Security or theater: no electronics on international flights?(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Security or theater: no electronics on international flights?
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/26/airplane-electronics-ban/
62 comments
I'm glad you had a good, reasonable experience. On Wednesday, I was told by a TSO that I couldn't bring my baby on board. She was making a joke, because she wanted to assert that the baby was cute, but telling someone they can't bring their baby on a plane at the security checkpoint is about as serious a joke to parents as joking about carrying a bomb is to TSOs.
For what it's worth, you apparently kept your cool. I imagine if your reaction was anywhere near how you really felt about it you'd be detained and tasered for awhile.
I'll admit I was nervous. I normally pass through completely unnervous- but as soon as they went to rescan my jacket, I knew what was in the pocket. I know in some states simply carrying lockpicks is illegal (probably MA too for all I know, but I do it anyway), let alone taking them on a plane. I was thinking, "shit, shit, shit, shit" but knew that if I played as sincere, naive and innocent (which to a degree I was all three) then I'd be fine.
I do know however, just as in any situation with any law enforcement (or quasi law enforcement) that you do not lie to them. You talk around the truth like an Aes Sedai if you must, but don't lie. If you are pulled into a room for more questioning and you're forced to reveal that you lied, it will be much worse to get out of.
I do know however, just as in any situation with any law enforcement (or quasi law enforcement) that you do not lie to them. You talk around the truth like an Aes Sedai if you must, but don't lie. If you are pulled into a room for more questioning and you're forced to reveal that you lied, it will be much worse to get out of.
The best way not to lie to cops is not to say anything at all. If you lie they'll pin you on your lies, and if you tell the truth they'll crucify you with that, too. Thankfully you have a constitutional right to remain silent.
Personally, I only do that when it seems like serious business. When I'm pulled over for speeding there's no gain playing mute.
Personally, I only do that when it seems like serious business. When I'm pulled over for speeding there's no gain playing mute.
Considering how this thread expanded, I'm not sure who you're responding to.
It was more of a "this is what my tax dollars is paying for?" eye rolling moment. That being said, the TSO who joked that we couldn't bring our baby on the plane was apparently loitering not doing whateve her job was and was assigned to go do something by her manager as we finished putting our shoes on, so there are at least some professional in management at the TSA.
It was more of a "this is what my tax dollars is paying for?" eye rolling moment. That being said, the TSO who joked that we couldn't bring our baby on the plane was apparently loitering not doing whateve her job was and was assigned to go do something by her manager as we finished putting our shoes on, so there are at least some professional in management at the TSA.
I was responding to you, which is why I nested it under your comment. I did a double take at tibbon's response to me, but it seemed like he was taking it on a slight tangent, as happens.
I just have to imagine if it was my kid, I would have freaked out and been a little pissed off. I don't think I could have kept my cool as you have, and I fear for the consequences of that.
I just have to imagine if it was my kid, I would have freaked out and been a little pissed off. I don't think I could have kept my cool as you have, and I fear for the consequences of that.
> If we wanted real security EVERYONE would probably need cavity searches and no one could take anything at all onboard. I'm glad we aren't trying for that obviously.
I almost wish we would - without gradual phase in. Then at least people would stop crying for security, and pressure the government out of it. Well, I guess I can dream.
I almost wish we would - without gradual phase in. Then at least people would stop crying for security, and pressure the government out of it. Well, I guess I can dream.
I'd like to think that the takeway from this for most people is that the TSA is making _some_ attempt to secure the planes, but isn't reaching for very strong security. At the very least that would involve:
I always find it annoying when people whine and complain about how incompetent that TSA is in allowing a knife, razor, or other contraband item onto an airplane. They could, with two simple rules eliminate the chance of those items getting onto a plane - but do you seriously want to live in a world where we go to such lengths to ensure your security?
Also note, taking these steps _would not_ be mere security theater, they really would increase security - at the cost of a lot of convenience or things that make commercial aviation bearable (or possible for some people).
o No carry on luggage
o Pat Downs for everyone
I always find it annoying when people whine and complain about how incompetent that TSA is in allowing a knife, razor, or other contraband item onto an airplane. They could, with two simple rules eliminate the chance of those items getting onto a plane - but do you seriously want to live in a world where we go to such lengths to ensure your security?
