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

The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 118 posts

Re: The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban

#31

Post by junto »

Fife wrote: post #19
junto wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But El Al is also profiling passengers before they even reach the airport. They stop people on route and question them to gain any subtle clues as to whether people might be nervous or acting strangely. They know weird shit like who you've met after being in Israel. A gay friend of a friend went to Tel Aviv Pride, and was taken aside and asked why he'd chosen to sleep with an Arab as he was leaving the country.

What could they possibly say to "he was hot" ?

I think the comment was intended to be overtly racist. LGBT folk are pretty welcome in Israel, but you "should be" sleeping with Israelis and not "Arabs".

Re: The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban

#32

Post by alex_anglin »

captainmuon wrote: post #6

One explanation I haven't heard, is that this is about the idea that somebody could hack a plane from the passenger compartment. There doesn't even have to be evidence of a concrete plan - it would be enough for someone who knows about these kind of attacks to get the ear of somebody influential in the government, who then proactively enacts this ban. (The hacking story might be a good pretext to convince people inte…

Assuming that is the case, then a smartphone would be able to as well.

Re: The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban

#33

Post by junto »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #16
junto wrote: post #15

> Why not require passengers to turn their laptops on as they go through security? That would be a more effective security measure than forcing them to check them in their luggage. The reason that security checks aren't going to ask you to turn your laptop, ipad or mobile on, as a standard process, is that it takes too much time.

Arguably taking your shoes off takes more time.

Depends how old the laptop is!

Re: The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban

#34

Post by phicoh »

alistairSH wrote: post #11
camillomiller wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every security check in Europe and SE Asia I passed in the last few years (~60 flights) mandated to take every device out of the bag, iPads and smartphones included

Weird. I've been to Italy, Scotland (via Dublin), and Iceland and never have to scan small devices separately. The laptop gets pulled out and placed in a bucket. The tablet and phone stay in luggage. It's all so inconsistent, it makes you wonder if any of the security agencies half any clue at all.

I tend to bring an insane amount of electronics in my hand luggage. The reason that need big objects like laptops separately is that they block too much when they are scanning the rest of your luggage. So if on average the scanner can see through an ipad then there is no need to take it out.

I my case, all they see is a huge collection of wires and small devices, so all of that needs to be put on separate shelves and scanned again.

Re: The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban

#35

Post by sandworm101 »

tehlike wrote: post #27
lostboys67 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or those airports have poor security or are at risk of penetration by bad actors.

As someone who flies through istanbul once a year, i was always surprised by the fact that there is very little security at us airports. :) I think it is more about penetration possibility more so than airport sevurity itself.

Security at US airports is hit-and-miss. Sometimes they check something and sometimes they dont. Rules appear to change daily and every checkpoint seems to interpret them slightly differently.

Re: The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban

#36

Post by RBerenguel »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #2

According to this Guardian article, the ban was caused by a plan to hide a bomb in an iPad: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/plot-explosive... I always thought it was weird that you could keep an iPad packed in your carry on but a laptop had to be scanned separately even if it was a similar size to an iPad.

In Barcelona (I fly once a month the LGW-BCN route) I'm frequently asked to take out even my mobile phone and/or cables and chargers (granted, I have quite a few usually) from my backpack and put them on the tray, OTOH in Gatwick I have to leave the phone in the backpack... But then I randomly need to take something out because, who knows. The iPad always has to be out with the laptop, though (in all airports I've flown recently, at least)

Re: The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban

#37

Post by logicallee »

pieter1976 wrote: post #12

At some point we are going to have to realise that terrorists are always going to want to target aircraft and just live with it. This ban makes no sense because $BAD_GUY can just via some intermediate airport with their iPad Bomb. It's interesting that El Al has not decided to ban laptops (despite undoubtedly being a target) and, in fact, advises people not to put valuables in the hold: https://www.elal.com/en/Passen…

EDIT: I am not defending the policy. I would like to address the specific argument you've used to attack it. (I don't agree with the laptop ban, and I want strong arguments being made against it, not weak arguments.)

---

>At some point we are going to have to realise that terrorists are always going to want to target aircraft and just live with it.

I would like you to please pay attention for a moment (try to follow my train of thought), maybe I can convince you of something. So, I think that what you've just written is a particularly/incredibly weak argument and regardless of your or my position on the issue I really would like to take a minute to try to convince you not to make this argument again. Make a better argument!

