7 ms·

US considers banning laptops on flights from UK airports

48 points by Matt3o12_ 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago
The bans sparked criticism from technology experts, who said the new rules appeared to be at odds with basic computer science. Nicholas Weaver, researcher at the International Computer Science Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, said last month: “It doesn’t match a conventional threat model. If you assume the attacker is interested in turning a laptop into a bomb, it would work just as well in the cargo hold.” I'm not sure what this has to do with computer science, unless computer science includes "the science of things shaped like computers", or why you need Nicholas Weaver to tell you about how bombs in cargo holds work.
- tyingq 9y ago
  Doesn't address the "computer science" part. Assuming the writer just meant "science". The laptop bomb has to be pretty small, so the terrorist's plan is to get a window seat and place it against the hull. That's why it is undesirable to have it in the cargo area...they have no control over placement. Also, the cargo area requires something other than a manual trigger, which is either complex, or error prone. Edit: Please note that I'm not endorsing a laptop ban.
- thesmallestcat 9y ago
  Something something combinatorial explosion.
  - donquichotte 9y ago
    Nothing like calling Ack(8,8) on a transatlantic flight.
  - booleandilemma 9y ago
    Logic bombs.
- donogh 9y ago
  Speculation: maybe it involves hiding bomb components in multiple passengers' laptops, then combining them in-flight?
  - andy_ppp 9y ago
    If someone intelligent wants to blow up your flight I bet they can. It's just most terrorist are very stupid, hence why they become indoctrinated into believing crazy lies about what the Quran (or for that matter the bible) says.
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      Terror groups have plenty of well-educated folks and highly skilled bomb makers. They don't send them out on suicide missions, but they're certainly there.
    - cordite 9y ago
      The ones that design the the bombs are typically not the ones that blow up the bombs, or assemble the bombs.
    - edejong 9y ago
      Lets google your claim: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/bruce-hoffman/todays-highly-educated-terrorists-4080 http://nationalinterest.org/blog/bruce-hoffman/todays-highly...
      - andy_ppp 9y ago
        Nowhere in there does it say most terrorists are intelligent.
no1youknowz 9y ago
There is no way I would ever stow a macbook pro in my luggage, only to see someone from baggage handling throw it around and be damaged or arrive at the destination and find it missing. With everything else that is happening in the industry. I'm now starting to seriously consider JetSmarter. I'm genuinely interested to know of experiences traveling from outside the US to the US using them. Were you subject to the same security screenings, would this ban be subject to JetSmarter as well and finally, are you able to board your own luggage? Thanks.
- hattar 9y ago
  I'd never heard of JetSmarter so I went to their site to learn more. The website is a scroll hijacking mess that's really unpleasant to use. I didn't make it past the landing page.
- dx034 9y ago
  If private jets are an alternative you can as well pay Fedex/UPS/DHL to transport the laptop. Insured and cheaper than private jets.
- julian_t 9y ago
  Leaving aside the (hopefully) unlikely case of the authorities deciding to install malware on my laptop, I've had experience of the roughness with which checked baggage is treated and getting things stolen from said baggage. That makes me very wary of checking delicate electronics, unless the airports and airlines substantially improve their baggage handling. If this goes ahead, I can see myself travelling without a laptop for short trips, and sending it ahead via DHL for longer ones, taking a disk image on a USB stick for backup.
phoenixProgram 9y ago
I have a better idea - ban the passengers. Or, we could go one step further: ban the passengers and ban all dollar - pound exchange. Keep the British on their island, with their laptops and their central bank. The reality is that neither NATO nor the UK has a terrorism policy consistent with USA interests. Both NATO and the UK want the USA to do their dirty work. Banning British citizens from USA territory saves the lives of American citizens. Why? Because a USA that bans British citizens will not put up with being ordered to carry out the decisions of British imperialists. This is quite serious - either the USA will protect itself from British imperialists or it will refuse to do so. The British imperialists will hunt people down and kill them in 2017 just as they did in the 1700s. These are people who are loyal to the crown. They do not live in America. They killed Americans hundreds of years ago and they will do it again because British imperialism is based on crisis mentality and terrorism. The British want to keep Americans signing up to die. They come here and laugh about it > "I can't believe how STUIPD the Americans are!!! They keep signing up to die for our wars, and we just order them around!!! MADNESS!!! :D :D :D" Remember: the British are smiling all the way to the bank.
iuguy 9y ago
This is insane and will not end well. I suspect it'll not be nearly as damaging as it should be for the US, though.
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
My life improved so much once I decided to stop flying.
- croon 9y ago
  While it might be environmentally friendly to fly, or cosmically irrelevant, my life is enriched by visiting places. You don't like far off vacations? I'd love some Matrix-like virtual reality in the future though.
  - 13of40 9y ago
    Last flight I was on, I took my friend's mini-geiger-counter, and the radiation level at 35,000 feet (over Oregon, not the Arctic or anything) was fifty times the background radiation at the airport. Obviously it's not acutely dangerous, but you have to wonder how many, say, cigarettes that's equivalent to as far as cancer risk.
    - dotBen 9y ago
      If the laptop ban comes into force, I doubt you will be able to bring that Geiger counter on board either...