Also note, taking these steps _would not_ be mere security theater, they really would increase security - at the cost of a lot of convenience or things that make commercial aviation bearable (or possible for some people).
Add on that everyone changes out of the street clothing they are wearing into something provided by the airport. Shoes without laces (could be weapons), etc. You get your clothes back once you land and are on the other side of security at your destination.
If you've got medicine, you hand it over to the staff, who will administer the doses when needed, but don't allow you to have it prior.
And breast milk would be dispensed the same way- or they'd encourage mothers to use natural breast milk.
You can bring nothing, absolutely nothing with you on the plane.
This of course, would be absurd for civilians- but of course, infinitely more secure. It would be prison-like (as many of these are things they'd do for prison transport) but definitely secure. I'd like to see someone pull off something then on a plane- hard pressed to imagine how they could. They'd have to be Chuck Norris and have a good roundhouse kick (and a 1st class seat space for the said kick) to take the plane or do anything damaging.
If you've got medicine, you hand it over to the staff, who will administer the doses when needed, but don't allow you to have it prior.
And breast milk would be dispensed the same way- or they'd encourage mothers to use natural breast milk.
You can bring nothing, absolutely nothing with you on the plane.
This of course, would be absurd for civilians- but of course, infinitely more secure. It would be prison-like (as many of these are things they'd do for prison transport) but definitely secure. I'd like to see someone pull off something then on a plane- hard pressed to imagine how they could. They'd have to be Chuck Norris and have a good roundhouse kick (and a 1st class seat space for the said kick) to take the plane or do anything damaging.
Security whack-a-mole.
Box cutters used in 9/11... ban anything sharp
Shoe bomber... make people take off shoes
Liquid explosive plot... limit liquids and gels to 4oz containers
Guy tries to explode bomb in his lap during the last hour of a flight... no things in your lap during the last hour.
It's comical and tragic.
Box cutters used in 9/11... ban anything sharp
Shoe bomber... make people take off shoes
Liquid explosive plot... limit liquids and gels to 4oz containers
Guy tries to explode bomb in his lap during the last hour of a flight... no things in your lap during the last hour.
It's comical and tragic.
Note: I do research in explosives detection
With the exception of the last one, banning box cutters, requiring people to take off their shoes, and limiting explosives are actually quite reasonable for security. Current detection technologies can't really detect explosive substances, except for the X-ray machine, but the best it can do is tell you the density of the materials in question, not necessarily what type of explosive it is. So running your shoes through the machine makes sense, as enough dangerous solid explosive can be packed into the sole of a shoe.
Liquid explosives are extremely unstable. The explosive power is probably not enough to blow up a plane, but it can definitely injure or kill many people or set fire to the plane. Plus, no machine exists to distinguish explosive liquids from non-explosive liquids at the scale that an airport requires.
For the curious, I'll just briefly list some of the detection systems that are out on the market, and what their capabilities are:
- Metal detector
- X-ray machine - Densities of materials
- Ion Mobility Scanner (eg. Puffers or Swipers) - Trace explosives detection, but easily confused by other nitro compounds such as hand cremes, fertilizer, and uh..jet fuel.
- Millimeter Wave Scanner (eg. Whole Body Scanner) - Anomaly detection (eg. can penetrate clothing), but cannot identify explosives.
- Terahertz Imaging - Can penetrate clothing and can identify materials, including explosives, but can be blocked by water and hasn't reached commercialization.
- Other wavelength imaging - Our group uses UV light and can detect trace amounts of explosives, but does not penetrate clothing. It's only a surface technique.
With the exception of the last one, banning box cutters, requiring people to take off their shoes, and limiting explosives are actually quite reasonable for security. Current detection technologies can't really detect explosive substances, except for the X-ray machine, but the best it can do is tell you the density of the materials in question, not necessarily what type of explosive it is. So running your shoes through the machine makes sense, as enough dangerous solid explosive can be packed into the sole of a shoe.
