DHS To Ban Electronics in the Cabin

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

You don't have to explain anything to me. I know how explosives can go into such devices. However, please do tell me how placing such devices in the hold vs the cabin makes them any less explosive? Also please tell me how the government or the airlines are going to ensure the safety of our devices in the hold and furthermore let the public know that placing those devices in the hold may cause an explosive accident and is placing passengers at an increased risk of being in a plane that may go down not because of a malicious device, but because of an explosive battery fire (which has happened before)? Some airlines actually have policies that FORBID electronics such as computers, laptops, and batteries in the cargo hold at all. How then should those passengers fly? FedEx it to themselves?

 

Some business travelers also have company policies which forbid their employees from checking their devices into the cargo hold for obvious security breach concerns.

Well like I said before to you when you commented on the electronic ban from when flying from the Middle East. It is a hell of a lot easier to screen baggage when it is going in the hold of an airplane as a checked in bag. When it is a carry on baggage it becomes alot harder to screen for it, and the screeners aren't always the best in the world. When looking at the XRAY screen in an airport it is pretty easy(when not rushed) to discern and distinguish between things in baggage. I know this because I did this for almost a year working in Qatar screening people before they got on the US base there.

 

So because you like to get snipper with people who don't share your view of things or how things should be in the world just tells me that you don't realize or know anything. You may want to live in your fairy tale world where everything the government does is bad because it inconveniences people. When in reality they probably got some very good SIGINT/HUMINT about some sort of plan like this and are being proactive about it before people die. 

 

The part you are talking about is dealing with Lithium Ion batteries and how they supposedly can blow up on a plane. You know that has only happened one time on a Fedex plane coming out of the UAE to the USA, but that was because they were carrying over 81,000 lithium batteries in bulk and they are not allowed to carry batteries in bulk on passenger planes anymore.

 

Also who cares about business not wanting their employees to do this or that IT IS THE LAW. 

Edited May 11, 2017 by cyberfx1024

[yuna628 9,676]

46 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Well like I said before to you when you commented on the electronic ban from when flying from the Middle East. It is a hell of a lot easier to screen baggage when it is going in the hold of an airplane as a checked in bag. When it is a carry on baggage it becomes alot harder to screen for it, and the screeners aren't always the best in the world. When looking at the XRAY screen in an airport it is pretty easy(when not rushed) to discern and distinguish between things in baggage. I know this because I did this for almost a year working in Qatar screening people before they got on the US base there.

 

So because you like to get snipper with people who don't share your view of things or how things should be in the world just tells me that you don't realize or know anything. You may want to live in your fairy tale world where everything the government does is bad because it inconveniences people. When in reality they probably got some very good SIGINT/HUMINT about some sort of plan like this and are being proactive about it before people die. 

 

The part you are talking about is dealing with Lithium Ion batteries and how they supposedly can blow up on a plane. You know that has only happened one time on a Fedex plane coming out of the UAE to the USA, but that was because they were carrying over 81,000 lithium batteries in bulk and they are not allowed to carry batteries in bulk on passenger planes anymore.

 

Also who cares about business not wanting their employees to do this or that IT IS THE LAW. 

I'm not getting ''snipper'' with you, but you can assume that if you want. If a person continues to give up liberty in the supposed interest of 'safety', they deserve neither liberty and safety. When the first incident happens let me know how the ban is working out in the interest of our safety. You will never make it safe enough. Why not just ban everything then but your body and your documents? It's inconveniences but afterall you say it's the law so people should just accept it.

Edited May 11, 2017 by yuna628

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

18 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I'm not getting ''snipper'' with you, but you can assume that if you want. If a person continues to give up liberty in the supposed interest of 'safety', they deserve neither liberty and safety. When the first incident happens let me know how the ban is working out in the interest of our safety. You will never make it safe enough. Why not just ban everything then but your body and your documents? It's inconveniences but afterall you say it's the law so people should just accept it.

I am the epitome of Liberty so don't give me that ####### about "If we give up Liberty for security, then we deserve neither" because how can we give up a Liberty when the flight originates in a completely different country. You know a different country where our ideas about Liberty and Freedom are not supported. I agree it won't make it safe enough but if it stops 8-9 people out of 10 then it is fine for me because it will save lives. 

 

If this is not a law and it could be but people like you shot it down. Then when an incident happens are you going to be the person that tells the people that lost their love ones because we deserve to be free? When they could have implemented this law and done something but people like you prevented it.

