Lap top and tablet ban

[ExXB]

Quick, buy shares in Air Canada. Their connecting hubs, with US preclearance, are going to become much more popular. Particularly in F/J.

[paulc]

well if USA does decide to introduce a laptop ban on flights from the UK then the UK should do the same to UK bound flights from the USA.

[Ian W]

Logically, it would have to.

Although a better bet would be to follow Ireland and Canada and have US Security, Customs and Immigration at major transatlantic airports with sufficient pax to US to make it worthwhile. It would make things easier for the destination US airports too.

[Jet II]

CBP Pre-clearance doesn't have any effect on the laptop ban. Abu Dhabi has pre-clearance yet is still covered by the ban.

[ExXB]

Yes Jet II, but for transborder flights to be caught into the ban, they would have to add Canada to the list. Not saying they wont but the number of flights involved would increase by an order of magnitude. And affect US based airlines to a much greater degree. Doubtful, but you never know ...

The EK flights that transit ATH and MIL enroute to the US, with no additional security checks, are exempt from the ban. Now explane (pun intended) that one.

[czarnajama]

Quick, buy shares in Air Canada. Their connecting hubs, with US preclearance, are going to become much more popular. Particularly in F/J.

So long as Canada doesn't join the ban ... I had expected that Canada would do so, since it has for many years restricted ME3 flights into Canada to protect Air Canada, its Star Alliance partner Lufthansa and the Frankfurt hub. However, the (relatively) new Canadian government makes evidence-based decisions more than its predecessor, with an experienced astronaut and former Space Agency head as the Minister of Transport, and on security/safety grounds, the laptop ban is rather spurious. As for New Zealand, it would make good commercial sense, protecting Air New Zealand, so it is no surprise that New Zealand is making noises about joining the ban.

[GrahamO]

well if USA does decide to introduce a laptop ban on flights from the UK then the UK should do the same to UK bound flights from the USA.


By rights, the whole of the EU should do the same.

[edmundronald]

This is starting to look like non-tariff barriers -the US is negotiating symmetric open skies landing rights and then essentially making the counterpart rights valueless post-facto by applying assymmetric security measures. My guess is that as soon as Europe gets involved this will end up at the WTO, after an ugly set of retaliations - eg food exports will get stopped for "health reasons".

[Jet II]

Yes Jet II, but for transborder flights to be caught into the ban, they would have to add Canada to the list. Not saying they wont but the number of flights involved would increase by an order of magnitude. And affect US based airlines to a much greater degree. Doubtful, but you never know ...

The EK flights that transit ATH and MIL enroute to the US, with no additional security checks, are exempt from the ban. Now explane (pun intended) that one.

Of course it doenst make sense - just like they dont think an ISIS bomber capable of turning a laptop into a bomb couldnt work out that travelling from Athens would be a better idea than travelling from Istanbul. As a security policy it has some rather large holes.

But as a policy to support the US carriers and hurt the ME 3... - judging by EK's results its working. :E

[Airbubba]

Looks like the ban will be extended to some European countries possibly as soon as tomorrow:

Wed May 10, 2017 | 6:00pm EDT

U.S. likely to expand airline laptop ban to Europe: government officials

By Mark Hosenball and David Shepardson | WASHINGTON

The Trump administration is likely to expand a ban on laptops on commercial aircraft to include some European countries, but is reviewing how to ensure lithium batteries stored in luggage holds do not explode in midair, officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.

Any expansion of the ban could impact U.S. carriers such as United Airlines (UAL.N), Delta Air Lines Inc (DAL.N) and American Airlines Group (AAL.O). Six U.S. and European officials said they expect the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make an announcement but declined to say when.

DHS officials plan to meet with airline industry officials on Thursday to discuss security issues, two people briefed on the matter said. Also on Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly will give a classified briefing to senators about domestic threats and airline issues are expected to be discussed, a congressional aide briefed on the matter said.

U.S. likely to expand airline laptop ban to Europe: government officials | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-electronics-ban-idUSKBN1862QS)

[b1lanc]

Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg - but the original story I saw was in the Daily Beast.

DHS said in a statement to The Daily Beast: “No final decisions have been made on expanding the restriction on large electronic devices in aircraft cabins; however, it is under consideration. DHS continues to evaluate the threat environment and will make changes when necessary to keep air travelers safe.”

Almost the entire 'article' was dedicated to the safety risks of Li-ion batteries in the cargo holds.

Of course, no 'news' organization such as Reuters would think of capitalizing on other news leads, whether fact-checked or not:E

[crewmeal]

U.S. to Ban Laptops in All Cabins of Flights From Europe, Officials Say (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/10/u-s-to-ban-laptops-in-all-cabins-of-flights-from-europe)


Now the Daily Mail

Britons travelling to US could be hit by laptop ban | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4493432/Britons-traveling-hit-laptop-ban.html)

[DaveReidUK]

Well I suppose that's one way to silence the protests that it was a measure specifically designed to damage the ME3

[paulc]

This ban if it includes photographic equipment will seriously hurt the tourism industry. (how many European visitors does the USA get each year and how many Americans visit Europe) I regularly visit the EAA Oshkosh event (had over 2300 international visitors in 2016 and many will have expensive camera gear) but if I am forced to risk my equipment into the loving care of checked baggage then I am having doubts about future trips. Airlines always say never to put valuables into checked luggage and insurance would not cover this either. So what steps will be taken to guarantee that it would not get lost / damaged or stolen?

[Alanwsg]

More from 'The register' ....

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/10/laptops_banned_from_cabins_europe_to_us/

[RexBanner]

The US rule will eventually be a blanket ban, there's no way it could be otherwise. How can airlines then justify charging a fee for checking a bag when passengers are effectively now being mandated that they do so? It's a rhetorical question of course but life is about to become a hell of a lot more expensive and difficult for commuters such as myself. The liquids ban you can live with and is a minor inconvenience but this? This is existential, no two ways about it, it will involve missed flights because of the extra time consumption of checking a bag. All for some window dressing and security theatre. It makes my blood boil.

[9 lives]

A partial solution for this would be the innovation of things like Ipads to be made even more of tempered glass than they are now. If security inspectors can see right through it, and see the internal components, it will be much easier to be confident it has not been tampered. A new breed of Ipad type devices and hopefully notebook computers too, which are tamper proof and transparent to a large degree.

This, of course will not satisfy all concerns, but perhaps some.

I agree that this is window dressing, and long after we continue to suffer these massive and useless inconveniences, the terrorists will have found other innovative ways to create a threat. In anticipation of inconvenience later this summer, I have brought, and will leave, and old notebook computer here in Europe, so if, on my next Atlantic crossing, they're banned, I'll have one here already. It is the airlines who will suffer, and then we passengers, as the increased costs for compliance are passed down.

What a ridiculous situation, I now look fondly upon my airline days back in the '80's, when it was a much more kind, and gentle industry....

[garpal gumnut]

I have a very nice cover for my Macair 13" which has never been detected as a cover for a laptop. It fits in the backseat pocket on all passenger aircraft.

[Joe_K]

A partial solution for this would be the innovation of things like Ipads to be made even more of tempered glass than they are now. If security inspectors can see right through it, and see the internal components, it will be much easier to be confident it has not been tampered.

That does not sound like a solution. Devices are already x-rayed at the airport, and the x-ray scanner's colour coding tells you more about the item than a see-through case and an eyeball ever could.

Also, confining devices to the hold only makes sense if the perceived threat is not from an explosive in the classical sense, but instead from a method of using the devices as they are, and somehow tamper with them in flight.

[airsound]

Does the idea of loading possibly hundreds of lithium-ion batteries into the hold not contravene the regulations banning the bulk carriage of such batteries in passenger aircraft?

[WHBM]

When did the "security industry" ever show the slightest interest in passenger safety ?

[czarnajama]

There is only one solution, namely, a blanket ban on all batteries in checked baggage. This means that people travelling with laptops would not be able to take batteries for them. A benefit of this would be that electronics in the hold could not be left on to communicate with a smartphone in the cabin... surely it is obvious that a bomb-equipped computer in the hold can communicate with a device in the cabin!

