Electronic devices ban Europe to the US [merged threads]
May 30, 2017, 5:38 am
#1081
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
I still keep coming back to the rampant theft from checked luggage that will inevitably occur. I suspect a lot of us who need to travel with laptops will buy a hard case of some kind in which to pack the laptop. Of course, this will have to be opened back in the baggage areas. Rather than fight the ban or simply stop flying, most of us will spend our own money working around this idiocy. The terrorists win and DHS wins.
Buy a weapon, check it and your camera/laptop in the same case.
May 30, 2017, 10:05 am
#1084
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
I still keep coming back to the rampant theft from checked luggage that will inevitably occur. I suspect a lot of us who need to travel with laptops will buy a hard case of some kind in which to pack the laptop. Of course, this will have to be opened back in the baggage areas. Rather than fight the ban or simply stop flying, most of us will spend our own money working around this idiocy. The terrorists win and DHS wins.
We already know that TSA refuses to take responsibility for theft from bags even when it is TSA that demands our bags not be secure. It doesn't really matter at that point if it is TSA, baggage handlers, or someone else. The end result will be the same, our electronics will be at risk due to actions by the TSA,
May 30, 2017, 10:26 am
#1085
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Rochester, MN
Programs: UA GS, AA PLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 1,437
You keep suggesting this 1+1 solution but I don't see how it addresses the risk. If a laptop is dangerous, it's dangerous. The only thing this would do is (theoretically) reduce the number of devices to be swabbed/scanned/whatever at the checkpoint, but (in practice) only for people who would otherwise have 3 or more devices. Is that really such a significant number of passengers that it reduces the checkpoint workload from "impossible" to "possible"?
If past evidence is anything to go by, they're that stupid.
If past evidence is anything to go by, they're that stupid.
The longer this drags on the more it seems to me that the other stakeholders are doing their best to defer or modify the underlying ban that is proposed. However, the latest round of messaging that is appearing has me convinced that DHS is just going to act on its own and give the proverbial finger to the rest of the world.
May 30, 2017, 11:10 am
#1086
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
What I don't see is how 1+1 ever gets enforced at US checkpoints unless the ID-checker gives every passenger 2 stickers and TSA stations a screener at the x-ray exit to verify that every device off the belt has a sticker. Even then, if I'm traveling with someone else, I can make multiple trips in and out of the sterile area delivering 1+1 devices to my companion each time, and the only fix against that is 100% gate screening of bags and bodies for objects that can easily be hidden in clothing or a pocket (ipods, phones, hard drives). Enforcement overseas might be easier since I presume it's non-trivial to exit the airside of the terminal after going through (exit) passport control, though I've never tried it.
I doubt the government brains conceiving these things consciously realize that things like electric shavers, electric toothbrushes, laser pointers, flashlights, etc., exist. Let alone battery-less electronic/electronic devices that people do travel with for business (external hard drives, desktop PCs, projectors, test equipment large and small, development boards). They are only thinking about shiny newer consumer-oriented technologies (smartphones, tablets, mp3 players, GPS navigators, digital cameras, laptops) and forgetting that people have been flying with electric/electronic devices for decades. Whatever policy they conceive and implement will cause significant chaos due to consequences not considered.
May 30, 2017, 11:11 am
#1087
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
The idea, as it has been explained to me, is that 1+1 is that it permits the swabbing of the devices and keeps that number to a fixed amount (and eliminates some of the borderline cases of what is a phone). The thing is that this ban (if implemented) applies to all electronic (electrical) devices, not just phones and laptops. It would hit razors, noise cancelling headsets, iPods, iPads, detachable hard drives, cameras, flashlights, etc. The average traveler right now probably travels with 4-5 devices that will be hit with the ban. So dropping it to simply 2 devices will make the throughput at the checkpoint more manageable. I do believe that they (DHS) believe that swabbing will detect the explosives. The other thing is that 2 devices gives the appearance of managed risk.
The longer this drags on the more it seems to me that the other stakeholders are doing their best to defer or modify the underlying ban that is proposed. However, the latest round of messaging that is appearing has me convinced that DHS is just going to act on its own and give the proverbial finger to the rest of the world.
The longer this drags on the more it seems to me that the other stakeholders are doing their best to defer or modify the underlying ban that is proposed. However, the latest round of messaging that is appearing has me convinced that DHS is just going to act on its own and give the proverbial finger to the rest of the world.
May 30, 2017, 11:13 am
#1088
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
DHS/TSA loves things like "1+1" because it gives the appearance of "doing something" without grinding global air travel to a halt (probably) and deflects any claim of confiscation back on the passenger "choosing" which device they get to keep. (e.g., TSA refutes claim that electronic toothbrush was confiscated by blaming passenger for insisting on bringing a phone.)