Edited May 11, 2017 by cyberfx1024

[yuna628 9,676]

1 hour ago, cyberfx1024 said:

I am the epitome of Liberty so don't give me that ####### about "If we give up Liberty for security, then we deserve neither" because how can we give up a Liberty when the flight originates in a completely different country. You know a different country where our ideas about Liberty and Freedom are not supported. I agree it won't make it safe enough but if it stops 8-9 people out of 10 then it is fine for me because it will save lives. 

 

If this is not a law and it could be but people like you shot it down. Then when an incident happens are you going to be the person that tells the people that lost their love ones because we deserve to be free? When they could have implemented this law and done something but people like you prevented it.

When an incident happens in spite of the law, what would you tell the same people? There is no evidence provided to the public that it will stop anyone from doing anything nefarious and people have looked at this issue time and time again. If they want the explosives on the plane they are going to get it there. It is more risky to have them in the hold than in the cabin. The government does not provide ways of making this additional burden easier on passengers or the companies that must implement this policy on their 'behalf' do they? Do the Israeli's ban all electronics on their flights? I am not claiming that there isn't a threat, but the threat has always existed - I am saying like many of the supposed 'solutions' to various threats, the methods we come up with aren't forward-thinking, or in the case of this one, may damage the industry and freedom of our ability to travel, and may ultimately lead to bigger problems.. I won't even begin to go into the very complex methods government IT workers handling very sensitive info that are required to travel have to do with their devices to ensure the data they have is not breached and what our government requires them to do (which would now be in breach of this law). If we continue living in a word of constant fear, where we have no ability to utilize our freedoms, where our work, travel, and lives are disrupted in order to 'feel more safe' but may not actually 'be' more safe - that's exactly what the bad guys want.

This link was about the old ban - but it still applies.

The concerns addressed by passengers and pilots alike on the first link in this thread are also pretty clear.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/03/21/muslim-majority-electronic-device-ban-makes-no-sense/#2de0394d77ce

Quote

Clearly, that's not something that the new policy would prevent, said Evan Hill, a writer and researcher in the Middle East. "Presumably, dedicated terrorists could also still plot an attack on an airplane heading to the United States - using a laptop or any other device - from a number of other international locations not subject to this policy."

Glees said Whilst cabin baggage can be more thoroughly X-rayed than individuals, "the chances of getting a bomb on a plane via baggage and into the hold are surely greater than on a person."

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by yuna628

[Transborderwife 4,666]

At first I thought that it was silly, but at the same time I flew most of my life without electronics.

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

I'm not getting ''snipper'' with you, but you can assume that if you want. If a person continues to give up liberty in the supposed interest of 'safety', they deserve neither liberty and safety. When the first incident happens let me know how the ban is working out in the interest of our safety. You will never make it safe enough. Why not just ban everything then but your body and your documents? It's inconveniences but afterall you say it's the law so people should just accept it.

Can you cite where in the Constitution it says you have a right to bring electronic devices onto a plane? Or that you even have a right to be in an airplane? For liberty's sake, of course. 

Edited May 11, 2017 by IAMX

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

21 hours ago, yuna628 said:

To sum up - the device ban will now include any flight from Europe.

US preclearance is in some countries so they would have to be excluded from a ban or it will make a mockery of their own security.

 

When going through Dublin airport we get screened normally by the Irish airport security. The signs then inform you when to proceed to US preclearance, you go through security a second time removing shoes and laptops to be scanned. This is supposedly the same now as if you are going through an internal flight within the US. Surely you would be exempt from the ban because you are classed as being on US soil and TSA agents screen you.

 

Maybe this is a move to add more countries with preclearance, it will allow them to control security before it gets near the US.

  

[yuna628 9,676]

11 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

US preclearance is in some countries so they would have to be excluded from a ban or it will make a mockery of their own security.

 

When going through Dublin airport we get screened normally by the Irish airport security. The signs then inform you when to proceed to US preclearance, you go through security a second time removing shoes and laptops to be scanned. This is supposedly the same now as if you are going through an internal flight within the US. Surely you would be exempt from the ban because you are classed as being on US soil and TSA agents screen you.

 

Maybe this is a move to add more countries with preclearance, it will allow them to control security before it gets near the US.

  

As per the original ban being pre-cleared did NOT matter. I do not believe it will matter this time either.

Edited May 11, 2017 by yuna628

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

35 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

As per the original ban being pre-cleared did NOT matter. I do not believe it will matter this time either.

Is that because the countries were on ban lists? 

 

Currently Ireland is the only country in Europe with a dedicated US precleance option. The proposed ban is supposed to be on some European countries so you may see France and Belgium on a future list. 

