Wil Wheaton, his eReader and flying

[carpetmojo]

Firstly, I am generally at the front of the queue when it comes to enforcing /claiming/standing up for my, and anyone elses' rights
But.....
At present, there is , understandably, concern over airline/plane security, and the whole thing is a nightmare for us and the air industry.
And, quite naturally, the multiplicity of portable electronic devices, and the near impossibility of the airlines testing each one quickly to see if they're safe in a plane, (forget the terrorist implications for now) means a difficult series of problems for airlines, and their "front-line " staff.
They are taking a "safety first" attitude with your, and your fellow passengers, safety.

I'm glad of that.

I presume you are content to go through the increased security checks at airports ?

Now, you may think you know better than the airline's security/technical people, and you may well be right, but I'm quite happy to comply with a perfectly reasonable request, which anyway is in their regulations, which we have signed up to by buying a ticket, and not make a difficult situation worse. I don't feel I have to teach them how to do their job, the errors in their behaviour and decisions, or try to show them the technical reasons why I'm in the right, and they are ignorant, in a case like this.

Thank God you didn't sit next to me.......

Please, get a life, buy a paperback, or go to sleep.

[HappyMartin]

Why make a scene? Why get huffy? Slip the kindle into the pocket in front of you until the flight attendant goes away.

Of course the devices wont bring down an aircraft. If there was any danger of that they would not be allowed on an aircraft at all. No need for exploding shoes or flammable underwear if you are a terrorist. Simply place a kindle in the overhead compartment without turning it off and hey presto, job done.

Turning off electronic devices before take off is a ritual. It lets us know some pretty important and impressive stuff is about to occur. Nothing to do with safety.

[carpetmojo]

[HappyMartin;1742991]Why make a scene? Why get huffy?......

Agreed.

"..Slip the kindle into the pocket in front of you until the flight attendant goes away...."

If she/he spots you later, would you give the same advice ? And again, and again ? Ignoring the instructions of the flight staff is, in most jurisdictions, an offence.

"Of course the devices won't bring down an aircraft..."

Well, at present, I don't personally know that for sure. Certainly not enough to feel happy someone was ignoring safety instructions given out - and any personal freedom I may feel I have to read my device is not strong enough to make a nuisance of myself, a pain in the neck to everyone else, and go against the [sometimes irksome] regulations. Do you keep your
[dangerously designed and of limited use] seatbelt on when requested ?

" If there was any danger of that they would not be allowed on an aircraft at all."

Well, they're are allowed on to be used at certain times, again, that you agree to when you buy the ticket.

" No need for exploding shoes or flammable underwear if you are a terrorist. Simply place a kindle in the overhead compartment without turning it off and hey presto, job done."

I feel a bit uncomfortable about this amusing bit - because first, I feel sorry that the two actual cases you cite miss the one about thesmall cassette /radio in the hold that did bring a plane down, and second, I know your two sound ridiculous, but they did happen, and only just failed to bring a plane down.

"Turning off electronic devices before take off is a ritual. It lets us know some pretty important and impressive stuff is about to occur."

I agree, so why get huffy, as you said.

" Nothing to do with safety."

Again, I don't know enough to know this for sure, but anyway, the reg's say don't do it, so I'll accept the minor inconvenience and buy a paperback or go to sleep.
These reg's, right or wrong, are surely in place at this time due to a percieved threat/danger. And having seen the results of a very small plane crash, I don't feel it's worth kicking up a fuss, or being sneaky about evading them, just because it is a bit annoying.

[toddos]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

At present, there is , understandably, concern over airline/plane security, and the whole thing is a nightmare for us and the air industry.

Manufactured concern. I assume you're referring to the decade-old 9/11? The only change that should've come from that was cockpit door reinforcement. Everything else is security theater. Exploding underwear, shoe bombs, burned crotches, none of those would've been stopped by our current "security" processes, and the knee-jerk policy changes amount to nothing more than closing the barn doors after all the horses have left.

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

They are taking a "safety first" attitude with your, and your fellow passengers, safety.

No they're not.

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

I presume you are content to go through the increased security checks at airports ?

I tolerate it because there's no alternative. That doesn't mean I'm content.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by toddos

I tolerate it because there's no alternative. That doesn't mean I'm content.

Agreed, I'm sure most people feel this way as well.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by toddos

Manufactured concern. I assume you're referring to the decade-old 9/11? The only change that should've come from that was cockpit door reinforcement. Everything else is security theater. Exploding underwear, shoe bombs, burned crotches, none of those would've been stopped by our current "security" processes, and the knee-jerk policy changes amount to nothing more than closing the barn doors after all the horses have left.



No they're not.



I tolerate it because there's no alternative. That doesn't mean I'm content.

