New TSA travel restrictions a bummer

[max]

Racer X wrote:
But from what I have read, it is only certain areas, and for a limited time.

Paul F. wrote:
Seems to me like the solution is not to take direct flights to/from those countries, but take connecting flights through countries with sane security regulations.

LyleH wrote:
You realize these restrictions only apply to 8 countries, and only when you are coming to the USA from those countries - not when you fly to those (or any other countries). (Unless I read it wrong) LyleH

And it is not just us, UK imposed the same rules.And it is not just iPads and laptops, it also applies to cameras.
I am overseas right now, there is a lot of discussion going on about the subject and the expectation is that this will be expanded.
Unless there is political pushback by business travelers, it may become a new normal.
I am with Sam on this one......

[Racer X]

I wonder if the issue is that there is "talk" of someone figuring out how to weaponize LiIon batteries into an on-demand incendiary or bomb. That would make sense. The risk of a small cellphone might be something they can accept.

Just guessing. I worked with guys who designed bombs, and we tested them. In our down time, we postulated stuff like this right after 9/11.

The max liquid issue is there are binary liquid incendiary compounds, as well as explosives. And just plain clear flammable liquids in your water bottle. Didn't you ever see James Bond dispense explosive paste from his toothpaste tube? That was back in the '80s. Nothing new.

[sekker]

Seems to be required on both foreign and domestic flights.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/us/po...cabin.html

Expanding to 12 countries.

Seems to impact about 50 flights back to the US each day.

Some airports like Abu Dhabi have Homeland Security extra screening already in place.

[Sam3]

If this is true, that ISIS has figured out how to make an undetectable bomb in an electronic device, what is to stop a committed terrorist from booking a flight to France, Belgium, Germany, etc., then boarding a flight to the US and taking it down? I'm not sure how this restriction helps prevent an attack except to eliminate the really low hanging fruit.

Also, wouldn't it be just as dangerous to have the device luggage-checked? What is to prevent a timer device to be built into the laptop or tablet to trigger while in mid-flight, or remotely triggered from an allowed cell phone?

[sekker]

http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/21/149986...-confusion

[tenders]

> wouldn't it be just as dangerous to have the device luggage-checked?
> What is to prevent a timer device to be built into the laptop or tablet to trigger while in mid-flight,
> or remotely triggered from an allowed cell phone?

All of these extra steps increase the amount of planning, possibly expand the circle of those in the know, raise the bar for finding someone dumb enough to do it yet smart enough to do it, increase the complexity of the device, and reduce the certainty of success for the planner. The hoped-for result is that the planner looks for an easier target.

Same reason you might put fancy locks on a house. There are lots of ways into a house besides the door, but if you're a thief you're going to pick the easiest target, and there are a lot of poorly-protected doors out there.

None of this involves new ideas or a novel thread. I still think the reason this happened now, vs. years ago, is due to the perception of unfair competition.

[SteveG]

I feel safer already.

[Bernie]

Laptop bombs Proof of concept.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security publicly cited two attacks on flights in the last two years, the downing of a Russian jet over the Egyptian Sinai in October 2015 and an attempt that nearly succeeded in bringing down a jet that had taken off from Mogadishu, Somalia last year and made an emergency landing after an explosion ripped open its cabin. The insurgent group Al-Shababb claimed credit for getting a laptop onboard the flight that had been rigged as a bomb.

“Since they weren’t high enough, the explosion wasn’t catastrophic to the plane and they were able to land," one source told The Daily Beast. "The bomber got sucked out of the hole, but it was proof of concept."

DHS declined to comment on the intelligence, saying only "we employ a variety of measures, both seen and unseen, to protect air travelers."

[fauch]

How will checking these items increase security? Will a laptop bomb in the cargo hold not be as dangerous to the plane? Are checked bags screened differently than carry on luggage? Is this really just to avoid longer security lines? Can an ISIS member not just get an "undetectable" bomb on a connecting flight that will not be subject to the new restrictions?

This sounds to me to be yet another unnecessary hassle for passengers with no real security gain. Like making EVERYONE take off their shoes for YEARS because one schmuck tried to make a shoe bomb. Or the carryon liquid restrictions that have since been relaxed several times.