U.S. likely to expand airline laptop ban to Europe: government officials
reuters.com
reuters.com
"We might make an announcement" is even weaker than "We will make an announcement", a gold standard of weakness to begin with.
Notice the words 'some', 'likely', and 'but' in the first sentence. This article walks back its own headline, like the previous one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14311073).
This is valuable information because it's much easier to stop something like this before it's officially announced.
At that time it's already implemented, requires the same march through the bureaucracy to be repealed, has consequences for the administration's reputation, may invite lawsuits if airlines and airports have started spending money etc etc.
It might be but HN is not really focused on delivering timely warnings to potential travelers.
There are always urgent things going on that are more important than almost everything here. Letting HN be swayed by those means giving up on the idea of a site dedicated to intellectual curiosity, and that would be a shame.
Look at it this way: if the story happens, we'll have a thread about it. It will burn hot with toxic fumes (bad for HN) but the substantive aspects (good for HN) will hopefully outweigh that, making it worth the hit. But since the story hasn't happened yet, why burn all those health points for none of the gain?
In the name of safety we're introducing a restriction that makes people and airplanes less safe!
Soon though hopefully solid state cells will come into play and this will no longer be a problem. China for instance has banned shipping all lithium ion batteries via China Post and searches actively for them... as it's a risk. You have to ship them specially declared which is pretty expensive.
I mean, that will basically be the case anyway. If I leave the US, I'm not taking a laptop since I can't bring it back.
Oh, and also charge them the equivalency of the ESTA fee.
Fedex and UPS both treat lithium ion batteries as dangerous goods, with the exception of batteries shipped "with equipment" i.e. shipping a laptop with its battery, without the battery being plugged in.
How does that make sense? If item A is dangerous, how does putting item B in the same shipment suddenly make item A not dangerous? Is the non-powered-on laptop capable of putting out fires or something?
The Chinese rule is extremely annoying, but I'm forced to admit that at least it makes logical sense.
[0] https://www.ups.com/content/ca/en/resources/ship/packaging/g...
[1] http://www.labelmaster.com/fedex-battery-shipping-policy
The likelihood of crushing a lithium ion battery is lower if the battery is enclosed in a device.
The rule would make a lot of sense if it requires the battery to be plugged in, but it doesn't.
Anyways the concern about the batteries in the hold is straight from the article.
Laughing cynically, however...
Some airlines that are particularly sensitive (El Al, for example) have additional mitigations like a reinforced floor between the cargo and passenger compartments or one particular piece of the cargo hold that's more structurally sound for sensitive items, but wide body aircraft do not have "containers that are built to withstand bombs". It's just not practical to do so.
This doesn't hold for things like pouch cells, which can and have been affected by altitude changes (leading to problems in airplane batteries). Standardized cylindrical cells like those in a laptop should be fine.
I can think of two possible reasons:
1- The administration is trying to distract people from the Comey scandal
2- The administration expects the current ban to be challenged in court and defeated, so they are expanding it to include non-Muslim countries
We live in interesting times.
Which might explain why Canada and the UK (you know, Five Eyes countries with whom the US shares intelligence) also did the same thing.
Seriously, Trump Derangement Syndrome is getting a bit nutty.
http://www.news1130.com/2017/03/20/ban-aimed-at-electronics-...
Not sure why Canada and UK doing something similar would be make it any more likely to be a true terrorist threat, you point out already that it's Five Eyes so they're our friends.
Calling this "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is pretty damn nutty, besides being whiny.
Yes, just like moving liquids to your checked luggage was a security measure. Remember that one? Tried to take a bottle of water through security lately?
>Not sure why Canada and UK doing something similar would be make it any more likely to be a true terrorist threat
Because Canada and the UK aren't likely to be in on your "it must be a muslim ban" conspiracy theory?
>Calling this "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is pretty damn nutty, besides being whiny.
Take it up with Fareed. That you think it's "whiny" does not change the fact that large parts of the left seem to have lost the capacity to distinguish normal from abnormal behaviour on the part of the Trump administration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberals-have-to-avo...
Yes, per Occam's razor. Sorry to discount your conspiracy theories though.
Not every passenger, but as you've mentioned, it's trivial for people to get at the contents of your luggage and for TSA agents with the keys to your TSA luggage locks it's even easier still.
If this ban is ever extended I will likely never consider flying to the states. I can only hope it doesn't infect the rest of the airline industry like the water and liquid theatre did.
So, our homeland security department has acknowledged that there is a threat and will discuss it with the airlines. This has been transformed into "likely" by the writer, and the "some EU" countries part has been expanded to "Europe" in the headline. This is why I'm skeptical about so many things I read in the news.
