Belts and suspenders. If the threat is real, you don't rely on just one technique to prevent it. Any person, or automated system, is fallible. Get your templates, scan the devices with equipment monitored by humans and checked electronically and, if you are suspicious that another authority may not be performing the screening diligently, then ban the devices from the flight. Figure out a way to similarly screen checked luggage and cargo.
The pretzels and drinks are nice, but I want to get where I'm going, and don't mind the inconvenience.
The pretzels and drinks are nice, but I want to get where I'm going, and don't mind the inconvenience.
1
I just got home from travelling locally. In the Pittsburgh airport, while waiting for our plane, I overheard a man describing how he and a friend both went through numerous TSA checkpoints carrying knives. They had forgotten that they were carrying them until, in a tiny Texas airport, the speaker's knife was discovered.
Of course, any terrorist worth his salt would not be so stupid as to follow the protocol to get caught. They would spend the extra shekels and fly out of some other place with a device that is better designed.
We are all sitting ducks for anyone who wants to terrorize us whether on a plane, bus, subway, mall, school, etc.
Go to Israel if you want to see effective, on the ground security. You cannot enter any place without a good examination. At the airport you will be interviewed for 1-2 minutes with someone who is trained in true observation. Consequently, far fewer successful terrorist acts.
Of course, any terrorist worth his salt would not be so stupid as to follow the protocol to get caught. They would spend the extra shekels and fly out of some other place with a device that is better designed.
We are all sitting ducks for anyone who wants to terrorize us whether on a plane, bus, subway, mall, school, etc.
Go to Israel if you want to see effective, on the ground security. You cannot enter any place without a good examination. At the airport you will be interviewed for 1-2 minutes with someone who is trained in true observation. Consequently, far fewer successful terrorist acts.
3
I feel like you've never even been to Israel. I was there two weeks ago and I experienced no such thing as you described. My family and I entered the King David Hotel in Jerusalem with no more than a nod by the doorman. In fact, my son forgot his backpack in the lobby and it sat there for over an hour undisturbed until I went back to retrieve it. When we departed the airport there were some contracted out security employees who essentially asked if we had packed our own bags or if we had accepted any gifts. That was the extent of the "extra security". After that all of the airport security was the same as it is in the U.S. Israel was great, but not the armed camp you seem to be describing.
Banning stuff gives us a sense of control over things for which we have none. So why not?
1
This article is too simplistic to warrant any real debate, and I am disappointed to see it published in the NYT. I used to work for an airline at an airport and I can tell you that all information concerning bombs and aircraft security is highly secured information that no one may share with anyone. I can tell you that all aircraft are consistently searched, there is a firewall between cargo and passenger holds and that bombs are smuggled on board as parts that are assembled later. There is no security measure that is too annoying to abide by. As technology changes, so will regulations. Sorry you feel annoyed or put out but believe me it is wise to keep this kind of information secure and frankly if you knew the extent of the threat, you might never want to fly again.
2
It's unfortunate that our government seems so fixated on banning certain electronics when they at the same time refuse to ban cell phone use from cars. Countless Americans have already lost their lives from cell phone use in cars than explosives in laptops yet many states have refused to address the issue. I guess maybe if only Muslims were using their cell phones in their cars we'd get a more serious response to this clear and present danger.
6
banning laptops in the cabin but not luggage will not protect a plane if the laptop explodes
7
You are absolutely right. Or you don't ban laptop or it should be a total ban.
I do not think a laptop sized bomb can bring down a plane unless it is placed on some critical structural framework which AFAIK is not accessible from the cargo or passenger compartments.
1
Assuming the presence of a laptop bomb on your aircraft, is it less likely to bring down the plane if it is in checked luggage rather than carry on? Surely the objective must be to prevent *any* explosive from boarding the plane. The increasing sophistication of the terrorists must be matched by improved methods of detection and focusing on the reliability and effectiveness of the airport security staff. Moving the bomb from one part of the aircraft to another seems to be more theater than real protection.
3
So a laptop can still be checked in? How does it solve the security problem? I was at the Dubai airport recently and on the flight to US, passengers had to go through additional security check just to board the US bound plane and this was after you go through regular airport security checks. I don't see how airports such as Abu Dhabi(where the US customs fully controls including Port of Entry checks!?!) and Dubai are different from other international airports that have US bound planes.
2
Well, seeing Allahu Akbar written on secure areas of a plane in France and in the Middle East?
Doesn't exactly give one confidence that they could stop a bombing.
But as for causing more inconvenience? I don't know, when I flew through Germany, the extra interviews by obviously trained agents, conducted three times before I boarded the train? Made me feel confident and safe, rather than otherwise.
