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

US Lifts Laptop Ban on Etihad, Emirates and Turkish Airlines

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: US Lifts Laptop Ban on Etihad, Emirates and Turkish Airlines

#81

Post by sqeaky »

bogomipz wrote: post #77
sqeaky wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any time that when that information falls into the hands of attackers and enabled them to make more effective plans. I do not know if this is that case, but there is a class of information that when made public reduces safety. The problem is not with telling any one individual, you or I would probably do little with the information, but once "everyone" knows it potential attackers could use the information. If it wer…

>"Any time that when that information falls into the hands of attackers and enabled them to make more effective plans." You mean like announcing a laptop ban from flight originating in 10 predominantly Muslim countries? Do you think terrorists don't pay attention to the news? >"I do not know if this is that case, but there is a class of information that when made public reduces safety." Please provide an example of t…

This story has several examples! Anything that lets and attacker work around security precautions is that kind of information. Right now the list of airports and countries is a physical security vulnerability because an attacker can just go to a different airport than one on the list.

I wish physical security were like digital security. When securing a server I can publish exactly how I did it and if it is good then the server is secure unless some gets physical access...

With physical access the description of the system is a weakness. Unlike packets against a firewall any real wall can be beaten down with enough force, so letting your enemy know how thick your wall is or how many men guard it is a security vulnerability all on its because then they know what goal they need to reach. Uncertainty is poor computer security tool because most attacks are free, physical attacks have a cost. So attackers won't do them unless they think the odds of success justify the costs. If they don't know if they can beat down the wall they probably won't try unless they are desperate.

Physical security is all about economics or manpower, either way it is about making attacks too expensive to be worthwhile. Just describing the boundaries to be secured makes it easier, and therefor cheaper to plan an attack. This is very unlike computer which is about finding and fixing flaws. A computer system without flaws cannot be attacked over a network, it must be attacked physically (or socially engineered which can be considered a physical attack here). For any physical attack there is some amount of money or manpower that can take the objective.

Re: US Lifts Laptop Ban on Etihad, Emirates and Turkish Airlines

#82

Post by bogomipz »

wildmusings wrote: post #80
bogomipz wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Why do I as a private citizen need to know more detailed information about this? So you can make an informed opinion. In case you hadn't noticed there a lot of hysteria in the current administration. >"What can I possibly do as a private citizen with intelligence about terrorists planning to use laptop bombs on planes?" You can decide for yourself if you feel like it safe for you or your family to fly. >"My governm…

He disclosed it to the Russian government, which is not necessarily improper. The US and Russian government share classified info all the time; they tried to warn us about the Boston Marathon bomber after all. Some #resist idiot who thinks he's a hero then leaked it all to various news outlets, doing way more damage. It thankfully seems that these agencies heeded the warnings of the US government that publishing the…

Again you stated:

>>""My government has taken the action it deems appropriate to defend the country and its citizens, while still protecting the cover of the agent or asset that gave us the intelligence.""

Well then they didn't do that did they?

Your own interpretation of what is and isn't "proper" in matters of intelligence notwithstanding, they failed to do what you are stating above. "They" being your government.

By the way the "deep state" conspiracy narrative is really tiresome.

Re: US Lifts Laptop Ban on Etihad, Emirates and Turkish Airlines

#83

Post by yellowapple »

bogomipz wrote: post #78
yellowapple wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Loose Lips Sink Ships" In other words: this sort of logic is by no means unprecedented in American history, for the simple reason that gathering information from the general public of a nation is a basic and common element of espionage against that nation. Whether or not such espionage is actually useful is a different story, but especially in this day and age of ubiquitous near-instantaneous and effectively-permane…

>"In other words: this sort of logic is by no means unprecedented in American history, for the simple reason that gathering information from the general public of a nation is a basic and common element of espionage against that nation" Please way what the precedent is then if this is not unprecedented in American history. >"... there's every reason to believe that there are "enemy spies" among the general population,…

"That statement is absurd - 'keep all the citizens in the dark just in case one of them is a terrorist!'"

I don't disagree. That doesn't change the fact that it's been an American tradition since at least WW1/2. This is really nothing new.

If the threat is credible, then limiting the dissemination of information is not unreasonable. I don't believe the threat to be credible, but I'm no national security expert.

Re: US Lifts Laptop Ban on Etihad, Emirates and Turkish Airlines

#84

Post by bogomipz »

yellowapple wrote: post #83
bogomipz wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"In other words: this sort of logic is by no means unprecedented in American history, for the simple reason that gathering information from the general public of a nation is a basic and common element of espionage against that nation" Please way what the precedent is then if this is not unprecedented in American history. >"... there's every reason to believe that there are "enemy spies" among the general population,…

"That statement is absurd - 'keep all the citizens in the dark just in case one of them is a terrorist!'" I don't disagree. That doesn't change the fact that it's been an American tradition since at least WW1/2. This is really nothing new. If the threat is credible, then limiting the dissemination of information is not unreasonable. I don't believe the threat to be credible, but I'm no national security expert.