[...] officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.
[...] Six U.S. and European officials said they expect the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make an
announcement but declined to say when.
In context:
> is reviewing how to ensure lithium batteries stored in luggage holds do not explode in midair, officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.
"reviewing" is the key word.
> [...] make an announcement
But we won't know what the policy will be until they make the announcement. There is nothing in those two excerpts to indicate that this isn't speculation by the writer.
> This is why journalists think so many of their readers lack the skills to read the ingredient list for bottled water.
That was petty.
"The Trump administration is likely to expand a ban on laptops on commercial aircraft to include some European countries, but is reviewing how to ensure lithium batteries stored in luggage holds do not explode in midair, officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday."
That means, literally, that officials said: "['We are' or 'The Trump administration is'] likely to expand a ban on laptops on commercial aircraft to include some European countries"
The uncertainty expressed by 'likely' is just that: uncertainty. It's not speculation by the journalist, who is actually just repeating what his sources told him.
To criticise such reporting means you will never hear about any policy until it becomes law. That would mean nobody would ever get a chance to weigh in until after the fact.
> There is nothing in those two excerpts to indicate that this isn't speculation by the writer.
What's even more important is what's outside those two paragraphs: namely the name "Reuters", and the authors' byline: "Mark Hosenball and David Shepardson". The are institutions/people, and to a certain extend the whole system is build on the idea of trust, in the same way that you trust the neighbour you've known for years to water your plants when you're away.
In all fairness, more like by some editor. Writers often don't write the headlines (or they have them changed into something more attention grabbing even if less nuanced).
Could you provide more detail?
1. ESTA application online form before the actual travel for those who don't need a Visa (most EU countries e.g.) with extensive range of questions, even about parents, social media profiles (still optional) and so on. You do only need to apply again once every few years, but before a flight you need to update the flight information (afaik).
2. A 5 minute "interview" at check in/baggage drop (or otherwise at the gate) in which a (contracted) security personnel asks you about your trip while you wait in line. You might hear comments such as "oh so you are traveling alone to place XY? That is uncommon...". "Where do you live?" "Do you speak language XYZ?". Some airlines don't do this interview, but United does it always and I assume all U.S. airlines do it.
3. Additional security screening at the gate for selected people (apparently by random choice), can go quick, or might take longer. They take an additional look in your luggage. Some airports even have a second official security check & and scanner infrastructure near the designated gates for U.S. flights (I have experienced this only once though, in Munich. Not sure how common it is).
4. After arrival, immigration procedure (even for those who only want to transit). The waiting time for non-residents is usually 1-2 hours until you reach the booth. The immigration officer asks a couple of questions (or not). If you are suspicious, you are being send to 2nd check (I can't speak about that one, hasn't happened to me - but that's the stuff we often read about in the media).
5. Customs. Some people are chosen for detailed luggage checks. The decisions seems to be made by the immigration officer (or his/her computer system), because it is based on the type of signs they write on your customs card.
If you are transiting, 6: Rechecking the luggage, a new security check to reach the gate. In most countries, there is a dedicated security check and logistics infrastructure for transiting passengers, which makes the process simple. On U.S. airports, you start again on square 1, as if you would just begin your travel, which means you might have to go to another terminal and queue up again for security. If you don't have airline frequent flyer status and thus access to the fast lane, this can take another hour (depending on the time of the day, airport and the number of TSA staff available). A 2 1/2 hour connection in EWR gets extremely tight for example, but airlines keep selling tickets with even shorter connecting times.
Overall, it is quite an ordeal. And I don't even belong to an ethnical or religious group who might be specifically targeted. For them, the stress level must be even higher.
What part do you think would be unenforceable?
How would stopping online check-in help with laptops? Wouldn't a laptop ban be enforced during security screening of hand luggage?
We've had the liquids and sharp tools ban for years now and the bins at security are still full of them. You wouldn't throw out your laptop though.
Isolation is already done in big airport for similar reason (eg: EU flights vs Non-EU flights), some airport have the capability of doing security check at boarding gates (eg: Schiphol) But that's would still require between a little and a ton of problem depending on the airports.
Unlike a bottle of water, you won't throw away your laptop. The in-person check-in is there to avoid the situation of being rejected at security.
It reminds me of the pathetic pack of attorneys general who shutdown Backpage and Craigslist's hookup page, simply making it harder to find and intervene in human trafficking. DHS is simply making it harder for them to find bad guys. As if that were their goal.