Liquid explosives are extremely unstable. The explosive power is probably not enough to blow up a plane, but it can definitely injure or kill many people or set fire to the plane. Plus, no machine exists to distinguish explosive liquids from non-explosive liquids at the scale that an airport requires.
For the curious, I'll just briefly list some of the detection systems that are out on the market, and what their capabilities are:
- Metal detector
- X-ray machine - Densities of materials
- Ion Mobility Scanner (eg. Puffers or Swipers) - Trace explosives detection, but easily confused by other nitro compounds such as hand cremes, fertilizer, and uh..jet fuel.
- Millimeter Wave Scanner (eg. Whole Body Scanner) - Anomaly detection (eg. can penetrate clothing), but cannot identify explosives.
- Terahertz Imaging - Can penetrate clothing and can identify materials, including explosives, but can be blocked by water and hasn't reached commercialization.
- Other wavelength imaging - Our group uses UV light and can detect trace amounts of explosives, but does not penetrate clothing. It's only a surface technique.
There is some work been done by Durham Uni to detect liquid explosives:
http://www.governmentbusiness.co.uk/content/view/2072/1/
http://www.kromek.com/products_liquiddetectionscanner.asp?Id...
http://www.governmentbusiness.co.uk/content/view/2072/1/
http://www.kromek.com/products_liquiddetectionscanner.asp?Id...
I couldn't really tell what their technology is, but it looks like a deviation of ion mobility or gas chromatography. Either way, it probably isn't robust enough for widespread use, since it looks like it has to ingest a sample, and that just isn't practical when you have hundreds of people waiting in line.
> Liquid explosives are extremely unstable.
They're stable enough when TSA makes passengers throw them all in a trash can before passing through screening.
They're stable enough when TSA makes passengers throw them all in a trash can before passing through screening.
The rule is meant to be a deterrent. I doubt there is any terrorist who has a bottle of liquid explosives and reads the TSA sign and thinks, "damn, I guess I gotta throw this away".
While I'm on the topic, I read recently (can't remember where) that the proportion of successful detonations of a liquid explosive was actually pretty low, since many potential terrorists are killed in accidental explosions. As a side anecdote, we once had an FBI officer bring in a canister of some unknown liquid explosive for our group to test using our equipment, and I remember he was carrying it with the hand he "didn't use much" just in case it detonated.
While I'm on the topic, I read recently (can't remember where) that the proportion of successful detonations of a liquid explosive was actually pretty low, since many potential terrorists are killed in accidental explosions. As a side anecdote, we once had an FBI officer bring in a canister of some unknown liquid explosive for our group to test using our equipment, and I remember he was carrying it with the hand he "didn't use much" just in case it detonated.
"Current detection technologies can't really detect explosive substances ..."
There are plenty of direct explosives detectors, such as the ICx products: http://www.icxt.com/products/icx-detection/explosives/
There are plenty of direct explosives detectors, such as the ICx products: http://www.icxt.com/products/icx-detection/explosives/
The sensing element in the Fido XT can be used for several hours, depending on the environment you are testing in. If you are testing and have not found any type of explosive substance then the sensing element will not 'clog' up as fast because there is not particulates that are attaching themselves to the side of the element; quenching the light.
Fido isn't for airport security. It's for small applications where you want to inspect explosive traces in particular situations. As far as I know it's single use, and you have to replace the polymeric/chemical sensor on each application.
Fido sensing elements are generally good for many hours of operation. The PaxPoint product is specifically intended for liquid screening in airports. The main limitation is that they need a focused target to work on. The holy grail is a walk-through chemical sensor, but the physics of that is challenging.
I suppose we should count ourselves lucky this guy didn't blow himself up on a plane.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/2833157/Bomb-in-ana...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/2833157/Bomb-in-ana...
Perhaps I should embark on a start-up that sells strengthened chambers capable of withstanding explosives to replace traditional seating that the attendants lock you in before take-off.
