Britain will ban electronic devices on flights from six Middle Eastern nations amid terror threat - Polidicks

[quote]Britain will follow the US and bar passengers from taking laptops and tablets on UK-bound flights from six Middle Eastern countries Theresa May, the Prime Minister, announced that passengers will be barred from taking laptops into flights from Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The move will affect in-bound passengers from those countries on flights by UK carriers including British Airways, Easyjet, Jet 2, Monarch, Thomas Cook and Thomson flights. It will also affect those flying with foreign carriers including Turkish Airlines, Pegasus, Atlas Global, Egypt Air, Tunisair, Royal Jordanian and Saudia. Airlines which fail to meet the requirements will be barred from flying to the UK, including Kindle and other e-readers. Passengers will be barred from taking on board devices that are "larger than a normal sized mobile or smart phone", equivalent to 16cm long, 9.3cm wide and 1.5cm deep. These devices will have to be placed in the hold. Airlines will be given a "few days" to adjust to the new regulations, and Downing Street acknowledged that the measure would cause disruption for passengers. However the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman said: “The additional security measures may cause some disruption for passengers and flights, and we understand the frustration that will cause, but our top priority will always be to maintain the safety of British nationals."[/quote] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/exclusive-britain-poised-follow-us-ban-laptops-ipads-flights/[/url]

That's Crazy. It wouldn't make any difference. Honestly, there's a million ways to smuggle things on a plane better then that, that they should be concerned about.

Well good luck to all them businessmen

[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1557469"]Wasnt this already posted?[/URL] EDIT: nevermind, this is about britain

what a bunch of reactionary nonsense

You just can't take them in your carry-on luggage. They can be checked and put in the cargohold.

You dont need anything digital to fuck up a plane though?

So they have discovered that terrorists can hack planes from the inside? Or maybe they fear they will turn off the flight mode mid air. Anyways, they better have a motive for this decision.

[QUOTE=Yellowamoeba;51992510]You just can't take them in your carry-on luggage. They can be checked and put in the cargohold.[/QUOTE] That's still unnecessarily discriminatory. I guarantee all this will do is piss people off.

[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;51992345]That's Crazy. It wouldn't make any difference. Honestly, there's a million ways to smuggle things on a plane better then that, that they should be concerned about.[/QUOTE] I can't imagine they're doing this without solid intelligence. They've probably discovered an immediate and very credible threat that terrorists are planning on using laptop batteries or devices hidden inside electronics that can release chemical agents into an enclosed, recirculated atmosphere rather than flat out trying to blow up a plane with a laptop. You can still have laptops onboard, just not in the cabin.

Since both countries are doing it I have a feeling they have intel on a likely threat it could be a temporary move.

[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;51992537]That's still unnecessarily discriminatory. I guarantee all this will do is piss people off.[/QUOTE] Stop being naive and look at the real world. There ARE people in those countries trying to kill people indiscriminately, particularly those who are from or involved with Western Countries. Sure it will offend people but you are literally placing people's feelings over their lives.

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;51992560]Stop being naive and look at the real world. There ARE people in those countries trying to kill people indiscriminately, particularly those who are from or involved with Western Countries. Sure it will offend people but you are literally placing people's feelings over their lives.[/QUOTE] theres people in every country who is willing to do stupid dangerous evil things. however, statistically, its a tiny percentage of people. you should be more worried about getting hit by a drunk driver. is it not you who is putting "feels before reals?" EDIT: judging by this very sudden action by both countries, I too suspect there is some terrorist attack plot that was discovered. I still find this ban kind of dumb, but if it is only in response to this immediate threat and will be removed afterwards, I may let it pass

[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;51992537]That's still unnecessarily discriminatory. I guarantee all this will do is piss people off.[/QUOTE] how can you guarantee this?