Bombs? Well, sure, try to stop them getting on planes. Or...we could concentrate on who is putting planes in danger, and who is putting bombs on them and in public places, and why they are doing this? And if you say it has nothing to do with islam, I can't use that kind of misinformation to explain to my children why 32,000 people were killed by terrorists alone in 2014, according to the Pew Research and NPR and the International Org that tracks terrorist attacks internationally. 99.6% of those attackers? Were muslims... koranic literalists.
Until islam finds a way to have a reformation of their texts, it will be nigh impossible to stop a certain percentage of them from carrying out the example of mohammed, literally.
On the other hand, if every imam in every islamic country announced that terrorist attacks and calls to violence against infidels, unbelievers, polytheists, Jews (especially) and Christians were repudiated as inappropriate for the modern world?
The violence would stop immediately.
Otherwise...ask yourself, "How's it been going so far?"
Doesn't exactly give one confidence that they could stop a bombing.
But as for causing more inconvenience? I don't know, when I flew through Germany, the extra interviews by obviously trained agents, conducted three times before I boarded the train? Made me feel confident and safe, rather than otherwise.
Bombs? Well, sure, try to stop them getting on planes. Or...we could concentrate on who is putting planes in danger, and who is putting bombs on them and in public places, and why they are doing this? And if you say it has nothing to do with islam, I can't use that kind of misinformation to explain to my children why 32,000 people were killed by terrorists alone in 2014, according to the Pew Research and NPR and the International Org that tracks terrorist attacks internationally. 99.6% of those attackers? Were muslims... koranic literalists.
Until islam finds a way to have a reformation of their texts, it will be nigh impossible to stop a certain percentage of them from carrying out the example of mohammed, literally.
On the other hand, if every imam in every islamic country announced that terrorist attacks and calls to violence against infidels, unbelievers, polytheists, Jews (especially) and Christians were repudiated as inappropriate for the modern world?
The violence would stop immediately.
Otherwise...ask yourself, "How's it been going so far?"
5
Why should this be more of a problem at Istanbul airport than say at LAX ?
1
Reading comments, there's a tremendous many here that say the ban is a conspiracy to break the airlines operating out of the Middle East.
A Western Conspiracy? Surprise!
My learned relative, a ph.d from Columbia in History and a shia'a muslim, believes the US was behind 9/11, that Jews were called before the towers fell and told not to come to work. The purpose was to destroy islam.
Now? The refugee migration is actually controlled by the Jews and by the US and Britain. The Jews, especially, they say are behind it so that they can weaken these countries, balkanize them, and then invade and steal the land.
Because sure, Israel is big on trying to invade Egypt, Syria, Iran, et. al....it's absolutely absurd.
The only people wanting to ethnic cleanse? Are HAMAS militants wanting to eliminate every Jew from the face of the earth. And who wants to steal land, to take it for their own, from the 'river to the sea?" Most Americans don't know that comprises all of Israel.
Projection as an emotional defense is considered primitive in psychology.
Even Merkyl, called "Mother Merkyl" by refugees on t.v. while on a migrant train? The translator said the same people calling her 'mother', off camera, said she only truly wants to 'help' so they "can convert our kids to Christianity"...and yes, to "destroy Islam."
We could care less about islam...just quit running us down like cowards. Is that too much to ask?
A Western Conspiracy? Surprise!
My learned relative, a ph.d from Columbia in History and a shia'a muslim, believes the US was behind 9/11, that Jews were called before the towers fell and told not to come to work. The purpose was to destroy islam.
Now? The refugee migration is actually controlled by the Jews and by the US and Britain. The Jews, especially, they say are behind it so that they can weaken these countries, balkanize them, and then invade and steal the land.
Because sure, Israel is big on trying to invade Egypt, Syria, Iran, et. al....it's absolutely absurd.
The only people wanting to ethnic cleanse? Are HAMAS militants wanting to eliminate every Jew from the face of the earth. And who wants to steal land, to take it for their own, from the 'river to the sea?" Most Americans don't know that comprises all of Israel.
Projection as an emotional defense is considered primitive in psychology.
Even Merkyl, called "Mother Merkyl" by refugees on t.v. while on a migrant train? The translator said the same people calling her 'mother', off camera, said she only truly wants to 'help' so they "can convert our kids to Christianity"...and yes, to "destroy Islam."
We could care less about islam...just quit running us down like cowards. Is that too much to ask?
3
The TSA's outstanding lack of logic defies logic...
1. Whether a device is on a passenger's person or in the cargo hold makes no difference, it's still on the airplane.
2. Potentially placing 500+ devices with Lithium Ion batteries which can cause a fire (like Samsung S7's) in the cargo hold is more dangerous than having them in the cabin where an alert crew member or passenger can try to extinguish them if they catch fire.