EDIT: Or redesign the seating layout to turn the cabin into some kind of panopticon where all passengers can watch out for any suspicious behaviour. They can have a voting system which detains a passenger if the number of concerned fellow passengers passes a threshold...
EDIT: Or redesign the seating layout to turn the cabin into some kind of panopticon where all passengers can watch out for any suspicious behaviour. They can have a voting system which detains a passenger if the number of concerned fellow passengers passes a threshold...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_hotel
I've never seen a coffin hotel in person, but it sounds much nicer than the cattle car I'm faced with this evening. I'm guessing they can't do it because we couldn't evacuate within the FAA's 90 second deadline. Hm, maybe make an escape pod out of it...
I've never seen a coffin hotel in person, but it sounds much nicer than the cattle car I'm faced with this evening. I'm guessing they can't do it because we couldn't evacuate within the FAA's 90 second deadline. Hm, maybe make an escape pod out of it...
I wish some of our politicians had the balls to stop this paranoid mess and say "No, we can't guarantee 100% safety, learn to live with it".
It's not politicians. It's people. And, it is people who are paranoid and irrational. Politicians just have to cater to the majority opinion to get anything done.
It'd be nice and refreshing if the media, and governments spent as much time as possible educating people on the comparative risks.
The chance of dying from terrorism is far far lower than most other causes of death. It's a rounding error.
The other one that gets me is the painting by the media that pedophiles are going to snatch your child off the street, whilst the risk is miniscule, and most sexual abuse is by family members. It makes people afraid to live their lives.
If newspapers actually ranked news by how much it actually matters, we'd have a massively different view of the world.
The chance of dying from terrorism is far far lower than most other causes of death. It's a rounding error.
The other one that gets me is the painting by the media that pedophiles are going to snatch your child off the street, whilst the risk is miniscule, and most sexual abuse is by family members. It makes people afraid to live their lives.
If newspapers actually ranked news by how much it actually matters, we'd have a massively different view of the world.
Media outlets would label that as "boring." It's a sad state of affairs, but sensationalism sells.
I think someone needs to stand up in Congress with a table of the top 50 causes of death in the last 5 decades, coupled with the current spending to combat each of those. They should then debate until each of those investments is perfectly balanced. Transportation security would end up with about $4.50.
If true this is insane. Why not just sedate everyone and handcuff them to the seats because the way things are going that is the logical conclusion to this inanity.
Ugh, I'd much prefer that to all the dehumanizing and paranoia that is present-day air travel. Knock me out and send me FedEx, please. Probably takes about as long to recover from a horse tranquilizer as it does from plain ol' jet lag.
being passed out for a 20+ flight to Asia sounds good to me :)
Why not just sedate everyone...
I'd be slightly more open to this policy if the TSA was going to start paying for in-flight alcohol. I don't necessarily want to use my laptop around alcohol in-flight. (Or soda, for that matter - though I usually get water bottles for the cap.)
I'd be slightly more open to this policy if the TSA was going to start paying for in-flight alcohol. I don't necessarily want to use my laptop around alcohol in-flight. (Or soda, for that matter - though I usually get water bottles for the cap.)
Tsst, don't say things like this. They can be reading HN.
Businesses that fly people internationally will freak out, as many have said - although I would think that it would be because of people having to check their laptops, as opposed to their inability to be productive while flying.
When I used to fly for business with a laptop, the company assumed I wouldn't get much work done on the flight - but one of the cardinal rules was that your laptop was never out of your physical sight when traveling. We encrypted everything, but you always had to bring it carry-on, stash it under your seat, and carry it with you when you went to the washroom.
I'd also be pretty cheesed off if I was an airline - making all these investments in on-board Internet, and now having it banned.
As for the others, I think I could get used to them - I rarely use my iPod when flying anyways (stick with sleeping or in-seat TV), could pack my bag slightly better if needed to eliminate the "personal article" we're now allowed to carry on, and time my bathroom breaks better (the no-standing rule was in force flying into Reagan for a while post-9/11).
