It's been proven these arbitrary restrictions don't actually enhance security. We need to see the TSA move to behavioral analysis for them to actually make a difference.
I am quite naive in these matters but I see two reasons why this won't happen: 1). This will effectively tear down the security theater (again, I assume this is what it is and may be uninformed that there is a real threat). 2). It is difficult to train a large number of personnel to perform behavioral analysis given the traffic the US airports handle.
Israeil has a small population/traveler count and a relatively direct threat. The US has a huge population/traveler count and a vague possibility of threat.
> It's been proven these arbitrary restrictions don't actually enhance security.
Agreed.
> We need to see the TSA move to behavioral analysis for them to actually make a difference.
They've tried this. In practice, it ends up being a very thin cover for racial profiling[0].
Of course, when the TSA itself admits[1] that there is no evidence of a threat of terrorism against aviation in the US, it's not surprising that more "advanced" techniques of detecting terrorism prove to be ineffective.
Of course there's a flip side of this coin. I think it's a very good bet that this action was not taken in a vacuum. So someone disguised a weapon or a bomb as an electronic device in their hand luggage, and got it on board and was caught.
So who takes responsibility ? Because that's the million dollar question, although in this case, more like 100 million dollar question. If you make the TSA less onerous and the result is a plane plowing into a skyscraper, who pays ?
I think this action is at least partially the result of insurance companies saying "not us".
That's okay -- I'm sure they'll have a wide assortment of convenient charging devices which you can use. Hope your phone isn't vulnerable to USB-channel attacks...
I've left something running on my phone and had it 'dump charge' overnight when usually it would last another day. There's all sorts of ways to unexpectedly lose charge.
This new rule will get them a lot of public kickback if they continue to enforce it. Bottles of water or nailclippers are cheap and have no personal attachment. Phones are expensive and people's lives are wound around them - not to mention that especially in this digital age, I wouldn't be suprised if more than a few people travel with no itinerary beyond what's kept on their phones.
I'm pretty sure there is already effective ways to track ESN/MEIDs via wireless means without having to resort to manually entering it. Heck there are even databases that can map the two to the individual owners.
I'd be much less annoyed by these restrictions if the TSA did a better job explaining the reasons for them. Unfortunately, a statement such as, "Our scanners can't reliably tell the difference between batteries and specially-crafted explosives." is not something they want to publish. I have no idea if that's actually true, but it seems plausible.
Also, the implementation of this policy seems rather inconsistent. Are broken/powerless devices allowed in checked luggage? Can they be shipped via air freight? If I bring spare batteries, do I have to put them in a device and power it up? Etc.
Edit: It looks like this is a reaction to rumors of a plot to build bombs that look like laptops.[1]
By Julian Hattem - 12/31/13 03:02 PM EST
A federal court has tossed out a lawsuit trying to prevent the government from searching laptops, cellphones and other devices at U.S. border checkpoints.
The circuit judge’s decision to uphold the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy on Tuesday was a blow to civil liberties groups that argued the practice violated the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Soo.. I also can't bring anything might be on the fritz or broken, or items that require a specific input or external device to do more than show a green LED? Or does a power indicator pass muster? This really seems impractical if enforced to the letter.
The scary thing about this is that the US people have no control over this initiative. We didn't ask for this, we have no control over their decision to do that. What are we going to do.. go to our congress person? They're not going to do anything over that.
We have control. We simply choose not to exercise it. We vote these congress-people into office, and they allow these things to happen. Mail your congressman, ask them to introduce a bill to fix this. Tell them if they don't you'll work to drive them out office. Campaign against those that support tyrannical security theater.
This decision didn't pass either congress or the senate, so no need to harp on them. The signature on the paper giving this decision authority is the signature of POTUS, nobody else's. For once, it wasn't the congresscritters' fault.
Obama is in charge of the executive, so this decision either passed on his desk, leaving with a stamp of approval, or he at the very least has the power to block it.
Other candidates were Mitt Romney, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Virgil Goode and Rocky Anderson.
If I had to pick one least likely to approve this, I'd put my money on Gary Johnson, but I realize it's a fool's bet. Though I think I'd also put my money on Obama if the question was "who's most likely to approve this decision ?".
I look forward to you producing a list of all representatives and senate candidates that are against these privacy violations, with citations of course.
What is that going to do? You have to remember that these people have been in office long enough to ignore their constituents and get away with it. They are prepared for when you send them a complaint. They'll return a form letter indicating. "Thank you for sending your complaint... insert a subtile fuck off but polite message .. etc"
It's the same with sex based laws. [I.e. having a broad def for a registered sex offender] They're unwilling to repeal ineffective ones in the hopes of not appearing ineffective towards the subject.
----
Anyways going off the rant. The problem is that the only way that we have the opportunity to "sway" the organization's actions is via a set of proxies. We have to influence our congress person, along with others, then we have to convince them that it's worth doing something and following through. If that's not enough we'll have to compete with the TSA unions/employees who claim that what they're doing is important/etc, the lobbyers who have fancy material for the congress person claiming "effectiveness", etc.
I did a fair amount of international traveling back in the 1990's, and I recall several people saving that last bit of power in their laptops to power them on at security.
I recall the same thing. It's not a new technique, though it seems to me that I haven't seen it done recently (I rarely travel by air and in fact tend to avoid it if there's any other option, so my observations don't mean much)
I'm not sure this is new either. I remember traveling with my laptop (post 9/11) in sleep mode going through security so I could quickly 'turn it on' to show that it was a real laptop.
From what I can remember they're always (since before 9/11) been able to make you turn stuff on to prove it's real. Maybe they'll do it more, but it's not as if this rule came out of nowhere.
I agree with one of the top comments (as I write this) that if they every truly started confiscating 'dead' devices (at least of Americans) they would quickly run afoul of congress due to complaints.
Body scanners? "Whatever makes me safer." Taking your iPhone? "YOU'LL LOSE YOUR JOB".
What's the science behind this? Is it not a bomb if it "powers on"? Is it a bomb maybe if it doesn't? Do unpowered devices pose more of a threat than powered devices?
I think their premise is that a device which has been converted to a bomb large enough to cause total destruction of its target would have had the majority of its components removed thus rendering it non-functional. Following that "logic" a device which powers on has a much lower chance of being an explosive device.
I'm certainly not trying to imply that it does. The TSA themselves have been attempting to use the excuse that their scans, x-ray or otherwise, are somehow incapable of detecting the difference between a real device and a modified one. I for one, having see many of these x-ray screens during travel, believe that is some kind of nonsense.
That said I think a possible interesting question to ask is whether or not a scanning system could be implemented that is able to determine whether a devices internal components have been modified based on scans provided my OEM's.
I believe the problem is that plastic explosives and a trigger mechanism look very similar to the cells and relegation circuitry in a NiMH or LiIon battery so an X-Ray can't really distinguish them.
What does this do to people with extra batteries? Do they all have to be charged? Would you have to put them in your phone/laptop to prove it?
> What does this do to people with extra batteries? Do they all have to be charged? Would you have to put them in your phone/laptop to prove it?
What about modern laptops that have multiple discrete batteries (i.e. modern Macs) - I would guess that you could remove 2-3 of the 4-5 packs and still have a "functioning" laptop, albeit with a much shorter uptime.
I would assume it's an effort/sophistication thing, just raising the minimum bar to weed out/discourage people and lessen the number of attempts in total.
Oh yes, downvote. The possibility that the TSA has a threat that someone is going to be planting a bomb in a laptop that can't be detected by chemical smell is zero. It's not like terrorists have access to the same chemical detection equipment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_at...
Terrorism? What Terrorism? You are probably more likely to get shot at a school shooting, than be involved in a "terrorist" attack.
No matter how perfect a society you have, you will always have "geopolitical policies" that will "forment" potential terrorists.
>Plenty of airports that allow transit from domestic flights without another security check. The terrorists will just board there.
For some reason I am having trouble understanding the first sentence.
You're saying there are airports in the US that you can stopover at (with starting point also in the US) that don't put you through a second security check for a leg that leaves the US? I thought they all did that.
You're saying you can avoid a TSA check from overseas if your final destination is US? Example of this? I doubt any example is from an at risk country.
Yes, there are plenty of airports that have a transit area that you can just be in without any checks after arriving from a flight. Changi in Singapore comes to mind.
There are airports that have their own "US Based entry" areas as well. I had a pre-passport check in Switzerland. Why? I have no clue, it's not normal but they have US agents there trying to look up everyone coming in.
The TSA and other US airport security process has gotten to the point where it's unnecessarily onerous. I avoid even stopovers in the US when flying (unless the US is my final destination) because it's such a wildcard/inconvenience both with security as well as immigration - it's easier to just pay more and fly direct or pick flights that are less convenient but don't transit through the US.
If they start confiscating un-poweruperable devices at any scale (ie if it were an enforced policy), that'd make transiting or traveling to the US far more prohibitive (realistically, i'd never transit with my primary laptop; and I'd imagine that a lot of organisations would start allowing their staff to only travel through the US with their China laptops)... ie it sounds like a terrible set of rules to have; and an even worse set to consider enforcing.
edit: I'm Canada-based and travel internationally several times each year -- avoiding the US on these trips is a real inconvenience.
Slightly different situation, but while I was away in Israel for a conference, the battery on my laptop stopped holding a charge. Thus, I could only power on my machine if it was plugged in.
Of course in the airport I was asked to turn it on. I explained the situation and that I had no adapter, so they offered to take into a back room to check. I agreed and they came back around 15 minutes later to say it was charged and I should turn it on now.
Obviously something was lost in translation, but they ended up getting me to talk to the head of security. Finally I had to surrender my battery and charger for additional screening and pick them up at the airport a few days after my arrival.
Many of the first release of Apple Macbooks had a "random shutdown syndrome" problem with their heatsinks. The laptop would randomly hard-shutdown and then be unable to turn back on for some time. This is widely documented.
I was experiencing this problem shortly before heading through US airport security. I was terrified they would ask me to turn on the laptop. They took me aside, but it was to ask me questions about the remote-control that came with these early macbooks (it was an apple product they didn't recognize, so they were suspicious).
My point is, there's no way to know that your product -- any product -- won't fail when you're going through security. The assumption that all devices going through security will be operational, is bogus.
I travel a lot, at least 6 international trips a year, and do you know what? The rest of the world appears to be a reasonably safe place to fly, and you don't need to take your shoes off or have a reach around to visit those countries.
Smell that freedom folks - you've created a security 'organization' whose only policy is to create more inane forms of security theatre.
reply