3. There is no protocol for what a passenger might do if they already checked their bags and forgot they had a device in their carry on. Is someone to hand over a $1200 laptop to security like so many Swiss Army knives and 6 ounce bottles of expensive skin creams?
This is just the type of nonsense that has cost America almost two decades of stagnation. Who would imagine that in 2017, it takes about 4 hours longer to fly anywhere than it did at the start of the Jet age when the airlines themselves were government regulated, but security was not. Every traveler loses three times by paying security fees in their tickets, having their time wasted by the TSA, and paying federal taxes supporting people who do things that constitute sexual assault anywhere else.
According to stats from the Air Safety Foundation, from 1942 through 2001, there were 1044 Hijackings with 1144 Fatalities, and since then until 2016 there were 52 with only 4 fatalities. Interpret those numbers anyway you want, but we are living in very safe times.
1. Whether a device is on a passenger's person or in the cargo hold makes no difference, it's still on the airplane.
2. Potentially placing 500+ devices with Lithium Ion batteries which can cause a fire (like Samsung S7's) in the cargo hold is more dangerous than having them in the cabin where an alert crew member or passenger can try to extinguish them if they catch fire.
3. There is no protocol for what a passenger might do if they already checked their bags and forgot they had a device in their carry on. Is someone to hand over a $1200 laptop to security like so many Swiss Army knives and 6 ounce bottles of expensive skin creams?
This is just the type of nonsense that has cost America almost two decades of stagnation. Who would imagine that in 2017, it takes about 4 hours longer to fly anywhere than it did at the start of the Jet age when the airlines themselves were government regulated, but security was not. Every traveler loses three times by paying security fees in their tickets, having their time wasted by the TSA, and paying federal taxes supporting people who do things that constitute sexual assault anywhere else.
According to stats from the Air Safety Foundation, from 1942 through 2001, there were 1044 Hijackings with 1144 Fatalities, and since then until 2016 there were 52 with only 4 fatalities. Interpret those numbers anyway you want, but we are living in very safe times.
4
How about banning people on all flights, air crew included. That should effectively eliminate the danger. (And presumably all others except airport parking.)
3
Typical American snark. So terribly sad.
1
As others in the comments section have noted, this article raises more questions than it answers. As commenter, Kara Ben Nemsi, asked, if the laptop with the bomb in it evaded a Daallo airport security scan, where did the widely circulated X-ray scan of it come from? Also, if this bomb, which was apparently successfully denoted on-board a flight out of Somalia in Feb 0f 2016, why wait a year to put a selective, Muslim-country-only laptop restriction order in place? There are those who see this new laptop ban as a punitive one towards Muslim countries, with a possible additional motive of helping U.S. airline companies compete more successfully in Middle Eastern markets. These issues should be investigated & reported on.
3
Why do humans inspect these scans at all? I would guess that a couple dozen popular models make up more than 99% of the laptop population. Build a database of image templates of those models.
After normalizing each "live" scan for rotation, translation, brightness, and contrast, subtract the image from each template and threshold the result. The dark explosive and 9v battery will stand out like a sore thumb.
For the outliers, like my old Compaq laptop, for which no template is available, simply display an alert and bring a human into the loop.
After normalizing each "live" scan for rotation, translation, brightness, and contrast, subtract the image from each template and threshold the result. The dark explosive and 9v battery will stand out like a sore thumb.
For the outliers, like my old Compaq laptop, for which no template is available, simply display an alert and bring a human into the loop.
5
Brilliant ideas, easy to execute!
How effective is a ban on traveling with a laptop going to be if it only applies to direct flights? Are terrorists supposed to be unaware they can connect to the US through airports outside the handful of countries affected by the ban?
6
This article would justify banning laptops on all flights on every airline, not what the US has done, which is ban them on non-American carriers from a small set of nations. So I submit this article is more fantasy than explanatory.
4
How many people are killed each year by guns in the US? Let's put this in perspective.
10
every one of the murders in the US last year, has a gun in its story, whether the gun is seen or unseen. If you look deeply, and leave your hyper-lliteral mind behind, you will see it, see the mentality it helps to promote and maintain. if you like being literal, you will see it just as well, if not more clearly.
1
Perspective? You don't see a difference between terrorism designed to strike anybody, anywhere, with random violence directed at unarmed innocents in public settings...and crime, which is often personal, and not random and unnerving as is terrorism.
The idea of terrorism is to inspire...fear. We don't fear gunmen as much because we assume for the most part they will be attacking someone in a criminal's mileu, which is mostly true. And the lack of randomness dispels the kind of fear that terrorism creates.
But if you want to imagine that running down 80 people to death on Bastille day, or running down and injuring 20 people on Westminster Bridge, or blowing up an airport in Brussells, or running down people waiting for a bus, and then jumping out and stabbing grandmothers, children, women?
