Laptop Ban May Expand to Flights Coming to U.S. From Europe

[Markoth]

Look the guy up. He was a legitimate citizen for a long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Lahouaiej-Bouhlel Honestly, the safest they can be right now is if they do something horrible like exile or imprison (like Japanese-Americans in WWII) all Muslims, but I would never support that or anything similar.
[doublepost=1494530913][/doublepost]
It was a big lighter than usual since it had no HDDs or GPUs installed.

He moved there in 2005, which isn't what I would consider to be a "long time". They probably shouldn't have let him in, especially when you read about his history. I'm not for banning all Muslims, but for heavens sake let's make sure they're our friends before we let them in, as we should with ANY immigration. This globalist, let-anyone-in type of immigration that we've been seeing is dangerous and reckless.

 

[andiwm2003]

...........................

.... being liberal is nothing to brag about... you should crawl in a hole.

there is an opinion

 

[25ghosts]

Being overcautious is better than not being cautious enough, like most European countries have been. Look at what has happened in France. All it takes are a few maniacs to kill a large number of people. I don't think the people who have died in France would share your sentiment. Obviously, the French were not careful enough.

Wrong...

it does not matter how careful you are. Where there is a will there is a way.

The way the United States is going - in 20 years it will probably ban passengers from flying.
This is crazy - and seriously limits the freedom of any us citizen.

 

[T-R-S]

The terrorists have won - this is the kind of crap they love. If people live in fear and normal life is disrupted - mission accomplished

 

[iAppl3Fan]

I have no problems with iPad Pro and two Nintendo 3DS' along with a few of my phones (the older ones I use for gaming).

we might as well just invest in that sleep-flight technology from the 5th Element lol

Good to know. Thanks.

 

[prowlmedia]

Here is the problem with that argument about weapons only needing to be single shot. The entire reason we have the 2nd Amendment is so that we can protect ourselves against a corrupt government, so the reality is that we need to be able to have the guns and ammo that are equal to or greater than what the government has, at least to a point, so that we can protect ourselves.

Hmm... Well no. In no way.

The Second Amendment was established to defend, not overthrow, the government through state militias. This was because there was no provision for a standing army in the Constitution. The three main reasons for states to need a militia were:

1. Slave revolts
2. Attacks by native Americans
3. Violent uprisings by disaffected citizens, i.e. rebellions

The whole point of the Constitution is to establish a form of government in which violence is not necessary to achieve political aims—not to enable violence.

It is the most misquoted and Misused bit of law EVER. And you know what James Madison is probably spinning in his grave at how twisted it's become. Think the founding fathers thought that their words would be used to allow weapons to be misused the way they are?

It should have been repealed years ago

The last amendment took 202 YEARS! to be ratified! Perhaps we should bring back the 18th Amendment? Or repeal the 19th

Who are we kidding... the current Presidumb ignores the 1st amendment on a daily basis - Breaks the 4th - hiding from the 5th ( Todays Firing )

 

[SnoFlo]

So...in case this does go into effect, has anyone actually placed his/her laptop in checked baggage in the past? Do you remove the HDD? Buy a Pelican case for the laptop, or something? I've had some pretty hardy aluminum items turned into pretzels in checked baggage. How to prevent damage?

 

[dan110]

Moving past the inconvenience factor, let's talk about how high value items such as laptops are notorious for growing legs and walking off when they're stored in checked luggage.

I'm amazed that rail road and Atlantic cruise liners aren't seeing a resurgence due to the nonsense the US Government is doing in regards to air travel.
[doublepost=1494549263][/doublepost]

Hmm... Well no. In no way.

The Second Amendment was established to defend, not overthrow, the government through state militias. This was because there was no provision for a standing army in the Constitution. The three main reasons for states to need a militia were:

1. Slave revolts
2. Attacks by native Americans
3. Violent uprisings by disaffected citizens, i.e. rebellions

The whole point of the Constitution is to establish a form of government in which violence is not necessary to achieve political aims—not to enable violence.

It is the most misquoted and Misused bit of law EVER. And you know what James Madison is probably spinning in his grave at how twisted it's become. Think the founding fathers thought that their words would be used to allow weapons to be misused the way they are?

It should have been repealed years ago

The last amendment took 202 YEARS! to be ratified! Perhaps we should bring back the 18th Amendment? Or repeal the 19th

Who are we kidding... the current Presidumb ignores the 1st amendment on a daily basis - Breaks the 4th - hiding from the 5th ( Todays Firing )

Unfortunately, you're wrong. The 2nd Amendment was derived from the "Natural Laws". One of those laws being self-defense. That is to include NOT exclude a tyrannical government. Remember, both The Declaration of Independence AND The US Constitution states that the government exists by the consent of WE THE PEOPLE.