More broadly, however, it pisses me off on the grounds that it assumes everyone is a criminal, and would do almost nothing in terms of actual airline security.
When I used to fly for business with a laptop, the company assumed I wouldn't get much work done on the flight - but one of the cardinal rules was that your laptop was never out of your physical sight when traveling. We encrypted everything, but you always had to bring it carry-on, stash it under your seat, and carry it with you when you went to the washroom.
I'd also be pretty cheesed off if I was an airline - making all these investments in on-board Internet, and now having it banned.
As for the others, I think I could get used to them - I rarely use my iPod when flying anyways (stick with sleeping or in-seat TV), could pack my bag slightly better if needed to eliminate the "personal article" we're now allowed to carry on, and time my bathroom breaks better (the no-standing rule was in force flying into Reagan for a while post-9/11).
More broadly, however, it pisses me off on the grounds that it assumes everyone is a criminal, and would do almost nothing in terms of actual airline security.
"carry it with you when you went to the washroom."
You aren't suggesting you need to carry your laptop case with you into the _airplane_ washroom are you? Talking about security theater...
You aren't suggesting you need to carry your laptop case with you into the _airplane_ washroom are you? Talking about security theater...
Note that if you correctly parse xenijardin's tweet (and her boingboing post here: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/26/yo-dawg-i-heard-you.htm...), then it becomes clear that you're not allowed to use electronics during the last hour of a flight, not the entire flight. Let's play telephone...
I'm hoping this is a temporary over-reaction, or over-stated, or both.
However, I've got a trip to the USA in mid-February (coincidentally flying in from Schiphol) that is probably going to be cancelled if this is (as the more extreme rumours have it) a permanent ban on in-flight use of electronics during all stages of flights to the US.
And I really don't think I'll be the only person cancelling discretionary visits.
Given that the numbskull suicide bomber in question apparently tried to inject some sort of accelerant into the powder in his trousers using a syringe, I pity any diabetics trying to fly anywhere in the next few weeks ...
However, I've got a trip to the USA in mid-February (coincidentally flying in from Schiphol) that is probably going to be cancelled if this is (as the more extreme rumours have it) a permanent ban on in-flight use of electronics during all stages of flights to the US.
And I really don't think I'll be the only person cancelling discretionary visits.
Given that the numbskull suicide bomber in question apparently tried to inject some sort of accelerant into the powder in his trousers using a syringe, I pity any diabetics trying to fly anywhere in the next few weeks ...
Perhaps the first nut with an implanted (say, abdominal cavity) bomb will save us from this.
After that, we'll have to send our entire bodies through the x-ray machine.
It isn't difficult to create explosives with the same x-ray transparency as body fat.
The detonator squib will be in a pen, a glasses frame, or some other everyday item which has not yet been forbidden.
The detonator squib will be in a pen, a glasses frame, or some other everyday item which has not yet been forbidden.
I'm also wondering if the TSA will allow airlines to start selling "clean" electronic devices for high prices- just like they did with water and other "fluids". No water through security- but you can buy it for a special price inside!
Can't wait till someone tries to get explosives on the plane weaved into clothes.
According to the BBC report on this incident, we're there already...
Techchrunch seems to think it was 'electronics' related, but the BBC is reporting that he had explosives sewn into the elastic band of his underwear.
So if anything, TSA are likely to ban clothes on planes.
Techchrunch seems to think it was 'electronics' related, but the BBC is reporting that he had explosives sewn into the elastic band of his underwear.
So if anything, TSA are likely to ban clothes on planes.
"Moulded around his body parts" (source: BBC One News at Ten). Start your sausage-sizzle jokes now, dudes.
Mythbusters did an episode where they made exploding pants didn't they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2006_season)#Episo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2006_season)#Episo...
[deleted]
If this is a move from the TSA to counter attacks like the man who recently tried to set himself on fire on a plane the irony is that books burn much better than electronics.
Does anyone know if charters are exempt from TSA rules?
What about private jets?
I just wonder when it starts being profitable to start trying to find the TSA loopholes.
What about private jets?