I think that a permanent complete ban will quickly lead to improvement of cellphones to act as full-blown computers, with improvement of their operating systems and applications. Airlines could also modify seat back displays to connect with PDA/cellphones, so that the entire phone screen can then be used as a keyboard.

This rather silly ban may act as a stimulus for technological innovation, forcing the "convergence" of smartphone and PC technology, which recently has been dropped or delayed by the likes of Canonical and Microsoft.

[Alsacienne]

And if we're talking lithium ion batteries, no more CPAP or similar medical equipment for long haul flights ... and you don't put that sort of equipment in the hold ...

[pax britanica]

Well the idiocy of this sort of thing goes back to the pre 9-11 days in the US when they security checked international flights and not domestic ones and paid a terribly terribly heavy price for that self centred stupidity.
In this case loads of LI batteries in checked baggage all of varying ages charge states minor damge etc etc seems horrendous even before we get to the issues of peopel not travelling without electronic tools or toys or both.

If there is a real and present threat then be up front and say dont bring your laptop because we will take it to pieces and make it a temporary arrangement. However with things as they are in Washington anything sane r sensible is pretty unlikely .

It would inconvenience me but its up to my company to solve it i either go without the laptop or stay home and VC the meeting just have to make a judgment what you do each trip

[Noxegon]

There is only one solution, namely, a blanket ban on all batteries in checked baggage. This means that people travelling with laptops would not be able to take batteries for them.

Lots of personal devices these days don't have removable batteries.

[Mr Magnetic]

Also, confining devices to the hold only makes sense if the perceived threat is not from an explosive in the classical sense, but instead from a method of using the devices as they are, and somehow tamper with them in flight.

Exactly. And the one fundamental difference between a smartphone and a laptop is the amount of energy contained within the battery.

Maybe not so nonsensical after all...

[airsound]

I've been going to the US regularly for more than 30 years (my lovely wife is American). The embuggeration factor has got progressively worse.

Already, I don't do body scans - it's not that I'm the slightest bit bothered at people checking my bits out, it's just a step too far in the reduction of human dignity.

Now, if they're going to make me put my laptop in the hold, I'm just not going.

[eliptic]

More "flying batteries" to come

"Describing the suitcase as packed with technology, NEXT said it will send an alert to its owner's smart phone when the suitcase arrives on the conveyor belt, and an alarm if anyone tries to run away with it. NEXT added that the suitcase set for introduction has a GPS-tracking, a built in scale that gives exact weight, ability to charge a smart phone seven times and a blue tooth speakerphone."

NEXT Biometrics Customer to Debut World's Most Advanced Suitcase With Fingerprint Sensor for Secure Locking and Unlocking (http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/next-biometrics-customer-debut-worlds-most-advanced-suitcase-with-fingerprint-sensor-2215835.htm)

[PAXboy]

EU demands talks with US over possible airline laptop ban

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/airline-laptop-ban-europe-eu-trump

[ExSp33db1rd]

All for some window dressing and security theatre. It makes my blood boil.

Total waste of time, we all know that the Bad Boys will do precisely what they want to so, when they want to do it. All this does is make them change tactics.

The only real benefit is that it seems to have stopped them hijacking aircraft to take their Grandmother back to Cuba, which started all this security nonsense in the late '60's.

[Machrihanish]

EU demands talks with US over possible airline laptop ban ...
...only on the grounds of our common values! :E

[BlankBox]

If I were one of the bombing types...I would be laughing gleefully to myself 'cause now all that firepower is gonna be concentrated in the one place that nobody can get at...and all it takes from me is one device to set off the whole shebang...how nice!

[EEngr]

it seems to have stopped them hijacking aircraft to take their Grandmother back to CubaThat would be mother-in-law. And I may still have use for that service.;)

[jugofpropwash]

Also, confining devices to the hold only makes sense if the perceived threat is not from an explosive in the classical sense, but instead from a method of using the devices as they are, and somehow tamper with them in flight.

I still think that the only way a cabin ban works is if the threat is in using the device somehow to affect the controls of the aircraft. (By which I would also include interfering with communications or radar.) I mean, why on earth would you take what you fear could possibly be a bomb and pack it amidst a bunch of highly flammable batteries, in a place where you cannot get at any resultant fire to put it out? Would it not make more sense to have the possibly suspect piece of electronics in the cabin, where fellow passengers would notice if you started doing something odd like prying your computer apart? And where if there was a fire or explosion, flames could be doused, etc?

[MG23]

I mean, why on earth would you take what you fear could possibly be a bomb and pack it amidst a bunch of highly flammable batteries, in a place where you cannot get at any resultant fire to put it out?

1. It's not a very big bomb.
2. Unlike a laptop in the cabin, the bomber has no control over where it explodes.

I presume the idea is that you're more likely to survive a small bomb in the cargo hold than wherever they think the bombers plan to explode them. But, as you say, if it explodes in a big pile of laptops, the damage done to their batteries might well make it a very bad day all around.

[highflyer40]

When the ban first came out they did state what the threat was. They said they had intelligence that said terrorists were trying to build devices that were part of numerous devices. So one part in a iPad, one part in a laptop, one part in a kindle... once airborne into the toilet to disassemble these devices and reassemble into the destructive device.

If, and it is a big if, this is true then the ban makes sense

[Ian W]

Another way of stopping these security problems would be to ground all commercial aircraft indefinitely - including freight. :ugh:

I am surprised such a simple idea has not occurred to the simple minded security 'experts'. They do appear to be working hand in glove with those they claim are the 'security threat' because as soon as a threat is made the response is to reduce the freedom of all the travelers rather than to actually improve their gathering of intelligence and identifying those that are the major risk and ensuring that they are no threat. This is the El Al approach. http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Otherwise I can see TSA (or equivalent) preventing EFBs from being carried aboard, or the airline chairman having his laptop impounded.
The way security is applied must be made more robust and intelligent the current 'ban it from the aircraft' approach is playing into the hands of those who wish to destroy the system.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - MLK Jr

[jugofpropwash]

When the ban first came out they did state what the threat was. They said they had intelligence that said terrorists were trying to build devices that were part of numerous devices. So one part in a iPad, one part in a laptop, one part in a kindle... once airborne into the toilet to disassemble these devices and reassemble into the destructive device.

If, and it is a big if, this is true then the ban makes sense

How about simply not allowing people to take their toys to the bathroom with them? If you're building a bomb in your seat, somebody's probably going to notice.

[ExXB]

So, the terrorists will just take a connecting flight via Canada or the Caribbean, or go the long way around via Asia, or the antipodes.

A blanket ban must be a blanket ban. Anything else is a joke.

[Ian W]

It is a joke.

Terrorists can fly on domestic flights as well, therefore, if the threat is real no electronics should be allowed on US domestic flights either.

I read that the reason for the specific airports chosen was that terrorist sleeper security were in place to 'allow' pax through with devices that would otherwise be picked up. This justification was obviously untrue if there is a blanket ban. The ban is a tacit admission that the security at airports in insufficient.

Yet it is probable that the chance of a LiIon battery fire in the hold is higher than the chance of a terrorist bomb.

The word inept comes to mind.

[ExXB]

IMHO Dubai security is much more thorough than security at JFK or IAD. Of course security personnel can be bribed to do nasty things, but I suspect the risk is just as great in the US as at airports on the banned list.

[Mr Magnetic]

Consider this:

https://youtu.be/AAZ62tUtc0w

[msbbarratt]

I read that the reason for the specific airports chosen was that terrorist sleeper security were in place to 'allow' pax through with devices that would otherwise be picked up. This justification was obviously untrue if there is a blanket ban. The ban is a tacit admission that the security at airports in insufficient.

Number one rule of intelligence: don't betray your knowledge by acting on it carelessly.

If there really were specific airports with terrorist sleepers on the staff, the last thing one would want to do is highlight one's knowledge of that by picking on flights from that airport... However, I don't think there's any need to obfuscate that knowledge that by picking on an entire continent's airports.

