SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Will law enforcement gain the power to search laptops at any time by declaring them potential bombs?
US intelligence and law enforcement agencies believe that ISIS and other terrorist organizations have developed innovative ways to plant explosives in electronic devices that FBI testing shows can evade some commonly used airport security screening methods, CNN has learned. Heightening the concern is US intelligence suggesting that terrorists have obtained sophisticated airport security equipment to test how to effectively conceal explosives in laptops and other electronic devices.
The intelligence, gathered in the last several months, played a significant role in the Trump administration's decision to prohibit travelers flying out of 10 airports in eight countries in the Middle East and Africa from carrying laptops and other large electronic devices aboard planes. The findings may raise questions about whether the ban is broad enough. CNN has learned that, through a series of tests conducted late last year, the FBI determined the laptop bombs would be far more difficult for airport screeners to detect than previous versions terrorist groups have produced. The FBI testing focused on specific models of screening machines that are approved by the Transportation Security Administration and are used in the US and around the world.
Also at USA Today and The Washington Examiner.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Monday April 03 2017, @10:42AM (14 children)
Be interested to see... how much "safer" is the hold anyway? If someone blows that up, what happens to the airplane? Apart from, what, millions of dollars of expense if it does happen, can't it be just as likely to bring down the plane?
And how many times has that happened compared to in-cabin things?
Surely, if you can smuggle a 1kg bomb into the cabin, you can smuggle a 5kg bomb into the hold, or a bunch of 1kg bombs?
I seriously doubt that they should be focusing on this anyway. As soon as you announce "We'll now check X for bombs", attackers will just change tactics anyway.
The whole "no liquids" thing is just as ludicrous.
And it all comes back to not scanning people / luggage well enough before they get on the plane, NOT what they decide to take.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday April 03 2017, @11:29AM (8 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 4, Interesting) by isostatic on Monday April 03 2017, @01:07PM (4 children)
terrorists appear to be universally incompetent.
Or there just aren't that many people willing to blow up planes, or kill people in western countries.
Driving down a sidewalk is about as easy as it gets (1). In the US you can buy a few guns, walk down to a children's playground, or shopping mall, fire a few shots off, and walk out before anyone even sees you (2). You could get a sniper rifle and pick off people filling up at gas stations, you could do that for weeks, months even, across the country, and not get caught (3). You could make a bomb and plant it in a bin, set to go off at 12pm, then another one a couple of minutes later just down the road (4).
1) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nice-attack-bastille-day-france-lorry-what-we-know-crowd-terror-isis-a7138036.html [independent.co.uk]
2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/tunisia/11701043/Tunisia-attack-shooting-Isil-linked-warning-live.html [telegraph.co.uk]
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._C._sniper_attacks [wikipedia.org]
4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bomb_attacks [wikipedia.org]
Spreading terror isn't hard logistically.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 03 2017, @01:32PM (3 children)
Also, plane tickets are expensive.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @01:52PM (2 children)
Also, plane tickets are expensive.
They only have to buy a one-way ticket.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday April 03 2017, @04:42PM (1 child)
Those tend to be more expensive!
(Score: 2) by fishybell on Monday April 03 2017, @06:14PM
...intentionally to discourage terrorists. Oh how I wish I were kidding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @03:14PM (2 children)
The result: a ban on laptops in the hold
That is false. They have been banned as cargo on passenger flights [theguardian.com] - in other words no shipping a pallet of batteries.
But batteries in checked passenger baggage have never been banned.
Here's the FAA FAQ dated September 16th, 2016 [faa.gov] for confirmation.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday April 03 2017, @04:52PM
That is false. They have been banned as cargo on passenger flights - in other words no shipping a pallet of batteries.
Correct, sending your laptop/ipad/camera in checked baggage is fine. However loose li-ion batteries have been banned in the hold for quite some time.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday April 04 2017, @01:31PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @03:20PM (1 child)
Be interested to see... how much "safer" is the hold anyway?
It is safer in that it the terrorist can't guarantee that the bomb will be positioned next to the hull.
In the passenger cabin they can get a window seat or take it to the bathroom and put it right up on the hull.
A battery sized bomb's explosion is pretty localized.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Monday April 03 2017, @07:00PM
Two more things about that:
- Your small bomb won't do any structural damage if it's tightly packed in a metal container between giant suitcases of various density materials, which is more likely to happen than not.
- Your bomb won't make it to the hold in a working state anyway, as the baggage handlers are obviously specifically trained to disable or trigger explosives. Feel free to try to decrypt their secret-society-grade techniques, which optimize angular impact, spin stresses, and counter-brace shockwaves. How they dare disarm bombs daily with no safety equipment nor public recognition is a rare example of true heroics and patriotic selflessness.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 03 2017, @07:10PM
I remember years ago being required to power on a laptop in order to bring it aboard.
Or course, now you could have a something like a Raspberry Pi Zero W (£9.60) built into the screen and room for several pounds of your favorite demolition tools in the body packaged in disk drive cases (to fool the Xray) and none of the high-school dropouts at the TSA counters will be any the wiser.
Just about (but not quite) all the damage such a device could cause has already been caused (allegedly) by some terrorist wannabe in some internet cafe somewhere posting "chatter". The world is inconvenienced by a rumor. The inconvenience will last years, kill laptop sales, and everybody moves to paper thin tablets.
Who wins from that scenario? Follow the Money.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:13AM
If you were Canadian, you'd be aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182 [wikipedia.org], largest airplane terror attack originating in N. America prior to 9/11, at least if you consider a plane departing Canada and blown up by Sikh nationalists to be a N. American terror attack.
And of course, with the shortage of laptops in 1985, they used a Sanyo tuner instead. It was in the cargo hold.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Tuesday April 04 2017, @07:32AM
Hold vs. Cabin is not quite so simple.
Stuff in the hold is placed in a random location, probably with much blast absorbing material around it, and often containerised. In the decades since Lockerbie and other incidents the design of containerised baggage systems has very likely changed to include some degree of blast resistance - lifetime of luggage containers is likely much less than aircraft and certifying new designs will be orders of magnitude less expensive.
The issue of multiple Li-on batteries being in hold rather than cabin can be mitigated by packing those devices in special containers - and I have seen reports that at least one airline is doing exactly that as part of the new procedures. NB: if you don't believe we can engineer a container to cope with a multiple Li-on cell fire then don't ever get on a 787, because that is exactly what the "fix" for that aircraft's melting-down battery syndrome is.
In contrast, explosive (or incendiary material) in the cabin can be placed precisely where it can do most damage, therefore much much less is needed. There are inevitably vulnerable areas accessible by passengers, even if it were possible to design these out _now_, most aircraft flying today are several decades old in design and will be for years to come.
Also, even if the damage capability is the same, I would suggest that if your aim is "terror", a survivable hole in the hold fuselage and loss of a few suitcases, followed by slow decompression and rubber jungle in the cabin is a lot less "terror" than a survivable hole in that cabin fuselage, loss of a couple of passengers, and much faster decompression in the cabin.
As to scanning well enough - the ban apparently arises precisely because certain airports are not _capable_ of scanning people / luggage well enough to defeat this threat. Or it is a deliberate targeting of certain middle eastern airlines business revenue, take your pick...