Air travel restrictions

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by ApK

Serious question, because I don't know the answer:

What qualifies him as an expert?

I ask because his own "about me" section just lists what he's published and his appearances, and about his activism. So going by only that, he's clearly expert in giving his opinions, but I missed what ever experience and/or training he has that informs those opinions.

That's a reasonable question, and one that not enough people ask of many self-proclaimed experts. I know that Bruce Schneier started out as a computer scientist, and is an expert in cryptography and computer security, and is a lecturer at Harvard University on computer security and the law. He's written a number of academic papers on security in general society as well as computer and internet security. Former TSA head Kip Hawley took his criticisms of the agency seriously. Is Schneier always right? Nope! Does he know all of the classified threats with respect to aviation security? Nope! However, I do consider him to be a better informed person with respect to how aviation security works and what the current security regime does well and does poorly, and unlike our government experts, he explains his position rather than just saying "trust us".

Apparently, the threat risk for removing laptops, tablets and ebook readers from the main cabin has been revealed to be super thin plastic explosives. It still doesn't explain how this will prevent terrorists from using sensors to trigger such explosives once the air pressure drops to in-flight values.

[Gardenman]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

Apparently, the threat risk for removing laptops, tablets and ebook readers from the main cabin has been revealed to be super thin plastic explosives. It still doesn't explain how this will prevent terrorists from using sensors to trigger such explosives once the air pressure drops to in-flight values.

What is to stop terrorists from having laptops checked and using a pressure switch to have them go off when the pressure drops?

[misling]

What's to stop 'super thin plastic explosives' from being put into OTHER items than ereaders, tablets, and laptops? If you need some electricity to set it off, I would assume that other items such as shavers, toothbrushes, hair dryers, etc would work. Most of us carry a LOT of small gadgets.
I suppose they'd need a switch of some kind to set off but that seems like it wouldn't be hard to wire into a hair dryer or whatever.

[kennyc]

"Airlines group urges alternatives to extending electronics ban"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...KCN18D1J0?il=0

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Gardenman

The terrorists won on 911 by making everyone change their way of living.

This.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This.

So we shouldn't learn and change? We should stay static stagnant as the world changes around us? Don't be silly.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by misling

What's to stop 'super thin plastic explosives' from being put into OTHER items than ereaders, tablets, and laptops? If you need some electricity to set it off, I would assume that other items such as shavers, toothbrushes, hair dryers, etc would work. Most of us carry a LOT of small gadgets.

Even phones... My phone has a battery that is almost as large as the battery of my 8" Windows tablet. And I think my phone can run longer on half a battery than my tablet can...

[tubemonkey]

U.S. and Europe Are Discussing Plans to Extend the Laptop Ban on Flights

Today's the day for the big meeting.

[tubemonkey]

Why extending laptop ban makes no sense

The security measure made no sense for two reasons. First, moving these computers into the baggage holds doesn't keep them off planes. Yes, it is easier to detonate a bomb that's in your hands than to remotely trigger it in the cargo hold. But it's also more effective to screen laptops at security checkpoints than it is to place them in checked baggage. TSA already does this kind of screening randomly and occasionally: making passengers turn laptops on to ensure that they're functional computers and not just bomb-filled cases, and running chemical tests on their surface to detect explosive material.

And, two, banning laptops on selected flights just forces terrorists to buy more roundabout itineraries. It doesn't take much creativity to fly Doha-Amsterdam-New York instead of direct. Adding Amsterdam to the list of affected airports makes the terrorist add yet another itinerary change; it doesn't remove the threat.

Which brings up another question: If this is truly a threat, why aren't domestic flights included in this ban? Remember that anyone boarding a plane to the United States from these Muslim countries has already received a visa to enter the country. This isn't perfect security -- the infamous underwear bomber had a visa, after all -- but anyone who could detonate a laptop bomb on his international flight could do it on his domestic connection.

This measure is nothing more than security theater against what appears to be a movie-plot threat.

[Sweetpea]

Beside that one: why only from other countries to the US and not from the US to other countries? Is it somehow worse if a plane towards the US explodes than a plane leaving the US?

Something like that will only make sense if it's globally enforced.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Beside that one: why only from other countries to the US and not from the US to other countries? Is it somehow worse if a plane towards the US explodes than a plane leaving the US?

Something like that will only make sense if it's globally enforced.

But of course. The US embodies goodness, while the rest of the world is evil

[ZodWallop]

Here's what I don't understand:

Laptops/tablets are banned because there was a plot to plant a bomb in one.

Shoes have to be removed and run through a scanner because a terrorist had a bomb in his shoes.

A terrorist had a bomb in his underwear. No change. The world goes on.

Why can't we take a lesson from that?

[piperclassique]

Next step it will be get undressed, put on paper overalls and slippers, and your luggage goes some other route. Or not at all. Collect your clothes on return. One credit card allowed in your hand and use that to buy clothes on arrival (at a large markup of course)
No glasses allowed. Everything for sale in the airport (at a large markup etc.)
Ditto on return.
The lunatics are already running the asylum, why wouldn't they decide to do just that?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Here's what I don't understand:

Laptops/tablets are banned because there was a plot to plant a bomb in one.

Shoes have to be removed and run through a scanner because a terrorist had a bomb in his shoes.

A terrorist had a bomb in his underwear. No change. The world goes on.

Why can't we take a lesson from that?

Excellent point. Underwear should be banned. All passengers should be required to pull their pants down or lift up their dresses to prove they aren't wearing any.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by piperclassique

Next step it will be get undressed, put on paper overalls and slippers, and your luggage goes some other route. Or not at all. Collect your clothes on return. One credit card allowed in your hand and use that to buy clothes on arrival (at a large markup of course)
No glasses allowed. Everything for sale in the airport (at a large markup etc.)
Ditto on return.
The lunatics are already running the asylum, why wouldn't they decide to do just that?

I dunno, nude flights might be fun....