    - tyingq 9y ago
      Doesn't include cigarettes, but shows a NY to LA flight as equivalent to 2 chest x-rays: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      Indeed flight crews have an elevated cancer risk: http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20031021/flight-crews-have-higher-cancer-risk http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20031021/flight-crew... But the risk is 50% more than normal, which is not extremely high compared to how much more radiation exposure they get. EDIT: Flight crews working on intercontinental flights have higher yearly exposure than nuclear workers apparently (https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/11/27/radiation-exposure_final_2_custom-a69d480c330b8d77a7c99574c076d65770521032-s800-c15.jpg https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/11/27/radiation-exposu...)
quantum_state 9y ago
Imagine if some source indicates that explosive fibers can be woven into innocent looking clothes, would all passengers be required to be naked before they are allowed to fly? I believe we can do better than this outright banning ...
- username223 9y ago
  I sometimes wonder if "the terrorists" have a twisted sense of humor. They put a bomb in a shoe, so now we all have to take off our shoes at the airport. Learning from this, they put a bomb in some guy's underwear. Fortunately we don't have to take off our underwear at the airport now, but we do have to be gawked at essentially naked by underpaid TSA rent-a-cops. It's only a matter of time before they think of the "butt-plug bomber," and we get cavity searches before boarding planes.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    There's a similar situation waiting to happen with OFAC regulations. They have a blacklist of people's names[1]. They compel banks and companies like Paypal to do loose/fuzzy string matching for any money transaction and block it. The string doesn't have to match just in the payer or payee field. It can match anything, like a memo field. It already affects people with popular common names that are similar to the real person on the list[2]. Waiting for some suspected terrorist on the list to legally change their name to "THANK YOU" or "PAYMENT FOR" or similar. [1] https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/default.aspx https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/... [2] https://www.paypal-community.com/t5/About-Business-Archive/The-Secret-Paypal-Blacklist/m-p/925329#U925329 https://www.paypal-community.com/t5/About-Business-Archive/T...
  - r00fus 9y ago
    all while Emmanuel Goldstein rolls in his fictitious grave.
- tyingq 9y ago
  We already had an underwear bomber. I believe that was the driver for the body scanners or obligitory grope policy in the US.
JamesMcMinn 9y ago
(Edit: it seems it's all of Europe, not just the UK) So you fly to Amsterdam or Dublin, then onto the US instead. This isn't going to protect anyone, it's just stupid and inconvenient to its very core. I'm already apprehensive about potentially having to visit the US because of everything from asking for social media accounts to copying data off of phones. All this is doing is making sure that I'm not going to travel to the US for business or pleasure.
- akhatri_aus 9y ago
  Its all travellers from Europe, the UK is in the title because of the special relationship.
- johansch 9y ago
  From the Times article that has more details: "British security chiefs have been put on alert that the US is planning to impose its laptop ban on incoming flights from some parts of Europe — a move that could be implemented within weeks. They are waiting to see whether Britain is included, according to a senior Whitehall source." https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/trump-considers-banning-laptops-on-planes-from-uk-airports-5rbxgm67m https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/trump-considers-bann...
  - dx034 9y ago
    As long as there's one country in Schengen which is not affected it doesn't make sense. You could just drive to that country and fly from there. Unless it's based on different security procedures. But in that case the US could give that information to the affected countries so that they can act instead of being banned.
hectorr 9y ago
Isn't this why we pay for all those fancy color scanners?
- dovdovdov 9y ago
  We pay for fear. ;)
kingexe 9y ago
if they ban anything larger than a smartphone how do they figure that the terrorists won't just use smartphones?
leecarraher 9y ago
United and American Airlines suggest that we ban cell phones with cameras(probably shouldn't have to make this distinction) too, for umm safety.
whack 9y ago
So what's stopping them from flying to Canada and taking a connecting flight? Or putting the device in the cargo hold, landing in the US, and detonating it at any sports event or concert? This whole thing smacks of Security Theater more than anything else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
rodionos 9y ago
The hit to in-flight productivity will be enormous. Then again, this falls into the same 'collateral damage' category as speed bumps - saves lives but also shortens lives with air and noise pollution, interferes with paramedics, increases commute time etc.
- joekrill 9y ago
  Except we have studies showing that speed bumps actually do save lives. There's nothing indicating that this ban would prevent bombs on planes in any meaningful way.
  - rodionos 9y ago
    I'm for speed bumps, but the equation is life years saved minus years taken. The subtraction part comes from shorter life spans due to increased air pollution, from deaths caused by speed bumps, from emergency vehicles having to drive slower in time-critical situations etc.
dx034 9y ago
They already use these bomb detectors on some bags with random checks. Apparently these scanners can detect any residue of explosives. Why not make it compulsary for all laptops? Should be impossible to transform a laptop into a bomb without creating some residue. Or are they concerned that people use batteries as bombs? In that case you could just use several phones instead.

