UK ban on Laptops, Tablets and Electronic Devices on flights from Middle East countries

Tavor

On ROPS
On ROPs
Yet another restriction that will affect millions of people thanks to some of those dedicated to their religion - UK bans laptops and tablets on flights from six Middle East countries

No more reading books on your Kindle or watching movies on your iPad, so you can listen to the 3yr old behind you throwing his tantrum every half-hour because he doesn't have his either for the flight either.

Here is a list of the devices we can no longer take back with us onboard flights from a few Muslim Majority countries - Electronics ban: Which devices are affected?

If you thought having to buy your bottle of water at the airport was scandalous, now the days of taking only hand luggage are gone if you ever need to travel with a laptop or iPad or similar because all of this will now require the purchase of hold baggage to be checked-in too.

Thanks to the many dangerous followers of Islam, the freedoms we once enjoyed and the whole travel experience is becoming very different, very restrictive and very tedious indeed.
 

offog

LE
Simple answer is to stay at home till these companies sort out their security problems. Money talks.
 
Don't go to those countries then.
 
Simple answer is to stay at home till these companies sort out their security problems. Money talks.
How does a travel company solve the problem of a terrorist putting a bomb in a laptop?
 

offog

LE
How does a travel company solve the problem of a terrorist putting a bomb in a laptop?
The problem is their very weak security and vetting. Until they sort it out or get it done by competent staff the nasty people will continue to use it to further their terror. The problem is not that they have spent time and money working out how to put an explosive into a laptop, the problem is that they can circumvent the security to stop them putting a bomb in a laptop on an aircraft.
 
Why should an airline be responsible for vetting passengers?
 
These rules are aimed at passengers.
 

offog

LE
If it was about passengers all airlines and all airports would enforce it. The problem is the poor security at some airports in far off lands and the terrorists will use it to their advantage.
 
If it was about passengers all airlines and all airports would enforce it. The problem is the poor security at some airports in far off lands and the terrorists will use it to their advantage.
But the carriers can do nothing about this, short of no longer serving those routes.
 

Tavor

On ROPS
On ROPs
But the carriers can do nothing about this, short of no longer serving those routes.
So be it - let them live in isolation, we are clearly safer without them and I would be happy to work elsewhere at the right price.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
The problem is their very weak security and vetting. Until they sort it out or get it done by competent staff the nasty people will continue to use it to further their terror. The problem is not that they have spent time and money working out how to put an explosive into a laptop, the problem is that they can circumvent the security to stop them putting a bomb in a laptop on an aircraft.
What an utter load of toss. When was the last time you went through AUH, DXB or Doha? Their security measures and border control technology are substantially more advanced than any of the major UK airports, largely because they throw money at it rather than skimping on cut-price capabilities.

Moreover, their border security procedures, while certainly different to ours, basically incorporate all of the effective measures which our police or agencies would use if the politicians allowed them. Their vetting for example, is highly targeted at the biggest risk populations - even when it is their own citizens. Our vetting, by comparison, treats a 70-year old white Christian woman travelling with her grandkids as the same likelyhood of threat as a 24-year old single Muslim male. Ethically, that's just grand. Practically, it is horrendously inefficient. The (sensible) argument against racial and religious profiling has never been a practical one: if you are having to process thousands of people per hour, the practical matters.

Finally, international airports around the world have a single set of standards to adhere to: the US FAA. That is largely because they all want to fly there, and the US won't let them unless they meet the standard. There is some variation in procedures (e.g. pre-vetting of US bound passengers may be required, but not if you are travelling to/from Europe), but broadly this means that the equipment and infrastructures of international airports has been standardised.

Most of the travel restrictions we deal with at the moment are anachronistic knee-jerk reactions to a previous threat, usually signed off by risk-averse politicians or civil servants. They are terrible as security measures, introduce a whole range of new problems (overload of security personnel, for example), and do very little except act as a deterrent and tick the "at least we're doing something" box for those politicians. What they are extremely effective at is making travellers lives increasingly difficult.