The Declaration states:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

... AND The US Constitution states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Hence, if a tyrannical government rears its ugly head, the people have a natural right to take up arms to overthrow said government. Many people don't talk or post about this feature because of The Patriot Act and the Police State environment that we live in today. They have us believing that we exist by their consent where we have to ask for permission to do almost anything versus the government getting our permission to do the foolishness that we've allowed them to do. (Too much to list here)

Regardless, US Citizens have the natural right to overthrow the government if it goes off the rails.

 

[ulyssesric]

Hey what's going on here ? It has been more than 300+ posts and still no post that blames Tim Cook for this. Is this MacRumor forum right ?

 

[MarvinHC]

Wrong...

it does not matter how careful you are. Where there is a will there is a way.

The way the United States is going - in 20 years it will probably ban passengers from flying.
This is crazy - and seriously limits the freedom of any us citizen.

Better ban cars too, can do a lot of damage with them. Back to horses... or wait, aren't day also dangerous. Walking, I say walking. Lowest risk possible.

And of course shut down the borders, censor the internet, control the media, mass surveillance... oh wait already all happening. United States - the next North Korea?!?

 

[Markoth]

Wrong...

it does not matter how careful you are. Where there is a will there is a way.

The way the United States is going - in 20 years it will probably ban passengers from flying.
This is crazy - and seriously limits the freedom of any us citizen.

To some extent that's correct. However, I'm sure there's a reason you lock your door at night, right? What's the point, because if they want to come in they will, right? The reality is that, while being overcautious won't keep out people who are actively seeking a way to do harm, it will keep people out who merely dislike the country, and may later seek to do harm, if the opportunity arises. Crimes of opportunity are not to be underestimated. They are, in fact, quite common.

Better ban cars too, can do a lot of damage with them. Back to horses... or wait, aren't day also dangerous. Walking, I say walking. Lowest risk possible.

And of course shut down the borders, censor the internet, control the media, mass surveillance... oh wait already all happening. United States - the next North Korea?!?

You're just being nutty. You have to be careful, but within reason. Obviously, all of that is outside of reason.

 

[MarvinHC]

You're just being nutty. You have to be careful, but within reason. Obviously, all of that is outside of reason.

Within reason being the word, and that line is being crossed.

 

[Gasu E.]

Terrorists may not be everywhere but they sure are in a lot of places and killing lots of people.
Terrorists have a history of building bombs into electronic devices, handing them off to pregnant girlfriends that are then duped into taking them onto planes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

And again with this event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

We should ban all aircraft. They have a history of dropping bombs that kill thousands of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
[doublepost=1494557549][/doublepost]

To some extent that's correct. However, I'm sure there's a reason you lock your door at night, right? What's the point, because if they want to come in they will, right? The reality is that, while being overcautious won't keep out people who are actively seeking a way to do harm, it will keep people out who merely dislike the country, and may later seek to do harm, if the opportunity arises. Crimes of opportunity are not to be underestimated. They are, in fact, quite common.

You're just being nutty. You have to be careful, but within reason. Obviously, all of that is outside of reason.

Banning laptops is pretty much on the edge of reason, since most business travelers depend on laptops, and business travel is what funds the airline industry.
[doublepost=1494558021][/doublepost]

And we never heard of the other underpants bomber who did a successful trial run at his home

I once spent a three hour flight next to an underpants bomber. Talk about terrorism! Phew!
[doublepost=1494558273][/doublepost]

4 more years of this idiocracy. This administration is a complete joke. Can't believe Americans elected Trump. Sad.

Much as I would agree to you on so many other things, this particular idiocy is most likely coming from career civil servants.

 

[Markoth]

Banning laptops is pretty much on the edge of reason, since most business travelers depend on laptops, and business travel is what funds the airline industry.

Absolutely. Something such as banning laptops could have only been thought up by a government bureaucrat, safely tucked away from the real world, in which they actually use laptops in their day to day business. Some parts of government are so out of date, I sometimes wonder how they find anyone to operate the machinery. In the end, it would seem obvious that it is often a bad idea to let those who know very little about the thing they are regulating, to regulate it. Indeed, this is typically the problem with government regulation in general. Certainly, the TSA has very few fans.

