4 ms·
...this is absurd. It's a 96 hour ban, this has absolutely nothing to do with the travel ban.
by diminoten 10y ago
...this is absurd. It's a 96 hour ban, this has absolutely nothing to do with the travel ban.
- maxerickson 10y agoCould 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 agoWhile 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 agohttp://thehill.com/policy/transportation/324846-feds-temporarily-ban-electronics-on-certain-flights-to-us http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/324846-feds-tempora...
- maxerickson 10y agoFox 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 agoSubjecting 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.