Originally Posted by
wco81
If this proposal got more publicity in the general public, DHS (at the direction of those above them) would hold fast and push through the ban, because the way things are going, Washington doesn't want to be seen as taking defeats.
We can only hope there's minimal coverage of this outside of venues for travel enthusiasts like FT.
Actually I think the the reverse may be true. DHS hasn't actually announced the ban yet, so if they never go through with formally announcing it, they don't lose face by just letting this go away with "behind the scenes security enhancements" or fairly minimal visible enhancements (e.g., ETD on 10% of laptops instead of 1% or just requiring all electronics removed from bags for x-ray).
In contrast, I fully believe the only reason we still have the war-on-water is because by lifting the water ban DHS would lose face by effectively admitting the ban was ineffective and/or unnecessary.
I'm also heartened that much of the press this proposed laptop ban is getting is negative. Instead of the "anything for security" mentality we've seen for the last 16 years, several mainstream articles have pointed out that forcing laptops into the hold is a bad idea that would worsen safety and fail to address the threat of exploding laptops.