5 ms·

You look at this and say to yourself, "this doesn't make any sense! i don't get how allowing cell phones and 'medical devices' (nebulous term) into carry ons, b

You look at this and say to yourself, "this doesn't make any sense! i don't get how allowing cell phones and 'medical devices' (nebulous term) into carry ons, but demanding that laptops go into checked baggage is keeping us safe!" And you're right! It isn't. But then you realize that the special interests that came up with this policy were paid LARGE SUMS OF MONEY to impress Trump and all of his supporters and career politician allies. And then you once more realize how incredibly stupid this policy is in reality. But then it dawns on you that Trump and his allies are either criminally idiotic, or criminally wasteful in their policy pursuits. Or both!

r00fus 10y ago
Spare (laptop) batteries are not allowed as checked luggage [1] (presumably the danger of a shorted battery causing a hull fire or explosion). Why would a laptop go into checked when an equivalently sized battery not be allowed? Further discrepancies that show we don't have a rational executive branch. [1] https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash/ash_programs/hazmat/passenger_info/media/Airline_passengers_and_batteries.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/as...
- caf 10y ago
  Laptops don't have exposed terminals.
  - aianus 10y ago
    Neither do the external power packs that are currently banned in checked luggage
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      If you buy one with a flashlight function, you could argue that it's a "device" and not a "battery".
belorn 10y ago
Does it make more sense than the previous security procedure that everyone passengers had to take off their shoes and have them scanned? Or the current ban on liquids? Or the even better idea I saw in Brussels airport of two semi-identical security checks; one to get into the airport and then the "regular" second one. I can only wait for the next improved version of three security checkpoints, which will add 50% more secure then the current two. After 9/11, sensibility went out the window. This new move is quite far from the stupidest I have seen.
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  Multiple checks are not stupid at all. The screening is not 100% reliable and an independent repeat is a reasonable way to improve detections of weapons, which have been shown to get through sometimes in TSA and third-party experiments.
  - belorn 10y ago
    I recall reading that TSA has never actually stopped a real threat to a airplane. The screening is one of the least cost-effective security mechanism in use, so are we suggestion that doubling it and the costs is a reasonable way to improve detections? A reasonable way to detect threats would be to hire more investigators and bomb dogs patrols. Both has shown to be cost-effective and to produce results, in direct contrast to the TSA screening method.
    - robotresearcher 10y ago
      I'm not a fan of security theatre. But the TSA does not have to catch anyone to be very effective. In fact it its intended deterrence effect was effective it would never catch anyone at all.
      - belorn 10y ago
        So does the deterrence effect increase by the number of screenings? The physiological effect is not measurable in this case, and if we compare it to the placebo effect which is measurable, there is little proof that eating two fake pills has any benefit over eating one. How big portion of terrorists is likely to completely ignore the fact of one screening but be deterred by the existence of a second one?
goldenkey 10y ago
The TSA wasnt any better under Obama... Don't spin this into a Trump issue
- barleyworth 10y ago
  Well, both Obama and Trump inherited a pretty broken TSA. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to whether the organization is improving or getting worse. Generally I doubt that a president deserves credit, positive or negative, for changes in random agencies like the TSA. Like, does Obama really deserve bonus points for us being able to use cell phones during takeoff+landing? But you have to admit that a country-specific ban has Trump written all over it. People are rightly pointing out why it's a misguided policy.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  I agree with you, but isn't this directly from the administration? Surely a rogue bureaucrat wouldn't do this on their own. And if Trump admin disagreed with it, they wouldn't implement it.
- turndown 10y ago
  The TSA was an Obama issue when Obama was President. The TSA was a Bush issue when Bush was President. The TSA is a Trump issue because Trump is President. The idea that we can't criticize someone because of X, Y, and Z is ridiculous. Trump is now President. It is now his problem to solve.
darawk 10y ago
This is actually fairly rational. I mean, all this airport security stuff is stupid security theater. However, if you're going to do it, you should absolutely ban laptops. Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/651/ https://xkcd.com/651/
modeless 10y ago
Look, I hate Trump. But air security policy hasn't been rational for a long time. Don't tie every government dysfunction to Trump.
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  Just because it's always been irrational doesn't mean it isn't especially irrational now.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  They may not be responsible for past policy, but I don't think it unreasonable to blame successive executive branches if they make the policy even more irrational.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  ill never forget the time when a national gaurd(?) member pointed (but not aimed) a military assat rifle at my little sister and seperated her from my family while they looked through her backpack for the electronics she forgot to empty. it was a scientific calculator, and she was 13 i think? so yeah, agreed. Airtravel hasn't been rational in a long time. this was sometime in the months following 9/11.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  I can see where you are coming from. But isn't this a policy directly from the administration? It seems they've taken a keen interest in making travel very painful for select foreigners. I don't think this is a policy from anyone other than the new government?
diminoten 10y ago
Dude, it's a 96 hour ban, all signs point to this being a targeted response to a specific credible threat. Chill.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  I'm chilled, but what do you mean? Can you link me to the chatter about the credible threat? What if they wait more than 96 hours? What does checking electronics into bags do to keep us safer?
  - diminoten 10y ago
    http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/324846-feds-temporarily-ban-electronics-on-certain-flights-to-us http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/324846-feds-tempora... The subtle arrogance in you asking for the threat Intel is utterly astonishing.
    - salesguy222 10y ago
      I appreciate the link, because the one I read said that the ban was indefinite, but that the airlines had 96 hours to implement. I also respectfully need to say that any arrogance you perceived from me was something you were reading into in my opinion, rather than something in my words that directly showed arrogance. I exist to provide logic based and relatively emotionless arguments, not too much cynicism or ill will to fellow commenters.
      - diminoten 10y ago
        > I exist to provide logic based and relatively emotionless arguments Bullshit.
- kashkhan 10y ago
  because the miscreants are too stupid to wait 96 hours.
  - 10y ago

r00fus 10y ago

Spare (laptop) batteries are not allowed as checked luggage [1] (presumably the danger of a shorted battery causing a hull fire or explosion). Why would a laptop go into checked when an equivalently sized battery not be allowed? Further discrepancies that show we don't have a rational executive branch. [1] https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash/ash_programs/hazmat/passenger_info/media/Airline_passengers_and_batteries.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/as...

