41–50 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or those airports have poor security or are at risk of penetration by bad actors.
Why do only the US and U.K. care?
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…
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…
Then terrorists realise that the rectum has a capacity of 500 to 800ml and decide to stuff a bomb large enough to puncture an aircraft wall in the anus and then remove it in flight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
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…
If we can fix the problem easily, then let's fix it. Terrorism, for those on back seats very far from the stage, ain't unfortunately one of those. No measure will ever make it - this is the part most people struggle with accepting. It is very easy to plot something, and extremely hard to prevent it happening.
As counter-measures become more sophisticated, so do terrorists. For example I expect drone bombings to become more common in the west. Then complete ban and maybe some automated (laser) turrets in public places. Then something else. and so on.
We are not helpless, we are just realistic and not delusional. And rightly annoyed by people willing to have more and more freedom being taken from them for the theoretical purpose of increasing the probability stopping an act of terror. Once you lost your freedom, there isn't much you actually have left in your life. So yeah, that's important.
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither." Ben F.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Where does this end? After the liquid ban everything was banned from aircraft accept passport and boarding pass for a while. Imagine that becomes the norm. Then terrorists realise that the rectum has a capacity of 500 to 800ml and decide to stuff a bomb large enough to puncture an aircraft wall in the anus and then remove it in flight.
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…
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.
The other is about legal, ordinary passengers. Moreover, these countries are important for global business, and are used as hubs by travellers of many countries. I don't get what's there to "think twice" about it?
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…
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.
I've had a few interviews entering and leaving Israel. It was a more pleasant experience than in the US because the security seemed engaged and efficient. I had my carry on emptied and searched in front of me while leaving the country, but the process was fast and professionally done.
Security workers also looked me in the eyes and paid attention to what I was saying. I've never had that experience in the US.
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…