jc94

I already have all my electronics swabbed 50% of the time or 90% when it involves TSA. I suspect you'll see similar numbers from anyone travelling with signicant camera equipment.

It normally takes a couple of minutes. And I know what I'm doing, expand this to cover every traveller and every device and security lines will literally take hours. I mean, it would decrease unemployment at least.

Note: A friend recently had his laptop tagged as positive at FRA and let's just say it was not a good experience. Obviously, it wasn't actually a bomb... and he eventually got through, but Ion scanners are not known for their accuracy as it is.

wco81

What is in that swab?

Does it leave a residue? Can it tarnish lenses?

McG

Not sure what's in it.

Only seen security in Europe and US swab the exterior of my lenses, never the glass.

chipmaster

TSA before I got TSA Pre or Global Entry I'd get a swabbed once in a blue moon, but in the Far East they swab your luggage, backpack when you enter the checkin hall everyone and everytime ( first line of defense ).

I rarely travel with my DSLR or lense these days, iPhone good enough mostly but when I did travel and shoot my competitive kids, never once did they do more than open up my camera backpack, but times have changed.

My take they are looking to pick up residue of explosives or other illegal stuff, but I'd be hard pressed to believe they have any additional chemical agents to aid the collection, do they?

chipmaster

Hypothesis 1: People are smuggling bomb material in the lithium batteries. Sorry put them in the hold won't prevent a remote trigger or timer that is hiding in the laptop. Already proven people are willing to go down with the airplane. A bomb / fire in the passenger cabin versus the hold are equally a problem, actually in the hold even bigger problem given not many eyes down there and people are pretty sensitive fire detectors if they aren't all asleep.

Hypothesis 2: Now are looking to cobble together multiple batteries to start a fire to bring down the plane. Sorry, enough people carry one or two large phones and multiple packs, easy enough to get enough committed fellows to bring on enough lithium versus cobble together a few laptop batteries. I think that we should all fly naked soon!

Hypothesis 3: The size and material in the lithium enable hiding something behind them with current screening. The last time I saw the US security x-rays and overseas the resolution and contrast in the batteries of the laptop were very poor. Solution seems to be up the power of the machines, but that will take big bucks, money, and time not to mention safety likely an issue with higher power screening... Clearly cell phone battery and size don't make them very useful for hiding anything of value and are so thin that likely can't be used to screen anything behind them ( laptop complete different situation )

Only the last one is most plausible at the moment... What other hypothesis for the bans are there?

aidy

So the person behind me is writing the notices now for our in house airline... text is small so I can't see what it says... but if this is taking place I assume it will be immanent!

Silver Fox

Should have gone to Specsavers!

84fiero

Yet we just get the "the threat is real/credible" response, which tells you nothing. What are the probabilities of occurrence in various locations? What are the potential solutions being considered and the tradeoffs in convenience and freedom of movement? And in comparison to other hazards faced by the public what are the best expenditures of our resources?

Terrorists seem to already be winning, given how we wet out pants and cower in the corner at the slighted hint of the bogeyman.

The generally poor ability to assess and quantify risk, and act appropriately, across the public and gov't officials is mind-boggling.

Somehow the idea of even one airliner incident seems to be completely unacceptable to the public at large, yet no one bats an eye at tens of thousands of automobile deaths - and many more injured - per year, or suggests restricting the use of cars....there would be a nationwide revolt if any such proposal came about. Can't take away our freedom to drive wherever, whenever, with whatever we want inside our cars, etc. But we'll mindlessly go along with anything the authorities tell us to do when we go to fly on an airliner.

We devote very little time or resources to the many non-disease causes that are substantially more likely to harm us compared to aviation terrorism.

Reds2011

Thanks for the concise and hyperbole-free summary. Agree that #8 is likely the future.

Barciur

The most frustrating thing regarding this is that we all know the science behind the risks of this, we all know the BS of the arguments yet we are all so completely powerless in the face of this crap.

Boggie Dog

According to the information I have the ETD swabs used by TSA have no chemicals on them. Just plain cloth that is used to pick up trace explosive precursors like lanolin in hand lotion and such.

Silver Fox

I have reached the point where I would be quite happy if they just said "because we can" or "because we said so". At least we do not have to be subjected to the BS then.

nrgiii

Is there any good reason trusted travelers could not be exempted from such a ban? I'm talking about a "show your Nexus/GE card, bring on the usual items like you can today" scenario.

richarddd

My wife was swabbed today and she reports the swabs were wet.

camera_pro

Seems we may have more that an electronics issue here. What happens when the bad guys start planting undetectable explosives inside the human body....how are we going to screen for that? :-)

I wonder too, if the current ban will be only electronics or any item with a void capable of holding explosives. For example, I may not be able to bring my digital camera into the cabin because it is "electronics". How about my Leica M4-P that is devoid of any battery or electronics whatsoever but is a still a camera?