caf 10y ago
Laptops don't have exposed terminals.
- aianus 10y ago
  Neither do the external power packs that are currently banned in checked luggage
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    If you buy one with a flashlight function, you could argue that it's a "device" and not a "battery".

belorn 10y ago

Does it make more sense than the previous security procedure that everyone passengers had to take off their shoes and have them scanned? Or the current ban on liquids? Or the even better idea I saw in Brussels airport of two semi-identical security checks; one to get into the airport and then the "regular" second one. I can only wait for the next improved version of three security checkpoints, which will add 50% more secure then the current two. After 9/11, sensibility went out the window. This new move is quite far from the stupidest I have seen.

robotresearcher 10y ago
Multiple checks are not stupid at all. The screening is not 100% reliable and an independent repeat is a reasonable way to improve detections of weapons, which have been shown to get through sometimes in TSA and third-party experiments.
- belorn 10y ago
  I recall reading that TSA has never actually stopped a real threat to a airplane. The screening is one of the least cost-effective security mechanism in use, so are we suggestion that doubling it and the costs is a reasonable way to improve detections? A reasonable way to detect threats would be to hire more investigators and bomb dogs patrols. Both has shown to be cost-effective and to produce results, in direct contrast to the TSA screening method.
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    I'm not a fan of security theatre. But the TSA does not have to catch anyone to be very effective. In fact it its intended deterrence effect was effective it would never catch anyone at all.
    - belorn 10y ago
      So does the deterrence effect increase by the number of screenings? The physiological effect is not measurable in this case, and if we compare it to the placebo effect which is measurable, there is little proof that eating two fake pills has any benefit over eating one. How big portion of terrorists is likely to completely ignore the fact of one screening but be deterred by the existence of a second one?

goldenkey 10y ago

The TSA wasnt any better under Obama... Don't spin this into a Trump issue

barleyworth 10y ago
Well, both Obama and Trump inherited a pretty broken TSA. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to whether the organization is improving or getting worse. Generally I doubt that a president deserves credit, positive or negative, for changes in random agencies like the TSA. Like, does Obama really deserve bonus points for us being able to use cell phones during takeoff+landing? But you have to admit that a country-specific ban has Trump written all over it. People are rightly pointing out why it's a misguided policy.
salesguy222 10y ago
I agree with you, but isn't this directly from the administration? Surely a rogue bureaucrat wouldn't do this on their own. And if Trump admin disagreed with it, they wouldn't implement it.
turndown 10y ago
The TSA was an Obama issue when Obama was President. The TSA was a Bush issue when Bush was President. The TSA is a Trump issue because Trump is President. The idea that we can't criticize someone because of X, Y, and Z is ridiculous. Trump is now President. It is now his problem to solve.

darawk 10y ago

This is actually fairly rational. I mean, all this airport security stuff is stupid security theater. However, if you're going to do it, you should absolutely ban laptops. Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/651/ https://xkcd.com/651/

modeless 10y ago

Look, I hate Trump. But air security policy hasn't been rational for a long time. Don't tie every government dysfunction to Trump.

derrickdirge 10y ago
Just because it's always been irrational doesn't mean it isn't especially irrational now.
zzalpha 10y ago
They may not be responsible for past policy, but I don't think it unreasonable to blame successive executive branches if they make the policy even more irrational.
wheelerwj 10y ago
ill never forget the time when a national gaurd(?) member pointed (but not aimed) a military assat rifle at my little sister and seperated her from my family while they looked through her backpack for the electronics she forgot to empty. it was a scientific calculator, and she was 13 i think? so yeah, agreed. Airtravel hasn't been rational in a long time. this was sometime in the months following 9/11.
salesguy222 10y ago
I can see where you are coming from. But isn't this a policy directly from the administration? It seems they've taken a keen interest in making travel very painful for select foreigners. I don't think this is a policy from anyone other than the new government?

diminoten 10y ago

Dude, it's a 96 hour ban, all signs point to this being a targeted response to a specific credible threat. Chill.

salesguy222 10y ago
I'm chilled, but what do you mean? Can you link me to the chatter about the credible threat? What if they wait more than 96 hours? What does checking electronics into bags do to keep us safer?
- diminoten 10y ago
  http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/324846-feds-temporarily-ban-electronics-on-certain-flights-to-us http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/324846-feds-tempora... The subtle arrogance in you asking for the threat Intel is utterly astonishing.
  - salesguy222 10y ago
    I appreciate the link, because the one I read said that the ban was indefinite, but that the airlines had 96 hours to implement. I also respectfully need to say that any arrogance you perceived from me was something you were reading into in my opinion, rather than something in my words that directly showed arrogance. I exist to provide logic based and relatively emotionless arguments, not too much cynicism or ill will to fellow commenters.
    - diminoten 10y ago
      > I exist to provide logic based and relatively emotionless arguments Bullshit.
kashkhan 10y ago
because the miscreants are too stupid to wait 96 hours.
- 10y ago