This seems to be a particularly barking example. There is very little technically that you can do with a laptop that you couldn't do with a smartphone, if that is a concern, and certainly airport security personnel aren't competent or have the time to recognise any such threats. So if the rationale behind this is "cyber", then it's based on an absurdly uneducated understanding of the threat. Equally, although I'm sure you could use computing components to fashion a makeshift IED, the primary difficulty with getting one on an aircraft is not initiatiors or wiring, but the main charge. Banning laptops on the person will make no difference to that. Additionally, it's about ten times easier to get a complete device into the hold compartment than the passenger compartment, and will bring down a plane just as well - as, indeed, has been tried with some success previously.

I suspect this is bureaucratic decision-making at its worst. Utterly self-defeating, security illiteracy driven by perception and practical ignorance.
 
Unfortunately we are getting a fiendishly clever level of nastiness nowadays.
All it takes is for the good guys to slip up once and the consequences could be dire.
 
You mean Trump didn't order it?

I thought the laptop ban was from 6 mainly Muslim Countries? Clear discrimination the Libtards would say.....
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Unfortunately we are getting a fiendishly clever level of nastiness nowadays.
All it takes is for the good guys to slip up once and the consequences could be dire.
That is just not what this is about. Look at the criteria. This will stop precisely 0 terrorist attacks - after all, they can just choose one of the other carriers or go via another hub.

Also, it's self-defining (correct me if I'm wrong, and tell me what types of threats this is actually addressing) that the people who think this stuff is fiendishly clever are those who don't understand it. We aren't facing supervillains. Experts in intelligence agencies who do understand this stuff are going to be facepalming at this announcement.
 

Tyk

LE
ever @Sarastro while I agree comprehensively with many of your points I should point out there's a sizable difference in capacity of explosives you can put in a small laptop let alone the 17"+ ones compared to a mobile.

That being said (and considering the environment I work in) when we saw the measures announced at lunch 3 of my security related colleagues listed at least a dozen ways to control an explosively rigged laptop in hold luggage without using a timer, their approaches took all of a minute to occur to them.
The measures are rather daft, but as usual they're in response to some clunge blowing himself up with a laptop on a plane not long ago, fortunately he was the only casualty.

Oh and didn't the perpetrators of the biggest ever aircraft related terror attacks (911) board at Frankfurt?
 
That is just not what this is about. Look at the criteria. This will stop precisely 0 terrorist attacks - after all, they can just choose one of the other carriers or go via another hub.

Also, it's self-defining (correct me if I'm wrong, and tell me what types of threats this is actually addressing) that the people who think this stuff is fiendishly clever are those who don't understand it. We aren't facing supervillains. Experts in intelligence agencies who do understand this stuff are going to be facepalming at this announcement.
Sorry, but I think being able to hack an aircrafts on board systems via its own network is clever - assuming this quote is true
"Chris Roberts, a security researcher with One World Labs, told the FBI agent during an interview in February that he had hacked the in-flight entertainment system, or IFE, on an airplane and overwrote code on the plane’s Thrust Management Computer while aboard the flight. He was able to issue a climb command and make the plane briefly change course, the document states.

“He stated that he thereby caused one of the airplane engines to climb resulting in a lateral or sideways movement of the plane during one of these flights,”
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
ever @Sarastro while I agree comprehensively with many of your points I should point out there's a sizable difference in capacity of explosives you can put in a small laptop let alone the 17"+ ones compared to a mobile.

That being said (and considering the environment I work in) when we saw the measures announced at lunch 3 of my security related colleagues listed at least a dozen ways to control an explosively rigged laptop in hold luggage without using a timer, their approaches took all of a minute to occur to them.
The measures are rather daft, but as usual they're in response to some clunge blowing himself up with a laptop on a plane not long ago, fortunately he was the only casualty.

Oh and didn't the perpetrators of the biggest ever aircraft related terror attacks (911) board at Frankfurt?
Two issues:

A small explosion in a laptop, in the hold, surrounded by mountains of other baggage (no control over placement) is likely to have a less successful outcome than somone holding the same device against the window/fuselage join, from his or her seat.

What about 'Official' laptops that ahve to be carried as hand luggage/or safe-handed by diplomatic bag?
 

Latest Threads

Top