And there's no alternative because, unfortunately, democracy has become a joke. How many of the directives and policies that have real, palpable effects on our lives are the result of legislative deliberation vs. executive decision? And of the former, what percentage of legislation is actually read and pondered over by elected officials as opposed to staffers (or left unread)? I really don't think a culture that encourages doing something because someone in an apparent position of authority told you to do it is a particularly healthy one.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by toddos

Manufactured concern. I assume you're referring to the decade-old 9/11? The only change that should've come from that was cockpit door reinforcement. Everything else is security theater. Exploding underwear, shoe bombs, burned crotches, none of those would've been stopped by our current "security" processes, and the knee-jerk policy changes amount to nothing more than closing the barn doors after all the horses have left.....
No they're not.....
I tolerate it because there's no alternative. That doesn't mean I'm content.

"Manufactured" - well, yes, of course, but they're not pretending . If nothing else, they're concerned the plane doesn't fall out of the air because they missed something, from a financial angle if nothing else. It's come about because of all the incidents that have occurred, and the climate we have been in - and not simply 11/9.
And the fact that present precautions aren't good enough is surely an arguement for more/different ones - not doing away with what we have.
And obviously, I don't know your background in anti-terrorism and aircraft safety, but of course they thinking safety first - why else are they doing it ?
It's certainly not to make money, believe me, the airlines would long to be able to abandon security measures !
And by using the word "content" I used it in the meaning of putting up with it, rather than being happy about it - in other words, I tolerate it, if that is clearer for you.

And lugmaninbore (! neat) ...
"I really don't think a culture that encourages doing something because someone in an apparent position of authority told you to do it is a particularly healthy one."
I think, but am prepared to be corrected if I'm wrong, that this is the society we have evolved - we elect people to make decisions on our behalf, that hopefully most of us agree to. If it ain't particularly healthy, what's your alternative ?
Anarchy hasn't too good a track record, and sadly, true communism or the lesser socialism can't survive human greed/frailty/selfishness !
And I can't see discouraging everyone to ignore teachers, police, etc.. making too much of an improvement in Western society, frankly.

So, I think I'll keep switching off the device if they ask.......

Doesn't necessarily mean I'm delighted about the measures thought to be needed, or agree with them, or want to make them tougher .

[toddos]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

"Manufactured" - well, yes, of course, but they're not pretending . If nothing else, they're concerned the plane doesn't fall out of the air because they missed something, from a financial angle if nothing else. It's come about because of all the incidents that have occurred, and the climate we have been in - and not simply 11/9.
And the fact that present precautions aren't good enough is surely an arguement for more/different ones - not doing away with what we have.
And obviously, I don't know your background in anti-terrorism and aircraft safety, but of course they thinking safety first - why else are they doing it ?
It's certainly not to make money, believe me, the airlines would long to be able to abandon security measures !

Your assumption that "something needs to be done" is what I question. Smarter experts than me (look up Bruce Schneier and Security Theater, for example) have covered this way better than I ever could, but suffice it to say that a terrorist attack has never been caught at the security check-in line or on a plane, and never will. They get caught because of all the behind-the-scenes detective work that agencies like the CIA, FBI, Interpol, etc do, and not from Joe T. Worker grouping your genitals and taking nudie pictures of your grandma/child, and not by any flight attendant asking you to turn off your electronic devices.

As far as electronic devices go, if you've ever flown I will bet you that you've done so with multiple cell phones and other devices on and active, either because people didn't know how to shut them off or didn't actually care to do so. There has never been a case of a consumer electronic device interfering with flight systems or causing a crash, so why are we starting with the base assumption that that's the case and proving otherwise? We should start with the base assumption that these devices are safe, and only do otherwise when there is a proven issue that's directly attributable to some device.

But, we get groped and have to shut off our electronics because people demand that governments and regulation agencies "do something!! !! !! uu!!", so we get security theater that doesn't do anything to make us safer (and possibly makes us less safe, like queuing up huge lines that are attractive targets for terrorists ...) as a result.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by toddos

I tolerate it because there's no alternative. That doesn't mean I'm content.

This, unfortunately, is too true. I refuse to fly at this point, precisely because of Security Theater. And I studied Aerospace Engineering at Uni.

I've looked for alternative's but there aren't any for long distances in a reasonable amount of time. It takes way too long to take a train to get places.

Los Angeles to Seattle in only 35 hours!

Only 3 nights to go Coast-to-Coast!

Who has time for that? Even if you're not on a business trip, do you want to give up 3 days each way to go visit Aunt Marge in Upstate New York?

People are chained to the abuses at the airport because there is no viable transportation alternative. What I wouldn't give for true high speed rail systems...

