Hacker News Reader

Comment by sschueller | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why these bans are only for specific airlines. Maybe if the flights originate from specific airports which may have lax security. However the ban is also for flights to those destination originating from the US.

If there was a way to turn a laptop into a bomb I am sure the terrorist would just jump on a local US aircraft.

View on HN

Are you sure the ban is in both directions? I'm pretty sure it's only on flights to the US, and what I can find online supports this.

The ban is because authorities believe security at those airports is inadequate to detect a bomb built into a laptop. This implies they believe security at other airports is able to detect such things. If the ban is being lifted for specific airlines, it's because those airlines have security sufficient to detect these laptop bombs (or at least the authorities believe they do).

It is not necessarily the case that every airline at a given airport has the exact same security. It's possible for terminals to be separated and security measures to be enhanced at only one terminal. It's possible for additional security screening to be done at the gate.

I flew a round-trip on Turkish (Atlanta-Istanbul-Vienna, then Budapest-Istanbul-Atlanta) while the ban was in effect. The ban was only in effect on the Istanbul to Atlanta flight. I believe I could have carried a laptop on the Budapest-Istanbul flight and "gate-checked" it at Istanbul; I didn't see anyone do this, but my carry-on bag was searched at the gate so I suppose that's when it would have happened. See http://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2017/04/19/guide-elec... for an example of how this gate checking may have worked.

We've always been at war with eastasia

East Asia? As in Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, HK?

It's a quote from the book Nineteen Eighty Four

Ah, thanks. I didn't know and there weren't quotes so I was confused by the statement.

I don't think it is so much about it being a "bomb". I'm gonna take a stab and say it may be related to the ability to take over the control system of the plane via a laptop/wifi [1]. It would make sense to some degree if the US knew that an airline had planes that were "unpatched".

[1]: http://observer.com/2016/02/midair-hack-shows-the-dangers-of...

No it's almost certainly due to the recent intel that found that ISIL had developed a way to hide bombs in laptops to evade airport security. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/terrorist-laptop-bomb... http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/isis-laptop-bomb-threat-planes...

Let's see... they developed a way to hide a bomb powerful enough to bring down an airliner inside a laptop, but not a way to buy tickets for flights other than a few specific routes on a few specific airlines? If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

I admit it's a little odd. Relatedly, the UK also instituted a similar laptop ban as well. If not the laptop bomb threat, then what do you think it is? http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-laptop-ban-flights-explain...

I know some (maybe even most) of the affected airlines have significant government ownership. It could therefore be a way of gaining political leverage.

It could also be a leg-up to American carriers competing on those routes. Another commercial option is a tactic to require implementation of security practices that involve American-made equipment.

I'm sure there are many other possibilities that make more sense than the public explanation, which only seems to make sense if we assume the people protecting us are incredibly stupid. I don't think they are, so the public story is probably just a cover.

What if instead of being stupid they were artificially limited in some other way?

Perhaps, they wanted a more comprehensive laptop ban but were stopped by someone.

This just reminds me of this: http://dilbert.com/strip/1997-09-10

Reply on news.ycombinator.com