5 ms·

The government has made pretty clear over the last few months that the reason for the ban was intelligence that jihadist groups had made progress towards develo

The government has made pretty clear over the last few months that the reason for the ban was intelligence that jihadist groups had made progress towards developing a laptop bomb. It is pretty reasonable for them to withhold details in order to protect sources and intelligence-gathering techniques.

ceejayoz 9y ago
It seems unlikely they'd withhold that intelligence from the other Five Eyes nations and NATO partners, but to my knowledge they haven't implemented the same restrictions.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  The UK has: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-laptop-ban-flights-explained http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-laptop-ban-flights-explain... The US and UK are obviously at higher risk of being targeted than most countries. We also don't know if the intelligence included information about the countries the jihadists intended to target. Also, other governments may have come to different decisions about how to handle this risk. Some countries let a million people pour across their borders without identity checks, others don't. It may be surprising to some, but who and what you vote for matters.
valuearb 9y ago
Yes, lets put those laptop bombs in the hold.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  I believe that US-bound luggage has to go through special screening.
- tyingq 9y ago
  The amount of explosive you can fit into a laptop (and have it not be obvious) isn't a lot. So it works best if you can place the laptop directly against the hull of the aircraft. Putting it in the hold makes that less likely to happen. So while not optimal, putting them in the hold is an improvement.
  - sleepybrett 9y ago
    Hah, have you seen the "gaming" laptops out there, if you even replaces half of the battery with something like c4 it could easily blow a hole in a plane. That said I'm not advocating this ban at all, I think it's yet another in a long series of overreactions. But to imply that it couldn't be done is asinine.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      > to imply that it couldn't be done is asinine That isn't called for. Clearly you disagree, which is fine, but there's no need for a personal attack. Here's what happened with a laptop bomb that was placed against the hull on a Somali flight: http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160203180228-plane-explosion-somalia-forensics-dnt-todd-tsr-00003313-exlarge-169.jpg http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160203180228-plane-... As it happens, it only killed the bomber.
      - cft 9y ago
        They could allow Ultrabooks in the cabin and ban laptops say heavier than 2.5 lbs. They could publish a list of the heavier models that needed to be checked in.
  - peterwwillis 9y ago
    I know this comment will probably ensure I get on some kind of "list", but you don't need the laptop itself to be the fuel. It could be an accelerant or fuse, packed between fuel in a large bag, and multiple bags sent. Yes, putting laptops in the hold it is an improvement, assuming your attack vector is intentionally placed small explosives. Randomly placed large explosives, or large explosives placed intentionally by an insider, might be as effective or more so. But I know jack shit about the design of airplanes so I have no idea if this is the case.
bogomipz 9y ago
No they haven' made it pretty clear that "jihadist groups had made progress." Please provide a citation for that. The official TSA website states: "Evaluated intelligence indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation and are aggressively pursuing innovative methods to undertake their attacks"[1] It says nothing about them making progress. Also that's a pretty nebulous statement. "Evaluated intelligence indicates"? Why not share the details with the public in the form of a redacted report? Could you imagine the Surgeon General in the US issuing a statement that some food causes cancer and then not releasing any of the details? Of course not. Withholding details that allow your citizens to make their own informed decisions regarding their safety and welfare is unacceptable. Also did anyone ever assume that terrorists had stopped being interested in damaging aircraft? We are reminded of that every time we fly in the US and are berated and abused by TSA personal. So this isn't really a new development is it? [1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/21/fact-sheet-aviation-security-enhancements-select-last-point-departure-airports https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/21/fact-sheet-aviation-secu...
- jeremymcanally 9y ago
  I don't get the aggressive tone here? I think the ban is stupid, but they actually have had significant intelligence that (a) they have stolen scanning equipment they are using in the development of explosives so they can avoid detection and (b) they have developed newer laptop bombs that are more dangerous and harder to detect. It took me literally 30 seconds on Google to find an article detailing it with links: http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/isis-laptop-bomb-threat-planes-carry-on-ban-europe-middle-east/ http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/isis-laptop-bomb-threat-planes...
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    I didn't think my tonality was in any way aggressive. It certainly wasn't meant to be. Yes I read that story on heavy.com back in May. And heavy.com is not part of the DHS, the TSA or any other US government agency. Also the story on heavy.com is reporting about an unnamed source who reported it to another publication(the Washington Post.) So in effect you have - someone saying that someone told someone else this. That's hardly counts as a credible intelligence. That's what I would third-hand news. It's like the children's game of "Telephone."
avn2109 9y ago
>> "...the reason for the ban was intelligence that jihadist groups..." The reason for the ban has nothing to do with jihadists and everything to do with protecting domestic business. Emirates and Turkish Airlines were eating US flag carriers' lunch on profitable routes by offering reasonably priced service that doesn't suck. So the domestic airlines called their friends in Washington and asked them to tip the scales. You'll notice that the laptop banned routes were cash cows for the foreign airlines while being wholly unimportant to Delta, United et al. This tells you everything you need to know about the actual security impact of the laptop ban. It's just regulatory capture of the "security" agencies.
wahern 9y ago
> It is pretty reasonable for them to withhold details in order to protect sources and intelligence-gathering techniques. Trump already let slip that it was the Israelis who uncovered the plot.

ceejayoz 9y ago

It seems unlikely they'd withhold that intelligence from the other Five Eyes nations and NATO partners, but to my knowledge they haven't implemented the same restrictions.

marcoperaza 9y ago
The UK has: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-laptop-ban-flights-explained http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-laptop-ban-flights-explain... The US and UK are obviously at higher risk of being targeted than most countries. We also don't know if the intelligence included information about the countries the jihadists intended to target. Also, other governments may have come to different decisions about how to handle this risk. Some countries let a million people pour across their borders without identity checks, others don't. It may be surprising to some, but who and what you vote for matters.

valuearb 9y ago

Yes, lets put those laptop bombs in the hold.

marcoperaza 9y ago
I believe that US-bound luggage has to go through special screening.
tyingq 9y ago
The amount of explosive you can fit into a laptop (and have it not be obvious) isn't a lot. So it works best if you can place the laptop directly against the hull of the aircraft. Putting it in the hold makes that less likely to happen. So while not optimal, putting them in the hold is an improvement.
- sleepybrett 9y ago
  Hah, have you seen the "gaming" laptops out there, if you even replaces half of the battery with something like c4 it could easily blow a hole in a plane. That said I'm not advocating this ban at all, I think it's yet another in a long series of overreactions. But to imply that it couldn't be done is asinine.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    > to imply that it couldn't be done is asinine That isn't called for. Clearly you disagree, which is fine, but there's no need for a personal attack. Here's what happened with a laptop bomb that was placed against the hull on a Somali flight: http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160203180228-plane-explosion-somalia-forensics-dnt-todd-tsr-00003313-exlarge-169.jpg http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160203180228-plane-... As it happens, it only killed the bomber.
    - cft 9y ago
      They could allow Ultrabooks in the cabin and ban laptops say heavier than 2.5 lbs. They could publish a list of the heavier models that needed to be checked in.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  I know this comment will probably ensure I get on some kind of "list", but you don't need the laptop itself to be the fuel. It could be an accelerant or fuse, packed between fuel in a large bag, and multiple bags sent. Yes, putting laptops in the hold it is an improvement, assuming your attack vector is intentionally placed small explosives. Randomly placed large explosives, or large explosives placed intentionally by an insider, might be as effective or more so. But I know jack shit about the design of airplanes so I have no idea if this is the case.

bogomipz 9y ago

No they haven' made it pretty clear that "jihadist groups had made progress." Please provide a citation for that. The official TSA website states: "Evaluated intelligence indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation and are aggressively pursuing innovative methods to undertake their attacks"[1] It says nothing about them making progress. Also that's a pretty nebulous statement. "Evaluated intelligence indicates"? Why not share the details with the public in the form of a redacted report? Could you imagine the Surgeon General in the US issuing a statement that some food causes cancer and then not releasing any of the details? Of course not. Withholding details that allow your citizens to make their own informed decisions regarding their safety and welfare is unacceptable. Also did anyone ever assume that terrorists had stopped being interested in damaging aircraft? We are reminded of that every time we fly in the US and are berated and abused by TSA personal. So this isn't really a new development is it? [1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/21/fact-sheet-aviation-security-enhancements-select-last-point-departure-airports https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/21/fact-sheet-aviation-secu...

jeremymcanally 9y ago
I don't get the aggressive tone here? I think the ban is stupid, but they actually have had significant intelligence that (a) they have stolen scanning equipment they are using in the development of explosives so they can avoid detection and (b) they have developed newer laptop bombs that are more dangerous and harder to detect. It took me literally 30 seconds on Google to find an article detailing it with links: http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/isis-laptop-bomb-threat-planes-carry-on-ban-europe-middle-east/ http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/isis-laptop-bomb-threat-planes...
- bogomipz 9y ago
  I didn't think my tonality was in any way aggressive. It certainly wasn't meant to be. Yes I read that story on heavy.com back in May. And heavy.com is not part of the DHS, the TSA or any other US government agency. Also the story on heavy.com is reporting about an unnamed source who reported it to another publication(the Washington Post.) So in effect you have - someone saying that someone told someone else this. That's hardly counts as a credible intelligence. That's what I would third-hand news. It's like the children's game of "Telephone."

avn2109 9y ago

>> "...the reason for the ban was intelligence that jihadist groups..." The reason for the ban has nothing to do with jihadists and everything to do with protecting domestic business. Emirates and Turkish Airlines were eating US flag carriers' lunch on profitable routes by offering reasonably priced service that doesn't suck. So the domestic airlines called their friends in Washington and asked them to tip the scales. You'll notice that the laptop banned routes were cash cows for the foreign airlines while being wholly unimportant to Delta, United et al. This tells you everything you need to know about the actual security impact of the laptop ban. It's just regulatory capture of the "security" agencies.

wahern 9y ago

> It is pretty reasonable for them to withhold details in order to protect sources and intelligence-gathering techniques. Trump already let slip that it was the Israelis who uncovered the plot.