[pax britanica]

AS Ian W points out whats the point in not banning their use on US domestics. After all as I reminded the thread in an earlieir post 9-11 was US home grown affair. Only the people were non US , the means (flight training in that case) and the targets were both domestically focussed and I am sure buying a few electronic gadgets and getting hold of a small quantity of explosive is easier than sending a bunch of people through basic flight school. No its blanket ban or nothing if it is to be effective otherwise it just perpetuates the myth that foreigners are the threat to the USA. However 9-11 , The Fed Building in Oklahoma? Boston Marathon and various other incidents makes it very the that 'the real enemy is within' but that doesn't suit the 'wall mentality' does it

[ExXB]

From my source still in the industry. Circulated by IATA yesterday 17/05/5

Over the past several weeks, there have been numerous press and industry reports suggesting that the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would expand the scope of this directive to cover more last points of departure (LPD) to the US. At this point, DHS has made no formal announcements on any expansion of this directive. However, below outlines recent developments in this regard:

· On 12 May, representatives of the US and EU met via conference call to discuss the potential expansion of the directive. As a result of that meeting, the US and the EU will meet next week in Brussels to decide on the best path forward to address this security threat. We do not expect the US to make any announcement on expansion until that meeting is concluded.

· On 9 May, the ICAO Council met to discuss the issue, a meeting in which IATA was able to participate. The Council agreed to set up a multidisciplinary group (cargo, security, flight operations, and dangerous goods) to address the issue urgently. IATA and Airports Council International have been invited to be part of this group.

· On 10 May, IATA facilitated and participated in a Security Summit in Washington, DC involving airlines, airports, and regulators to discuss the security threat and how to address it. One result of the meeting is that industry partners agreed to compile a summary of lessons learned thus far and propose a range of short-term measures for consideration by regulators and transport ministers. IATA will work urgently with electronics manufacturers to seek tamper-evident solutions. The IATA Smart Security Management Group will also continue to work with screening technology providers to secure medium and long-term large electronic device screening solutions.

· On 11 May, U.S. carrier representatives met with DHS Secretary John Kelly to discuss the issue. The Secretary provided the participants with a briefing on the security threat but did not indicate how or when DHS would expand the scope of the directive.

· Also on 11 May, IATA briefed US Congressional homeland security staff on our concerns regarding the impact an expansion of the directive would have on commercial air operations. To that end, IATA is preparing a full assessment of this impact to share with government regulators.

· IATA continues to reach out to DHS to stress the following:

o We accept the need to mitigate threats with additional measures. However, we want to help ensure that those measures are effective, operationally efficient, and minimize the impact on passengers;

o DHS needs to continue to consult with industry on the best way to achieve our mutual protective security goals;

o DHS needs to provide industry with lead time to comply with any expansion of the directive;

o Coordination among governments on a multilateral basis is critical when addressing such security threats; and

o The confusion caused by lack of advanced coordination and communication and by industry not being part of determining what is implementable reduces the effectiveness of counter measures.

IATA will inform member airlines via all channels when and if DHS announces an expansion of the security directive. We anticipate that this will happen sometime next week. We are hopeful that we will receive adequate warning and lead time on any expansion. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that will be the case.

We encourage you to reach out to your governments to stress these points, particularly in Europe.

[msbbarratt]

AS Ian W points out whats the point in not banning their use on US domestics. After all as I reminded the thread in an earlieir post 9-11 was US home grown affair. Only the people were non US , the means (flight training in that case) and the targets were both domestically focussed and I am sure buying a few electronic gadgets and getting hold of a small quantity of explosive is easier than sending a bunch of people through basic flight school. No its blanket ban or nothing if it is to be effective otherwise it just perpetuates the myth that foreigners are the threat to the USA. However 9-11 , The Fed Building in Oklahoma? Boston Marathon and various other incidents makes it very the that 'the real enemy is within' but that doesn't suit the 'wall mentality' does it

I had an opportunity to chat to some US airport operators last year. I asked them how many guns people tried to take on flights hand luggage. Unsurprisingly, loads, all the time. Excuses run to "I forgot", or "my wife must have put it there", etc.

But there's nothing magically different about the equipment and procedures the US airports use that makes them more able to spot laptop bombs. They're in the same situation as anyone else.

Factors that might be thought of as different include 1) the level and penetration of domestic surveillance, 2) the likelihood of spotting a plot before the bomb gets taken to an airport, 3) the availability of explosives.

You're right about the need for a ban to be universal or non-existent. Terrorists love to "beat the system", and a patchy ban is full of holes...

[triploss]

US airports have "precheck" for essentially anyone who can pass a background check. Laptops and liquids can stay in bags there. *multiple* laptops sandwiched together in a bag in fact (2 is the official limit apparently, but I've seen more in practice). Either the X-rays machines for pre-check are extra strong and they have specially trained operators on them, or ...? (I've never been to Dubai, but the only airports where I've not had to remove laptops recently are in New Zealand for domestic flights, or the US with precheck.)

So now you're relying on the quality of background checks (haha, good joke).

[MG23]

Factors that might be thought of as different include 1) the level and penetration of domestic surveillance, 2) the likelihood of spotting a plot before the bomb gets taken to an airport, 3) the availability of explosives.You forgot the most important one:

0) the number of terrorists.

No terrorists would mean no threat.

Europe is importing many more of them every day, with no end in sight. Trump is at least trying to stop America importing them.

[triploss]

And yet, you're much less likely to be killed by a lunatic in Europe than in the US. Regardless of Europe trying to be humane, still safer.

[Rwy in Sight]

triploss.

I pay a lot of taxes in Europe and I like to be spend on the well-being of myself and those near me (not I have a choice). I feel that Europe does not need to import additionally potential terrorists - particularly this kind stating they are 12 and look enough have father themselves.

Also it seems American is buying new aircraft without any IFE because "most people carry their own IFE in the form of a tablet". I am wondering if they are going to do the same with their widebodies if they have any in order.

[msbbarratt]

You forgot the most important one:

0) the number of terrorists.

No terrorists would mean no threat.

Europe is importing many more of them every day, with no end in sight. Trump is at least trying to stop America importing them.

Ah yes, the Trumpian naivety concerning America's supposed inability to grow their own terrorists...

Of course, this conveniently forgets about US born citizens such as Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma), Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber), whoever it was that was posting anthrax here there and everywhere a while back, Eric Rudolph (bombed abortion clinics and the Atlanta Olympics), Tom Manning / Jaan Laaman (left wing crazies from the 1970s), the Wall Street bombing in 1920; not to mention those members of American society who were quite cheerfully stumping up cash and arms for terrorists in Northern Ireland, the regular mass shootings that occur in schools, cinemas, etc, or the many daily attempts by passengers to smuggle firearms in hand luggage on domestic flights.

Terrorists 'win' by having a big negative impact on society, the more global the better. The imposition of overly burdonsome security restrictions is a goal they are very happy to bring about, it makes them feel like they're in charge of events.

Here in the UK we can tell that security arrangements on flights to the US, and Trump in general, is having a negative impact on the US. Disneyland Florida is doing a lot of advertising over here, seems no-one wants to go there anymore. The number of people looking to travel to the US for their post-grad education has dropped 60%. Ban laptops and a lot of business people will simply stop going there too.

[ExXB]

It's not just the ban on devices in the cabin, it's also the knowledge that DHC can sieze said device, and demand logins and passwords for whatever purpose they wish.

Of course there are some fairly simple work arounds, well known to the black hats, but the intent behind all this crap is to be seen as doing something. The fact that the something won't work and only serves to penalise the innocent, is irrelevant.

[WHBM]

Article in today's Sunday Times, which seemed to have some elements of a "planted" story, indicated that 10 Downing Street, from their contacts with the USA, is to the fore on this rather than the DfT, and it is a now question of when rather than if.

I do hope that, if introduced, airlines (or the UK/EU governments) make it in both directions, otherwise it will be trumpeted as the US having "safer" citizens than Europe. For a country which had over 8,000 gun deaths in 2014 that is a joke.

[triploss]

The main effects I can see are:
- Less business and tourist travel to the US.
- Higher costs for US based businesses, since they have to provide travel devices for both US-based and overseas-based employees*, and additional costs due to employee time spent preparing devices for travel. And more difficulty in finding foreign business partners due to all of the above.