Well, you just keep telling yourself that terrorism hardly means a thing...how very convenient for staying absolutely blind.
The idea of terrorism is to inspire...fear. We don't fear gunmen as much because we assume for the most part they will be attacking someone in a criminal's mileu, which is mostly true. And the lack of randomness dispels the kind of fear that terrorism creates.
But if you want to imagine that running down 80 people to death on Bastille day, or running down and injuring 20 people on Westminster Bridge, or blowing up an airport in Brussells, or running down people waiting for a bus, and then jumping out and stabbing grandmothers, children, women?
Well, you just keep telling yourself that terrorism hardly means a thing...how very convenient for staying absolutely blind.
2
The perspective is this: How many corporations with strong lobbying efforts make money from small bombs and bomb parts? None.
A secret of most commercial airliners is that they haul freight, lots of it, along with paying passengers. I highly doubt that freight is scrutinized and gone over carefully, as well as our luggage is.
There are lots of ways of getting bomb material on board a jetliner.
Security is only as strong as its weakest link. The key words in this entire article is "honest security staff". How hard is it to bribe a low paid TSA worker? Or perhaps a devout Muslim one would be willing to look the other way for free. Aircraft cleaners, mechanics, fuel tech, catering/ food carts, on and on. Lots of potential weak links.
There are lots of ways of getting bomb material on board a jetliner.
Security is only as strong as its weakest link. The key words in this entire article is "honest security staff". How hard is it to bribe a low paid TSA worker? Or perhaps a devout Muslim one would be willing to look the other way for free. Aircraft cleaners, mechanics, fuel tech, catering/ food carts, on and on. Lots of potential weak links.
8
I'm not Muslim, but "devout Muslim" seems pretty offensive to me. Say "radicalized" say "misguided", but don't implicate all devout Muslims.
1
I am also offended.
That I must be touched, groped, x-rayed, scanned, interrogated, humiliated, all of it, in order to get on to an airplane because of a handful of devout, oops I'm sorry, misguided or disaffected Muslims.
That I must be touched, groped, x-rayed, scanned, interrogated, humiliated, all of it, in order to get on to an airplane because of a handful of devout, oops I'm sorry, misguided or disaffected Muslims.
1
Really good points. Airline security is weakest at the point where vendors interact with the plane: stocking, cleaning, etc. Flight crew are checked as though they are random passengers; suppliers are not. (And these are the low-paid people!)
O'Hare is my home airport. After 9/11, the TSA was established because so many "security guards", earning $8 or so per hour, were rather sketchy in terms of background. O'Hare provided Exhibit A.
Used to be that we had to open laptops and boot them up, which is feasible when few people are toting one. But now...not realistic.
And what about all those stores in most airports? Most are BEHIND the security checks. Is the stuff that they sell, from magazines to food, to souvenirs, checked on arrival?
O'Hare is my home airport. After 9/11, the TSA was established because so many "security guards", earning $8 or so per hour, were rather sketchy in terms of background. O'Hare provided Exhibit A.
Used to be that we had to open laptops and boot them up, which is feasible when few people are toting one. But now...not realistic.
And what about all those stores in most airports? Most are BEHIND the security checks. Is the stuff that they sell, from magazines to food, to souvenirs, checked on arrival?
2
Oh good grief. Let's all just put down the laptop, and pick up a book.
2
The rumor that terrorist bomb-making cells have obtained sensor systems to calibrate the sensitivity to exposure of their creations is an interesting one, but would make little difference against a security system subject to human compromise.
Trust in the security services of the blacklisted nations may be the issue. But I doubt if that's an issue confined to that short list oif nations. They probably got picked more because they fit the profiles required by certain politicians...
But there really is a simpler explanation at work here. Whoever built the Daallo Airlines bomb may have failed in their attempt to bring down that flight. However, they now have a pretty good idea the next bomb need be only a relatively small increment more powerful. This is crucial because there's only so much concealable space inside a laptop. Depending on the explosive and the skill of the bombmaker, this still poses the issue of a bomb making it past the screening facilities and aboard a flight undetected. Whoever made that last bomb was given some very critical data by the fatal last ride of the courier -- unaccompanied, fortunately. The next time will likely be deadlier.
Trust in the security services of the blacklisted nations may be the issue. But I doubt if that's an issue confined to that short list oif nations. They probably got picked more because they fit the profiles required by certain politicians...
But there really is a simpler explanation at work here. Whoever built the Daallo Airlines bomb may have failed in their attempt to bring down that flight. However, they now have a pretty good idea the next bomb need be only a relatively small increment more powerful. This is crucial because there's only so much concealable space inside a laptop. Depending on the explosive and the skill of the bombmaker, this still poses the issue of a bomb making it past the screening facilities and aboard a flight undetected. Whoever made that last bomb was given some very critical data by the fatal last ride of the courier -- unaccompanied, fortunately. The next time will likely be deadlier.
