The TSA's Selective Laptop Ban
schneier.com
schneier.com
I am glad to see that Canada hasnt joined the madness. Flying dubai-new york? Connect through toronto and the kids can keep thier ipads. ... for now.
I think it is more about penetration possibility more so than airport sevurity itself.
Most times they're asked to hold the dog in it's crate and walk through the basic metal detector instead of a full-body scanner. In the 15 or so trips they have gone on in the last six months, they've never once been stopped for enhanced screening.
You get searched at the airport entrance, and get your luggage checked with xray scanners. Yoy get another one after passing the passport check done by cops. If you are flying to united states you get searched again at the gate.
On top of this, they verify your legal status at the checkin. It happened to me once when my greencard was approved but i only had the ead card. We literally spent an hour to get it sorted.
So i am not sure, but adding one more layer on top makes me feel sad.
Good thing turkish airlines will use specialized storage mechanism to store laptops in cabin. At least that will prevent things from getting stolen or potentially illegally searched.
This isn't about an assessment on airport capabilities in laptop security vetting.
On the other hand I don't fly often, so I'm not much of a data point.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/07/tsa-fa...
Whatever the intelligence says about the risk of certain devices, I can't see how that threat doesn't apply equally to passengers travelling from any country (although plausibly there could be significantly increased risks relating to passengers of certain nationalities).
This policy feels like an obvious target for someone to crowd-fund a judicial review into.
This was designed to put gulf carriers at a disadvantage because American airliners can't quite match their quality of service. They have been crying about gulf carriers getting huge subsidies from their governments without doing a single thing to improve their own service.
Interestingly, UK also banned electronics but excluded major airports like Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha.
Maybe you could quote it for us?
Anyway, the question I wanted to ask is: how does United/American/Delta's structure compare to, say, Lufthansa, or Air France, or Thai Airways? I've honestly never flown a US carrier, but long-haul complaints and horror stories tend to be about US carriers, not European ones, even though I suspect they have pretty similar structure.
If you bother to read the comments on Schneier's blog, you'll notice andy's comment:
The ban impacts ten airports and all carriers flying out of those with direct flights to the US and UK. There are no direct flights from those airports on US carriers. So to say that the rule doesn't apply to US carriers is not wholly true, it doesn't apply because they don't fly those routes.
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/PassengersInfo/Baggage/Pages/Policy....
"EL AL reminds all passengers not to pack valuable items in baggage send to the hold of the plane. These items should be carried in the hand luggage"
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.
They are if they're Israeli (and white). People of Palestinian descent living in Israel (as well as Jewish Arabs who are not Palestinian, to a lesser extent) have a very different experience with being gay in Israel.
Later, when the more formal security process/interview starts, they might ask followup questions based on info they got from that earlier "interview".
This is interesting, where can I read more about this?
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.
---
>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!
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.
Of course. Passive detection of illegal substances is fine by me. But making me partially disrobe, manual searches of by bags, and prevention from travel if I do not submit to the coercion is wrong and a violation of everyone's rights. A "bomb" detector is no different from a smoke detector. It's not a search (as long as it isn't also used to identify people by smell and track their movements).
How, exactly, am I supposed to "take responsibility" for spotting someone with a hidden bomb when I get on an airplane?
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.
The argument most people are making is that the TSA is security theatre, and they're not stopping any bad guys.
I don't think anyone would argue if the TSA's methodology had any basis or evidence of efficacy. Usually the stories take on some ridiculous aspect: Someone has handled some chemicals that set off the detector, and they're interrogated for twenty hours - can't they just check the luggage for a bomb?
He didn't say that. He said that dirty feet are always a problem, and people will always track dirt into the house, and the solution to that is not to selectively ban muslims from wearing their shoes into your house, or banning Nike sneakers, or people who have recently walked through a particular part of town.
The kidnapping analogy is also faulty; we _have_ learned to deal with it, because for the majority of people it is simply not a concern, and banning arbitrary things doesn't prevent kidnapping any case. (What would we ban? Windowless vans? Rope?)
Also, unrelated to the strength of the various arguments, you come off as incredibly condescending:
> 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.
Basically, if you want to argue against a ban on Nike shoes, one of the worst arguments you can make is what you just said: that people will always track dirt into the house no matter what you do. (It's a bad argument that won't convince anyone.)
The reason that's a poor argument is that it's simply not true. There actually really are ways to keep people tracking dirt into the house - so if you want to argue against banning nikes by citing a false fact (the false fact that it's inevitable that dirt will be tracked in), you've weakened your argument.
Let's take an example: suppose someone wanted to ban shoelaces, because it's possible to tie up a pilot with them. This is a super easy ban to argue against! It's a terrible ban! But the worst argument you can make is "People will always tie up the pilot and copilot, and banning shoelaces won't stop this." Terrible argument that doesn't achieve the result: convincing someone that the ban is stupid. (The argument is terrible because it's not true. For example, locking the cabin door might easily prevent someone from tying up the captain and copilot: therefore it is simply false to say that people will always tie up the pilot and copilot.)
If you don't think it's a poor, ineffective, argument that won't convince anyone, then go do a field report: go find someone that agrees with the policy (I don't), and convince them using this weak argument that doesn't work. Go ahead! The argument is a bad one that doesn't work, won't convince anyone, and I have no idea why you're defending it. In essence, it's a logical fallacy, like arguing that -2 < 3 because if you square both sides you get 4 and 9 respectively. The reason it's a bad argument is that it would also work to prove -2 > 1 which is false.
