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
Related Stories
Vague and secretive order bans devices larger than a phone on certain flights to US
It looks like the TSA has finally got round to reading XKCD 651. They have quietly banned electronic devices "larger than a phone" from the cabins of all airlines from a list of 13 countries. It isn't clear whether the ban affects electronic devices used by the aircraft's crew, for example the "electronic flight bag" used by the flight crew, which typically include a tablet.
The affected airlines have just 96 hours to comply.
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.
President Donald Trump disclosed highly classified information to Russia's foreign minister about a planned Islamic State operation, two U.S. officials said on Monday, plunging the White House into another controversy just months into Trump's short tenure in office.
The intelligence, shared at a meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, was supplied by a U.S. ally in the fight against the militant group, both officials with knowledge of the situation said.
The White House declared the allegations, first reported by the Washington Post, incorrect.
[...] One of the officials said the intelligence discussed by Trump in his meeting with Lavrov was classified "Top Secret" and held in a secure "compartment" to which only a handful of intelligence officials have access.
After Trump's disclosure of the information, which one of the officials described as spontaneous, officials immediately called the CIA and the National Security Agency, both of which have agreements with a number of allied intelligence services around the world, and informed them what had happened.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKCN18B2MX
Also at The Washington Post and The New York Times.
[Update.] According to Ars Technica, President Trump then proceeded to Tweet information about this meeting:
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:31PM (24 children)
Fear! Uncertainty! Doubt!
After traveling through some other countries airports I can safely say the US is extremely fucked. The terrorists won, the security theater people have made tons of cash off our hysteria, and a large portion of the US has never been easier to manipulate.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Lagg on Monday May 29 2017, @07:50PM (1 child)
First thing I saw when I opened my passport was not the passport - but a pamphlet that allowed me the "privilege" of paying a subscription to get through TSA checks faster.
Murika.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 29 2017, @07:57PM
Time for some racketeering lawsuit?
Maybe some TSA board members have filed their IRS forms improperly? ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:55PM (14 children)
Yeah well, make what you want of it, but there haven't been any hijacks or bombings on US flights since 2001. Seems like the country to avoid now is Egypt.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 29 2017, @08:12PM (2 children)
What's so special about Egypt right now?
It's not like the whole middle east and large areas of Africa is filled with people willing to do all kinds of bad things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:35PM
All of Africa*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:32PM
What's so special about Egypt right now?
Oh, I don't know [thesun.co.uk], and it seems that iPhones and perfume don't mix [nationalpost.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Monday May 29 2017, @10:04PM (2 children)
Of course not, the terrorists wouldn't try it again. The greatest security we have are the people on board that will not go to their deaths quietly. Remember the passengers on 9/11 that didn't go along with the plans? Their plane never hit the target. It will never work again for that reason. People no longer assume they are being transported to a foreign country to become hostages. They assume that they're going to die with the terrorists becoming martyrs.
Does it happen on Israeli flights? Nope, they were smart and you don't have access to the cockpit from the passenger areas.
Which is why it hasn't happened again. Airlines secured the fucking doors and instituted security procedures to keep pilots from being manipulated, or opening the doors.
That's why it has not happened again. Not because of the security theater, and not because the government did their jobs or anything.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:25PM (1 child)
And now the problem are the crazy pilots crashing their planes. Soon enough that number will pass 9/11 crashes. Maybe these doors should actually be openable from the outside, you know, like with a key?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 31 2017, @01:35AM
Ummm, no. They should be locked up even tighter than that.
That crash in Europe occurred because the pilot/co-pilot left the cockpit. Period. That nut wasn't going to do anything till that other person left, or he would've also needed to incapacitate the other pilot somehow.
You lock the pilots into their own cabin, with their own lavatory and supplies. They don't need the stewardess flirting with them, or bringing them food & drinks. Even better, you have THREE people in the cockpit. Makes it much harder for one nut to take out the plane, although, a pilot is going to be the most dangerous anyways if they go crazy.
It's how Israel does it. Always heard for years that their pilots have their own entrance and the cockpit is very much separated from the passenger areas.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 29 2017, @11:14PM (6 children)
If you think security is more important than freedom in a country that is supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave', then your priorities are, to me, seriously out of order. I would rather risk more terrorist attacks than allow the government to continue violating the Constitution. There's nothing brave or free about allowing government thugs to harass and search everyone who wants to get on a plane; it is cowardly and authoritarian. People who feel otherwise have other countries they could move to that act more in line with their ideals, such as North Korea.