I just wonder when it starts being profitable to start trying to find the TSA loopholes.
Charter flights fall under FAA Part 135 rules; scheduled flights are Part 121. With charter flights you don't have to put up with all of the passenger screening stuff. It's also surprisingly affordable if you are traveling with a group, e.g. a Gulfstream IV carries around 14 passengers and rents for about $6k/hour. A King Air 200 carries 6 or 7 about half as fast for around $1.5k/hour.
That's pretty interesting... Tony Hsieh made a funny joke about starting a "Zappos Airlines" at Startup School this year. Airlines are already notorious for terrible customer service, and if you add on all the ridiculousness of these new TSA rules (if true) then maybe there's some room for a little disruption. Of course, this assumes there are loopholes that can be taken advantage of.
I know I'll be flying a lot less if I can't use electronics internationally; and I'd certainly be willing to pay more money to make those flights if I could continue to use my gear when traveling.
I know I'll be flying a lot less if I can't use electronics internationally; and I'd certainly be willing to pay more money to make those flights if I could continue to use my gear when traveling.
I doubt there's any validity to this claim, just another TC bad reporting most likely.
Banning electronics on flights would be the final nail in the coffin for air-travel, even just on international flights it would piss off so many corporate travellers that the airlines wouldn't cope with the losses - many large corps only accept 8hr+ flights for business trips because the employee(s) can work while in flight.
Banning electronics on flights would be the final nail in the coffin for air-travel, even just on international flights it would piss off so many corporate travellers that the airlines wouldn't cope with the losses - many large corps only accept 8hr+ flights for business trips because the employee(s) can work while in flight.
Personal accounts on the new rules from flight crews and passengers:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re...
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re...
Its valid: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27security.html. Which is actually linked to in the article.
That link says nothing about electronics, the headline claim. The sources for banning electronics all seem to refer to Twitter, which may result from isolated incidents, or speculation.
You all realize that this just means the TSA reads XKCD?
http://xkcd.org/651/
http://xkcd.org/651/
Anyone reading the TSA blog already knows they do: http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/response-to-bag-check-cartoo...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Prohibiting media players and computers turns selling on-board movies into a great way to make money.
Cue the inevitable XKCD link:
http://xkcd.com/651/
Anyway, I took lockpicks through. Of course they noticed them in the x-ray machine. The guy was super nice about it. He was like, "What are these?" and I responded, "Lockpicks. I just have them for practice on stuff and learning, I didn't mean to travel with them. I'm sorry if they are something that is contraband from carrying on airplanes and I totally understand if you have to keep them."
The guy looked a little puzzled. "Like you use to start or open a car?". Now honestly I've never tried picking a car. I've tried picking my motorcycle when the key fell out once, but never a car. I say, "I guess you could, but I've never tried it." I was worried that he thought I was a car thief or something. He then said, "Oh, well I've been having this trouble with my car ignition. Its really lose. I've always carried heavy keys and I think its broken. Do you know anything about fixing it?" He was intrigued and just was curious. Not accusatory at all. I was kinda shocked. He looked at them and said, "They don't look sharp or anything. They should be fine. We let people carry through small scissors which are more dangerous than these because if you break them in two they are two small knives if they are sharp"
He scanned them through the x-ray once more, and handed them to me and was asking a few other questions about good locksmiths in the area to fix his car. I apologized again for the trouble, but he said and this is the important part:
"Look, I used to work for a prison. The security here is a joke compared to real security at prisons. These wouldn't get through there, but we let all sorts of stuff through that would probably get someone killed in prison fights or would be instantly contraband there."
I'd thought about this before, but the bluntness and understanding that he had behind this was a real shock to me. I'd never thought that the airports were secure- but compare them to an actual 'secure' environment like a prison and they seem wide open.
It is truly unfortunate that the higher ups at the TSA don't promote this guy to the top and have the same understanding as him. You're not making a secure place with these practices- you're making placebo.
If we wanted real security EVERYONE would probably need cavity searches and no one could take anything at all onboard. I'm glad we aren't trying for that obviously.