 

[truthertech]

Honestly, no one's taking over another plane with knives, they even give us knives with our dinners again (real metal ones although not very long or sharp). The reinforced cockpit doors work fine. Passenger awareness of the fact a flight won't just be diverted to Cuba but instead crashed into a building won't allow that again. No more peaceful cooperation. TSA does not work. They routinely let dangerous items through when tested. They have an enormous cost both directly and in the time loss to all of us. TSA is designed around a 16 year old attack (leveraging an airliner into a large area weapon), it's nearly pointless today.

The threat has changed. It's now to passengers directly and an industry and economy indirectly (the nature of terrorism). I would much rather we provide more air marshals to help if someone brings a small weapon aboard (or for, you know, fights breaking out on planes between ordinary citizens) and bomb sniffing dogs to help prevent someone taking a plane down mid-flight. I say this as someone with a much higher than average chance of being affected by these things as I'm a regular flyer for both business and pleasure. I have no fear of removing TSA and increasing bomb detection and air marshals.

You misunderstand how all this works and what role TSA plays in Explosives detection. Hint, there's a reason every nation in the world uses TSA type
model to screen for bombs. Terrorists, hijackers, etc., would love it if nations adopted your idea and allowed them to carry weapons, chemical bombs, etc., that canines can't detect onto
planes.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

... being liberal is nothing to brag about... you should crawl in a hole.

I am very proud of living in a society that has liberal views thank you. We are a lot less paranoid and much more tolerant and that speaks for itself. Cheer up.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Here is the problem with that argument about weapons only needing to be single shot. The entire reason we have the 2nd Amendment is so that we can protect ourselves against a corrupt government, so the reality is that we need to be able to have the guns and ammo that are equal to or greater than what the government has, at least to a point, so that we can protect ourselves.

Pinch me, but are we not living in the 21st century and aren't you supposedly living in the most developed country in the world?

 

[daflake]

I am very proud of living in a society that has liberal views thank you. We are a lot less paranoid and much more tolerant and that speaks for itself. Cheer up.

The problem isn't liberal views (I'm a centrist with liberal views), it is when they go beyond common sense. That happens a lot in the USA. European countries seem to be a lot more even keeled on many things.

 

[MarvinHC]

Pinch me, but are we not living in the 21st century and aren't you supposedly living in the most developed country in the world?

I was wondering the same.... and also, let's be realistic: A couple of rednecks with rifles and other toys wouldn't be able to do much anyway IF the government sent in the army against them. I don't think / hope this will ever happen but if it did, it would be game over pretty quickly for the 2nd amendment guys...

 

[palmerc]

There are these things called books.

Yes, but it really depends on your level of stress. I personally have trouble reading on a plane because I'm stressed. This in theory could help iPad sales, but then how long before those are banned?
[doublepost=1494571826][/doublepost]

The problem isn't liberal views (I'm a centrist with liberal views), it is when they go beyond common sense. That happens a lot in the USA. European countries seem to be a lot more even keeled on many things.

The American security apparatus looks at its job and says we have zero tolerance for risk. Ultimately, it doesn't make us any safer, it makes things suck a lot more, and it justifies their need to exist. "Trust us these things are going to start falling from the sky any minute."

The greatest threat to airline safety over the last few years has been whatever happened the MH17 and Russian missiles, neither of which are addressed by laptop bans.

 

[daflake]

Yes, but it really depends on your level of stress. I personally have trouble reading on a plane because I'm stressed. This in theory could help iPad sales, but then how long before those are banned?

What I have read suggest that anything above a cell phone could be banned. It states Laptops and large devices so it is very possible that tablets may be included. We shall see...
[doublepost=1494573000][/doublepost]

The greatest threat to airline safety over the last few years has been whatever happened the MH17 and Russian missiles, neither of which are addressed by laptop bans.

That is simply a guess... I have worked in Intellegence before and know that sometimes new rules are applied because of a direct threat. That could have simply been an e-mail that stated they were going to try to smuggle explosives on board to an outright intercepted threat. I doubt someone came in to work and said "let's make peoples lives miserable today". My guess is they have credible evidence and are simply trying to tighten it down.

Now, we could lift all the security measures and see what happens, but my guess is that the first plane hijacked or blown up would result in the same people who are bitching about security bitching about the lack of it.

 

[palmerc]

What I have read suggest that anything above a cell phone could be banned. It states Laptops and large devices so it is very possible that tablets may be included. We shall see...

There should be a specific prohibition based upon kWH, I'd hope... What's next? Are they going to provide us an orange jump suit we have to change into before boarding and check our clothes? Seriously, I do expect them to ban all carry-ons.