So, suppose that someone said, "At some point we should just accept that ransoms will happen" and so simply stop supporting the FBI and let bad guys kidnap any family of billionaires whenever they want, and to have these billionaires start paying ransoms.

Or you can apply it to anything really. Suppose you said "violent rapes will always happen", so we should just learn to live with it instead of having infrastructure to deal with it.

I don't know - make a list of heinous things people can do to each other, employers to employees, everyday people, whatever. Think of things there are laws and policies against - and imagine someone suggesting that instead, people just learn to live with the problem.

I think there is a large chance people will misunderstand the point of my comment: the point of my comment is that as an argument, "terrorists are always going to want to..." so "just live with it" is a very weak argument. Instead of this argument, a different argument needs to be made.

It simply shouldn't be made on this, or any other subject, I feel. I would like to expand the topic in question to show how problematic the argument is: I think, conservatively, a sum total of $1 trillion (current dollars) will have been spent on researching/curing/innoculuating against/preventing AIDS. Suppose someone suggested that instead of spending $1 trillion on curing it, we simply "learned to deal with it." (Or imagine the same attitude toward cancer research.)

I hope at least this example will show why the argument itself ("we should just accept that there will always be AIDS") is particularly weak. It's simply not true!

I hope I've convinced you to avoid using this argument again. This does not mean other arguments can't be made - just this particular specific variation. Use a stronger argument against bullshit policies!

----

EDIT: as expected people have misunderstood my point. I will give your argument a name: "argument from helplessness." We can't solve it, so we should just accept that it will open happen. Why would it be a given that explosives can always be brought on planes? I am not defending this particular policy, but the argument from helplessness should not be one of the arguments made against it! It's a bad, weak argument, period. It won't convince anyone. Make a better argument!

Re: The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban

#38

Post by golemotron »

In the news recently we've seen that illegal border crossings from Mexico have gone down substantially just because the administration has signaled that there will be more deportations. This laptop ban could have the same effect. Increase the barriers for visitation from some countries and people think twice.

If this is what the administration is doing, it's very Machiavellian.

Re: The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban

#39

Post by 1_2__3 »

lostboys67 wrote: post #25
sandworm101 wrote: post #5

Unlike all the other restrictions on material allowed in-flight recently, this ban only applies to specific airports/countries. One must ask why shoebomber or liquid explosive plots resulted in universal bans while this one is country-specific. Imho this is business and politics. This everyday safety mesure is being applied selectively in order to disadvantage some and advantage others. If ipads are a threat, ban the…

Or those airports have poor security or are at risk of penetration by bad actors.

Why do only the US and U.K. care?

Re: The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban

#40

Post by rplst8 »

logicallee wrote: post #37
pieter1976 wrote: post #12

At some point we are going to have to realise that terrorists are always going to want to target aircraft and just live with it. This ban makes no sense because $BAD_GUY can just via some intermediate airport with their iPad Bomb. It's interesting that El Al has not decided to ban laptops (despite undoubtedly being a target) and, in fact, advises people not to put valuables in the hold: https://www.elal.com/en/Passen…

EDIT: I am not defending the policy. I would like to address the specific argument you've used to attack it. (I don't agree with the laptop ban, and I want strong arguments being made against it, not weak arguments.) --- >At some point we are going to have to realise that terrorists are always going to want to target aircraft and just live with it. I would like you to please pay attention for a moment (try to follow…

> So, suppose that someone said, "At some point we should just accept that ransoms will happen" and so simply stop supporting the FBI and let bad guys kidnap any family of billionaires whenever they want, and to have these billionaires start paying ransoms.

No one is saying we shouldn't attempt to stop an attack that is known, or that we shouldn't investigate who carried out and authorized an attack and seek justice. The primary role that government serves to the people with respect to crime is the serving of justice. Protection from all things harmful and crime prevention are not guaranteed. Anyone trying to sell you such guarantee is either lying or delusional.

The more we realize we are responsible for our own well being, take responsibility, and keep a watchful eye, the safer and better off everyone will be. When it's finally understood that people will protect themselves and deny a terrorists ability to carry out a plot, the less of these monsters we'll have to deal with.

Post reply on HN