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

461–470 of 488 posts

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

#461

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #459
wildmusings wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some strong criticism, especially since you're not even considering that someone already successfully detonated a laptop bomb on a plane. From the CNN article on this new policy: > 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 tar…

Would you please not repeat the same thing over and over? This is excessive.

[deleted]

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

#462

Post by trevyn »

robbiep wrote: post #255
trevyn wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, what? "The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. The IARC has classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer." I would not call that "thoroughly…

Good chat, despite it's mildly aggressive nature. Here's what: So, an organisation that basically labels everything in the world as either a potential carcinogen or carcinogen [0] when the second lowest score they award still reads as 'potential carcinogen' is more powerful than actual evidence, accrued across enormous longitudinal studies, first from scandinavia [1] but backed significantly by australia [2] and inte…

Thank you for the information, very interesting. Increased inflammatory response seems a reasonable potential mechanism:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994795/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25251956

Perhaps it doesn't cause cancer per se, but promotes tumor growth or otherwise creates a more favorable environment.

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

#463

Post by belorn »

robotresearcher wrote: post #438
belorn wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does the deterrence effect increase by the number of screenings? The physiological effect is not measurable in this case, and if we compare it to the placebo effect which is measurable, there is little proof that eating two fake pills has any benefit over eating one. How big portion of terrorists is likely to completely ignore the fact of one screening but be deterred by the existence of a second one?

Rationally, the deterrence should increase monotonically with the chance of being caught. With two serial 90% effective checks, you have a 99% effective system. Such a low chance of success means attackers should try something else instead. Now, with probably not even close to 99% screening, along with cockpit doors and fight-motivated passengers, the deterrence seems powerful enough that we are seeing other kinds of…

Where did you pull that 90% effectiveness from?

People don't believe 90% in a fake pill, and by eating two get to 99% belief. Either you believe the fake pill will work or you don't. The number of pills don't multiply the placebo effect.

Why believe that security theater, ie fake security, increase the physiological effect in multiplicate way based on the number of identical copies?

If the placebo effect could be multiplied in such a way, every sickness could be cured by just eating more and more sugar. If a fake pill had 1% placebo effect, eating ~500 fake pills would reach 99% effectiveness. That is obviously not how the placebo effect works.

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

#464

Post by Sciencehaters »

dang wrote: post #459
wildmusings wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some strong criticism, especially since you're not even considering that someone already successfully detonated a laptop bomb on a plane. From the CNN article on this new policy: > 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 tar…

Would you please not repeat the same thing over and over? This is excessive.

Can you stop doing everything you can to make people hate science. Stop being elitist maybe?

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

#465

Post by nikdaheratik »

This is so frustrating because, even if there is a credible case for putting these limits on these specific airports, the Administration has done so much to trash the reputation of both its own appointees and CBP. You can't help but wonder if there's an ulterior motive to this and they're still understaffed and so poor at getting the message out that we may never be sure.

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

#467

Post by wildmusings »

nameless912 wrote: post #445
wildmusings wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some strong criticism, especially since you're not even considering that someone already successfully detonated a laptop bomb on a plane. From the CNN article on this new policy: > 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 tar…

I think you've posted this like 15 times in this comment section. This is a terrible argument: what happens when next month someone hides a bomb in a bottle of liquor, or a child's toy, or an iPhone? This kind of reactive security is a sure way to inconvenience everyone and not actually improve security in any meaningful way. Every security professional knows that if you only "fix" the narrow cases that have caused p…

I imagine that a bomb in a bottle of liquor is not easy to conceal from a scanner. On the other hand, I can see a laptop "battery" being a great vehicle for an explosive hidden in plain sight. There's also immediate threats to think about. If you have intelligence about an imminent attack by a certain method, you can stop it with targeted reactive measures. Good security requires both proactive and reactive approaches.

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

#468

Post by wildmusings »

addicted wrote: post #419
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…

Do the physical properties of explosives change when they happen to travel outside these specific airports?

No, but if you suspect that a high proportion of potential attackers will originate from a small subset of airports, then you can focus extraordinary security measures on those airports. It's all about tradeoffs.

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

#469

Post by robotresearcher »

belorn wrote: post #463
robotresearcher wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rationally, the deterrence should increase monotonically with the chance of being caught. With two serial 90% effective checks, you have a 99% effective system. Such a low chance of success means attackers should try something else instead. Now, with probably not even close to 99% screening, along with cockpit doors and fight-motivated passengers, the deterrence seems powerful enough that we are seeing other kinds of…

Where did you pull that 90% effectiveness from? People don't believe 90% in a fake pill, and by eating two get to 99% belief. Either you believe the fake pill will work or you don't. The number of pills don't multiply the placebo effect. Why believe that security theater, ie fake security, increase the physiological effect in multiplicate way based on the number of identical copies? If the placebo effect could be mul…

X-ray machine screenings are not placebo. They aren't perfect, but if you put a handgun in your carry on, there's a pretty good chance they'll find it.

And yes I know there are failures. But it's not reasonable to say that the current security check is placebo only. Ask yourself: would you put a gun or knife in your carry on to prove the point?

The 90% figure I made up as an example. I don't know the real figure. But I don't fancy my chances getting a weapon through security.

Post reply on HN