As a non-american, I therefore support the ban, since it makes american competitors of my countries companies less competitive.

* My (US-based) organisation is already doing this, many employees are travelling without devices and/or wiped devices. And people are avoiding travel to the US. The in-cabin-laptop ban will probably just increase the proportion of employees travelling without devices to 100% (some don't mind the CBP too much, but do care about theft/damage in the hold).

[BlankBox]

https://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/284205msd.png

...you can carry your "whole world" on one of these - 200GBb is 50 bucks so why the hassle of carrying laptops any more? ...and if your info is precious/private these are a breeze to get by the snoop. I do this already, 2 machines - one on each side of the Pacific and I'm good to go...now its less work and more beer on the plane - life is good!! :ok:

[Ian W]

Triploss

The main effects I can see are:
- Less business and tourist travel to the US.

As almost all journeys are return journeys, there will be a large impact on travel both ways. The impact could be sufficient to concern the yield managers. The ban appears to apply to almost everything from phablets upward that most pax carry. The regular traveler to the same place may be able to have bare bones or loaner devices at each end of the journey. Other travelers will abandon the travel.

As msbbarratt points out there are plenty of home grown and imported malcontents living in the USA, there are even more in Europe. Therefore, it makes no sense for this to be just an ban on international travel with electronics. Logically, if there is such a threat, then domestic flights should also have electronics banned.

The airlines should now make a more concerted attempt to alter the rather poorly thought out 'security' being imposed and start instead to move to the El Al pattern of real security checking the pax and identifying those who are a threat. A passenger who has several million miles on an airline flying similar flights several times a year to Europe or from New York to Seattle, is less likely to be a threat than a 25 year old making the 4th flight in a decade with the last flight a month previously to the Middle East.

Global Entry and other similar programs should be beefed up and offered as a security screening that will allow carriage of electronics. The current approach of just banning everything that _could_ be a threat is not workable in the long run - indeed it may just have hit its limiting level of acceptance.

[cappt]

I quit traveling with a laptop years ago. Take the Ipad or Surface, maybe both for movies and internet.

[Hartington]

cappt - both of those will be banned I suspect.

[Ian W]

I quit traveling with a laptop years ago. Take the Ipad or Surface, maybe both for movies and internet.

The regulations quoted on a BBC article are:

"nothing bigger than 16cm (6.3ins) long, 9.3cm (3.6ins) wide or 1.5cm (0.6ins) deep will be allowed into the cabin - which means mobiles like the larger iPhone Plus will still be allowed."

So as BlankBox points out you could take all on a 200Gb micro SDXC card, you could then use that micro SDXC card in most smart phones. The phones can almost all also drive an external display and link to a Bluetooth keyboard. So your computing needs can be met by your smartphone, which is in any case probably more powerful than a year 2000 laptop.

[Dairyground]

The price of a cheap laptop is small compared with many lon-haul airfares, so might we see some people buying one on arrival and abandoning it on departure.

Data on a memory stick or SD card, along with copies of necessary software. On departure, uninstall any software that needed a licence, transfer modified data to the memory stick, and use ransomware techniques to encrypt everything on the hard disk. Then abandon the throw-away laptop.

Of course, if one just dumps it in a public place, that might upset the physical security people and cause them to disrupt normal activities whilst they blow it up.

[jugofpropwash]

I have to wonder - if/when one of these laptop batteries melts down in the cargo compartment and causes a disaster, does Homeland Security get sued? Exchanging a possible threat for a known danger certainly sounds sue-worthy, and I can't see blaming the airline.

[Rwy in Sight]

Dairyground, maybe we should work together to run a chain of laptop renting shops around major airport in the USA.

[HowardB]

Having been thinking about this issue & the data security aspects, my idea follows on from the discussion above.

1) Carry all data on a removable drive - HD or flash doesn't matter

2) Encrypt all data on the removable drive

3) This is where it takes the current proposal further. The encryption is done by the employers IT staff before the individual travels and it can only be unlocked after the traveller has arrived at their destination by either connecting to their employer's secure network or by remote unlocking by the IT department.

The person travelling will then not hold the password so cannot be forced to reveal it by any third party & the individuals holding the decryption code will be subject to the law of their country only.

[Ian W]

If you are concerned over access to data on your electronics, use one of the thin clients like ChromeBook or Windows 10S where all the processing is done "in the cloud" and all data is also held remotely "in the cloud". (That is in remote server farms.) The actual machine has only the base thin client operating system there is no data or applications carried on it even during use. Access to company cloud is by multi-level authentication.
Cost of a 'chromebook' is $200 or less.

These devices obviously will not operate unless connected to the cloud usually by encrypted VPN to the Internet.

[HowardB]

If you are concerned over access to data on your electronics, use one of the thin clients like ChromeBook or Windows 10S where all the processing is done "in the cloud" and all data is also held remotely "in the cloud". (That is in remote server farms.) The actual machine has only the base thin client operating system there is no data or applications carried on it even during use. Access to company cloud is by multi-level authentication.
Cost of a 'chromebook' is $200 or less.

These devices obviously will not operate unless connected to the cloud usually by encrypted VPN to the Internet.

There are times where it is not permitted to keep data in a "cloud" & if the individual is forced to handover their passwords, it doesn't matter where its kept. The key concept is that the individual keeps their confidential date in their possession at all times, but can only access it after it is unlocked by another party.

[DespairingTraveller]

With the almost inevitable result that the raveller will be denied entry to the US, I suspect...

[Jet II]

Sorry if this has already been answered, but what happens if you buy a laptop or ipad in the Duty Free shop in departures?. You have already gone through security so are you allowed to take those on the aircraft?

[ExXB]

If it's in the cloud the NSA likely knows about it. Probably 100% certain if the cloud server is physically in the US, or if it is a US company. If it is a 'secure non-US' server (if that even exists) then they will see the data when it's downloaded.

Perhaps the US constitution protects US citizens resident in the US, but others are not protected.

[Ian W]

There are times where it is not permitted to keep data in a "cloud" & if the individual is forced to handover their passwords, it doesn't matter where its kept. The key concept is that the individual keeps their confidential date in their possession at all times, but can only access it after it is unlocked by another party.

Legally, there is a huge difference to where the data is kept. If you are carrying data into a country in electronic equipment you are the one importing it. However, if you are stopped at the border and told/forced to give passwords/access to 'border guards' so that they can access the foreign company's data in a foreign country, remotely, and import it themselves then that is totally different legally.

[Herod]

The joy of being retired. My wife said before the election that if Tr**p won she wouldn't go to the US. With this latest, I agree with her. There are plenty of other places for us retired travellers to go. The US is going to see a downturn in traveller spending.

[wiggy]

What happens if you buy a laptop or ipad in the Duty Free shop in departures?. You have already gone through security so are you allowed to take those on the aircraft?

We don't know the rules yet......Logically I'd say it wouldn't be allowed but given the way the liquids ban is handled maybe you'll be allowed to buy once airside, take it on the flight...but you have to junk it prior to going airside on the next sector.....

:ugh:

[triploss]

If it's in the cloud the NSA likely knows about it. Probably 100% certain if the cloud server is physically in the US, or if it is a US company. If it is a 'secure non-US' server (if that even exists) then they will see the data when it's downloaded.

Perhaps the US constitution protects US citizens resident in the US, but others are not protected.
If you have a secure device, and an encrypted connection, no they can't see the data. Well, yeah, they can see the encrypted data...

We don't know the rules yet......Logically I'd say it wouldn't be allowed but given the way the liquids ban is handled maybe you'll be allowed to buy once airside, take it on the flight...but you have to junk it prior to going airside on the next sector.....

:ugh:
The only way this would work (and they way it's currently implemented in ME) is: bag searches at the gate. (Except at airports with gate-security as opposed to general security, but I don't know of many of those in Europe.)

[wiggy]

The only way this would work (and they way it's currently implemented in ME) is: bag searches at the gate. (Except at airports with gate-security as opposed to general security, but I don't know of many of those in Europe)

TBH I was posting slightly TIC

Generally where we are arrivals and departures levels are segregated anyway, and in the event of specific security tightening on US bound flights there has indeed been the implementation of bag searches at the gates for those flights....I guess we will find out in the next few days what is in store for us in Europe and what the level of disruption will be.

[Basil]

According to TrueCrypt regarding creating a hidden volume in, say, a UFD or SD:
Plausible Deniability
In case an adversary forces you to reveal your password, TrueCrypt provides and supports two
kinds of plausible deniability . . . .
. . . . .The principle is that a TrueCrypt volume is created within another TrueCrypt volume (within the free space on the volume). Even when the outer volume is mounted, it should be impossible to prove whether there is a hidden volume within it or not, because free space on any TrueCrypt volume is always filled with random data when the volume is created and no part of the (dismounted) hidden volume can be distinguished from random data.

Hmm, I'd like to know if that can be broken.

(My bold)

[Basil]

Generally where we are arrivals and departures levels are segregated anyway
Yes, and I'm shocked when I see places where they are not segregated. You're then depending on security at some foreign departure airport.

[aox]

This is Trump's administration way of getting back at the Middle East carriers who are doing so well on North American routes. The ban seems to be aimed at all ME carriers. I bet he doesn't ban iPads on Russian carriers.

Trump Bans Laptops And IPads From Dubai Flights To USA - Emirates, Flights, Use, UAE Ban Around Town - ShortList Dubai (http://www.shortlistdubai.com/around-town/article/12768-trump-bans-laptops-and-ipads-from-dubai-flights-to-usa)

I'm surprised he hasn't done anything with PIA yet.

There seem to be a number of subsequent posts on here (this was from 21st March) similarly speculating that this ban might be for commercial rather than security motives.

There are recent news reports of a Trump meeting at the White House a few days ago, in which aviation risks were amongst subjects discussed with certain guests, and partly specific to (a) certain area(s) named at the meeting (but unnamed in press reports).

This would suggest that there are indeed security reasons.

[pax britanica]

It would make sense for the US to share any intel on this with just about everyone since they alone cannot police things all around the world . What concerns me is -what reciprocity will there be , ie all pax traveling to Europe should face same restrictions as westbound pax and all US domestics the same . As has been pointed out on here the US doesn't need to import terrorism as it has enough of its own and detonating bombs on a flight from JFK to LAX is just as plausible as LHR to JFK and the US have been horrible caught out by the delusion that domestic flights are not a problem and seem to be slipping back into that mindset

[A Squared]

There seem to be a number of subsequent posts on here (this was from 21st March) similarly speculating that this ban might be for commercial rather than security motives.

There are recent news reports of a Trump meeting at the White House a few days ago, in which aviation risks were amongst subjects discussed with certain guests, and partly specific to (a) certain area(s) named at the meeting (but unnamed in press reports).

This would suggest that there are indeed security reasons.

Even in light of the recent stuff in the news, I'm not convinced that the move was purely for security concerns. The initial move was just a little too narrowly crafted so that it affected the ME 3 and not US carriers.

[A Squared]

It would make sense for the US to share any intel on this with just about everyone since they alone cannot police things all around the world .

The trouble with that is that the more you reveal about exactly what you know to more parties, the more you also reveal about how you found out. Ultimately, if you reveal to all concerned everything you've found out, your adversary may be able to determine your source by identifying who had access to the information you received. Then you don't get any more information from that source.

[ExXB]

I'm surprised he hasn't done anything with PIA yet.

All PIA flights to the US have an intermediate stop, where all transit passengers are offloaded and put through security again. Difficult to also ban laptops on these flights when other flights from the intermediate airports don't have the same ban.

However the EK flights via MIL and ATH to the US do not have the additional security screening or the lap top ban.

Insanity, unless it's purely commercial.

[Skipness One Echo]

Yes, and I'm shocked when I see places where they are not segregated. You're then depending on security at some foreign departure airport
Schengen doesn't seperate, France trusts Germany to have the right process and vice versa. The UK trusts no one and rescreens everyone, even the Irish. Both have merit, the UK was a bigger terrorist target although France must be wondering when it will all end....

[triploss]

Yes, and I'm shocked when I see places where they are not segregated. You're then depending on security at some foreign departure airport.
The EU (except UK) and some other places have common standards on security, so this shouldn't be an issue. Only those flights are dumped into the sterile area. Other flights are dumped into a non-sterile area (where you either need to proceed through security or exit to landside via immigration and the baggage claim).

My understanding is that this is being expanded, e.g. to allow EU-Canada-Canada flights without additional security in Canada.

Flights from the US get random treatment: sometimes they are allowed directly into the sterile area, but sometimes not. (And some airports e.g. FRA don't have enough sterile gates, so everyone gets dumped into non-sterile airside.)

Stuff like this is why a lot of people I know avoid connections in the UK, US (and for now Canada).

[ExXB]

Latest from IATA from my usual source:

On 17 May 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is scheduled to meet with the European Commission and a select number of Member States to discuss measures addressing the current security threat posed by personal electronic devices (PEDs). It is anticipated that this meeting will be followed shortly by an announcement of the expansion of the current PED restrictions to additional airports in Europe and potentially elsewhere.

[NOT] Attached is a letter from IATA Director General Alexandre de Juniac to John F. Kelly, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary, and Violeta Bulc, Commissioner for Transport for the European Commission.

The letter urges both governments to consider alternative, short-term measures to address this security threat rather than an expansion of the existing ban. It includes our projections on the negative impact such an extension would have on passengers, airlines, and the economy generally.

While IATA will continue to advocate for these less obstructive measures, member airlines (particularly in Europe) should have contingency plans in place for the expansion of the existing ban

Sorry I don't have the letter.

[edmundronald]

This will make Chromebooks and other net-connected empty-shell computers the tool of choice for biz travellers. Rent one or buy a cheap one as soon as you touch down.

[WHBM]

The UK trusts no one and rescreens everyone, even the Irish...
This is actually at the behest of the UK Foreign Office. Intelligence suggested that certain (in fact most) departure countries security etc was fine, while others were suspect. However the Foreign Office would not accept that, saying it would cause all sorts of diplomatic upsets to classify a certain country as not good enough, lead to diplomatic lobbying, reprisals, non-invitation of the UK Ambassador to diplomatic cocktail parties, etc. So the alternative was treat all countries the same.

[Noxegon]

No extension to Europe:

US and EU reject expanding laptop ban to flights from Europe - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39956968)

[pilot9249]

Schengen doesn't seperate, France trusts Germany to have the right process and vice versa. The UK trusts no one and rescreens everyone, even the Irish. Both have merit, the UK was a bigger terrorist target although France must be wondering when it will all end....

Not sure I see the relevance of the Irish reference.

The UK re-screens the UK.

If I transit LHR from MAN I am re-screened.

This despite MAN having the most pernickety screening staff this side of Ben Gurion.

[triploss]

I've not flown UK-LHR-Int'l in a few years, but same terminal connections (e.g. GLA-LHR-Europe via T5) definitely had no screening back then.

Connecting between terminals always requires re-screening since all passengers get mixed regardless of origin, but at least T5 didn't require re-screening for same-terminal domestics. (I can't remember if there are domestic flights into any other terminals?)

[DaveReidUK]

I can't remember if there are domestic flights into any other terminals?

Flybe into T2. Presumably pax are re-screened if connecting via T3/T4/T5 ?

[ExXB]

Latest update: On 17 May 2017, officials from the European Commission (EC) and the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) met in Brussels to discuss issues related to aviation security and safety, with a particular focus on a possible expansion of the restrictions on the carriage of large electronic devices to include flights from Europe to the US. Representatives from seven states (FR, DE, UK, ES, IT, NL and Ireland) representing the majority of the traffic to the US also attended the meeting.

