6 ms·

What utter bullshit. If they allow phones at all, then the threat cannot be an issue of a passenger sending a command out of one of these. The threat has to be

What utter bullshit. If they allow phones at all, then the threat cannot be an issue of a passenger sending a command out of one of these. The threat has to be the device itself. Now, a standard issue iPad is no threat, so we're talking about a customized device made to look like on. Except, if terrorists are going to the trouble to do this, they can just as easily put whatever bad thing they want to put into the case of an insulin pump, and bypass the ban. This. Is. Bullshit.

wapz 10y ago
I agree with you completely. Banning the devices is really not going to do anything but piss off customers (maybe make a few feel safer).
- kobeya 10y ago
  It's going to put laptops in the baggage where they can be pulled out and their data dumped for dragnet surveillance.
  - jerf 10y ago
    As much as I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, there's just not enough time for that, with the timing as tight as it is. A particular target with a focused scan, sure. Mass surveillance dragnet? No way. Not unless the NSACIAFBI have a way of dumping a hard drive without turning on the machine at speeds faster than a disk can even dump itself. (Try pouring out your biggest spinning rust drive out over any port that can keep up with the drive. It takes hours nowadays. SSDs can bottleneck at the port instead of the drive, but you can't count on your target having one yet, nor can you count on the fastest ports being available. And we're certainly not going to mass-disassemble laptops to dump their drives.)
    - Terr_ 10y ago
      On the other hand, installing simple "retro-reflector" bugs for future use is a possibility. [0] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/06/building_retro_.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/06/building_retr...
    - X-Istence 10y ago
      Keep you busy at CBP, keep the bag from the belt when you first land... plenty of opportunities to physically attack the device when the person can't keep it on them and keep an eye on it.
      - jerf 10y ago
        To both of your who replied, yes, there are various other attacks, but that's a different issue that what I was replying to. And, still, at bulk these things aren't feasible, or even necessary. You're not taking your cynicism far enough. Why does the government need to sorta kinda hope that you might maybe take a flight with your gear someday when they're already capturing all your email and web browsing anyhow? It's a ridiculous theory that you're only entertaining because our trust has decayed to the point that the mere fact that something is an accusation against our government is all but proof that it must be true, no matter how silly it is. No, the government is not going to set out to physically attack every laptop passing through an airport, because what would that give them that they don't already have, except huge operational costs and risk of detection?
- GordonS 10y ago
  > maybe make a few feel safer Or maybe make even more feel yet more in fear of terrorists. Which the cynic in me thinks might be the point
dv_dt 10y ago
I suspect it's more about expanding the envelope of nation specific bans - the devices being a convenient pretense.
colordrops 10y ago
Or just their ass. People can fit amazingly large things in their ass and it would bypass all airport detection. There is no real security with such big loopholes.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Bollocks. That's one thing the millimeter scan will pick up just fine.
  - jedberg 10y ago
    Millimeter scans only happen in US airports -- they're banned in ~Europe~ the EU and not really used anywhere else. Also you're very wrong. You can defeat a millimeter scan just by placing the contraband between your palms while your hands are clasped above your head.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      > Millimeter scans only happen in US airports -- they're banned in Europe and not really used anywhere else. were. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/04/19/bodyscanners-zo-gaat-het-op-schiphol-a1425652 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/04/19/bodyscanners-zo-gaat-he...
      - jedberg 10y ago
        You're right, it's just the EU. I fixed my comment. The point is their technology is terrible and they are easy to defeat, as has been proven many many times. They are security theater and they were only put in place because the guy in charge of what scanners were allowed at US airports happened to have a financial interest in the company that made the millimeter wave scanner.
        kogepathic 10y ago
        > They are security theater and they were only put in place because the guy in charge of what scanners were allowed at US airports happened to have a financial interest in the company that made the millimeter wave scanner. Yup. I have been to many airports in Africa and SE Asia that have only a metal detector, manned by someone who barely cares enough to stand there, and no one has successfully committed an act of terrorism (a la 9/11) with a plane due to it. Also when I was traveling in Japan, they had machines that could scan the contents of your water bottle so you didn't have to empty it or throw it away while going through security. I'm mildly convinced other countries don't have this because the beverage industry can sell more water/soda you're forced to throw it away when you go through security. I've also stopped arguing about going through the machines. I know they do nothing, but it's not worth the hassle security employees give you to opt out. Just stand there, knowing it's pointless, and move on.
ghshephard 10y ago
I had a colleague fly through Amman last night. They had him remove 100% of everything from his briefcase and checked everything for bomb residue. If I had to guess, the US has intelligence that someone is going to bring a bomb (or some other weapon) on board a plane using a Laptop Form factor. I'm also guessing that the type of damage one can do with a device in the Cabin is greater than that can be done in the luggage hold (which is why the Laptop can be checked, but not brought through carry on.) Though, I'm open to the alternative theory that having people place their laptops in checked luggage gives them greater opportunity to do targeted surveillance without their target being aware.
- rndstr 10y ago
  Why not use that intel to catch the person instead of telling him? He can now just use as different airline?
marcoperaza 10y ago
That's some strong criticism, especially since you're not even considering that someone already successfully detonated a laptop bomb on a plane. From the CNN article on this new policy: >The official said the move is partly based on intelligence that they believe indicates Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is close to being able to hide explosives with little or no metal content in electronic devices in order to target commercial aircraft. It's a particular concern at these airports because of screening issues and the possibility of terrorists infiltrating authorized airport personnel, the official said. Flight and cabin crews are not covered by these new restrictions. In February 2016, a bomb hidden inside a laptop detonated aboard a Daallo Airlines flight out of Mogadishu, Somalia. The bomber was killed and a hole was blown in the side of the fuselage. The aircraft landed safely.
- yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
  The point made was that it's idiotic because bombs can be shoved into anything. Copy pasting the same bit about the likely existence of laptop bombs only matters if you believe that 1. it's harder to use something other than a laptop, or 2. moving a bomb to the luggage compartment will help.
  - ocschwar 10y ago
    Moving a small bomb to the luggage compartment does help, because it is not pressurized. I'll grand that much.
- nameless912 10y ago
  I think you've posted this like 15 times in this comment section. This is a terrible argument: what happens when next month someone hides a bomb in a bottle of liquor, or a child's toy, or an iPhone? This kind of reactive security is a sure way to inconvenience everyone and not actually improve security in any meaningful way. Every security professional knows that if you only "fix" the narrow cases that have caused problems in the past, you will never prevent another attack. I don't know what a better solution looks like, because I'm not an expert on counterterrorism or explosives detection, but this certainly isn't it.