5
The new rules must be intended to protect American interests. But if a terrorist is targeting America or Americans, he or she would be least likely to target Emirates or Qatar airlines. It would be more reasonable to apply the laptop ban to United and American airlines, if indeed there is any reason to the measure at all.
3
TSA should insist that all laptop makers submit x-ray images of their products. When you go through security the scanner compares the image it obtains to a reference image indexed by a bar code.
If the laptop isn't in the x-ray image data base (or if you've tinkered with its innards} it shouldn't fly.
If the laptop isn't in the x-ray image data base (or if you've tinkered with its innards} it shouldn't fly.
11
Security paranoia, slowly eroding any aspect of a free society one little piece of random information at a time.
This article is full of "can", "could", "may" and hypotheses based on random facts.
This article is full of "can", "could", "may" and hypotheses based on random facts.
5
When I traveled in the late 1990's through Miami mostly, I was required to turn my laptop on to prove is was working. I flew over 325 times in 1998 and 1999 and nearly every time I was required to turn my laptop on.
Because I had an Apple I could awaken it from sleep quickly. PC users had to start up from scratch. The problem for them was they nearly never had their computers in sleep and once the security people saw it worked, they said, thanks, and walked away. Meantime, one was left to go through the startup process not wanting to interrupt and possibly hurt the computer.
We've done this.
Because I had an Apple I could awaken it from sleep quickly. PC users had to start up from scratch. The problem for them was they nearly never had their computers in sleep and once the security people saw it worked, they said, thanks, and walked away. Meantime, one was left to go through the startup process not wanting to interrupt and possibly hurt the computer.
We've done this.
1
"It was handed to him by an unknown man inside the terminal before he boarded the flight." .... Many people speculated that this ban was designed to help US-based airlines. Actually I think the real reason is to address airports that have been infiltrated by terrorist group, i.e. insider who has access to the air-side security area who can pass laptop with embedded bomb to a 'passenger'.
2
I understand they have found 'Allahu Akbar" written on secure areas of the plane in France and elsewhere, a kind of taunt.
It dovetails with what you are saying about an inside infiltrator. The threats pile up and become astonishingly difficult to track. Of course, it's the terrorists, stopping them, that is key to stopping the violence.
It dovetails with what you are saying about an inside infiltrator. The threats pile up and become astonishingly difficult to track. Of course, it's the terrorists, stopping them, that is key to stopping the violence.
Some of the airports such as Incheon or Changi perform the security check right at the gate before boarding; it addresses this loophole.
"It was handed to him by an unknown man inside the terminal before he boarded the flight." .... This new ban is likely adopted to address the risk of airport insider who's a terrorist infiltrator. This will help to stop someone who has access to the secured air-side of the airport from passing a laptop embedded with bomb to a 'passenger' who has passed security but before boarding the plane.
2
I am so tired of the baseless, absurd, and ugly claims that this was done to benefit American carriers. It seems that we can't do anything without some people crawling out of the woodwork to claim that we have a malign motive. To these people with their remarkable ability to discern motive where no evidence exists, it matters not one whit that the UK instituted a similar ban, or that the whole notion is risible for any number of reasons. They just know, oh, they just know.
6
Still the odds on being on an airplane and blown from the sky is remote. You could win the lottery several time first. Life is never without risk. If we would stop fighting these perpetual wars and continue to stick our nose in other country problems there would be even less risk.
7
Sure, recruitment is helped by any disturbance. But you do know that terrorism attacks started, at least against America, when the country was only 15 years old, when unprovoked, muslims were stealing our trade ships, enslaving our people and raping the women? It took Jefferson and Madison three different efforts to get them to stop...but finally they prevailed. I'm still waiting for the muslim apology for their attacks on our ships -- as Jefferson said, we were not part of the crusades, had no trade or border disputes and had not mistreated muslims so why are you attacking, he asked them.
Muslims responded that the koran gave them permission to seize ships and enslave the occupants because we were non-believers, infidels, and that if they fight us and win, they will surely rule us, and if they fight and lose, they will spend that day in paradise with Mohammed.
Jefferson was apparently unamused. He said, "We'll send our navy over to crush you." Which he did. Madison eventually finished the job, saying "They seem to only respond to force. And I am going to settle that account." Which he did, as well.
I'm still waiting for that apology from muslims for attacking us first. But aside from that little humorous anecdote, it does put to a lie that premise that muslims say they only fight to defend themselves or their honor.
Muslims responded that the koran gave them permission to seize ships and enslave the occupants because we were non-believers, infidels, and that if they fight us and win, they will surely rule us, and if they fight and lose, they will spend that day in paradise with Mohammed.