I'm wondering at what point we finally get people to demand some sort of agreed upon threshold of risk before instituting any more security policies.

 

[prowlmedia]

Moving past the inconvenience factor, let's talk about how high value items such as laptops are notorious for growing legs and walking off when they're stored in checked luggage.

I'm amazed that rail road and Atlantic cruise liners aren't seeing a resurgence due to the nonsense the US Government is doing in regards to air travel.
[doublepost=1494549263][/doublepost]

Unfortunately, you're wrong. The 2nd Amendment was derived from the "Natural Laws". One of those laws being self-defense. That is to include NOT exclude a tyrannical government. Remember, both The Declaration of Independence AND The US Constitution states that the government exists by the consent of WE THE PEOPLE.

The Declaration states:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

... AND The US Constitution states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Hence, if a tyrannical government rears its ugly head, the people have a natural right to take up arms to overthrow said government. Many people don't talk or post about this feature because of The Patriot Act and the Police State environment that we live in today. They have us believing that we exist by their consent where we have to ask for permission to do almost anything versus the government getting our permission to do the foolishness that we've allowed them to do. (Too much to list here)

Regardless, US Citizens have the natural right to overthrow the government if it goes off the rails.

And there is the semantics and why the US is run by lawyers. What you have for is quote the constitution, not the 2nd amendment.

This was before a standing Army and was derived as a means for Militia.

So you are saying that people should be allowed the the means to overthrow a government? Yay. MOABs for all!

The point of the consistution is to stop BEFORE that point. Hence Impeachments etc and we'll we all that to look forward to.

 

[palmerc]

And there is the semantics and why the US is run by lawyers. What you have for is quote the constitution, not the 2nd amendment.

This was before a standing Army and was derived as a means for Militia.

So you are saying that people should be allowed the the means to overthrow a government? Yay. MOABs for all!

The point of the consistution is to stop BEFORE that point. Hence Impeachments etc and we'll we all that to look forward to.

We have long needed to revise the second amendment to clarify its meaning. Arguing what the 2nd amendment means or was intended to mean is pointless. It's all ideological white noise now.

The fact is, even sensible gun legislation doesn't go anywhere because people would rather argue an absolutist position than negotiate a compromise that benefits everyone. It isn't far removed from the absolutist position on airline safety.

We should have some security precautions, but what we seem unable to do is define where the boundaries of those safety precautions lie. So, the DHS sets the boundary as absolute as do the 2nd amendment nuts. I want compromise. We're certainly not going to get that any time soon.
[doublepost=1494574998][/doublepost]

What I have read suggest that anything above a cell phone could be banned. It states Laptops and large devices so it is very possible that tablets may be included. We shall see...
[doublepost=1494573000][/doublepost]

That is simply a guess... I have worked in Intellegence before and know that sometimes new rules are applied because of a direct threat. That could have simply been an e-mail that stated they were going to try to smuggle explosives on board to an outright intercepted threat. I doubt someone came in to work and said "let's make peoples lives miserable today". My guess is they have credible evidence and are simply trying to tighten it down.

Now, we could lift all the security measures and see what happens, but my guess is that the first plane hijacked or blown up would result in the same people who are bitching about security bitching about the lack of it.

Credible evidence of a direct threat... OK. Then present that evidence and we'll discuss.

We know most of what goes on is security theater. It doesn't make us safer, in fact, it undermines the credibility of government. Yet, we keep having to deal with increased screening, further restrictions and take their word for it. This is why we need to establish the boundaries of risk in a transparent way and in terms of airline travel, we need rights and rules spelled out.

https://www.xkcd.com/651/

 

[daflake]

[doublepost=1494574998][/doublepost]

Credible evidence of a direct threat... OK. Then present that evidence and we'll discuss.

We know most of what goes on is security theater. It doesn't make us safer, in fact, it undermines the credibility of government. Yet, we keep having to deal with increased screening, further restrictions and take their word for it. This is why we need to establish the boundaries of risk in a transparent way and in terms of airline travel, we need rights and rules spelled out.

https://www.xkcd.com/651/

You know they aren't going to do that, ever. If they do, then it shows our hand on how we obtianed the info and then the players change the rules.

As for the rest, meh. We went from having no security when countries like Germany had Polizei walking around with machine guns to us having the TSA (agree that it is all overkill) which basically matches current European security. Bottom line is that we have to have some level of security in place.

I don't like the ban, (I live in Germany, so it will affect me) but it is what it is. We have nut jobs in positions of power in our government and we are reaping what we sow.