these two.
This is what I find interesting, UK has also excluded my local, Kuwait.The UK has excluded these two.
Security here is lax, both through the terminals & also throughout the facility. The feedback I have is that the concerns run throughout the operation from security checking of passengers baggage, through security of passengers baggage on the way to the planes, to security of catering & cleaning operations. BA here run secondary screening by their own staff which focusses on laptops & they do swab/test for explosives.
G4S, god help us, are working to improve the situation.
andy_s said:
Just because it's placebo security doesn't mean it's anti-Muslim, plenty of security stuff is more theatre and displacing fallout than effective prevention.
You've just jumped to a conclusion without any knowledge of the why's and wherefores as it suits your agenda - sound familiar?
If they do nothing about something they've been told about and something happens then they are in the poo, even if that something is ineffective.
Can you explain why not screening the laptops etc properly as hand luggage and putting them in the hold (inc all the lithium batteries this will include) would be a better signal and be safer? You've just jumped to a conclusion without any knowledge of the why's and wherefores as it suits your agenda - sound familiar?
If they do nothing about something they've been told about and something happens then they are in the poo, even if that something is ineffective.
I have no agenda, I just don't see the measure being any safer and possibly more dangerous.
andy_s said:
Oceanic said:
babatunde said:
Call it what it is........It's Muslim ban 3.0
If there were a logical technical reason for the ban it would apply to all airlines.
Basically Trump administration is saying we don't want persons with a permanent tan in "our" country
I concur, if they can't detect a bomb in a laptop at security how is asking people to put said "laptop bombs" in hold luggage any safer? If there were a logical technical reason for the ban it would apply to all airlines.
Basically Trump administration is saying we don't want persons with a permanent tan in "our" country
Edited by babatunde on Tuesday 21st March 18:21
No mention of Lithium batteries either going in the hold! How is any of this safer?
You've just jumped to a conclusion without any knowledge of the why's and wherefores as it suits your agenda - sound familiar?
If they do nothing about something they've been told about and something happens then they are in the poo, even if that something is ineffective.
Amazon Fire 5th Gen 2980mAh
Iphone & Plus 2900mAh
Samsung S7 3,000mAh
Which ones shall we ban, if it looks like a dog and smells like a dog.....
Notice I didn't even need to go, Lenovo P2 5100mAh
Edited by babatunde on Wednesday 22 March 10:14
Oceanic said:
andy_s said:
Just because it's placebo security doesn't mean it's anti-Muslim, plenty of security stuff is more theatre and displacing fallout than effective prevention.
You've just jumped to a conclusion without any knowledge of the why's and wherefores as it suits your agenda - sound familiar?
If they do nothing about something they've been told about and something happens then they are in the poo, even if that something is ineffective.
Can you explain why not screening the laptops etc properly as hand luggage and putting them in the hold (inc all the lithium batteries this will include) would be a better signal and be safer? You've just jumped to a conclusion without any knowledge of the why's and wherefores as it suits your agenda - sound familiar?
If they do nothing about something they've been told about and something happens then they are in the poo, even if that something is ineffective.
I have no agenda, I just don't see the measure being any safer and possibly more dangerous.
On the face of it I agree - to me it's more pragmatic to check the most potentially dangerous things with person attached, in person. You can imagine that security checks on hold baggage are far less involved in some ways.
The two points I can draw is that a) it separates the person from the item, therefore it's a threat of a personal weapon or requires a person to place the object in a specific position (i.e. the aircraft skin) and b) it's centred on foot pax screening of specific items - a potential lack of scrutiny/security competence for foot passengers in certain airports against a certain standard.
You could imagine a few scenarios; a recent review of middle east airport security -> exposure of vulnerabilities + potential modus operandi information for example.
As I said earlier, when you're in a position where you know about something, you have to be seen to be doing something even if it's not really effective - just from a post-incident analysis point of view; Mrs Mays proposed introduction of ID cards post 7/7 is a good example of something that wouldn't have had any effect on the attack in reality but served to show 'all measures were being taken'. Like that, this could coincidently serve some political/commercial end of course, but that seems less likely as more nations apply it [unless the US is lying about something...
]. It may also be a broad 'catch all' to cover very specific information that they don't want to 'blow', but here we're starting to reach a bit far perhaps.
This is untargeted and utterly stupid. If there was a real risk, the Israelis would have been all over it ages ago.
We were told several years ago that security would require any electronic device to be switched on and demonstrated to be functioning normally. The only time I have ever experienced this was last week in Istanbul.
A device like an iPad or a Surface cannot be tampered with to the extend required to turn it into a bomb without leaving traces or rendering it inoperable. There was a woman on the Today Programme this morning justifying this move with the example of a printer having been turned into a bomb by substitution of explisive chemicals in the ink cartridges. That is a device that is many times the volume of a tablet. The only potential risk I can see from computing devices is from older, larger laptops with removable device bays, that woudl alow them to be fully operable, but also have explosive material placed inside.
More passenger profiling is required, along with checks requiring devices to be demonstrated to be fully functional and more explosive trace checks (this takes hardly any time).
We were told several years ago that security would require any electronic device to be switched on and demonstrated to be functioning normally. The only time I have ever experienced this was last week in Istanbul.
A device like an iPad or a Surface cannot be tampered with to the extend required to turn it into a bomb without leaving traces or rendering it inoperable. There was a woman on the Today Programme this morning justifying this move with the example of a printer having been turned into a bomb by substitution of explisive chemicals in the ink cartridges. That is a device that is many times the volume of a tablet. The only potential risk I can see from computing devices is from older, larger laptops with removable device bays, that woudl alow them to be fully operable, but also have explosive material placed inside.
More passenger profiling is required, along with checks requiring devices to be demonstrated to be fully functional and more explosive trace checks (this takes hardly any time).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff