Security or theater: no electronics on international flights?

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/26/airplane-electronics-ban/

by slapshot • 17 years ago

34 59 17 years ago

techcrunch.com

rimantas• 17 years ago

Can't wait till someone tries to get explosives on the plane weaved into clothes.

pmorici2• 17 years ago

Mythbusters did an episode where they made exploding pants didn't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2006_season)#Episo...

NikkiA2• 17 years ago

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.

adw• 17 years ago

"Moulded around his body parts" (source: BBC One News at Ten). Start your sausage-sizzle jokes now, dudes.

pmorici2• 17 years ago

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.

Zev2• 17 years ago

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.)

scorxn• 17 years ago

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.

adatta02• 17 years ago

being passed out for a 20+ flight to Asia sounds good to me :)

iamaleksey• 17 years ago

Tsst, don't say things like this. They can be reading HN.

asciilifeform2• 17 years ago

Perhaps the first nut with an implanted (say, abdominal cavity) bomb will save us from this.

fnid• 17 years ago

After that, we'll have to send our entire bodies through the x-ray machine.

asciilifeform2• 17 years ago

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.

mixmax• 17 years ago

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.

ojbyrne2• 17 years ago

Reading the tweets suggests no books either ("no personal items in your lap" is mentioned in one). I think he must have used a laptop to try and hide what he was doing.

cperciva• 17 years ago

Books burn much better than electronics; but they're far less explosive than laptop batteries.

RiderOfGiraffes• 17 years ago

Cue the inevitable XKCD link: http://xkcd.com/651/

tlrobinson• 17 years ago

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.

nvn1• 17 years ago

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...

prodigal_erik• 17 years ago

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...

dtf• 17 years ago

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...

physcab4• 17 years ago

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.

adam-_-• 17 years ago

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...

Daniel_Newby2• 17 years ago

"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/

chromatic• 17 years ago

> Liquid explosives are extremely unstable.

They're stable enough when TSA makes passengers throw them all in a trash can before passing through screening.

cstross• 17 years ago

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 ...

NikkiA2• 17 years ago

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.

Zev2• 17 years ago

Its valid: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27security.html. Which is actually linked to in the article.

imurray• 17 years ago

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.

poutine• 17 years ago

Personal accounts on the new rules from flight crews and passengers:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re...

c1sc0• 17 years ago

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".

kvs• 17 years ago

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.

axod• 17 years ago

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.

makecheck• 17 years ago

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.

tibbon4• 17 years ago

I flew yesterday and had an interesting encounter. I accidentally had a small set of lockpicks in my jacket pocket. I'm always VERY careful to completely empty my bag after I accidentally brought a knife into the security area once a few years ago in my camera bag (which they found of course, but didn't give me much trouble about. I always keep one in my camera bag for cutting tape, wires, tree branches in photo shoots, opening packages, etc)- however I didn't check my coat this time as I was rushed. Opps.

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.

ori_b• 17 years ago

> 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.

thwarted2• 17 years ago

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.

philwelch3• 17 years ago

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.

ghshephard3• 17 years ago

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:

  o No carry on luggage
  o Pat Downs for everyone

The problem with this is it's unworkable for general civilian use of aviation in which mothers want to carry breast milk, people need to bring medicine with them, etc...

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).

tibbon4• 17 years ago

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.

tibbon4• 17 years ago

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!

icey2• 17 years ago

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.

ratsbane• 17 years ago

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.

icey2• 17 years ago

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.

rbanffy• 17 years ago

Prohibiting media players and computers turns selling on-board movies into a great way to make money.

ojbyrne2• 17 years ago

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...

JimmyL• 17 years ago

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.

ghshephard3• 17 years ago

"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...

ghshephard3• 17 years ago

You all realize that this just means the TSA reads XKCD?

http://xkcd.org/651/

erso• 17 years ago

Anyone reading the TSA blog already knows they do: http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/response-to-bag-check-cartoo...

Security or theater: no electronics on international flights?

Related Stories