Jefferson was apparently unamused. He said, "We'll send our navy over to crush you." Which he did. Madison eventually finished the job, saying "They seem to only respond to force. And I am going to settle that account." Which he did, as well.
I'm still waiting for that apology from muslims for attacking us first. But aside from that little humorous anecdote, it does put to a lie that premise that muslims say they only fight to defend themselves or their honor.
Why isn't security scanning automated yet? I can't imagine that AI couldn't scan most everything, using image recognition and programming, calling in a person when needed. Such a system could also be used on checked luggage.
That the laptop under question wasn't identified isn't too surprising. Think about it: in one year, with millions of flights and billions or trillions of items scanned, only one (apparently) had a bomb. With a rate that low, it's a wonder more don't get through—this is not a job for humans, it's one for computers.
That the laptop under question wasn't identified isn't too surprising. Think about it: in one year, with millions of flights and billions or trillions of items scanned, only one (apparently) had a bomb. With a rate that low, it's a wonder more don't get through—this is not a job for humans, it's one for computers.
17
"Other security images, taken from inside the passengers’ waiting area, showed that the Daallo Airlines bomber did not take the bomb through the airport security checkpoint himself. It was handed to him by an unknown man inside the terminal before he boarded the flight."
If the laptop was not taken through the airport security checkpoint, where then is that image coming from???? It can't have been produced after the fact, the bomb had blown up and destroyed the laptop.
Something does not make sense here. Please enlighten us on that conundrum.
If the laptop was not taken through the airport security checkpoint, where then is that image coming from???? It can't have been produced after the fact, the bomb had blown up and destroyed the laptop.
Something does not make sense here. Please enlighten us on that conundrum.
38
They did not say it did not go through security scanning. They said the passenger who brought the bomb on the flight was handed the computer in the waiting room. It is actually very clear: "the ... bomber did not take the bomb through the ... checkpoint HIMSELF" emphasis added
2
Thanks, Kara, it wasn't just me wondering "how do you x-ray a bomb that's already blown up?"
But I read the article twice, but the paragraph starting "As makeshift bombs go" explains in the last two sentences. So, someone ran it through scanning, this image was stored in the system though the security staff didn't flag the device.
But I read the article twice, but the paragraph starting "As makeshift bombs go" explains in the last two sentences. So, someone ran it through scanning, this image was stored in the system though the security staff didn't flag the device.
4
Simple, the unknown man passed through security as well. The quote says the bomber did not take the laptop through airport security. It does not say the laptop did not go through airport security.
Well the good news is that laptops are more slim and compact than they were a year ago... Bad News, cell phones blow up now.
8
If the terrorists have a working X-ray machine to practice with they can improve their bomb hiding skills across the board. Why focus on laptops? Anything that is subject to X-ray is fair game.
7
I do not understand why such a bomb is a threat if in the cabin but not if it is in checked luggage. Surely anyone with enough expertise to build the bomb could build a timer or an altitude dependent trigger.
33
Agreed David. The real reason for these airline specific cabin laptop bans is to encourage high end business travellers (a well known profit group for airlines) to fly on airlines where these bans are not in place. This both hurts the revenues for the excluded airlines and enhances profits for those without laptop bans, thus achieving the desired effect of these regulations.
1
You really think they'd issue security alerts simply to enhance their profit picture with American businessman? You honestly don't think that there are no better ways to do this? Advantage miles, frequent flier perks, business people worship, that already goes on in airports? Or etc. etc., etc?
Is medication warranted?
Is medication warranted?
David's point is irrefutable. And it's not just because I'm biased in his favor.
The report that terrorists -could- use laptops to hide bombs is sufficient reason to ban lap tops from planes.
2
They could also embed one in their body. So I guess we should just ban commercial air travel all together, after all you can't be too safe.
6
Another possible explanation, in an article in Jacobin: "The new laptop ban is also effectively a giveaway to Trump’s private equity backers and the US airline cartel they control; it comes at the expense of the Gulf carriers who threaten the US airlines’ domination of international long-haul routes and the business travelers who are their most lucrative customers."
21
It's a good theory. Until you consider reality:
1. Private equity does not back Trump
2. Private equity doesn't control any "airline cartel;" all the major US airlines are public companies, not private. Labor unions own a greater % of US airlines than private equity does.
1. Private equity does not back Trump
2. Private equity doesn't control any "airline cartel;" all the major US airlines are public companies, not private. Labor unions own a greater % of US airlines than private equity does.
2
But it made such a nice, hate-capitalism and hate all euro-centric culture diatribe...because it's all exploitive. Nothing good at all coming out of "those people." It's just a coincidence that every refugee is rushing to the UK, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany to live, just a coincidence. Why, some people typing on their computers here don't realize they are typing on an invention from the West, while they are busy figuring out how to kill those kuffar who made it.