What I don't see is how 1+1 ever gets enforced at US checkpoints unless the ID-checker gives every passenger 2 stickers and TSA stations a screener at the x-ray exit to verify that every device off the belt has a sticker. Even then, if I'm traveling with someone else, I can make multiple trips in and out of the sterile area delivering 1+1 devices to my companion each time, and the only fix against that is 100% gate screening of bags and bodies for objects that can easily be hidden in clothing or a pocket (ipods, phones, hard drives). Enforcement overseas might be easier since I presume it's non-trivial to exit the airside of the terminal after going through (exit) passport control, though I've never tried it.
I doubt the government brains conceiving these things consciously realize that things like electric shavers, electric toothbrushes, laser pointers, flashlights, etc., exist. Let alone battery-less electronic/electronic devices that people do travel with for business (external hard drives, desktop PCs, projectors, test equipment large and small, development boards). They are only thinking about shiny newer consumer-oriented technologies (smartphones, tablets, mp3 players, GPS navigators, digital cameras, laptops) and forgetting that people have been flying with electric/electronic devices for decades. Whatever policy they conceive and implement will cause significant chaos due to consequences not considered.
What I don't see is how 1+1 ever gets enforced at US checkpoints unless the ID-checker gives every passenger 2 stickers and TSA stations a screener at the x-ray exit to verify that every device off the belt has a sticker. Even then, if I'm traveling with someone else, I can make multiple trips in and out of the sterile area delivering 1+1 devices to my companion each time, and the only fix against that is 100% gate screening of bags and bodies for objects that can easily be hidden in clothing or a pocket (ipods, phones, hard drives). Enforcement overseas might be easier since I presume it's non-trivial to exit the airside of the terminal after going through (exit) passport control, though I've never tried it.
I doubt the government brains conceiving these things consciously realize that things like electric shavers, electric toothbrushes, laser pointers, flashlights, etc., exist. Let alone battery-less electronic/electronic devices that people do travel with for business (external hard drives, desktop PCs, projectors, test equipment large and small, development boards). They are only thinking about shiny newer consumer-oriented technologies (smartphones, tablets, mp3 players, GPS navigators, digital cameras, laptops) and forgetting that people have been flying with electric/electronic devices for decades. Whatever policy they conceive and implement will cause significant chaos due to consequences not considered.
May 30, 2017, 11:26 am
#1089
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
EU tells US: No ban
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...top-ban-238939
The U.S. today opted not to introduce a ban on bringing laptops into the cabins of flights to the U.S. from Europe, sources told POLITICO.
May 30, 2017, 11:38 am
#1090
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,631
May 30, 2017, 11:52 am
#1091
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,729
The article talks about intensifying "technical talks" to find a "common solution," according to an EC official.
But "another source" said "future intelligence" could change the decision.
There's no official DHS statement being quoted in the article.
However there seems to be some antagonism between the US and EU:
Some security experts also raised concerns that a unilateral, U.S.-imposed ban would worsen relations between the United States and Europe, already strained by Trump's criticisms of Germany, his refusal to join the G7's statement supporting the Paris climate agreement, and U.S. leaks about last week's terrorist bombing in Manchester, England.
“Intelligence information sharing is more important now than it has ever been,” said Colin Clarke, a political scientist at the RAND Corp. “The fact that that [the electronics ban] is driving a wedge between countries is concerning.”
“Intelligence information sharing is more important now than it has ever been,” said Colin Clarke, a political scientist at the RAND Corp. “The fact that that [the electronics ban] is driving a wedge between countries is concerning.”
May 30, 2017, 12:16 pm
#1092
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ATL
Programs: DL DM, Hyatt LT DM, Wyndham DM, Hertz PC, HH Gold, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 2,038
May 30, 2017, 12:21 pm
#1093
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
Originally Posted by politico.com
The U.S. side took into account European concerns about the safety implications of storing devices with lithium batteries in aircraft cargo holds, a source with knowledge of the conversation said.
May 30, 2017, 12:47 pm
#1094
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
What an embarrassment that DHS has to be schooled by the Europeans on such a serious threat. I'd be interested to hear candid conversations among the Americans who have a real clue as to aviation safety -- FAA, NTSB, etc., -- as to what they think of the security-driven proposals pushed by DHS. My suspicion is that the real experts have little or no more power to influence DHS than the rest of us.
Last edited by Boggie Dog; May 30, 2017 at 1:57 pm
May 30, 2017, 1:05 pm
#1095
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 580
Unfortunately, Business Insider has a story where they claim that the DHS spokesperson called the Politico story "absolutely wrong."
How do you think that they were able to get the story wrong? Is it possible that DHS changed their mind, or that they felt embarrassed about the spin of the story?
http://www.businessinsider.com/europ...ort-dhs-2017-5
How do you think that they were able to get the story wrong? Is it possible that DHS changed their mind, or that they felt embarrassed about the spin of the story?
http://www.businessinsider.com/europ...ort-dhs-2017-5