By making flying from there to here even more miserable than it is now.
'The Department of Homeland Security is considering expanding its ban on electronic devices on US-bound flights from certain airports, according to a report by CBS News. The CBS report cites unnamed sources close to the DHS, who say the ban on larger devices could be expanded to flights departing for the US from Europe and perhaps the UK.
The ban applies to tablets, laptops, e-readers, cameras, and portable DVD players, among other electronics. Cell phones and medical devices are exempt from the ban.'
So a few things:
1. The current ban on such electronics (though I'd heard it previously couched as only affecting laptops) from certain Middle Eastern airports, has never made any sense, as it only restricted carrying the stuff into the cabin.
So instead Joe the Terrorist stashes his laptop bomb into his suitcase. Problems solved!
(Are they really suggesting that they are going to physically inspect ever suitcase with a computer, e-reader, tablet, or camera packed in it? How long is that going to delay flights?)
Heck, he doesn't have to do that. There have been enough Lithium Ion battery fires in cabins to make the prospect of more laptops down into the cargo hold bursting into flames a delightful prospect all on its own.[1]
2. Given the nature of theft problems at airports, who in their freaking right mind is going to put an expensive laptop, tablet, or camera into their checked luggage? Let along watching the baggage handlers and luggage carousels play heave-ho with said expensive electronics.
3. Why just Europe? If I'm Joe the Terrorist, why would I not then book a flight through Africa? Or Asia? How can you actually target this kind of thing to particular geographical locations in a globally traveling world?
4. The UK is, actually, geographically, part of Europe.
5. You're going to take my Kindle away from me? And my tablet? On an international flight? For freaking real? Do you really want me rioting in the aisles?
I mean, on one level, this seems like kvetching about comfort and convenience vs some (handwaving risk analysis) security threat. But it also seems nonsensical in its application — trying to target certainly geographies as more dangerous than others in a globalized world; ignoring the risks of such devices in cargo holds instead of cabins; the theft and damage risk to such electronics inside of luggage; and, yeah, relegating us back to the bad old days of having to carry a new paperback book. Ugh.
——
[1] http://www.consumerreports.org/electronics/problem-with-stowing-lithium-ion-batteries-on-planes/
Report: Ban on laptops in planes may expand to Europe
Electronics larger than cell phones might be barred on US-bound flights.
This move would effectively halt 100% of international scientific meetings. It would further isolate the US and turn us even more into a hyper-religious, anti-scientific backwater.
It would appear that years of science fiction writing were wrong: We don't need some kind of fancy machine to travel back in time to the 1300s. All we need is republicans in charge of government.
That would be pretty devastating to business travel and the hospitality industry. Anyone scheduling a meeting or a conference would do it elsewhere. And even a meetup would be better in Europe since the Americans would only be unable to work in half of the flight.
I don't think so! Europeans are wiser and more practical than paranoid Americans!
They are, +David Hoyt. The problem is not getting our laptops into Europe. The problem is getting them back into the States. I can't afford to buy a new laptop every time I fly to Europe for a scientific meeting.
There's no need to traveling with these things. Its just not THAT important
You may actually have to talk to people, and experience your vacation… The horror!
+Dave, do you go to scientific meetings? Going to a scientific meeting without a laptop would be like trying to build a house without a hammer. The computer is the essential tool.
Plus, are you so happy to just roll over and let the republicans tell you what you can and cannot take overseas? There is no rational justification for this. Like removing your shoes in airport security, it is pure propaganda and control.
+Dave The problem is, it's unclear that it's that important to not travel with them, esp. since the way this is being implemented is so haphazard.
+Dave Business travelers rely on the fact that they can work while traveling. And as for families keeping their kids entertained on a long flight–they'll just go to another country.
+John Hummel In theory this could lead to more use of encrypted USB keys and laptop rentals while in the US. Though that opens up its own security can of worms that visiting business folk (or scientists) might not be willing to get into.
The real killer though, as +Dave Hill pointed out, is this means lithium batteries in the hold, and that's bad news.
Does the admin. have evidence terrorists may wish to use those devices to secret in bombs?
If not, then why would they discomfit people this way? It will hurt the business traveller and except for Putin it's the business world the Rs serve most.
+nustada, your "you may have to talk to people" comment suggests to me that you have never attended a scientific meeting. (Scientists don't take computers to meetings so they can surf the internet.) Talking to people is the main thing that goes on at a scientific meeting. All day. But there are also formal talks (delivered on powerpoint with the aid of a computer). And there are many times when a scientist will discuss her/his findings with other scientists with the aid of a computer, e.g., to show data graphs, experimental materials, simulations, etc.
