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

371–380 of 488 posts

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

#371

Post by felipemnoa »

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…

>> Maybe I'll label the envelope something nonsensical like "12-16"

Label it "Very Bad USB" and put a bunch of noise in there. When you get detained tell them that you forgot the second part, "corrupts data"

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

#372

Post by rjsw »

akie wrote: post #327
GuiA wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is already happening. I'm in Europe and I've heard quite a few friends (mostly academics) state that they're actively avoiding traveling to the US.

I started doing this 10 years ago, the recent changes haven't made me want to reconsider.

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

#373

Post by anarazel »

wildmusings wrote: post #359
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.

Given that someone already tried to bring down a plane with a laptop bomb, and was nearly successful, maybe a little less cynicism is justified. Here's the relevant excerpt from the CNN article on this: > The official said the move is partly based on intelligence that they believe indicates Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is close to being able to hide explosives with little or no metal content in electronic device…

Given it's allowed to check laptops I don't find that very convincing. Some countries/airports do have better checked luggage scanning, but I doubt that's something to rely on with ask of these.

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

#374

Post by bogomipz »

jpatokal wrote: post #250
bogomipz wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"It's also beyond bizarre that the US trusts Abu Dhabi's security enough to locate its only Middle Eastern Customs/Immigration preclearance facility" This is not correct Quatar has one as well. I'm also unsure why you would find this "bizarre" as all of the Emirates are incredibly wealthy.

No, they don't...? https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/operations/p... And the bizarreness is that they're simultaneously trusting them enough to handle immigration, but not trusting them enough to handle passenger screening.

Yes they do. Source: I've been through it recently.

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

#375

Post by chimeracoder »

waqf wrote: post #158
jpatokal wrote: post #133

The Big 4 Middle East/Gulf airlines (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Turkish) have been giving legacy US carriers a lot of grief lately, since they're both cheaper and better on essentially all counts, so I can't help but wonder if they have their finger in the pie here. Few businessmen will opt to fly long-haul if they can't use their laptops, and they're specifically targeting 9 airlines here, not just airports or countri…

That's incredibly evil, but I'm sad to say that after some thought I believe you. It's hard to think of another reason why the ban would be given as a list of specific airports — and it just so happens that American carriers don't fly direct to any of the specified cities. (AA sells flights to a few but they are all codeshares, thanks JamilD for correcting my previous statement.) (Plus, can confirm that the ME airlin…

> Plus, can confirm that the ME airlines are highly competitive. They're subsidized by their governments

That's not true, at least not for Emirates and Etihad, which were the main airlines accused.

Delta and other US airlines did accuse them of violating the Open Skies agreement, yes. Which is quite hypocritical since Delta (like other US airlines) has also taken direct subsidies from the US government.

But, as Emirates showed in their subsequent lawsuit, their financial records prove that they have never taken government subsidies, despite Delta's accusations. Etihad did, but long before Open Skies was signed (1999).

This behavior isn't unusual; the Big Four are just using this as an easy way to smear their biggest competitors, while ignoring other airlines that have similar financial history (China Southern, etc.). But China Southern isn't (currently) drawing passengers away from the Big Four, whereas Emirates/Etihad/Qatar are.

The Gulf aiflines are more efficient than the US airlines because they exclusively serve one city - Emirates, for example, flies only flights to or from Dubai (with a couple of tiny exceptions). That makes it a lot easier to provide excellent service and cheap flights.

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

#376

Post by wildmusings »

untog wrote: post #364
wildmusings wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that someone already tried to bring down a plane with a laptop bomb, and was nearly successful, maybe a little less cynicism is justified. Here's the relevant excerpt from the CNN article on this: > The official said the move is partly based on intelligence that they believe indicates Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is close to being able to hide explosives with little or no metal content in electronic device…

Then why limit it to non-US carriers? Are United planes bomb-proof?

It's not based on carrier, but on the country that the flight originates in. Flights from the affected carriers, originating in other countries, are not subject to the new requirements either.

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

#377

Post by bogomipz »

dragonwriter wrote: post #257
bogomipz wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed I didn't read the sentence correctly my apologies. However, I don't see that as a vote of confidence in them since they are still permitting flights. I think similar could be said of the TSA in the US - the DHS trust them enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring shampoo as carry on but not enough if those shampoo bottles are greater than 3.4 ounces, despite having gone through their securi…

> I think similar could be said of the TSA in the US - the DHS trust them enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring shampoo as carry on but not enough if those shampoo bottles are greater than 3.4 ounces, despite having gone through their security. This is not about DHS trusting TSA, since the specific part of DHS that makes that regulates that is...TSA.

The parallel I was trying to draw was that they don't trust the own systems and procedures, hence things like arbitrary liquid distinctions and now anything with a battery except cell phones.

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

#378

Post by bogomipz »

ghshephard wrote: post #188
bogomipz wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"It's also beyond bizarre that the US trusts Abu Dhabi's security enough to locate its only Middle Eastern Customs/Immigration preclearance facility" This is not correct Quatar has one as well. I'm also unsure why you would find this "bizarre" as all of the Emirates are incredibly wealthy.

You left out the important part of that sentence: "...but not enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring tablets..."

Yes, see my edit below.

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

#379

Post by wildmusings »

TillE wrote: post #368
wildmusings wrote: post #355

There's lots of snarky and unjustified cynicism here, given that concealing explosives in laptops is not a theoretical risk; it was recently done. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article: > The official said the move is partly based on intelligence that they believe indicates Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is close to being able to hide explosives with little or no metal content in electronic devices in order to ta…

1) We already have screening processes for that. 2) So the bomb is now in the hold. That's not really much of an improvement.

Remote or timed detonation is trickier than manual detonation. I'm not familiar with how checked luggage is screened, but it's possible that it is potentially controlled by the US for flights heading to the US, or otherwise more reliable. Again:

>It's a particular concern at these airports because of screening issues and the possibility of terrorists infiltrating authorized airport personnel, the official said.

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

#380

Post by mikeash »

lb1lf wrote: post #264
Cyph0n wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware that using a phone on a plane does no harm, but I just wanted to make sure you didn't actually mean it.

Sure it does. To the cellphone networks. (Unless the aircraft carries its own picocell). The big problem with cellphones on planes is that they overwhelm the signalling networks on the ground - when the carrier tries to determine which cell is best suited to handle your call, it basically polls the neighbouring cells for the received signal strength from that particular phone. When you're on a plane, your phone is se…

I'm skeptical that it really causes trouble for phone networks. In my experience flying small airplanes, getting a signal is easy below about 4,000ft, starts getting spotty up to 6,000ft, and is basically impossible above that. Which makes sense: antennas at the cell will be aimed sideways, not up, so the only cells you might be able to talk to would be really far away.

And this is in a fiberglass airplane that's basically radio transparent. Now try it in an aluminum airplane at 30,000+ft. I doubt the cells can even hear your phone in the first place.

Post reply on HN