48 points by Matt3o12_ 9y ago

The bans sparked criticism from technology experts, who said the new rules appeared to be at odds with basic computer science. Nicholas Weaver, researcher at the International Computer Science Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, said last month: “It doesn’t match a conventional threat model. If you assume the attacker is interested in turning a laptop into a bomb, it would work just as well in the cargo hold.” I'm not sure what this has to do with computer science, unless computer science includes "the science of things shaped like computers", or why you need Nicholas Weaver to tell you about how bombs in cargo holds work.

tyingq 9y ago
Doesn't address the "computer science" part. Assuming the writer just meant "science". The laptop bomb has to be pretty small, so the terrorist's plan is to get a window seat and place it against the hull. That's why it is undesirable to have it in the cargo area...they have no control over placement. Also, the cargo area requires something other than a manual trigger, which is either complex, or error prone. Edit: Please note that I'm not endorsing a laptop ban.
thesmallestcat 9y ago
Something something combinatorial explosion.
- donquichotte 9y ago
  Nothing like calling Ack(8,8) on a transatlantic flight.
- booleandilemma 9y ago
  Logic bombs.
donogh 9y ago
Speculation: maybe it involves hiding bomb components in multiple passengers' laptops, then combining them in-flight?
- andy_ppp 9y ago
  If someone intelligent wants to blow up your flight I bet they can. It's just most terrorist are very stupid, hence why they become indoctrinated into believing crazy lies about what the Quran (or for that matter the bible) says.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    Terror groups have plenty of well-educated folks and highly skilled bomb makers. They don't send them out on suicide missions, but they're certainly there.
  - cordite 9y ago
    The ones that design the the bombs are typically not the ones that blow up the bombs, or assemble the bombs.
  - edejong 9y ago
    Lets google your claim: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/bruce-hoffman/todays-highly-educated-terrorists-4080 http://nationalinterest.org/blog/bruce-hoffman/todays-highly...
    - andy_ppp 9y ago
      Nowhere in there does it say most terrorists are intelligent.