Computers are an indispensable tool in conducting and communicating science. Our republican government distrusts, fears and fundamentally fails to understand science. This move is an attempt to (a) flex republican muscle ("we're going to make a stupid rule and you must follow it, not because it makes any sense, but because we said so") and (b) silence science. There is no better way to silence science — and thus to allow business to proceed unencumbered by inconvenient facts — than by banning computers.
+Mark Hathaway The stories about this all indicate that there is some basis (from rumor to prototype, nobody's saying) for this. But the means of combating it seem nonsensical. Targeting flights just from a few cities, or from Europe as a whole, makes no sense. Someone sophisticated to put something like this together could build it inside the US (or in India, or in Australia) and target planes that way.
Either these devices cannot be trusted and must be banned from all air travel, or this is purely security theater.
(Jocular headline aside, I don't think this is a conscious effort to isolate the US. I do think some of the knock-on effects, however, will have the business and science impacts that have been speculated here.)
The answer, +Mark Hathaway is Control. The purpose is to remind you who's in charge and to get you used to mindlessly following arbitrary, needless and even harmful rules. There is no empirically well-justified reason for this rule. Like forcing you to remove your shoes in the security line, it a is pure, unadulterated exercise in reminding you who's in control. (And it ain't you.)
Is it time to drop the 'remove the shoes' TSA rule?
The trouble is that both Putin and Trump don't seem to realize the American people are the ones in control here.
Who cares what we want as long as they get what they want
Am I right
The time to have eliminated the "remove the shoes" rule, +Mark Hathaway, was the instant it was imposed. It never served any security purpose.
…or to prohibit taking little water bottles etc. on board. Not justified at all in times of extremely fancy analysis tools, but good business for airport shops and a great way to keep the public 'concerned' and under control.
As a business traveller I don't find I use my laptop that much on transatlantic flights, but I definitely use it for an hour or two before the flight, after I've checked in – to me that would be the really frustrating time.
As far as theft & baggage handling goes: it's my camera I would be most concerned about, and particularly my lenses – all worth piles more than my laptop, and a lot less robust.
+Mark Hathaway To be fair, this isn't just a Trump thing. Obama and Bush both supported the TSA's security theater efforts.
And while there are undertones of it, +John Hummel, I really don't see this as a Control thing. Flight security theater is a weird mix of CYA politics, fearmongering, bureaucracy, crappy risk analysis, and giving security types a blank check (procedurally, as well as economically). While there are power games involved, they tend to be on the micro level with individual agents or TSA culture at given airports. At the higher levels you have "as a security person, there are no boundaries in trying to reach 0% risk" mixed with "Nobody was ever fired for being too zealous" and "Action = Progress!"
So something like this comes along — some rumor of bombs fit into laptop chassis. The security guys say "Well, clearly we get rid of all laptops" without considering the practical aspects. Their management guys say "If we let one of these on board, even if it would be insane to ban laptops, then our jobs are toast". The senior management says "Hey, a new threat we can use to justify our big budgets." Their bosses at the top of the Administration or in Congress say, "As long as it doesn't impact me directly, we definitely need to look like we are tough on terror."
And at the TSA agent level, it translates into random instances of "No, you can't take that cell phone on board. I don't care what the written guidance was — it looks to big to me, and I have the power to stop you from flying, so comply or I'll call the real cops."
I think your analysis of how this kind of thing plays out at the various levels of the bureaucratic hierarchy is dead-on, +Dave Hill. At the same time, however, I find it hard to imagine that the implications of these policies vis. social control could possibly escape the notice of those at the top of said hierarchy. Perhaps the control implications are a mere side-effect of other bureaucratic processes. But if they are, then from the perspective of at least some people at the top, they must be desirable side-effects — much as a light mood and relaxation are mere side-effects of a few good beers.
US immigration has always been a complete pain in the arse and shit like this will make travelling to the US even worse. It's Skype or Hangouts for me whenever possible from now on (sorry US hospitality industry).
+andrew mcmillan(null) Internet access over the ocean has started getting better. But also I actually enjoy being on my laptop but offline. Especially after a week of meetings it's a good opportunity to catch up and organize my thoughts. On one of my six hour flights I ma aged to cleanup and file 7000 email messages.
+Kee Hinckley I have enjoyed using my laptop inflight in the past, but as seat gaps shrink, and my eyesight gets older, it becomes increasingly difficult. Other than the rare occasion someone pays for me to avail of business class.
+andrew mcmillan(null) That's true. One of the reasons I had to give up my 17". I couldn't type on the plane and the case no longer fit under the seat.
Porns movle