But I don't even accept the argument that all this security theater actually improved our safety by any significant amount. You would need to provide scientific evidence to prove it. Just saying 'But there haven't been more hijacks since 2001!' is not proof that the TSA is effective. There are other things that changed as well, such as cockpit door security and the fact that the public will fight back against hijackers now instead of meekly complying. Like I said before, though, even if it were absolutely true that the TSA was effective, I would still oppose it because I value freedom more than security.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @01:35AM (2 children)
That's quite a stupid comment about moving to other countries. It's really not that easy, those other countries usually don't want you either.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:03AM
Unlike USA vis-a-vis muslims, almost all other civilized countries judge who they want or not on a case by case basis.
I'm sorry to hear that your personal experience tells you otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:37PM
That's just one of the pleasures of an insanely authoritarian country, isn't it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:31PM (2 children)
I would rather risk more terrorist attacks than allow the government to continue violating the Constitution.
Your view is anecdotal and statistically insignificant. The vast majority of people who vote (over 98%) disagree.
But I don't even accept the argument that all this security theater actually improved our safety by any significant amount.
Again you have it wrong. They aren't trying to improve 'safety'. They are selling an illusion, with high drama. Thanks to a submissive public, the campaign is a golden goose. It is business, plain and simple. And business is very good and expanding. That you cannot deny.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:39PM (1 child)
If that is true, then people should stop with the 'land of the free and home of the brave' nonsense and just admit that they are reprehensible authoritarians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:56AM
people should stop with the 'land of the free and home of the brave' nonsense
Why? It sells tickets... That's what flag waving is all about. If you don't keep the illusion alive, people will start thinking, *what's the point?*.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday May 30 2017, @12:51AM
And even longer before that we had no issue when the metal detectors wouldn't even go off for anything smaller than a hunting knife and IDs weren't checked at all. Boarding pass = plane ride.
And with all the madness we have now, it's been the passengers that have headed off any real trouble after the paranoid security theater missed completely.
The theater has mostly managed to threaten harmless college students and cause little girls to yell bad touch! and cry.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @08:22PM
It comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how the strategy of terrorism works, you blow up some stuff and the state imposes draconian and TERRORIZING military violence ON IT'S OWN CITIZENS making the citizens angry and afraid causing in the end revolution and the destruction of the state you are targeting, sound familiar to anyone?
--Oceania has always been the enemy
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @08:54PM (2 children)
Suggested shortcut to all this - just ban... aircraft. Done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @10:35PM (1 child)
Where's me canoe?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:26AM
In the shop getting fitted with a secure cockpit door.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @11:40PM (2 children)
9/11 the US government (no the people) to terrorist. They change the laws and destroyed freedom.
Was noted to the TSA, of the day. that carry-on computers were unsafe. That was 1988 - 30yrs ago. Then they were bulky and you had to power them to prove they were computers. Just needed to see the BIOS screen. What that would have done.
Remember to protect the country... Everyone must fly nude. No wear to hide anything.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @12:42AM (1 child)
There has been attempts at inserting a bomb inside a person using surgery to hide it completely.
So again, full interior 3D scanning would solve a lot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:43AM
Ooooh... a baby bomb!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:34PM (8 children)
I was sure that they were mostly obsessed with getting you the hell out of their homeland, but I guess that's why I don't work in "Homeland Security".
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:50PM (3 children)
I was sure that they were mostly obsessed with getting you the hell out of their homeland
The die-hard Islamic Jihadists want Islam to literally conquer the world [dailymail.co.uk]. The US is the Great Satan because it is not an Islamic country. They would attack the US even if the US were not in their homeland.
Consider Boko Haram. Why do they kill young girls who are attending school? It's not because the US is invading countries.
Your post makes it sound like the terrorists have a reasonable reason for their terror. I say only in part, and if that part were removed, they still would do the things they do.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @11:23PM
There are many factors that cause this problem. If you are arguing that invading middle eastern countries and causing tons of collateral damage is not one factor that causes some people to decide to be terrorists, then I find that hard to believe. It's not black and white. That doesn't mean that terrorism is somehow justified; it's only one explanation for it. Stop turning off your brain, assuming you have one.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday May 30 2017, @12:57AM
Just go back to sleep, you're clearly too retarded to ever understand what's going on.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @01:39AM
They are doing it in their country. It's all local, which is the point. If the US wasn't messing with them they would have no need to mess with the US either.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday May 29 2017, @11:29PM (3 children)
If I wanted to kill a lot of Americans on an aeroplane, why wouldn't I choose a flight between Chicago and LA? (For example)
It makes more sense than an international flight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:29AM (2 children)
Because before you get on that flight from Chicago to LA you have to get into the country … along with your special bag of tricks.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:49AM (1 child)
Why? You thinks it's so hard to craft your tricks on US soil?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 31 2017, @09:18PM
It's much easier to buy a gun anywhere in the US than to buy one almost anywhere else in the world.
So if I wanted to kill a bunch of Americans wouldn't I just pitch up at the airport with my legally purchased MP5 or whatever and have at them?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday May 29 2017, @07:37PM (4 children)
Isn't it possible to scan the internals of a laptop? It's done with all kinds of other stuff. But those scanners surely won't detect type of material. Which I guess is the problem. Maybe more wavelengths can be used? o other technique.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday May 29 2017, @09:43PM (3 children)
A better solution would seem to be two sets of security aisles; one where no proscribed items are permitted through (maybe not even the 100ml item baggies) and another where passengers that want to carry-on large electrical items can do so, but face additional screening and longer delays. Government gets their security theatre, passengers get a choice, airports get to charge airlines additional fees, and airlines get to pass on those fees to passengers - with a small markup, naturally.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by archfeld on Monday May 29 2017, @08:18PM (8 children)
Boot the device and run a diag. program from USB stick to confirm the health of the system. It is not like the modern laptop has a lot of spare room for things like C4 and detonators as well as what is supposed to be there in the first place.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 29 2017, @08:38PM
There is enough space..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:32PM (4 children)
leaving you plenty of space. shielded by metal.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday May 29 2017, @10:12PM (3 children)
Never mind the criminals out to make a few BTC or whatever; any number of hacker groups would probably try to pull it off just the lulz.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @10:39PM (2 children)
I would like to award you some internet points, but they don't "run" anything on their laptop, they just image it and then inspect the image.
... but I was thinking along the same lines as you
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Tuesday May 30 2017, @12:15AM (1 child)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:12AM
Make the USB stick non writable ? Load the diag. program to touch each device in just the slightest manner and actually verify it exists and functions as it should. But I think one of the earlier responses was true. I opened up my brothers' 'new' very thin laptop, and they are correct, as thin and packed as it is there is still probably enough room to make a bomb big enough to depressurize a commercial plane.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Monday May 29 2017, @10:22PM (1 child)
LOL. Sure. No space. Just that extra M.2 port, or that extra HDD bay, or that big honking lithium battery can be replaced, or press C4 into the lining around the screen where the wifi antenna goes, speakers, etc. I'm not sure how many laptops you've taken apart to service them, but there are little spaces everywhere.
If the idea is to make it look like a laptop, boot like a laptop, but be largely filled with explosives, then you don't have that much of a problem. The biggest problem is just providing enough power for the screen, and that is most of the weight too with the battery. Looking over a contemporary 17" laptop, I can see 4 storage bays listed, not including the PCMIA/Express card ports, or the DVD player slot. Aside from one of the storage bays, all of the others can be tasked for explosive payloads.
Laptops are hard to hide. What about smartphones? PSPs? Tablets? You're extremely wrong about their not being space in these things. Perhaps not enough to blow the whole plane, but certainly enough to blow out the window or a door. At speed and cruising altitude, the loss of a door or window can endanger the whole plane. If you used shaped charges, a laptop pressed up to the cockpit door might take out the whole plane more or less instantly.
That's why it is security theater and the terrorists won. Anybody actually serious about bringing down a plane can do it. I could bring one down next week. In the meantime though, we're the ones suffering from loss of freedoms. The only security that makes any sense, are people being forced to strip down naked, get into a one-size-fits-you-maybe jumpsuit, and then be put to sleep for the flight like the 5th Element.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday May 30 2017, @12:40AM
Considering the ever-shrinking leg room, perhaps that's the better solution overall. At least you will arrive in zero subjective time and well rested! :-)
(Score: 3, Funny) by iwoloschin on Monday May 29 2017, @08:27PM
https://xkcd.com/651/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday May 29 2017, @08:28PM (2 children)
Does he mean broader laps ? or wider laptop's ? Soon we'll be banning iPhones, because, well just because...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Nerdfest on Monday May 29 2017, @10:28PM (1 child)
iPhones will be the last devices banned. The DHS and Apple are both all about removing rights and freedoms.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday May 31 2017, @01:44AM
The "flamebait" modders might want to look into Apple's history of lobbying for DMCA extension against 'jailbreaking' their phones, their lobbying against user repair laws, and their general policy on installing "unauthorized" software. They are frighteningly anti-consumer freedom.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @08:51PM
I mean those things make anybody feel unsafe!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday May 29 2017, @09:02PM (6 children)
This will never happen on international flights because the Feds love playing peeping tom into digital devices in the Constitution-free zones, and most people don't ensure their electronics are fresh and clean when crossing, despite the occasional ruckus you hear in the media about so-and-so having their phone/laptop/whatever searched.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:15PM
That's why they want you to check-in your devices - that way they can examine them at their leisure, as well as put in malware or whatever. Easier to do if the owner's not there to object.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @12:50AM (4 children)
Maybe one should install a small gumstix computer that is wired to the external ports. So they can malware all they like.. ;)
Ie two computers in one shell but pretending to be just one.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:06AM (3 children)
Would look awfully suspicious if caught. I think it is just better to take totally clean devices over the border. The rest can be done by ssh or a vpn.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:09PM (2 children)
How would they catch that? and the problem is not really checking but infection of malware.
