131–140 of 488 posts
If they allow phones at all, then the threat cannot be an issue of a passenger sending a command out of one of these. The threat has to be the device itself.
Now, a standard issue iPad is no threat, so we're talking about a customized device made to look like on.
Except, if terrorists are going to the trouble to do this, they can just as easily put whatever bad thing they want to put into the case of an insulin pump, and bypass the ban.
This. Is. Bullshit.
It's also beyond bizarre that the US trusts Abu Dhabi's security enough to locate its only Middle Eastern Customs/Immigration preclearance facility, but not enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring tablets...
It's also beyond bizarre that the US trusts Abu Dhabi's security enough to locate its only Middle Eastern Customs/Immigration preclearance facility, but not enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring tablets...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These parts of the article provides plausible explanation: "Brian Jenkins, an aviation-security expert at the Rand Corp., said the nature of the security measure suggested that it was driven by intelligence of a possible attack." "The ban would begin just before Wednesday's meeting of the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State group in Washington. A number of top Arab officials were expected to attend the State…
What kind of attack would this policy avert?
I have no idea what the point of this is.
> the ban will apply to nonstop flights to the U.S. from 10 airports in eight countries in the Middle East and North Africa Personal electronics are near-indispensable. By restricting their carry from Muslim countries, freedom of movement to and from those countries is significantly curtailed. This is about getting around the illegality of the Muslim ban without banning any persons or groups. This is about "cultural…
This was my first thought until I saw a Saudi airport on the list of originating airports that will be impacted by the ban. Trump avoided listing any countries where he had business connections with in his ban orders, so I'm more likely to believe this is the result of actionable intelligence than xenophobia/Islamophobia-related bullshit.
Still, I could be wrong and it could just be the current administration keeping on their anti-Islam crusade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it make more sense than the previous security procedure that everyone passengers had to take off their shoes and have them scanned? Or the current ban on liquids? Or the even better idea I saw in Brussels airport of two semi-identical security checks; one to get into the airport and then the "regular" second one. I can only wait for the next improved version of three security checkpoints, which will add 50% more…
The security check to get into the airport makes sense if you want to avoid terrorist attacks at the airport.
Note that some airlines, like Delta, do not allow computers or lithium batteries in checked luggage (for example: https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/ba... && https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/ba... ) so this essentially means that other than phones, these things are completely banned and will have to be shipped separately or not shipped at all. EDIT: Also, no airline tha…
> Note that some airlines, like Delta, do not allow computers or lithium batteries in checked luggage [...] so this essentially means that other than phones, these things are completely banned and will have to be shipped separately or not shipped at all. This is incorrect, only spare batteries aren't allowed in checked baggage, computers are fine. From your second link [1]: > Lithium ion batteries installed in a pers…
What utter bullshit. If they allow phones at all, then the threat cannot be an issue of a passenger sending a command out of one of these. The threat has to be the device itself. Now, a standard issue iPad is no threat, so we're talking about a customized device made to look like on. Except, if terrorists are going to the trouble to do this, they can just as easily put whatever bad thing they want to put into the cas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My personal pet peeve is when people say things like "we live in a dangerous world now". No, we don't. At least, not more dangerous than before (which is the implication). We might be breathlessly focused on some dangers, but those dangers are LESS than before, not more. I don't want anyone to suffer, and definitely don't want anyone to die. I'm not calling for turning our backs on every idea to improve safety. Just…
I always liked to point "we live in a dangerous world now" folks here: http://www.vrc.crim.cam.ac.uk/vrcresearch/paperdownload/manu... - in particular the graph on the third page.