no1youknowz 9y ago

There is no way I would ever stow a macbook pro in my luggage, only to see someone from baggage handling throw it around and be damaged or arrive at the destination and find it missing. With everything else that is happening in the industry. I'm now starting to seriously consider JetSmarter. I'm genuinely interested to know of experiences traveling from outside the US to the US using them. Were you subject to the same security screenings, would this ban be subject to JetSmarter as well and finally, are you able to board your own luggage? Thanks.

hattar 9y ago
I'd never heard of JetSmarter so I went to their site to learn more. The website is a scroll hijacking mess that's really unpleasant to use. I didn't make it past the landing page.
dx034 9y ago
If private jets are an alternative you can as well pay Fedex/UPS/DHL to transport the laptop. Insured and cheaper than private jets.
julian_t 9y ago
Leaving aside the (hopefully) unlikely case of the authorities deciding to install malware on my laptop, I've had experience of the roughness with which checked baggage is treated and getting things stolen from said baggage. That makes me very wary of checking delicate electronics, unless the airports and airlines substantially improve their baggage handling. If this goes ahead, I can see myself travelling without a laptop for short trips, and sending it ahead via DHL for longer ones, taking a disk image on a USB stick for backup.

phoenixProgram 9y ago

I have a better idea - ban the passengers. Or, we could go one step further: ban the passengers and ban all dollar - pound exchange. Keep the British on their island, with their laptops and their central bank. The reality is that neither NATO nor the UK has a terrorism policy consistent with USA interests. Both NATO and the UK want the USA to do their dirty work. Banning British citizens from USA territory saves the lives of American citizens. Why? Because a USA that bans British citizens will not put up with being ordered to carry out the decisions of British imperialists. This is quite serious - either the USA will protect itself from British imperialists or it will refuse to do so. The British imperialists will hunt people down and kill them in 2017 just as they did in the 1700s. These are people who are loyal to the crown. They do not live in America. They killed Americans hundreds of years ago and they will do it again because British imperialism is based on crisis mentality and terrorism. The British want to keep Americans signing up to die. They come here and laugh about it > "I can't believe how STUIPD the Americans are!!! They keep signing up to die for our wars, and we just order them around!!! MADNESS!!! :D :D :D" Remember: the British are smiling all the way to the bank.

iuguy 9y ago

This is insane and will not end well. I suspect it'll not be nearly as damaging as it should be for the US, though.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

My life improved so much once I decided to stop flying.

croon 9y ago
While it might be environmentally friendly to fly, or cosmically irrelevant, my life is enriched by visiting places. You don't like far off vacations? I'd love some Matrix-like virtual reality in the future though.
- 13of40 9y ago
  Last flight I was on, I took my friend's mini-geiger-counter, and the radiation level at 35,000 feet (over Oregon, not the Arctic or anything) was fifty times the background radiation at the airport. Obviously it's not acutely dangerous, but you have to wonder how many, say, cigarettes that's equivalent to as far as cancer risk.
  - dotBen 9y ago
    If the laptop ban comes into force, I doubt you will be able to bring that Geiger counter on board either...
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Doesn't include cigarettes, but shows a NY to LA flight as equivalent to 2 chest x-rays: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    Indeed flight crews have an elevated cancer risk: http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20031021/flight-crews-have-higher-cancer-risk http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20031021/flight-crew... But the risk is 50% more than normal, which is not extremely high compared to how much more radiation exposure they get. EDIT: Flight crews working on intercontinental flights have higher yearly exposure than nuclear workers apparently (https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/11/27/radiation-exposure_final_2_custom-a69d480c330b8d77a7c99574c076d65770521032-s800-c15.jpg https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/11/27/radiation-exposu...)

quantum_state 9y ago

Imagine if some source indicates that explosive fibers can be woven into innocent looking clothes, would all passengers be required to be naked before they are allowed to fly? I believe we can do better than this outright banning ...