An alternative approach is a computer+disc on a board that is checked in and sealed. While a "sacrifice" board is plugged in. This of course requires a redesign of the internals.
Besides, I don't recall any rules on how a laptop may be designed?
(besides the power supply)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:45PM (1 child)
I don't know how it would happen but weird things DO happen. People get busted for really random reasons at times. So if you modify a computer so that it really contains two computers. one for the benefit of the authorities and one for your private use, it is not an impossibility -- merely an improbability -- that you get caught, and if you do get caught, there is going to be a lot of explaining to do to people who are not willing to believe you merely value your privacy, and those people have guns, cells, black sites, and an enormous sense of self-righteousness.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:47PM
The above post is me -- apparently the login while posting doesn't work great.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:03PM
Someone needs to tell this guy about suitcase nukes!! NO SUITCASES ALLOWED ON AIRPLANES FOR REALSIES. WE'RE LIKE TOTALLY MULLING THIS OVER RIGHT NOW. BRB.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Monday May 29 2017, @09:37PM (8 children)
Why is it that nobody ever thinks about the obvious idea of... oh... I dunno... NOT pissing off the entire world so that everyone and their goldfish is gunning for you?
I mean, isn't it strange how Canada doesn't seem to have these problems? Sure, there have been a few terrorist plots that have been foiled, but Canada seems to have FAR few problems than the US, and we haven't had to go ballistic ape shit on security.
And all you need to do is look at our respective customs offices to see why. In the US, the place looks like a military installation, and the border people are just jonesing to find something to nail you with so that they can arrest you. There aren't even garbage cans to toss your refuse in.
Meanwhile on the Canadian side, the customs office looks like a comfortable hotel lobby, and the staff there help you comply with the law, and are apologetic if they can't let you get away with something.
And then some Americans get pissed off because other countries "demand" US military aid. Well maybe if the US stopped treating the entire planet as if they were entitled to it, then people would stop going, "Well, where are you when we actually need you?"
(Score: 2, Disagree) by edIII on Monday May 29 2017, @10:28PM (3 children)
Easy to say, but you don't know what problems Canada may have with the U.S out of the picture. In other words, Canadians are safer because the U.S takes the brunt of it.
You do have a point though. We can take care of the problems with the TSA by bringing peace to the Middle East. Without a jihad that has the support of the people, the terrorists will fade away and be marginalized like the Christian extremists in the U.S.
That is a path for peace, but a difficult one requiring work on both sides. Far more work then just banning laptops on international flights.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:21AM
Except [alternet.org] they haven't [globalresearch.ca].
Doesn't it suck when your premise is completely wrong?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:12AM
Canadians are safer because the U.S takes the brunt of it.
You do have a point though. We can take care of the problems with the TSA by bringing peace to the Middle East.
Dear god, I think he's serious. "Bringing peace to the Middle East". By overthrowing government after government. By delivering weapons to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda. By selling hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia.
The Islamic fruitcakes may be the ones blowing themselves up, but they're doing this at least partly because of all the "peace" the US has brought to their home countries.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:06PM
I seriously doubt that that is true. Canada is safer, because Canada IS SAFER.
It by no means perfect, but the entire culture is FAR more temperate and compassionate (and dare I say it... liberal?) than the US. (There are always assholes, sure, but in general it's true.)
Far more crucially, Canada hasn't fucked around the rest of the world the way the US has. Hell, the US almost directly responsible for everything happening in the middle east right now. Just do a wikipedia search for "blowback". Iran for example, was a perfectly nice, democratic country. But because they wouldn't bend over the way US wanted them to, the US assassinated their democratically elected leader and put in place some theocratic puppet that lead to the mess that Iran is now.
So no, the US *absolutely* deserves all the hostility pointed in their direction. They've earned it. And that was *before* the US went rabid xenophobic.