The key takeaways from the meeting are:

· The EC provided an update on the actions already taken by the EU to address security across Europe.
· DHS indicated it is considering expanding the restrictions to European airports, but that no firm decision to do so has been made.
· DHS will base its decision to expand the restrictions on what technology is available at European airports to detect threats and on known intelligence of people travelling through Europe to the US with the intention of committing attacks.
· If a decision is made, States will be given advance notice (approx. 3 weeks) before the restrictions are actually applied.
· DHS gave no indication as to the scope of the expansion throughout Europe, whether additional measures would be implemented, or whether it is considering expanding the restrictions to additional regions around the globe.
· US and EU officials are scheduled to meet again in Washington, DC the week of 22nd May; and the issue is expected to be on the agenda when President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker meet before the G7 Summit on 24 May. No decision to expand the restrictions will be made before the G7 meeting.
· The EC indicated that a ban on the EU side to mirror the US is not being considered.
· The EC also recommended that the industry should prepare for an eventual expansion and develop and share contingency plans.
· The EC raised the issue of safety and requested that it be discussed further before an expansion is implemented.

Obviously, the US decision to expand the current restrictions on large electronic devices is very fluid. We will continue to monitor this issue closely and will be sure to provide an update as soon as any additional information is available.

[Ian W]

The reason for the ban in the first place.....

"U.S. believes ISIS' bomb-making research includes new generation of explosives

Amid the bombed-out ruins of Mosul University, U.S. officials say they have uncovered evidence that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was developing a new type of bomb that could pass through an airport scanner undetected.
CBS News joined Iraqi Special Forces in Mosul just days after the hard-fought battle to recapture the University in January. It's long been believed that Mosul University was the center of the militants' bomb-making projects, using the school's equipment and labs. "


More at....
U.S. believes ISIS' bomb-making research includes new generation of explosives - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-bomb-making-research-new-generation-explosives-concealed-computer/)

[Dubaian]

Ian W thanks and that's interesting. But now that D.J Chump has blown the whistle on the laptop idea, what's to stop ISIS putting this clever new 'undetectable' stuff in pretty well anything a PAX might take on board. And it'd be easier than replumbing a laptop.

[peekay4]

A working explosive is composed of several elements. These elements can be disguised within a laptop, large tablet, etc.

Put them into a box of chocolates or a can of Pringles, they would be very easy to detect.

[EDLB]

What can they detect in checked luggage but not in carry on?

[peekay4]

Not going into specifics but part of the reason for requiring them in checked luggage is not only for detection but also isolation (containment).

[lomapaseo]

requiring them in checked luggage is not only for detection but also isolation (containment)

Containment from what?

If they go boom as baggage the damage is variable as hell based on location.

If they go boom in the cabin the damage is predictable based on seat location and/or overhead storage which is specific by PNR (boarding pass).

And then there is the fire hazard from a typical LI cheap battery in passenger luggage. In the overhead or cabin it's specific in location and ability to assess and contain. In the baggage hold it's the stuff that causes extreme workload on the flight crew's decisions vs time and distance to an airport.

I'll leave it to the airline safety guys to sort out the pro and cons and costs vs risk avoidance.

[peekay4]

That's an incomplete analysis.

Anyway, the risk assessment was already performed by DHS, and here we are. I'm not privy to anything secret, but knowing some information which have been disclosed, I find the assessment convincing.

[lomapaseo]

That's an incomplete analysis.

Of course it was, it was meant only to illustrate the reverse side of your earlier post :)

So, the public has no say in this unless we understand the reasoning. But we are the ones that need to comply

[EDLB]

The Saudis made a 350 billion weapon deal with the US but are not allowed to carry their laptops in the cabin. Must be an interesting risk analysis from the DHS.

[A Squared]

And 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens.

Point being that the fact that the Saudi Government may have good relationships with the US on some levels doesn't preclude the possibilities of terrorists existing in the country.

[ExXB]

Saudi Arabian airports are not (yet) on the list of airports where laptops are banned.

I wonder if the 110 billion (over 10 years) weapons deal had anything to do with that?

[White Knight]

So where the hell are Jeddah and Riyadh then?

[my salami]

Saudi Arabian airports are not (yet) on the list of airports where laptops are banned.

I wonder if the 110 billion (over 10 years) weapons deal had anything to do with that?

Oh dear Lord😳!!
I'd like to meet your Geography teacher...

[ExXB]

Apologies, Saudi is indeed on the list. Will Mr. Trump's laptop be put in the hold then?

[lomapaseo]

only if he flies directly back to the US.

No doubt it will get a good scrubbing in the EU countries when he departs from there.

[perantau]

Apologies, Saudi is indeed on the list. Will Mr. Trump's laptop be put in the hold then?

He doesn't need a laptop to tweet. 😏

[infrequentflyer789]

If they go boom in the cabin the damage is predictable based on seat location and/or overhead storage which is specific by PNR (boarding pass).

If they go boom in the cabin the damage is predictable based on exactly where the attacker decides to set it off, which is nothing to do with boarding pass.

A small boom set by a clever attacker in the right place is going to be as big a threat as a large boom placed randomly, and that's before we get onto stuff like shaped charges and really clever placement.

I strongly suspect this is the issue.

[RTD1]

This will make Chromebooks and other net-connected empty-shell computers the tool of choice for biz travellers. Rent one or buy a cheap one as soon as you touch down.

Rather, this will result in a massive push towards videonconferencing/telepresence in lieu of business travel.

I've been a management/technology consultant flying weekly for 20 years now, and if this ban were extended to all domestic and international flights, I'd likely either find an alternative to in-person meetings or switch careers if it were not feasible. I haven't checked a bag (save for gate checking carry-ons on puddle jumpers) in years. I keep my timelines from landing to meeting starts pretty tight, and I count on flying time for working. I'm not unique, such a rule would be devastating for business travel.

[pax britanica]

There is always an element of business travel that is not really necessary but its hard line to draw between beneficial and essential. There are also events like conferences where most of the attendees dont' actually attend but meet with peers from other companies and do business just because lot of peopel from one industry are in the same place. Ie the conference itself isnt really 'necessary' but its a good opportunity to meet clients and suppliers without doing separate trips.
Video links are usually fine for inside the company work and some external stuff but many cultures like the physical presence bit .

So i can see the rule reducing things but perhaps not by that much, while working on the plane is sometimes a good idea for many a flight is an opportunity to have a rest and serious think which can be a rarity in todays world.

very hard to keep ahead of the bad guys but as I ahave said before it is foolish of the USA to make such restrictions when there is just as much risk from flying domestic US which always seems to have the lowest level of security in spite of being the proven biggest area of risk

[MacLaren1]

The thread here seems to have drifted to business travellers and their influences.

But can I ask - the professional pilots here have to sit at the sharp end... how comfortable (or otherwise) does the thought of a new type of bomb in a laptop ( or whatever) make them feel?

Yes, there is only a slight chance of it disrupting an individual flight but, as someone once said... "for each flight, it's 50-50 - it either will, or it won't..."

[Dannyboy39]

This despite MAN having the most pernickety screening staff this side of Ben Gurion.
Wasn't just me thinking this then. A few Monday mornings back I had this pleasure. The queue in T3 was massive and slow... and not even peak summer season.

[slfool]

This appeared on my news feed. I have no idea as to the veracity but it's an interesting possibility:

https://professional-troublemaker.com/2017/05/22/exclusive-laptop-ban-reaction-to-x-ray-equipment-stolen-by-isis/

[Ian W]

If you see my post on the previous page http://www.pprune.org/9775809-post341.html you will see there was nothing 'secret' about it except n the fervent mind of some western journalists who think everything revolves around their political mores.

It was common knowledge that Mosul university was being used by bomb makers and chemical weapons members of ISIS to generate new weapons that could be used. This is not exactly earth shaking as terrorists have made use of airport scanning equipment to test their ideas for years. So there were no 'secrets'

Unfortunately, the world is not easily split into 'Orange' and 'Blue' forces any more and there are times when alliances have to be struck in ways that small minded politicians and their media hacks find difficult to grasp. It is all part of 'The Great Game'

[OldLurker]

the professional pilots here have to sit at the sharp end... how comfortable (or otherwise) does the thought of a new type of bomb in a laptop ( or whatever) make them feel?

Yes, there is only a slight chance of it disrupting an individual flight but, as someone once said... "for each flight, it's 50-50 - it either will, or it won't...""Someone" needs a lesson in statistics. If for each flight it's 50-50, then after you've flown 1,000 sectors you'd expect "it" to have happened around 500 times. It hasn't, has it?