username223 9y ago
I sometimes wonder if "the terrorists" have a twisted sense of humor. They put a bomb in a shoe, so now we all have to take off our shoes at the airport. Learning from this, they put a bomb in some guy's underwear. Fortunately we don't have to take off our underwear at the airport now, but we do have to be gawked at essentially naked by underpaid TSA rent-a-cops. It's only a matter of time before they think of the "butt-plug bomber," and we get cavity searches before boarding planes.
- tyingq 9y ago
  There's a similar situation waiting to happen with OFAC regulations. They have a blacklist of people's names[1]. They compel banks and companies like Paypal to do loose/fuzzy string matching for any money transaction and block it. The string doesn't have to match just in the payer or payee field. It can match anything, like a memo field. It already affects people with popular common names that are similar to the real person on the list[2]. Waiting for some suspected terrorist on the list to legally change their name to "THANK YOU" or "PAYMENT FOR" or similar. [1] https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/default.aspx https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/... [2] https://www.paypal-community.com/t5/About-Business-Archive/The-Secret-Paypal-Blacklist/m-p/925329#U925329 https://www.paypal-community.com/t5/About-Business-Archive/T...
- r00fus 9y ago
  all while Emmanuel Goldstein rolls in his fictitious grave.
tyingq 9y ago
We already had an underwear bomber. I believe that was the driver for the body scanners or obligitory grope policy in the US.

JamesMcMinn 9y ago

(Edit: it seems it's all of Europe, not just the UK) So you fly to Amsterdam or Dublin, then onto the US instead. This isn't going to protect anyone, it's just stupid and inconvenient to its very core. I'm already apprehensive about potentially having to visit the US because of everything from asking for social media accounts to copying data off of phones. All this is doing is making sure that I'm not going to travel to the US for business or pleasure.

akhatri_aus 9y ago
Its all travellers from Europe, the UK is in the title because of the special relationship.
johansch 9y ago
From the Times article that has more details: "British security chiefs have been put on alert that the US is planning to impose its laptop ban on incoming flights from some parts of Europe — a move that could be implemented within weeks. They are waiting to see whether Britain is included, according to a senior Whitehall source." https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/trump-considers-banning-laptops-on-planes-from-uk-airports-5rbxgm67m https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/trump-considers-bann...
- dx034 9y ago
  As long as there's one country in Schengen which is not affected it doesn't make sense. You could just drive to that country and fly from there. Unless it's based on different security procedures. But in that case the US could give that information to the affected countries so that they can act instead of being banned.

hectorr 9y ago

Isn't this why we pay for all those fancy color scanners?

dovdovdov 9y ago
We pay for fear. ;)

kingexe 9y ago

if they ban anything larger than a smartphone how do they figure that the terrorists won't just use smartphones?

leecarraher 9y ago

United and American Airlines suggest that we ban cell phones with cameras(probably shouldn't have to make this distinction) too, for umm safety.

whack 9y ago

So what's stopping them from flying to Canada and taking a connecting flight? Or putting the device in the cargo hold, landing in the US, and detonating it at any sports event or concert? This whole thing smacks of Security Theater more than anything else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

rodionos 9y ago

The hit to in-flight productivity will be enormous. Then again, this falls into the same 'collateral damage' category as speed bumps - saves lives but also shortens lives with air and noise pollution, interferes with paramedics, increases commute time etc.

joekrill 9y ago
Except we have studies showing that speed bumps actually do save lives. There's nothing indicating that this ban would prevent bombs on planes in any meaningful way.
- rodionos 9y ago
  I'm for speed bumps, but the equation is life years saved minus years taken. The subtraction part comes from shorter life spans due to increased air pollution, from deaths caused by speed bumps, from emergency vehicles having to drive slower in time-critical situations etc.

dx034 9y ago

They already use these bomb detectors on some bags with random checks. Apparently these scanners can detect any residue of explosives. Why not make it compulsary for all laptops? Should be impossible to transform a laptop into a bomb without creating some residue. Or are they concerned that people use batteries as bombs? In that case you could just use several phones instead.