I mean, it's so bad that Americans tourists around the world are actually encouraged to pretend that they are Canadian, because their treatment around the world is so markedly different. And to counter that, native people have even been known to *quiz* said tourists to prove that they arn't faking being Canadian. THAT'S how bad America's reputation is around the world.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 29 2017, @10:58PM (3 children)
I still remember the first time I crossed the Canadian border after 9/11 (nearly a year afterward). I was with some friends on a camping trip. We decided to take our pickup truck and go for a little daytrip across the border. In Canada, we were greeted by two pleasant (and, I'll admit, attractive) women who chatted with us nicely for a minute. They apologized (yes, apologized) and asked us to pull the truck over briefly so they could take a quick look in the back. (Seemed perfectly reasonable for a pickup truck.) It was all efficient, polite, and generally made us feel welcome to the country.
A few hours later, we returned and were greeted by a dour short fat man and a marine with a large weapon on his shoulder. The man was abrupt, almost nasty -- even though we were perfectly polite and explained we had just been to a park across the border. One of my friends was Asian (not Middle Eastern), and the official seemed troubled by that, even though he was an American citizen and had been raised in the U.S. (The kind of questions he was asked frankly were somewhat unprofessional and vaguely racist.) Rather than asking us to pull over and to come look over the truck with them (as the Canadians did), they firmly instructed us to stay in the truck while they performed a search, and proceeded to ask us a bunch of bizarre questions about the little bit of camping gear that was in the back of the truck... which didn't contain anything that could in any way seem suspicious.
Yes, every time I've gone to Canada and have returned, the difference has been very noticeable. Even the last time I returned from Canada after a short business trip, the U.S. official was positively rude and literally imitated and mocked the way I answered her questions. (I had gotten up at 4am for my first flight, so I was exhausted, and I apparently said "Um" a few times; I guess you can't be tired at the border anymore.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:18AM
Well if your gear is searched they'd find your cooking equipment, including your pot, so of course they'd have questions!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:27PM (1 child)
9/11 changed the border crossing with Canada profoundly.
It was always true crossing back to America was less pleasant than going in the other direction. Despite being a nation of immigrants that prides itself on its Melting Pot, America is not a welcoming country at its borders to even its own citizens.
Going to Canada, though, used to be less fanfare than crossing the state line to California, where they would stop and interrogate you to see if you were bringing any produce into the state, and to confiscate it if you were.
Now when you're going to Canada they can be severe. Even with small children in their car seats in the back their disposition does not change.
It makes me sad that Canada's been dragged down with America's dysfunction.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:41PM
I dunno how accurate this is. I visited Canada about 8 months ago by car, and the crossing in New York state was quite easy and pleasant. Short conversation, couple of stamps on the passport. Not that I am not even a U.S. citizen, and it was a breeze. I think your mileage can vary quite a bit with this one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:47PM (1 child)
The authorities make it 'way more complicated than they need to. They are afraid of the consequences when people learn that heating a lithium-ion battery makes it explode. Two words: heating tape. 'Nuff sed.
I'm guessing Special Forces types have known this for decades.
This will affect everything that has a lithium-ion battery in it. EVERYTHING.
You're welcome.
~childo
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:15PM
No need to modify anything. Just a new driver.. Halt and catch..
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:39PM (3 children)
Right now, they take away your drink, then sell you a new drink once inside the secure area.
Why can't they take away your laptop, then sell you a new laptop once inside the secure area.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:13PM (2 children)
Something costing 2 US$ and something that cost 1000 US$ will change behavior radically. Besides, most laptops have particular installations. That can't be bought over disc.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:39PM (1 child)
Congress critters already say ignorant things like "you don't have to use the internet" to justify crazy things.
Well, I suppose you don't have to use electricity or indoor plumbing either. Or telephones.
And to the point: or laptops.
Or your pre-installed software.
Next up: the same rule should apply to expensive jewelry. After all, it might be a bomb.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:06PM
"Sorry, can't bring humans aboard. You might have a bomb surgically inserted" ;-)
But I think I have an update:
"you don't have to do what Congress critters wants if you can get away with it" :p
There's a difference in laws people respect because they benefit almost everyone. And are thus are respected even without active enforcement. There are others that don't have any foundation in the population and thus will be highly dependent on enforcement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:57PM (1 child)
But officer, I'm on my way to the Gaming Convention...
http://www.businessinsider.com/acer-predator-21x-9000-gaming-laptop-specs-features-photos-2017-1/ [businessinsider.com]
https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/04/acer-predator-21x-hands-on/ [engadget.com]
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/3/14126754/acer-predator-21-x-gaming-laptop-announced-price-release-date-ces-2017 [theverge.com]
It is such (tragic) fun watching USA vs USA.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:16PM
Maybe USA isn't the best tech place to work and live in anymore?