Since there are about 24,000 flights every day within the US with zero bombs going off, and two to three thousand every day across the Atlantic also with zero bombs going off (in recent years), suggesting that it's 50-50 seems silly.

[Walnut]

It seems the Manchester bomb was of a high tech nature hence the increase in threat level
Is this now going lead the UK govt to agree with the US on a total ban on laptops in the cabin?

[OldLurker]

The IT security blogger Bruce Schneier wrote about this in an essay last week on CNN.com, updated on his own site:
Extending the Airplane Laptop Ban (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/05/extending_the_a.html)

Schneier isn't everyone's flavor of the month but I think his analysis of this issue makes sense.

[peekay4]

I'm a big fan of Bruce Schneier -- I have every edition of his classic text "Applied Cryptography" -- however, being outside of the aviation industry he doesn't have much of the "facts" in this case (as we know them), some of which have been shared in this very thread.

[Airbubba]

I've got the 1996 second edition of Applied Cryptography but I think Schneier is a doctor in a Bonanza when it comes to airport security. Since he is brilliant in the area of information security he must be a great thinker in the area of physical security right? I'm not so sure.

Also, he is very political in his approach to public policy and has a long term axe to grind with the U.S. government stemming from his battles over ITAR crypto export regulations.

We have a couple of mutual acquaintances, including a family member, but I've never met Mr. Schneier. I occasionally read his blog.

Still, I'm glad you mentioned Applied Cryptography, it is very nicely done and this edition is a nostalgic read two decades later. :ok:

[mickjoebill]

What about camera crews and photographers who carry kilos of lumpy electronic gear onboard?

It is trivial to provide enough power to activate a camera to make the battery appear unadulterated, when the cells have been repacked with something deadly.

Unless every item is sniffed, a laptop ban seems half arsed...

Whilst I'm here, should we assume the reason the recent terrorist activity in U.K. did not result in a death toll in the hundreds, is that airport security was a detterant?

[Airbubba]

The laptop ban may soon extend to all flights in and out of the U.S. according to this report:

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said Sunday he’s considering a ban on passengers carrying laptop computers on all international flights in and out of the United States.

“I might,” Kelly said on “Fox News Sunday.” “There's a real threat -- numerous threats against aviation. That's really the thing that they are obsessed with, the terrorists, the idea of knocking down an airplane in flight, particularly if it's a U.S. carrier, particularly if it's full of mostly U.S. folks.”

Homeland Secretary Kelly considers laptop ban on all flights into US | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/28/homeland-secretary-kelly-considers-laptop-ban-on-all-flights-into-us.html)

[ExSp33db1rd]

.......should we assume the reason the recent terrorist activity in U.K. did not result in a death toll in the hundreds, is that airport security was a detterant?

Of course, the perp. had to take his shoes off each time he travelled to Libya and back. Must have scared him f*rtless.

[Niner Lima Charlie]

JetBlue flight diverted....laptop battery fire.

JetBlue flight diverted after laptop battery catches fire, officials say | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/05/31/jetblue-flight-diverted-after-laptop-battery-catches-fire-officials-say.html)

[EEngr]

I'm in a lounge between flights somewhere (the location has been redacted to protect the guilty).

Twice on my trip, my carry-on was pulled off the x-ray line for a chemical swab. Once, the guy who was doing the swabbing got pulled aside by a supervisor (probably a discussion about vacation requests). So my bag is sitting in a line for a few minutes until some other operator walks up to take over. He looks at the queue, picks up my bag (next in line) and hands it to me. Then goes on to swab the next one in line, not knowing where his co-worker had left off.

Things would go a lot more smoothly if they'd just take the supervisors out back and shoot them. But then this is true of most jobs. The crisis level has been set to high, many people are running around like there's something up. And it's all beginning to resemble a Chinese fire drill.

:hmm:

[WHBM]

JetBlue flight diverted....laptop battery fire.

JetBlue flight diverted after laptop battery catches fire, officials say | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/05/31/jetblue-flight-diverted-after-laptop-battery-catches-fire-officials-say.html)
That must be a great disappointment to those in the security "industry" who have staked their positions, and their next promotion, on backing the "right side" in the laptop ban or not hoo-hah, now that this has got into the media.

Never mind. I'm sure they will think of something, and will be back.

[ExXB]

Latest communication from IATA. On 15 June 2017, senior officials from the European Commission (EC) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) met in Malta as part of the on-going bilateral discussions concerning portable electronic device (PED) related restrictions. That meeting was followed by a 22 June 2017 European Union (EU) Stakeholder Advisory Group for Aviation Security meeting in Brussels where industry was given a progress report on this issue.
The EC, EU Member States, and DHS are in the process of developing a series of mitigating measures to manage the PED threat and to enhance aviation security measures generally. We understand that this will include both short and long term changes to security protocols and will affect European airports as well as the Middle East/North Africa airports currently subject to the ban.

We understand that the expansion of the PED restrictions is on hold while these amendments are in process. This could change if/when a new threat is detected. It is unclear at this time whether these new measures will result in any change to the existing ban.

We are pleased with this renewed commitment by DHS to work with their European counterparts to identify appropriate countermeasures to address this threat. We continue to encourage DHS to consult with industry further before expanding any part of the ban.

[finfly1]

Malta huh? Did the delegates stow their laptops in the below decks baggage area then, or carry them on board?

[bluesideoops]

As a Safety practitioner, I still don't understand the PED (Laptop) ban. There has clearly been a plausible threat identified by security agencies but not knowing what it is makes it all the more difficult to accept and understand. As risk managers, we mitigate against what we know and I have it on very good authority that even some airlines don't know what its all about. While it is evidently undesirable to have some kind of explosive device in the cabin, I think its even more undesirable to have a hold full of lithium ion batteries, especially given the current fire suppression systems installed on modern aircraft i.e. they'll make the fire worse, not better! In terms of the classic risk matrix, my gut feeling is that we are more likely to lose an airframe from the ban than from the threat and believe that those flights affected are now in the high probability/severity realm. What does everyone else think?

[jugofpropwash]

Sadly, I suspect that if/when they lose an aircraft due to a battery fire in the hold, the loss will be blamed on something else.

If the lithium ion batteries continue to be the "go to" power source for most things electronic and they do not find a way to make them less fire prone, I can envision an eventual future where the batteries will come in several generic sizes/types (such as regular batteries come in AA, AAA, C, D, etc). You will purchase your device with a battery, then before getting on a plane, you will turn that battery in. While on the aircraft, you'll be able to operate your device "plugged in" to onboard power. Once you land, you'' go to a kiosk where you can rent a pre-charged battery to use while at your destination. On the return trip, you simply turn that battery back in, and get a replacement when you get home. It would be similar to the way (at least here in the US) you bring in your empty barb-b-que propane tank and swap it for a full one.

[Airbubba]

Although the laptop ban was not extended to more city pairs, enhanced security measures were announced on Wednesday by the Department of Homeland Security:

Fact Sheet: Aviation Enhanced Security Measures for All Commercial Flights to the United States

Release Date: June 28, 2017

The United States and the global aviation community face an adaptive and agile enemy. Terrorist groups continue to target passenger aircraft, and we have seen a “spider web” of threats to commercial aviation as terrorist pursue new attack methods. Based on these concerns, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is working to raise the baseline of global aviation security to keep the traveling public safe, in coordination with our international partners.

Change to Global Aviation Security Requirements

In light of evaluated intelligence, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly has determined it is necessary to implement enhanced security measures for all commercial flights to the United States. These measures, both seen and unseen, include enhanced screening of passengers and electronic devices as well as heightened security standards for aircraft and airports.

Countries: 105
Airports: 280 (approximate number as it will vary based on seasonal airports)
Total airlines: 180
Average daily flights: 2,100
Passengers: 325,000 average daily passengers

Enhanced Security Measures and Timeline

The enhanced security measures include but are not limited to:

Enhancing overall passenger screening;
Conducting heightened screening of personal electronic devices;
Increasing security protocols around aircraft and in passenger areas; and
Deploying advanced technology, expanding canine screening, and establishing additional preclearance locations.

