3 ms·

> the ban will apply to nonstop flights to the U.S. from 10 airports in eight countries in the Middle East and North Africa Personal electronics are near-indis

> the ban will apply to nonstop flights to the U.S. from 10 airports in eight countries in the Middle East and North Africa Personal electronics are near-indispensable. By restricting their carry from Muslim countries, freedom of movement to and from those countries is significantly curtailed. This is about getting around the illegality of the Muslim ban without banning any persons or groups. This is about "cultural protectionism" through isolationism, not terrorism, and it's not even trying particularly hard to pretend otherwise.

adventured 10y ago
The premise you're going with doesn't make much sense. The devices aren't banned, you have to pack them in your luggage. It won't significantly curtail freedom of movement at all.
- harlanlewis 10y ago
  You're not wrong. I suppose I'd call my own statement a bit weak if this wasn't the third highly targeted policy in the past 2 months - in fact one of the few types of policies this administration has pushed all the way to action. It's possible my lens is broken, but it seems to me none of the policies considering the general populace of the middle east should be considered in isolation.
  - adventured 10y ago
    There's zero question it's intentionally narrowly targeting Islamic terrorism at best, and at worst is a staging ground for how much power of restriction they now have (or can get away with) when it comes to those sorts of things. The same way phone searches are a trial balloon that will inevitably spread to not just the general population at airports but the local / state law enforcement as well. My point is specifically that I don't believe it'll impede freedom of movement meaningfully. People will simply pack their devices in luggage. Interestingly, it might result in fewer laptop searches at the airports (whereas they might have asked someone to open / turn on / provide a password), among that targeted population.
    - toyg 10y ago
      It will make espionage much easier: checked-in laptops will be trivially stolen as part of security checks (US authorities can and will open any checked-in bag they feel like opening, and now any involved Middle-Eastern authority will also be able to do the same).
    - couchand 10y ago
      > Interestingly, it might result in fewer laptop searches at the airports (whereas they might have asked someone to open / turn on / provide a password), among that targeted population. I don't think that's right. Such demands are not generally made at airport security at the origin, but at the CBP checkpoint at the arrival airport. There, passengers have already retrieved checked bags.
      - sokoloff 10y ago
        Origin checks are used to prove that the electronic device is not a container for a bomb. (If it boots and looks normal, it probably is.)
wheelerwj 10y ago
interesting theory. but is keeping you from your laptop (but still allowing a smart phone) really much of a deterrent these days? most younger people are content without a laptop, using their phones quite a bit.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  It would be for me. My laptop is my access to my work and without it I'm not traveling for work and I will not let it out of my sight without buying another laptop and doing a complete re-image. No way I'd trust it after passing it off for several hours. Paranoid? Maybe.
diminoten 10y ago
...this is absurd. It's a 96 hour ban, this has absolutely nothing to do with the travel ban.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Could you link or explain where you are getting further info? Neither Bloomberg nor this Reuters article mention the period it will be in effect. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-electronics-idUSKBN16R2JN http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-electronics-i...
  - harlanlewis 10y ago
    While some initially reported it as a 96 hour ban, some of those reports have been updated to say 96 hours allowed for airline compliance. I honestly don't know which one is right. At least we can rest assured this has been as carefully prepared, vetted, and communicated as other recent policies. </s>
  - 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...
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Fox has since updated their coverage. http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/03/21/electronics-ban-on-flights-to-us-is-indefinite-applies-to-8-muslim-majority-nations.html http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/03/21/electronics-ban-on-...
- harlanlewis 10y ago
  Subjecting a targeted group to repeated fear and uncertainty through changing rules seems to be more of the plan than an absurdity. A rule like this establishes precedent, even. You put up this headline without any of the other political context and I am right there with you. But there is no shortage of context.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
snuxoll 10y ago
> This is about getting around the illegality of the Muslim ban without banning any persons or groups. This was my first thought until I saw a Saudi airport on the list of originating airports that will be impacted by the ban. Trump avoided listing any countries where he had business connections with in his ban orders, so I'm more likely to believe this is the result of actionable intelligence than xenophobia/Islamophobia-related bullshit. Still, I could be wrong and it could just be the current administration keeping on their anti-Islam crusade.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

adventured 10y ago

The premise you're going with doesn't make much sense. The devices aren't banned, you have to pack them in your luggage. It won't significantly curtail freedom of movement at all.

