Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most Electronics Being Banned on Certain US-Bound Flights

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 488 posts

Re: Most Electronics Being Banned on Certain US-Bound Flights

#221

Post by KirinDave »

GuiA wrote: post #207
KirinDave wrote: post #199

I see many people here trying to puzzle out why electronics are under a partial ban from cabins but not from checked baggage . It's a good question, since if there is a fire or explosion hazard on a plane the last place you want it is wrapped in a wad of flammable cloth and synthetics, even if it is oxygen starved. The only motivation I can imagine is: They want these devices in checked luggage because checked luggag…

This. And also people not having devices on their person means they can't quickly text friends/family if they get detained/mistreated/etc. It seems like we're getting closer and closer to being in a situation where people who can should avoid going to the US at all, and make their reasoning known. Ie, refuse to give talks, attend conferences, etc. in the US.

They already confiscate devices. I'm not sure that there is much to be gained by banning phones. The absence of a report coupled with the publicly available info of landing is probably enough to signal trouble.

Re: Most Electronics Being Banned on Certain US-Bound Flights

#222

Post by molmalo »

hn_lurker45 wrote: post #195
untog wrote: post #159

This is how they implement the Muslim ban. Piece by piece, bit by bit, they make it utterly infuriating for any Muslim person to travel to the US. Next they'll ban absolutely all liquids, or something.

Liquids are already banned to a large extent. You have to buy it inside the terminal after you get security clearance.

In most of the airports (if not all) that I have been lately, there are water refilling stations, usually close to the restrooms or after you pass through the security checkpoint. I usually pass security with my plastic bottle empty, and then refill it with those machines.

Re: Most Electronics Being Banned on Certain US-Bound Flights

#223

Post by linkregister »

kogepathic wrote: post #192
jedberg wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it's just the EU. I fixed my comment. The point is their technology is terrible and they are easy to defeat, as has been proven many many times. They are security theater and they were only put in place because the guy in charge of what scanners were allowed at US airports happened to have a financial interest in the company that made the millimeter wave scanner.

> They are security theater and they were only put in place because the guy in charge of what scanners were allowed at US airports happened to have a financial interest in the company that made the millimeter wave scanner. Yup. I have been to many airports in Africa and SE Asia that have only a metal detector, manned by someone who barely cares enough to stand there, and no one has successfully committed an act of te…

To be fair, the threat model of those countries doesn't include terrorist hijackings. You will surely experience a thorough screening in Israel or Frankfurt.

Every major U.S. airport I've been to in the past 5 years has had ample bottle filling stations.

Re: Most Electronics Being Banned on Certain US-Bound Flights

#224

Post by astrodust »

greglindahl wrote: post #213
zeroer wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably a first step towards a ban on all flights for that exact reason.

... which would increase risk, because battery fires are worse in checked bags than in the main cabin/overheads.

Considering zero fires in carry-on have caused plane crashes, but a non-zero number in cargo have, yeah, basically this makes it way worse.

Re: Most Electronics Being Banned on Certain US-Bound Flights

#225

Post by KirinDave »

et-al wrote: post #209
KirinDave wrote: post #199

I see many people here trying to puzzle out why electronics are under a partial ban from cabins but not from checked baggage . It's a good question, since if there is a fire or explosion hazard on a plane the last place you want it is wrapped in a wad of flammable cloth and synthetics, even if it is oxygen starved. The only motivation I can imagine is: They want these devices in checked luggage because checked luggag…

(Minor note: I think you mean "from cabins but not from checked baggage")

Quite right. Thanks.

Re: Most Electronics Being Banned on Certain US-Bound Flights

#226

Post by jedberg »

cypherpunks01 wrote: post #218
jedberg wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it's just the EU. I fixed my comment. The point is their technology is terrible and they are easy to defeat, as has been proven many many times. They are security theater and they were only put in place because the guy in charge of what scanners were allowed at US airports happened to have a financial interest in the company that made the millimeter wave scanner.

Who's the guy you mention? It's hard to find the right search terms to look it up, and I haven't heard that story before.

Rapiscan, the maker of the device, was a client of Michael Chertoff's consulting company, and he was the head of Homeland Security when the scanners were put in place by his department.

Re: Most Electronics Being Banned on Certain US-Bound Flights

#227

Post by [deleted] »

cypherpunks01 wrote: post #218
jedberg wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it's just the EU. I fixed my comment. The point is their technology is terrible and they are easy to defeat, as has been proven many many times. They are security theater and they were only put in place because the guy in charge of what scanners were allowed at US airports happened to have a financial interest in the company that made the millimeter wave scanner.

Who's the guy you mention? It's hard to find the right search terms to look it up, and I haven't heard that story before.

[deleted]

Re: Most Electronics Being Banned on Certain US-Bound Flights

#228

Post by linkregister »

Const-me wrote: post #107
jacquesm wrote: post #20

So, assuming this is because of some credible threat: does that mean DHS thinks that terrorists can't afford a couple of weeks lay-over in Amsterdam or Paris before traveling to the United States?

They might think airport security personnel at Amsterdam or Paris do their job better than their colleagues from those 8 Middle Eastern and North African countries. And/or they might think Netherlands and France is just as attractive for the terrorists as the US, i.e. the terrorists won’t bother taking that second flight. BTW, I think Russia should be the 9-th country on that list, as they have long history of sponso…

I'm ignorant of Russia's historical role in sponsoring terrorism; I'm only getting recent Ukraine / Syria links. Can you share some resources to learn more about it?

Re: Most Electronics Being Banned on Certain US-Bound Flights

#229

Post by rtpg »

linkregister wrote: post #220
megablast wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 2016, the United airplane I was in still did not have a seatback screen This just depends which plane you get. They all have new and old planes, you can get unlucky on any airline.

Does Turkish Airlines have airplanes in their fleet without seatback screens? Do these planes fly international routes?

Not sure about TA, but my experience is that 95% of this is just about when the planes get bought. Entertainment systems solve the "keep people happy problem" for relatively cheap. But it's pretty expensive to replace all the seats just for that.

JAL/ANA have very new planes with cool entertainment systems, but they also fly their older planes on some routes with a bunch of stuff that looks like it's powered by VCR.

To your question: they probably don't for their major international flights.

Re: Most Electronics Being Banned on Certain US-Bound Flights

#230

Post by Svexark »

yongjik wrote: post #92
Svexark wrote: post #39

Thank you for your reasonable comment. You're going to get down voted into oblivion for it though. The right to privacy, drone strikes, budgets, Russia, etc. aren't issues until the D after someone's name turns into an R. Get with the program or lose all your internet points, man.

> The right to privacy OK, I'll give you that. > drone strikes What? Republicans never had any problem with Obama's drone campaigns, and if you compile a list of Trump's policies Democrats have an issue with now, I doubt drones will be in the top #10. It would be nice if people kept talking about drone strikes and their victims, but we don't. Either under Obama or under Trump. > Russia You can't be seriously saying O…

These senators filibustered for 12 hours in 2013 to protest Obama's drone strikes. It was kind of a big deal at the time. #StandWithRand ring a bell? Perhaps you're not old enough to remember.

Rand Paul (R)

Ted Cruz (R)

Marco Rubio (R)

Mike Lee (R)

Pat Toomey (R)

John Thune (R)

John Barrasso (R)

Tim Scott (R)

John Cornyn (R)

Jerry Moran (R)

Ron Johnson (R)

Jeff Flake (R)

Mitch McConnell (R)

Saxby Chambliss (R)

Mark Kirk (R)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D)

Post reply on HN