Over the course of the next several weeks and months, DHS/TSA will work with aviation stakeholders to ensure these enhanced security measures are fully implemented. Those stakeholders who fail to adopt these requirements with certain timeframes run the risk of additional security restrictions being imposed.

International Flights Bound for the United States

These enhanced security measures will help to secure all commercial flights departing from 280 airports that serve as last points of departure to the United States.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/06/28/fact-sheet-aviation-enhanced-security-measures-all-commercial-flights-united-states

[Heathrow Harry]

Fine but what does all that goobledy gook actually mean?

It doesn't give any guidance as to what they will or will not allow - am I supposed to wait until I arrive at security to find I have to hand over my laptop to be checked in at (say ) Theifrow?

[Jet Jockey A4]

OK, ban all PEDs except cell phones...

But what about the crews themselves especially the deadheading ones that are now passengers (technically) and may have a laptop or iPad they use for work?

[OldLurker]

Fine but what does all that goobledy gook actually mean?

It doesn't give any guidance as to what they will or will not allow - am I supposed to wait until I arrive at security to find I have to hand over my laptop to be checked in at (say ) Theifrow?Characteristically, the DHS press release doesn't give specific details and doesn't give an implementation date. Unless there's more detailed information somewhere, airport security people all over the world are going to be making up policy on the fly (so to speak) and tending towards what they think is 'safe'.

[OldLurker]

Malta huh? Did the delegates stow their laptops in the below decks baggage area then, or carry them on board?I'd bet that the DHS delegates to the Malta conference used a US government aircraft – there are no direct flights from US to Malta and they could surely justify going private. So either there was no security check, or they used their status to bypass it. So I'd bet they took their laptops on board, going and coming.

That's what annoys me about the laptop ban – and most of the US's other security-theatre – and US immigration too – the rule-makers themselves, and the people the rule-makers listen to, can bypass a lot of the hassle, so they've no incentive to make things better.

[Jet Jockey A4]

If you think banning laptop and tablets are bad wait until you read about this coming to your local TSA check-in points...

The USA is turning into a Police state!

TSA begins searching books before travelers board planes (http://www.statesman.com/news/national/tsa-begins-searching-books-before-travelers-board-planes/M70h8rkqpeRMTeDUXMOAuO/)

[Ian W]

A summary that I read was that the airline/airport has to have in place security that meets a set of standards that will be set down by the DHS. The standards appear to be both pre-checking of pax (TSA PreCheck/Global Entry) and better physical screening of devices. IFF the airline/airport does not meet those standards by their implementation date then pax electronics larger than a smart phone will be completely banned from that airline's aircraft or from all the aircraft from that airport. The EU said it is dangerous for these devices with their batteries to be put in the hold, DHS agreed and therefore they will not be allowed in the cabin -OR- the hold, they cannot travel.

I would suspect that crew electronics for work EFBs etc., would need to be catalogued in some way by the airline so they can be confirmed, and by definition the crews would have been 'pre-checked'.

The reason for the concern on electronics that I read was that multi-cell batteries were being modified to have only one or two cells operating and the other - up to 7 (?) cells could be explosive. And of course many tablet type 'laptops' have totally different battery layouts so 'turning them on' proves nothing.

I have had a set of 'academic papers' that were packed as a block examined as presumably the scanner showed them but the operator could not work out what it was. I think that may be the real reason for just riffling through pages not reading the content.

I am very frequent SLF whenever I am carrying _anything_ that might look strange on a scanner (e,g, Large can of coffee; beanbag base for a satnav) I put it in a separate plastic bag so it is easier for the scanner operators to sort out. It also shows that you are being overt about it and not trying to 'conceal' something of interest. So I would probably do the same with a pile of papers in the future.

The best security is knowing the individuals as with the El Al security screening. The problems come when everyone is given the same 'we think you may be a risk' screening and limits because of some idea of 'not being discriminatory'. This overloads the system and actually reduces security.

[peekay4]

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The capital of the United Arab Emirates became the first city to be exempt from a U.S. ban on laptop computers being in airplane cabins, the country’s flag carrier said Sunday.

More from: https://apnews.com/b9881e600be9406c99c6eb98d8d5afe3

[ExXB]

A couple of days old, from my usual source:

On 28 June 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced new enhanced security measures as an alternative to global restrictions on the carriage of large portable electronic devices (PEDs) in the cabin on flights to the U.S.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Security Directives and Emergency Amendments have now been issued directly to the 180 affected airlines.

A high-level description of the measures are as follows:

· There will be a phased introduction between 21 and 120 days of enhanced security measures at 280 last point of departure (LPD) locations, across 105 countries and 180 airlines. The enhanced measures will involve a combination of overt and covert measures.

· Within 21 days, each location will be required to have explosive trace detection (ETD) technology in place at the central search and/or boarding gate applied in a continuous and random manner. Those locations that do not meet this requirement within the 21 days will face either a PED ban or suspension of flights to the U.S.


· Airlines that are impacted by the existing PEDs restrictions will be able to request that TSA remove those restrictions based on their meeting the new security requirements.


· Within 120 days, all foreign carriers with U.S. operations will be required to make security program changes in line with U.S. carrier standards. This will include training, passenger questioning, and oversight of aircraft security.


· Further information can be found here. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/06/28/fact-sheet-aviation-enhanced-security-measures-all-commercial-flights-united-states


IATA is pleased that DHS has agreed not to pursue a broad PED plan in favor of alternative security measures that we believe are globally more effective in addressing short and longer term security threats. We also are encouraged by DHS’s decision to provide a path to the removal of the existing PED restrictions. We continue to communicate that DHS and affected host states must work together to ensure equitable implementation of the enhanced measures between authorities, airports, and airlines. We will work with DHS to ensure that airline costs and operational impacts are minimized.

The DHS enhanced measures are consistent with the current form of ICAO’s Global Aviation Security Plan as well as emerging standards regarding the use of screening technology for explosives.

[ExXB]

All the media reports are saying that the laptop ban on certain airlines (xx, EK, QR, TK) have been lifted, and the ban on SV will soon be lifted.

Funny, I thought it was certain airports that were banned, not airlines ... :hmm:

[ExXB]

I am sure glad that the authorities are coordinating and cooperating on this critical matter:

The UK?s laptop security predicament | ATW Editor's Blog (http://m.atwonline.com/blog/uk-s-laptop-security-predicament)

The Association of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA) provided those numbers and many of its member airlines are concerned. “Implementation of these new security directives will necessitate a number of procedural and operational changes by airlines and airports around the world. Airlines, airports and the relevant government authorities will need to work closely together to avoid unnecessary disruption to the travelling public,” AAPA director general Andrew Herdman noted.

Also, it’s puzzling why the new rules apply to inbound flights to the US, but not outbound. Strong as US airport security now is, if there are new technologies being pursued to potentially slip explosives through the passenger screening process, then shouldn’t the new screening rules apply to the US also? And why target only international flights? The US is the world’s largest domestic aviation market and most terrorist incidents in the US since 9/11 have been inflicted by American citizens living in the US.

Finally, there’s the UK security question. Soon after the US implemented its laptop ban in March, the UK issued a similar ban on flights to Britain from a list of six Middle East and African countries. The UK ban appeared to have been prompted by the US ban, but the two countries’ intelligence authorities apparently did not agree on where the threat lay; they had different target lists.

[Ian W]

Also, it’s puzzling why the new rules apply to inbound flights to the US, but not outbound. Strong as US airport security now is, if there are new technologies being pursued to potentially slip explosives through the passenger screening process, then shouldn’t the new screening rules apply to the US also? And why target only international flights? The US is the world’s largest domestic aviation market and most terrorist incidents in the US since 9/11 have been inflicted by American citizens living in the US.

This is unarguable logic considering the porous northern and southern borders.

[peekay4]

The logic only holds if the porous borders make the risks symmetric and evenly distributed.

But they are not.

[Ian W]

But they are not -Yet

[Back2Crew]

Here are is the latest recommended best practice as per IATA:

https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/Documents/IATA-Guidance-Enhanced-security-measures-PEDs-in-carry-on-baggage.pdf