harlanlewis 10y ago
You're not wrong. I suppose I'd call my own statement a bit weak if this wasn't the third highly targeted policy in the past 2 months - in fact one of the few types of policies this administration has pushed all the way to action. It's possible my lens is broken, but it seems to me none of the policies considering the general populace of the middle east should be considered in isolation.
- adventured 10y ago
  There's zero question it's intentionally narrowly targeting Islamic terrorism at best, and at worst is a staging ground for how much power of restriction they now have (or can get away with) when it comes to those sorts of things. The same way phone searches are a trial balloon that will inevitably spread to not just the general population at airports but the local / state law enforcement as well. My point is specifically that I don't believe it'll impede freedom of movement meaningfully. People will simply pack their devices in luggage. Interestingly, it might result in fewer laptop searches at the airports (whereas they might have asked someone to open / turn on / provide a password), among that targeted population.
  - toyg 10y ago
    It will make espionage much easier: checked-in laptops will be trivially stolen as part of security checks (US authorities can and will open any checked-in bag they feel like opening, and now any involved Middle-Eastern authority will also be able to do the same).
  - couchand 10y ago
    > Interestingly, it might result in fewer laptop searches at the airports (whereas they might have asked someone to open / turn on / provide a password), among that targeted population. I don't think that's right. Such demands are not generally made at airport security at the origin, but at the CBP checkpoint at the arrival airport. There, passengers have already retrieved checked bags.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      Origin checks are used to prove that the electronic device is not a container for a bomb. (If it boots and looks normal, it probably is.)

wheelerwj 10y ago

interesting theory. but is keeping you from your laptop (but still allowing a smart phone) really much of a deterrent these days? most younger people are content without a laptop, using their phones quite a bit.

jacquesm 10y ago
It would be for me. My laptop is my access to my work and without it I'm not traveling for work and I will not let it out of my sight without buying another laptop and doing a complete re-image. No way I'd trust it after passing it off for several hours. Paranoid? Maybe.

diminoten 10y ago

...this is absurd. It's a 96 hour ban, this has absolutely nothing to do with the travel ban.

maxerickson 10y ago
Could you link or explain where you are getting further info? Neither Bloomberg nor this Reuters article mention the period it will be in effect. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-electronics-idUSKBN16R2JN http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-electronics-i...
- harlanlewis 10y ago
  While some initially reported it as a 96 hour ban, some of those reports have been updated to say 96 hours allowed for airline compliance. I honestly don't know which one is right. At least we can rest assured this has been as carefully prepared, vetted, and communicated as other recent policies. </s>
- 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...
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Fox has since updated their coverage. http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/03/21/electronics-ban-on-flights-to-us-is-indefinite-applies-to-8-muslim-majority-nations.html http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/03/21/electronics-ban-on-...
harlanlewis 10y ago
Subjecting a targeted group to repeated fear and uncertainty through changing rules seems to be more of the plan than an absurdity. A rule like this establishes precedent, even. You put up this headline without any of the other political context and I am right there with you. But there is no shortage of context.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

snuxoll 10y ago

> This is about getting around the illegality of the Muslim ban without banning any persons or groups. This was my first thought until I saw a Saudi airport on the list of originating airports that will be impacted by the ban. Trump avoided listing any countries where he had business connections with in his ban orders, so I'm more likely to believe this is the result of actionable intelligence than xenophobia/Islamophobia-related bullshit. Still, I could be wrong and it could just be the current administration keeping on their anti-Islam crusade.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]