The Entity

Ack, someone help me with video embedding please.

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

I think, but am prepared to be corrected if I'm wrong, that this is the society we have evolved - we elect people to make decisions on our behalf, that hopefully most of us agree to. If it ain't particularly healthy, what's your alternative ?

In America, at least, the ethos of being a rebel is built into our mythology. Americans are bred to resist. Look at the common Cowboy theme, where a loner enters town and cleans it up, violently, and outside the law. 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly'. Same thing in cop movies. Invariably it's a rough around the edges cop that drinks too much and is too loose with the rules, but who gets the job done. 'Dirty Harry'.

Or even poppy movies, 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off', or even 'War Games' show a blatant disregard for the rules. Even a recent presidential candidate built his image around being a maverick. Not following the rules just because someone put them there is part of the American Story.

No wonder they get pissed off at unreasonable invasions of privacy such as those enacted every day at the airport.

[anamardoll]

I have a metal rod in my back that is substantial enough to set off metal detectors.

Last year, I was planning my first flight since 9/11 and I was in utter dread because... how do you prove you have a rod in your back? I didn't want to be strip searched or patted down or x-rayed or anything else.

I set off the alarms BOTH ways -- coming and going.

In each case, security waved me through (I'm white, female, and utterly non-threatening looking to your Average American Male) and stopped the person BEHIND me. In the first case, they made the person take off their tiny stud earrings and "go through again"; in the second case, the guy fished around in his pocket and found something to satisfy them that "must" have set off the sensors.

I felt bad for the people behind me, but since it was solved so quickly in each case, I didn't fess up and say that it was me that set the alarm off.

[carpetmojo]

Toddos :- "Your assumption that "something needs to be done" is what I question. Smarter experts than me (look up Bruce Schneier and Security Theater, for example) have covered this way better than I ever could, but suffice it to say that a terrorist attack has never been caught at the security check-in line or on a plane, and never will. They get caught because of all the behind-the-scenes detective work that agencies like the CIA, FBI, Interpol, etc do, and not from Joe T. Worker grouping your genitals and taking nudie pictures of your grandma/child, and not by any flight attendant asking you to turn off your electronic devices."

I don't recall saying "something needs to done" - but I agree, because the thought of going through all the rigmarole at its present level, is not very exciting.

And you may be right about noone ever being caught/prevented prior to boarding - although the shoe bomb guy would be stopped now, I believe - but we are not necessarily likely to know, are we - especially if broadcasting the details gives info to those that might try it again.
And saying "... and never will..." is a hostage to fortune as any I've heard !

But, here in the UK we have had considerable experience with terrorist attacks of all kinds, over many years, and will never forget one rather chilling statement that makes the point of these checks fairly clear, and that must of necessity bear on the present situation.

It was issued by the IRA after the attack on Downing Street some years ago - "you have to get it right every time, we only have to get it right once...."

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Great news for Apple, because they can announce that iPads are safe to use during landings and take offs.

Only in the cockpit. If you can get a seat up there, you can use it then.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Will your ereader cause the plane to crash?

No, it won't.

Actually no one knows for sure.

Is hassling the flight attendant nice?

No, it isn't.

And it is also a Federal offense.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

Toddos :- "Your assumption that "something needs to be done" is what I question. Smarter experts than me (look up Bruce Schneier and Security Theater, for example) have covered this way better than I ever could, but suffice it to say that a terrorist attack has never been caught at the security check-in line or on a plane, and never will. They get caught because of all the behind-the-scenes detective work that agencies like the CIA, FBI, Interpol, etc do, and not from Joe T. Worker grouping your genitals and taking nudie pictures of your grandma/child, and not by any flight attendant asking you to turn off your electronic devices."

I don't recall saying "something needs to done" - but I agree, because the thought of going through all the rigmarole at its present level, is not very exciting.

And you may be right about noone ever being caught/prevented prior to boarding - although the shoe bomb guy would be stopped now, I believe - but we are not necessarily likely to know, are we - especially if broadcasting the details gives info to those that might try it again.
And saying "... and never will..." is a hostage to fortune as any I've heard !

But, here in the UK we have had considerable experience with terrorist attacks of all kinds, over many years, and will never forget one rather chilling statement that makes the point of these checks fairly clear, and that must of necessity bear on the present situation.

It was issued by the IRA after the attack on Downing Street some years ago - "you have to get it right every time, we only have to get it right once...."

How do you know?

Do you think that everything that happens is told to the public?

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

How do you know?

Do you think that everything that happens is told to the public?

Heh. Believe me, if the TSA had EVER caught a terrorist, they'd be shouting it to the rafters.

Considering how frequently 'suspected threats' are announced to the news media, if there were a REAL threat or capture, we'd know about it.