I've used your own example with the Nike sneakers, so I hope you'll try to at least see my point of view. To make it explicit: some fitness centers (gyms) ban outside shoes. If they were to institute a policy that you can't enter the changing room if you're wearing Nikes, only formal dress shoes, then it is a weak and ineffective way to argue against this policy to write "But people will wear their outside shoes no matter what you do". Because this is false. (For example, having to show your gym shoes upon entry might be sufficient to keep anyone from working out in their outdoor shoes.)
I've worked with your example and I hope you can see the distinction I am making. I'm trying to help refine arguments to something that works. I hate this stupid ban as much as everyone else here and want it argued against effectively. Thanks.
That said, I think you're missing the point most others are making, which is that your argument is missing the point others are trying to make, "where there's a will, there's a way" or perhaps more aptly, "prohibition doesn't work" as we've seen countless times through history.
edit: I also think at the heart of what everyone else is getting at is perhaps anger at the fact that while they feel their argument is perfectly logical ("prohibition doesn't work"), they know, like you, that it's not very convincing (again, look to history, we've had a 4 decade war on drugs after several failed prohibitions throughout our country's history that did all of nothing for stopping revenue streams and usage of prohibited substances).
Nobody ever, ever made that argument. The argument was that people will always try to strangle the pilot. People will always have dirt on their shoes. There is a way to keep my carpet clean, but banning Nikes won't do it.
You will never get the percentage of people who want to commit terrible acts to zero, so at a certain point, you hit the point of diminishing returns so hard that it not only gets you literally zero gain, it can actually start to increase your risk.
What does "just live with it" mean, to you? I don't have to just live with the fact that there is probably at least 1 cannibal in the world (out of 7 billion people), today, who would probably love to cook and eat me (or eat me raw).
So the literal reading (about living with the fact that there are people "wanting to") doesn't make any sense. It's not an actual statement. So what does "and just live with it" mean, to you?
I have, several times. I think I've explained this well enough in the past, and I'm not sure rephrasing it will do any good, so this is my last attempt:
The selective laptop ban makes no sense
and is not statistically likely to decrease
the chances of an airplane being bombed.
I mean, you do. There are absolutely cannibals in the world, certainly more than one, and they would absolutely not turn up their nose at the idea of eating you.
So how do you live with it?
The answer is, by realizing that there are safeguards in place already to largely prevent this from happening.
There is no need to ban passengers boarding at Jacksons International Airport from bringing plastic cutlery and napkins along with them, despite the fact that they could conceivably use them to eat you. Such a ban would be at best a complete waste of time, money and manpower, and would be pretty racist at worst.
We're done talking about OP, and we're now just talking about your ideas, which I don't disagree with. So we're not disagreed about anything.
Following a mind-numbing 25 hours; it turns out that our bags then got lost and we're now awaiting some update from the airline.
Good luck with your lost luggage :(
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.
One time I've had to take out my tablets, out of my bag and out of their case even.
Probably not very transparent to x-rays
And metal in laptops is often varying thickness (either due to the design, or poor manufacturing tolerance), hence the concerns that organic explosives can be hidden in their "xray shadow".
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 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.
Of course, the really maddening part is the inconsistency. I use TSA Pre-check when possible, so I'm accustomed to not taking off my shoes, unpacking my bags, etc. It's a giant hassle when I'm flying abroad and the rules change. Especially since the rules change arbitrarily - I've passed through Edinburgh a few times over the past 2 years and sometimes the laptop comes out, sometimes it stays in the bag.
On the other hand, if routinely they can't properly scan it and have to deal with delay, they will instruct people to take it out of the bag.
In the end it still is security theatre so it doesn't have to make sense as long as it looks convincing enough.
I fly SGP, SGN, BKK, TPE. SGN did have me remove my shoes last time I flew though, which was a first.
It was just really bizarre to me.
The government can continue to take anti-people actions without anything approaching debate and discussion under the 'frenzy of an external threat' as all authoritarians in history have done and tend to do, untill it is operating for all intent and purposes like a quasi-authoritarian state.
As we can in the UK and here this has come to pass and democracy has no response for 15 years and counting. Elections are 5 years apart, and even then political parties advocate near identical policies. By the time people can organize, and they would have to take a break from their day-to-day lives - which many would have to think seriously about - and try to effect change, decades could pass with the situation getting progressively worse and without making headway.
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.
That wasn't actually why I got them. That was just a pleasant side effect. I got them because they make it easier to keep the ends of the laces from getting loose and into a bicycle chainring.
There clearly isn't any critical hardware in the base bit...
Presumably the "on" test is considered sufficient both for a mid-2000s brick of a laptop, and a thin modern laptop like a 2016 MacBook. But you could pack a MacBook into a bulky laptop's body and have plenty of room to spare.
Would this not simply be to give airlines and people time to adjust policies?
Was there a delay on the Note7 ban? Or perhaps they decided to implement one after some lessons learned from it?
Any argument regarding security can be countered by just taking a flight that routes through Europe
It's times like this that I'm actually glad that the Middle-eastern oil-funded airlines are all private, since this way there's no way for Trump to short them off the books.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_Government_Act
[1] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/05/16/preside...
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?
It's not that far-fetched, then, that GP is describing a real strategy with the goal of making them "think twice." It's not something that you or I want as an end, but it is an end.
[1]: https://mcfeely.areavoices.com/2017/02/01/bannon-legal-immig...
Not that I exactly trust the current administration to tell the truth on the subject in the first place.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge...