3 ms·

The article doesn't explain how they intend to enforce this ban. A recalled MacBook looks identical to the non-recalled ones, so this seems like a pointless rul

The article doesn't explain how they intend to enforce this ban. A recalled MacBook looks identical to the non-recalled ones, so this seems like a pointless rule.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 7y ago
It will probably be quite effective. Travelers will see these articles, and airlines will probably send out reminders to people not to bring these machines on the plane. Most people with them will get them fixed or leave them at home, and the risk is greatly diminished. It's not a bomb where any failure to keep it off the planes is catastrophic. They can afford to have some people defying the ban.
- outworlder 7y ago
  > where any failure to keep it off the planes is catastrophic In-flight fires are some of the deadliest issues one mzy encounter. They can indeed be catastrophic.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Sure, but the odds of a fire actually happening are still quite low. Unlike a bomb, where it's pretty likely to explode in flight because that's the whole point.
- nvrspyx 7y ago
  Even if it gets fixed, how would TSA know that? If TSA doesn't check at all, then the "solution" is relying on people following a rule that has no enforcement. How many people are going to actually read these articles to know which models are affected? How many people are going to remember the articles when it's time for them to go to the airport? How many people are simply going to ignore the rule because their MBP is their primary computer and would rather not go without it? Can they afford to have some people or most people defying the ban? Because as it stands, it's impossible to tell how many people are just going to voluntarily follow a rule with (close to) zero enforcement....unless they actually enforce it
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Yes, they can afford it. The purpose is just to reduce risk. The rule doesn't need to be, and I'm sure it wasn't intend to be, foolproof.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    If the FAA bans an item, it's up to the airline, not TSA, to ensure that such items are not in either carry-on or checked luggage.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
kccqzy 7y ago
Why does a rule have to rely on enforcement? Why can't we trust people and have an honor-based system?
- jobigoud 7y ago
  This reminds me of forbidden substances in the context of sports doping. Some substances are supposed to be illegal but can't be detected yet. I think they are only put on the list once there is an effective test for it. I guess an issue with a honor based system is although nobody can prove you are guilty, you also can't prove you are innocent if someone wrongly accuses you.

The article doesn't explain how they intend to enforce this ban. A recalled MacBook looks identical to the non-recalled ones, so this seems like a pointless rule.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mikeash 7y ago

It will probably be quite effective. Travelers will see these articles, and airlines will probably send out reminders to people not to bring these machines on the plane. Most people with them will get them fixed or leave them at home, and the risk is greatly diminished. It's not a bomb where any failure to keep it off the planes is catastrophic. They can afford to have some people defying the ban.

outworlder 7y ago
> where any failure to keep it off the planes is catastrophic In-flight fires are some of the deadliest issues one mzy encounter. They can indeed be catastrophic.
- mikeash 7y ago
  Sure, but the odds of a fire actually happening are still quite low. Unlike a bomb, where it's pretty likely to explode in flight because that's the whole point.
nvrspyx 7y ago
Even if it gets fixed, how would TSA know that? If TSA doesn't check at all, then the "solution" is relying on people following a rule that has no enforcement. How many people are going to actually read these articles to know which models are affected? How many people are going to remember the articles when it's time for them to go to the airport? How many people are simply going to ignore the rule because their MBP is their primary computer and would rather not go without it? Can they afford to have some people or most people defying the ban? Because as it stands, it's impossible to tell how many people are just going to voluntarily follow a rule with (close to) zero enforcement....unless they actually enforce it
- mikeash 7y ago
  Yes, they can afford it. The purpose is just to reduce risk. The rule doesn't need to be, and I'm sure it wasn't intend to be, foolproof.
- pdonis 7y ago
  If the FAA bans an item, it's up to the airline, not TSA, to ensure that such items are not in either carry-on or checked luggage.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

kccqzy 7y ago

Why does a rule have to rely on enforcement? Why can't we trust people and have an honor-based system?

jobigoud 7y ago
This reminds me of forbidden substances in the context of sports doping. Some substances are supposed to be illegal but can't be detected yet. I think they are only put on the list once there is an effective test for it. I guess an issue with a honor based system is although nobody can prove you are guilty, you also can't prove you are innocent if someone wrongly accuses you.