Kind of odd.
Kind of odd.
How is that supposed to benefit private equity? All of the airlines, to my knowledge are publicly held corporations, traded on the US stock market.
There is widespread suspicion among those in the travel industry and frequent flyers that this ban is commercially, not safety, motivated and is in effect a non-tarriff barrier working against the large Middle Eastern airlines like Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad. There is an existing open skies agreement in place between the US and Qatar and the UAE which the big US carriers, United, Delta and American, have been pushing back on hard. Maybe they have found a new ally in this fight, within the Trump administration? The leaders of the US airline world met with Trump not long ago. When you consider, for instance, that Abu Dhabi airport even has US Customs pre-clearance - that is, you clear US Customs and Immigration there and "arrive" in the US inside the Abu Dhabi airport, and the US controls everything, including security - flights even arrive in the US as domestic! - this all starts to smell just a bit. I was also surprised that this wasn't even mentioned here, as the headline led me to believe it would cast even more doubt on the driver behind the ban. Is there a reason that the potential of a commercial motivation was omitted as a possible driver in this piece?
34
So much of this is security theater rather than aimed at truly enhancing safety. Compare, for example, this ban on electronics in carry-on luggage on flights from select countries, with the response to the shoe bomber or the implementation of the liquids carry-on rules. As insane and theatrical as those are, at least they were implemented universally, unlike this electronics ban. If there is a genuine threat, it should not matter if a passenger happened to have a stopover in Frankfurt or London, or flew non-stop from Abu Dhabi. One clear motivation is to support US carriers. Another is to implement a Muslim harassment policy. A third is to appear to be doing something, when the impact on threat reduction is infinitesimal. Hence the security theater. Somewhere, a lot further down the list, is to actually enhance security.
24
That's absurd. For one thing, the UK has instituted a similar ban.
This kind of baseless conspiracy theory serves no purpose except to defame by inventing a malign motive. It's hateful.
This kind of baseless conspiracy theory serves no purpose except to defame by inventing a malign motive. It's hateful.
3
Conspiracy theories, marking the Jews as behind everything, with a capital E, aided by the British and Americans, is the ubiquitous and common thread joining the Middle East islamic societies together.
Is it the illiteracy rates? The overzealous emphasis on religious revelation over scientific observation that has hindered intellectual growth in institutions, leaving them clouded in a 7th century haze of lost glory and conquering? Hard to say, but their period of greatest violence and conquering is what they think of as their golden age of islam, and this conquering, by current ethos, should also be known as colonialism...though muslims refer to it as 'conquest' and are not at all ashamed of it, as is the West, even though the muslims perhaps should be eating dirt and bowing in shame for their actions -- the historical reality of islamic colonialism ranks them as the worst the world has ever known, ask the Hindus and their 80 million dead, at a minimum, ask the Spaniards, who for centuries fought to rid themselves of islam as did Greece. Ask the Eu's enslaved by muslims raiding coastal towns in Italy until the coasts were abandoned as unsafe, or paid huge ransoms and tributes to prevent attacks.... unfortunately for America and the West, historical illiteracy and religious illiteracy is not helping us cope with this situation of extremist violence -- instead it's the head in the sand and hope it goes away approach. And how's that working out for everyone?
Is it the illiteracy rates? The overzealous emphasis on religious revelation over scientific observation that has hindered intellectual growth in institutions, leaving them clouded in a 7th century haze of lost glory and conquering? Hard to say, but their period of greatest violence and conquering is what they think of as their golden age of islam, and this conquering, by current ethos, should also be known as colonialism...though muslims refer to it as 'conquest' and are not at all ashamed of it, as is the West, even though the muslims perhaps should be eating dirt and bowing in shame for their actions -- the historical reality of islamic colonialism ranks them as the worst the world has ever known, ask the Hindus and their 80 million dead, at a minimum, ask the Spaniards, who for centuries fought to rid themselves of islam as did Greece. Ask the Eu's enslaved by muslims raiding coastal towns in Italy until the coasts were abandoned as unsafe, or paid huge ransoms and tributes to prevent attacks.... unfortunately for America and the West, historical illiteracy and religious illiteracy is not helping us cope with this situation of extremist violence -- instead it's the head in the sand and hope it goes away approach. And how's that working out for everyone?
Oh come on. Flying economy is so awful that a terrorist blowing up the plane might be a relief.
12
The motivation behind instituting the new ban on certain large electronic devices from only a select number of airports and select Middle Eastern airlines in predominately Muslim countries does not make much sense. If in fact terrorist organizations have developed new bomb making abilities using laptops, wouldn't all flights from any foreign destination to the US be potentially at risk? Why single out for the ban only Middle Eastern airlines that compete with US airlines? This action does not increase my sense of safety in the air, rather it seems to be an underhanded way to promote travel from these regions on US air carriers.