>"That doesn't change the fact that it's been an American tradition since at least WW1/2"

Please provide examples of this tradition. What threats were kept from the American public during the first and since the first two world wars?

Re: US Lifts Laptop Ban on Etihad, Emirates and Turkish Airlines

#85

Post by yellowapple »

bogomipz wrote: post #84
yellowapple wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That statement is absurd - 'keep all the citizens in the dark just in case one of them is a terrorist!'" I don't disagree. That doesn't change the fact that it's been an American tradition since at least WW1/2. This is really nothing new. If the threat is credible, then limiting the dissemination of information is not unreasonable. I don't believe the threat to be credible, but I'm no national security expert.

>"That doesn't change the fact that it's been an American tradition since at least WW1/2" Please provide examples of this tradition. What threats were kept from the American public during the first and since the first two world wars?

I mean, there's the instance that I quoted in my very first comment in this conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships

Granted, that specific instance was more centered on making sure the American public doesn't inadvertently spread information to America's enemies, but the U.S. Office of War Information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_In...) was in fact known to withhold information for "public safety", and the Office of Censorship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship) was literally created for this exact purpose of preventing the public (and therefore - in theory - the enemy) from obtaining information that might in any way benefit the enemy (even weather forecasts!). The Committee on Public Information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Informatio...) had a similar policy of withholding information that the enemy might find useful.

The situation with the laptop ban is much different from these, of course, which is why - like I said before - I agree with you that withholding information in this case is excessive and unnecessary for public safety.

Re: US Lifts Laptop Ban on Etihad, Emirates and Turkish Airlines

#86

Post by bogomipz »

yellowapple wrote: post #85
bogomipz wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"That doesn't change the fact that it's been an American tradition since at least WW1/2" Please provide examples of this tradition. What threats were kept from the American public during the first and since the first two world wars?

I mean, there's the instance that I quoted in my very first comment in this conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships Granted, that specific instance was more centered on making sure the American public doesn't inadvertently spread information to America's enemies, but the U.S. Office of War Information ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_In... ) was in fact known to wi…

From the wikipedia link:

"This type of poster was part of a general campaign of American propaganda during World War II to advise servicemen and other citizens to avoid careless talk concerning secure information that might be of use to the enemy"

This is not at all the same as creating a policy and not explain to the citizen you represent why you are doing it.

Re: US Lifts Laptop Ban on Etihad, Emirates and Turkish Airlines

#87

Post by yellowapple »

bogomipz wrote: post #86
yellowapple wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, there's the instance that I quoted in my very first comment in this conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_lips_sink_ships Granted, that specific instance was more centered on making sure the American public doesn't inadvertently spread information to America's enemies, but the U.S. Office of War Information ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_In... ) was in fact known to wi…

From the wikipedia link: "This type of poster was part of a general campaign of American propaganda during World War II to advise servicemen and other citizens to avoid careless talk concerning secure information that might be of use to the enemy" This is not at all the same as creating a policy and not explain to the citizen you represent why you are doing it.

"From the wikipedia link:"

Which one? There were four.

(That was rhetorical, by the way, my point being that ignoring three presented sources to nitpick one does not a solid argument make)

"This is not at all the same as creating a policy and not explain to the citizen you represent why you are doing it."

Sure, but that wasn't what I took to be your question/request, nor does it really make any difference here when evaluating whether or not the United States has a century-long tradition of wanting to keep military/security information confidential.

The "logic" here is that the mere act of telling the general public why said policy was created would reveal sensitive information about ongoing security activities (information which - allegedly - is indeed of use to the enemy). I disagree with that logic and its application in this case, but that is the logic, and said logic is - as demonstrated previously - precedented in American military history.

Re: US Lifts Laptop Ban on Etihad, Emirates and Turkish Airlines

#88

Post by wildmusings »

bogomipz wrote: post #82
wildmusings wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He disclosed it to the Russian government, which is not necessarily improper. The US and Russian government share classified info all the time; they tried to warn us about the Boston Marathon bomber after all. Some #resist idiot who thinks he's a hero then leaked it all to various news outlets, doing way more damage. It thankfully seems that these agencies heeded the warnings of the US government that publishing the…

Again you stated: >>""My government has taken the action it deems appropriate to defend the country and its citizens, while still protecting the cover of the agent or asset that gave us the intelligence."" Well then they didn't do that did they? Your own interpretation of what is and isn't "proper" in matters of intelligence notwithstanding, they failed to do what you are stating above. "They" being your government.…

>By the way the "deep state" conspiracy narrative is really tiresome.

What are you on about?

Post reply on HN