 

I don't see the point of the US government investing heavily on security abroad at airports if your not going to trust it from the start. Personally I am not a fan of using a laptop on board but just as WiFi is becoming common on long haul I would have considered using a tablet or smaller laptop. 

[yuna628 9,676]

31 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

Is that because the countries were on ban lists? 

 

Currently Ireland is the only country in Europe with a dedicated US precleance option. The proposed ban is supposed to be on some European countries so you may see France and Belgium on a future list. 

 

I don't see the point of the US government investing heavily on security abroad at airports if your not going to trust it from the start. Personally I am not a fan of using a laptop on board but just as WiFi is becoming common on long haul I would have considered using a tablet or smaller laptop. 

No actually, some of the airports/air carriers affected originally were in countries not actually part of the 'travel ban' in it's first or second version oddly enough. And even to those that were, no claim was made by the DHS that it was in any way related. They were admittedly Muslim-majority countries, but many were extremely friendly to the US. The original ban did not stop someone from simply booking a flight somewhere into the EU and then into the US. When queried on the reasons why, DHS officials were quick to state that no US carriers were involved, because US carriers did not offer direct flights from these countries. In it's limited time frame to respond, carriers had to move quickly to cobble together something with no guidance how to proceed. Some of these airlines already prohibited electronics from the hold due to security and theft concerns, another was confident in their US/pre-clearance site so they did not understand it much at all. One carrier had all passengers pretty much dump their devices in a sealed envelope which would then be loaded into a large bin into the cargo hold with I presume some sort of ID tracking. This new ban however would pretty much blanket ban everyone from bringing electronics into the cabin from anywhere, and I would presume US carriers would be affected. There was a classified hearing about this today. As last time there were concerns that the FAA and other security airline agencies were not consulted.

Edited May 11, 2017 by yuna628

[OriZ 3,157]

7 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Well like I said before to you when you commented on the electronic ban from when flying from the Middle East. It is a hell of a lot easier to screen baggage when it is going in the hold of an airplane as a checked in bag. When it is a carry on baggage it becomes alot harder to screen for it, and the screeners aren't always the best in the world. When looking at the XRAY screen in an airport it is pretty easy(when not rushed) to discern and distinguish between things in baggage. I know this because I did this for almost a year working in Qatar screening people before they got on the US base there.

 

 

 

You cannot leave the laptop in your bag to be screened, it has to come out, so I would think it would be just as easy if not easier than it being in a suitcase. What I don't understand though is why Europe? Why not Domestic flights? Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure what I would do without my laptop on domestic flights, I just don't quite get how that's deemed safe still, when someone could easily just fly from Europe to the US and then board a domestic flight.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

4 hours ago, IAMX said:

Can you cite where in the Constitution it says you have a right to bring electronic devices onto a plane? Or that you even have a right to be in an airplane? For liberty's sake, of course. 

[yuna628 9,676]

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/05/spotted-first-electronics-ban-sign/

The sign wasn't supposed to be up yet apparently, but it's coming. The person who spotted this also noted that there was no distinction about where from overseas you are entering the US, including Canada. Doesn't specify how many cellphones one may bring either, nor doesn't mention any electronics that might be the same relative size as a cellphone (like a PSP, flash drives, small hds, fitbits, headphones, an ipod, or a small Digi cam). Safe to assume if it's not a cellphone then into the hold it goes.

 

Rumour going around that there was some flack by the industry over word it was coming at the meeting yesterday, so they backed off and want to talk to the EU first. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airline-electronics-ban-idUSKBN1881L0

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

20 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/05/spotted-first-electronics-ban-sign/

The sign wasn't supposed to be up yet apparently, but it's coming.

Some poor guy has probably been called in to the Cincinnati Delta office for a good  

 

I wonder how many posters Delta had printed up with May 12 on them 

[bcking 3,157]

I don't really see how a laptop in your hold baggage is going to get screened more thoroughly than a laptop that comes out of its case and is placed alone in a bin without anything else (which is the current standard).

 

What are they missing when they are scanning a laptop on its own that they get when they put it in the hold? 

 

This seems completely unnecessary and will prevent nothing. It's like our continued "take off shoes" rule which I don't believe does a darn thing.

 

Also agree it will be a big issue for some many very large powerful businesses. They may take issue with this and try to find/create exceptions. I know my wife was never able to leave sight of her work laptop when she was travelling for her supermajor Oil and Gas company. If someone got ahold of it they and broke the encryption they would have data on potentially millions of dollars worth of potential plays around the world. Companies take their security very seriously.