In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," [U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John] Kelly said the United States planned to "raise the bar" on airline security, including tightening screening of carry-on items.
"That's 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 U.S. people."
In March, the government imposed restrictions on large electronic devices in aircraft cabins on flights from 10 airports, including the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Turkey.
Kelly said the move would be part of a broader airline security effort to combat what he called "a real sophisticated threat." He said no decision had been made as to the timing of any ban.
"We are still following the intelligence," he said, "and are in the process of defining this, but we're going to raise the bar generally speaking for aviation much higher than it is now."
Airlines are concerned that a broad ban on laptops may erode customer demand. But none wants an incident aboard one of its airplanes.
Fox News has a transcript of the interview (archived copy).
Previous stories:
President Trump Revealed Classified Information to Russia; and Tweets it to the World [Updated]
"Sources" Fear Terrorists will get Past Airport Security with Laptop Bombs
US Bans Tablets and Laptops on Flights From Eight Muslim-Majority Countries
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday May 29 2017, @09:53PM (2 children)
No. I am not saying that airplanes were never a terrorist's target; it's happened before. But buildings, cars, free-standing crowds of people, and other more accessible things are enormously more targeted by terrorists than airplanes are. The only reason that terrorists are drawn back to unattractive targets like airplanes is that you Homeland Security folks are so obsessed with them, and making you look like (more of) an idiot is something that's important to them also.
This is a good idea. Theme parks in Orlando do something similar to this with their "No Bag" and "I Have A Bag You Need To Search" lines. Unfortunately, for people of the common-sense level of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, it would make way, way too much sense to put into practice.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 29 2017, @10:26PM (1 child)
I wouldn't exactly say "enormously more targeted." Given how little security is present around most such things, if there were significant numbers of terrorists, we'd likely see a lot more largescale attacks. But I agree with you that any terrorist who isn't a complete idiot would likely go for such a target over a plane, just because it would be easier.
Huh? Airplanes are NOT "unattractive targets" to terrorists. Many people have irrational fears of flying. And if the flight is airborne, a terrorist with even a small bomb might be able to kill hundreds of people due to the fact that the plane may likely crash. You'd have to know a bit about explosives and find a good location to guarantee so many deaths -- injuries, sure, but the crash makes for a more terrifying news story for many people.
Security does make them less accessible targets, but in general they're a pretty good target for spreading fear.
Not really possible. Every couple years, there's yet another study showing that something like 90% of bombs, guns, etc. get through the security when the feds try to audit the TSA. Given those studies, the only logical conclusion is that the number of terrorists attempting to get on planes in the U.S. is ridiculously small.
Also, if there were that many terrorists interested in embarrassing the TSA and showing how ineffective such security measures are, why not bomb an airport outside the security zone (as in Brussels)? Would be much easier to have significantly larger bombs. Coordinate an attack and blow up multiple security lines at once, and you could injure huge numbers of people and send the public into a panic... again. If the airports step up security outside the zone, move on to sports stadiums, train terminals, shopping malls before Christmas, anywhere that large numbers of people congregate. The possibilities for relatively unsecured locations are endless.
Let's not pretend here: the only thing keeping us somewhat "safe" is that the number of actual terrorists is much lower than the government wants everyone to believe, AND the ones who do exist mostly seem to be complete idiots.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday May 30 2017, @12:35AM
Not only that. Air travel is an essential component of the economic life of the country, unlike visiting a theme park or a movie theater. If thousands of people refuse to fly out of a reasonable fear for their life, it will cause considerable harm to the industry.