14
The fact that an expert (who knows what he's looking for) can easily spot the bomb in the illustration certainly doesn't suggest that it would usually, if ever, be spotted by some minimum-wage, minimally trained TSA screener. As a regular flyer, I'd be amazed if that laptop was ever picked out by the operator of an x-ray machine.
14
I await the first semi-successful body-cavity bomb. (Actually one was used in the ME a few years back-big mess,little collateral damage.) I can barely imagine the TSA Security Circus response to a body cavity bomb,can you?
7
I guess terrorists could use their mobile phone in the cabin to detonate a laptop bomb in the hold, from a distance just as they do in the movies. So banning laptops from the cabin, without also verifying that each and every laptop that is checked is actually a working laptop, wouldn't be sufficient precaution against laptop bombs. It seems that taking every possible precaution against bombs in flight would require excruciatingly detailed inspections of every item checked by every passenger. This would cause an outcry, as it would severely slow down the already slow security screening process for everyone. I think we need to get back to profiling, target people who fit the terrorist profile, and leave the Caucasian little old ladies alone.
19
I am one of those Caucasian "little old ladies" and I've been traveling with a laptop since 1997. Would a tablet, with its smaller size and (if it's a Mac) difficulty opening, present a similar threat?
It seems to me that a certain critical mass is necessary: I've read that 3-oz containers of liquid bigly lack the critical mass necessary to produce an explosive.
It seems to me that a certain critical mass is necessary: I've read that 3-oz containers of liquid bigly lack the critical mass necessary to produce an explosive.
Admittedly, my sophistication with electronic devices and their capabilities is limited. I do wonder, however, if stowing laptops, etc. in the luggage area of a plane would actually prevent the detonation of a device hidden inside. Is it possible to use a cellphone to trigger a device remotely?
..."Incompetence or an inside job was at play, or perhaps both — not technical ingenuity.".....
Well, if you can't train personnel to be competent I'm all for taking other measures to make up for their lack of skills!
We are asked to submit to pat-downs, can't take items like kayak paddles on board and must be patient with long security lines (even Pre-Check is getting slow) in the name of safety, so if some have to do without their electronics for a 10 or 12 hour flight from high risk airports, then it's just another adjustment that flyers have to make.
Well, if you can't train personnel to be competent I'm all for taking other measures to make up for their lack of skills!
We are asked to submit to pat-downs, can't take items like kayak paddles on board and must be patient with long security lines (even Pre-Check is getting slow) in the name of safety, so if some have to do without their electronics for a 10 or 12 hour flight from high risk airports, then it's just another adjustment that flyers have to make.
1
Given the failure of the TSA to detect knives and such in recent testing, there is an argument for banning just about every piece of carry-on luggage, as well as possibly frisking everyone. I was recently given the full pat down after forgetting that I had a chap stick in my pocket and packing a tamper-proof commercially-sealed food powder in the outside pocket of my suitcase. Anti-profiling has hit a new high when an American-born grandmother who hasn't so much as had a speeding ticket is viewed as a potential terrorist. Although I could see why I was subject to extra screening, the fact that I wasn't asked to turn on my laptop or my phone tells me that I was just a pawn used to demonstrate that the TSA doesn't discriminate. Having been through TSA Pre-check lines (when traveling with my long-term spouse, who has been thoroughly vetted by the government), I definitely intend to apply for the Global Entry program. In this latest instance, he had intended to go through the not-too-long ordinary TSA line with me, but switched to the Pre-check line upon realizing that his luggage hadn't been carefully packed in the manner necessary for the first line, so I looked as if I was traveling alone. A glaringly odd thing was that he got through his line much more quickly than I and was obviously standing by, waiting for me while I was being frisked, etc., but no further attention was paid to him, despite the fact that domestic terrorist acts have been limited to crimes committed by men.
16
Correct. Let the baggage be carried on another plane that just carries baggage and freight.
4
That would amount to a ridiculous cost of checking luggage fees.
1
Yeah, I'm in the same situation, groped, inspected, and rejected all for the crime of being a white little old lady. You would think that a modicum of common sense would tell them this was not the grandmother they were looking for, but, no. And it happens almost every time I fly. AND I DON'T FEEL ANY SAFER! Quite the opposite, focusing on me is time and effort wasted.
2
Finding most online definitions to be lacking that is my own view of the matter.
That said it could very well be that this bomb and the x-ray of it is a psychological terror attack meant to get the sorts of “security measures” reactions that cause problems and make living normally impossible.
If they had developed an effective laptop bomb we would have found out by its use taking down a plane. If the powers that be suspect this is the case with the Russian flight that went down in Egypt they should say so openly otherwise as the article describes the problem as shown seems to be something other than what we are being told it is.