wapz 10y ago

I agree with you completely. Banning the devices is really not going to do anything but piss off customers (maybe make a few feel safer).

kobeya 10y ago
It's going to put laptops in the baggage where they can be pulled out and their data dumped for dragnet surveillance.
- jerf 10y ago
  As much as I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, there's just not enough time for that, with the timing as tight as it is. A particular target with a focused scan, sure. Mass surveillance dragnet? No way. Not unless the NSACIAFBI have a way of dumping a hard drive without turning on the machine at speeds faster than a disk can even dump itself. (Try pouring out your biggest spinning rust drive out over any port that can keep up with the drive. It takes hours nowadays. SSDs can bottleneck at the port instead of the drive, but you can't count on your target having one yet, nor can you count on the fastest ports being available. And we're certainly not going to mass-disassemble laptops to dump their drives.)
  - Terr_ 10y ago
    On the other hand, installing simple "retro-reflector" bugs for future use is a possibility. [0] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/06/building_retro_.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/06/building_retr...
  - X-Istence 10y ago
    Keep you busy at CBP, keep the bag from the belt when you first land... plenty of opportunities to physically attack the device when the person can't keep it on them and keep an eye on it.
    - jerf 10y ago
      To both of your who replied, yes, there are various other attacks, but that's a different issue that what I was replying to. And, still, at bulk these things aren't feasible, or even necessary. You're not taking your cynicism far enough. Why does the government need to sorta kinda hope that you might maybe take a flight with your gear someday when they're already capturing all your email and web browsing anyhow? It's a ridiculous theory that you're only entertaining because our trust has decayed to the point that the mere fact that something is an accusation against our government is all but proof that it must be true, no matter how silly it is. No, the government is not going to set out to physically attack every laptop passing through an airport, because what would that give them that they don't already have, except huge operational costs and risk of detection?
GordonS 10y ago
> maybe make a few feel safer Or maybe make even more feel yet more in fear of terrorists. Which the cynic in me thinks might be the point

dv_dt 10y ago

I suspect it's more about expanding the envelope of nation specific bans - the devices being a convenient pretense.

