Air travel restrictions

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

WTH has the world come to.....

Oh, as the saying goes, "you ain't seen nothing yet".
There's plenty of escalation left.
Killing is easy, especially for those that don't care if they survive the attempt.

Look to Manchester for a template.
Give a bomb to an idiot. Send him into a crowd. Remote activate.

Dark times.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Oh, as the saying goes, "you ain't seen nothing yet".
There's plenty of escalation left.
Killing is easy, especially for those that don't care if they survive the attempt.

That's exactly the wrong approach to the problem.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That's exactly the wrong approach to the problem.

???
That *is* the problem. Not an approach.

The solution is non-existent, short of giant armored robots at every corner. They could call them, I dunno, Sentinels?

Not every problem has a manageable solution.
You just can't control what idiots do.

You'll always be behind the curve, playing defense.
Yesterday it was liquids, today it is laptops, tomorrow it'll be phones, watches, or coats...

[kennyc]

"The United States might ban laptops from aircraft cabins on all flights into and out of the country as part of a ramped-up effort to protect against potential security threats, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said on Sunday....."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN18O0KL

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

???
That *is* the problem. Not an approach.

The solution is non-existent, short of giant armored robots at every corner. They could call them, I dunno, Sentinels?

Not every problem has a manageable solution.
You just can't control what idiots do.

You'll always be behind the curve, playing defense.
Yesterday it was liquids, today it is laptops, tomorrow it'll be phones, watches, or coats...

Oh, there is a solution, and it doesn't involve giant armored robots. It does involve acknowledging the actual issue and being smart about fighting it. But that involves acknowledging a few realities that many would rather not.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kennyc

"The United States might ban laptops from aircraft cabins on all flights into and out of the country as part of a ramped-up effort to protect against potential security threats, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said on Sunday....."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN18O0KL

Do it, Mr Trump. I double dog dare you

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Oh, there is a solution, and it doesn't involve giant armored robots.

Are you going to tell us what you believe the solution is, or do you expect us to read your mind?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Do it, Mr Trump. I double dog dare you

oooooooH! the double dog monkey dare!

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you going to tell us what you believe the solution is, or do you expect us to read your mind?

I started to, but I suspect it would quickly turn political. If you really want to go there, there are well know, effective ways to do security. Israeli airport security is the gold standard. It involves things like profiling, focusing your resources on where they would do the most good, rather than spread them out, using well trained, professional security rather than some minimum wage guy. It doesn't involved the security kabuki that we see in the US airports. The same thing applies to policing as well.

It can be expensive and it's not particularly PC, but when was they last time a plane flying out of Israel got blown up or hi-jacked?

[Purple Lady]

JetBlue flight diverted after fire in passenger's electronic device

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jetblue-...-battery-fire/

And now all large electronics should be in the cargo hold?

In a statement, JetBlue confirmed flight 915 diverted, "following reports of smoke emitting from a carry-on bag holding an electronic device."

Lithium batteries have drawn attention recently for*unexpectedly catching fire*in some devices.

Most rechargeable electronic devices, like laptops, are powered by lithium-ion batteries.

According to the FAA, this year there have been 12 fire-related incidents on flights caused by lithium batteries or lithium battery-powered devices.

As the Department of Homeland Security considers a ban on laptops on flights from Europe, U.S. carriers are expressing concerns over storing lithium-powered devices in cargo holds, where a fire could burn unchecked

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

JetBlue flight diverted after fire in passenger's electronic device

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jetblue-...-battery-fire/

And now all large electronics should be in the cargo hold?

Odds of a fire in the hold vs odds of a terrorist attack - think I'd rather take my chances with people bringing their ereaders on board where a fire could be noticed and extinguished.

Not that I have any plans to fly anywhere anyway, so I should probably just shut up and stay out of the discussion.....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Odds of a fire in the hold vs odds of a terrorist attack - think I'd rather take my chances with people bringing their ereaders on board where a fire could be noticed and extinguished.

Not that I have any plans to fly anywhere anyway, so I should probably just shut up and stay out of the discussion.....

I swore off flying after 9/11

[Dopedangel]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I started to, but I suspect it would quickly turn political. If you really want to go there, there are well know, effective ways to do security. Israeli airport security is the gold standard. It involves things like profiling, focusing your resources on where they would do the most good, rather than spread them out, using well trained, professional security rather than some minimum wage guy. It doesn't involved the security kabuki that we see in the US airports. The same thing applies to policing as well.

It can be expensive and it's not particularly PC, but when was they last time a plane flying out of Israel got blown up or hi-jacked?

Profiling will probably help with terrorists and mass school shootings etc and many americans will be okay with it as well despite it harming innocent americans. I do feel we are getting to that point but the processing power and to do this will be with western corporations rather than western governments. . Just by data mining target has had the capability to predict that a teenage girl was pregnant even before her parents in 2010 They can predict a lot more but most western corporations don't have profit motive to do so and governments have been unable to do so without pushback.
China and many asian countries don't face similar pushback so they are building surveillance states that knows how a citizen spends every second they haven't got the AI that could monitor all its billions over citizens. But that is I feel just a few years away.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Dopedangel

Just by data mining target has had the capability to predict that a teenage girl was pregnant even before her parents in 2010

I was at a conference about big data where this anecdote was discussed. Even if it's true, we don't know:

• How many customers who got pregnancy-related ads without being pregnant
• How many customers who were pregnant who didn't get those ads

So, at best we know that one pregnant customer got those ads, but that might be just random luck.

Another problem with using big data is that they can strenghten existing predudices. For instance say two different demographic groups use drugs equally much, but one of them is stopped and searched in random checks more often (because of predudice in the police). Then your data will tell you, quite correctly, that members of group A are more likely to be arrested for drug crimes than group B. If you use this to decide how to prioritize which groups to check more often in the future, you are making policing even more predudiced, and believing you are basing it on objective data.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by hildea

I was at a conference about big data where this anecdote was discussed. Even if it's true, we don't know:

• How many customers who got pregnancy-related ads without being pregnant
• How many customers who were pregnant who didn't get those ads

So, at best we know that one pregnant customer got those ads, but that might be just random luck.

Another problem with using big data is that they can strenghten existing predudices. For instance say two different demographic groups use drugs equally much, but one of them is stopped and searched in random checks more often (because of predudice in the police). Then your data will tell you, quite correctly, that members of group A are more likely to be arrested for drug crimes than group B. If you use this to decide how to prioritize which groups to check more often in the future, you are making policing even more predudiced, and believing you are basing it on objective data.

So true. Well said.