colordrops 10y ago

Or just their ass. People can fit amazingly large things in their ass and it would bypass all airport detection. There is no real security with such big loopholes.

jacquesm 10y ago
Bollocks. That's one thing the millimeter scan will pick up just fine.
- jedberg 10y ago
  Millimeter scans only happen in US airports -- they're banned in ~Europe~ the EU and not really used anywhere else. Also you're very wrong. You can defeat a millimeter scan just by placing the contraband between your palms while your hands are clasped above your head.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > Millimeter scans only happen in US airports -- they're banned in Europe and not really used anywhere else. were. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/04/19/bodyscanners-zo-gaat-het-op-schiphol-a1425652 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/04/19/bodyscanners-zo-gaat-he...
    - jedberg 10y ago
      You're right, it's just the EU. I fixed my comment. The point is their technology is terrible and they are easy to defeat, as has been proven many many times. They are security theater and they were only put in place because the guy in charge of what scanners were allowed at US airports happened to have a financial interest in the company that made the millimeter wave scanner.
      - kogepathic 10y ago
        > They are security theater and they were only put in place because the guy in charge of what scanners were allowed at US airports happened to have a financial interest in the company that made the millimeter wave scanner. Yup. I have been to many airports in Africa and SE Asia that have only a metal detector, manned by someone who barely cares enough to stand there, and no one has successfully committed an act of terrorism (a la 9/11) with a plane due to it. Also when I was traveling in Japan, they had machines that could scan the contents of your water bottle so you didn't have to empty it or throw it away while going through security. I'm mildly convinced other countries don't have this because the beverage industry can sell more water/soda you're forced to throw it away when you go through security. I've also stopped arguing about going through the machines. I know they do nothing, but it's not worth the hassle security employees give you to opt out. Just stand there, knowing it's pointless, and move on.

ghshephard 10y ago

I had a colleague fly through Amman last night. They had him remove 100% of everything from his briefcase and checked everything for bomb residue. If I had to guess, the US has intelligence that someone is going to bring a bomb (or some other weapon) on board a plane using a Laptop Form factor. I'm also guessing that the type of damage one can do with a device in the Cabin is greater than that can be done in the luggage hold (which is why the Laptop can be checked, but not brought through carry on.) Though, I'm open to the alternative theory that having people place their laptops in checked luggage gives them greater opportunity to do targeted surveillance without their target being aware.

rndstr 10y ago
Why not use that intel to catch the person instead of telling him? He can now just use as different airline?

marcoperaza 10y ago

That's some strong criticism, especially since you're not even considering that someone already successfully detonated a laptop bomb on a plane. From the CNN article on this new policy: >The official said the move is partly based on intelligence that they believe indicates Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is close to being able to hide explosives with little or no metal content in electronic devices in order to target commercial aircraft. It's a particular concern at these airports because of screening issues and the possibility of terrorists infiltrating authorized airport personnel, the official said. Flight and cabin crews are not covered by these new restrictions. In February 2016, a bomb hidden inside a laptop detonated aboard a Daallo Airlines flight out of Mogadishu, Somalia. The bomber was killed and a hole was blown in the side of the fuselage. The aircraft landed safely.

yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
The point made was that it's idiotic because bombs can be shoved into anything. Copy pasting the same bit about the likely existence of laptop bombs only matters if you believe that 1. it's harder to use something other than a laptop, or 2. moving a bomb to the luggage compartment will help.
- ocschwar 10y ago
  Moving a small bomb to the luggage compartment does help, because it is not pressurized. I'll grand that much.
nameless912 10y ago
I think you've posted this like 15 times in this comment section. This is a terrible argument: what happens when next month someone hides a bomb in a bottle of liquor, or a child's toy, or an iPhone? This kind of reactive security is a sure way to inconvenience everyone and not actually improve security in any meaningful way. Every security professional knows that if you only "fix" the narrow cases that have caused problems in the past, you will never prevent another attack. I don't know what a better solution looks like, because I'm not an expert on counterterrorism or explosives detection, but this certainly isn't it.