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;51992549]I can't imagine they're doing this without solid intelligence. They've probably discovered an immediate and very credible threat that terrorists are planning on using laptop batteries or devices hidden inside electronics that can release chemical agents into an enclosed, recirculated atmosphere rather than flat out trying to blow up a plane with a laptop. You can still have laptops onboard, just not in the cabin.[/QUOTE] Hell, it isn't like those terrorists tried it with a laptop bomb around a year ago already: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daallo_Airlines_Flight_159[/url] Interesting to note is, that a Turkish Airlines flight might have been the intended target of that failed bombing. The perpetrator and many other passengers on that flight were rebooked from a Turkish Airlines flight which ran into mechanical issues before boarding. Another interesting thing about the Great Britain ban, is that the ban is only in effect for flights for only six countries, in comparison with the 8 to 10 countries in the incoming USA counterpart of the ban. [QUOTE]Initial tests of the damage on Flight 159 confirmed traces of explosive residue.[1] It is thought that a bomb, possibly hidden within a laptop,[26] was carried onto the aircraft by a person in a wheelchair. The passenger was believed to have been transferred into a regular seat after being brought onto the plane. Two passengers on the plane, including one who was sitting in the next seat, were arrested on suspicion of being accomplices.[10] On 6 February, Transport Minister Ali Ahmed Jamac confirmed that the explosion was caused by a bomb that "was meant to kill all onboard".[20][27] A security camera recording from the airport shows two men, seemingly airport workers,[15] giving a laptop to Borleh.[25][33] US officials have said that investigators believe the bomber had some type of connection to airline or airport personnel.[34] At least 20 people,[35] including government officials and the two airline employees, were arrested on suspicion of being linked to the attack.[26][36] Serbian pilot, Vlatko Vodopivec, criticised the lack of security around the aircraft at the airport, describing the facility as "chaotic". In an interview with the Associated Press, Vodopivec explained that "the security is zero. When we park there, some 20 to 30 people come to the tarmac ... No one has a badge or those yellow vests. They enter and leave the aircraft, and no one knows who is who... They can put anything inside when passengers leave the aircraft."[35] [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51992593]how can you guarantee this?[/QUOTE] Because the terrorists who would have packed weapons or explosives into electronic devices are not gonna do that anymore and just merely change their plans, instead inconveniencing the overwhelming majority who would use their electronic devices as in-flight entertainment as millions of people do every day. Much like how the only reason why you have to take your shoes off when going through airport security was because one guy 16 years ago attempted unsuccessfully to pack explosives in your shoes. Despite no one ever attempting to use their shoes as bombs ever again, we ALL have to bear with this unnecessary procedure that wastes time. It does nothing to increase airplane security. Conversely, if someone DOES pack explosives into a flight disguised as an electronic device you would likely find out after they blow them up (Or like the shoe bomber, after they fail to detonate), the ban would therefore be meaningless as the procedures taken to prevent exactly that from happening were entirely ineffective. It's a lose-lose scenario for passengers.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;51992662]Because the terrorists who would have packed weapons or explosives into electronic devices are not gonna do that anymore and just merely change their plans, instead inconveniencing the overwhelming majority who would use their electronic devices as in-flight entertainment as millions of people do every day. Much like how the only reason why you have to take your shoes off when going through airport security was because one guy 16 years ago attempted unsuccessfully to pack explosives in your shoes. Despite no one ever attempting to use their shoes as bombs ever again, we ALL have to bear with this unnecessary procedure that wastes time. It does nothing to increase airplane security. Conversely, if someone DOES pack explosives into a flight disguised as an electronic device you would likely find out after they blow them up (Or like the shoe bomber, after they fail to detonate), the ban would therefore be meaningless as the procedures taken to prevent exactly that from happening were entirely ineffective. It's a lose-lose scenario for passengers.[/QUOTE] I'd rather have pretty thorough security checks than none at all. I mean, Schiphol has invested a lot in those really modern security checks in the last few years, especially after the failed bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 seven years ago. It's like three rounds of checks too. Some people say that it wastes time, but hey, you have to check in two hours before boarding anyways nowadays.

[QUOTE=da space core;51992588]theres people in every country who is willing to do stupid dangerous evil things. however, statistically, its a tiny percentage of people. you should be more worried about getting hit by a drunk driver. is it not you who is putting "feels before reals?" EDIT: judging by this very sudden action by both countries, I too suspect there is some terrorist attack plot that was discovered. I still find this ban kind of dumb, but if it is only in response to this immediate threat and will be removed afterwards, I may let it pass[/QUOTE] There's speculation that the bad people in those countries have access to the funds and detection avoidance from states/government bodies with far bigger motives than just wanting to kill a few westerners. I hate to buy into conspiracy theories, but perhaps there's truth behind them if actions like these are being taken. At the end of the day you have to remember the passengers affected by these actions will be the ones ultimately being protected by them. They are also likely intelligent enough to understand why an action like this is being done without being offended by it. It's like living in a town that has an increasing crime rate then being offended when more police are stationed there.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;51992662][B]Because the terrorists who would have packed weapons or explosives into electronic devices are not gonna do that anymore and just merely change their plans, instead inconveniencing the overwhelming majority who would use their electronic devices as in-flight entertainment as millions of people do every day. [/B] Much like how the only reason why you have to take your shoes off when going through airport security was because one guy 16 years ago attempted unsuccessfully to pack explosives in your shoes. Despite no one ever attempting to use their shoes as bombs ever again, we ALL have to bear with this unnecessary procedure that wastes time. It does nothing to increase airplane security. Conversely, if someone DOES pack explosives into a flight disguised as an electronic device you would likely find out after they blow them up (Or like the shoe bomber, after they fail to detonate), the ban would therefore be meaningless as the procedures taken to prevent exactly that from happening were entirely ineffective. It's a lose-lose scenario for passengers.[/QUOTE] as knowledgeable as you are I would prefer to believe that the authorities have acted on some kind of intelligence, as much as it might inconvenience passengers I am sure that most can see the wisdom in this. the highlighted text isn't a guarantee.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;51992662]Because the terrorists who would have packed weapons or explosives into electronic devices are not gonna do that anymore and just merely change their plans, instead inconveniencing the overwhelming majority who would use their electronic devices as in-flight entertainment as millions of people do every day. [/QUOTE] You know that argument against gun control that goes 'banning guns does nothing, people who want to kill will find a way'? This is basically the same argument. I don't think it's a good one, because it's not borne out by the evidence. Like I said in the other thread, I'm not convinced of the efficacy of this ban in particular, but 'terrorists will just find another way' is a bad argument. If security procedures make it more difficult for terrorists to carry out their intent, then those procedures have accomplished their goal. You could use your same logic to oppose [I]any[/I] otherwise reasonable restrictions existing in society. If we want to get really reductionist, why not just abolish security checks at the airport altogether? I mean, all the restriction on bombs and guns in carry-on does is just make terrorists 'merely' change their plans, right? That's not even touching on the fact that this argument: [quote]Despite no one ever attempting to use their shoes as bombs ever again, we ALL have to bear with this unnecessary procedure that wastes time. It does nothing to increase airplane security.[/quote] Basically boils down to 'if a new security procedure is implemented and the thing never happens again, the procedure must be useless'. Nobody's tried to bring a block of C4 in their carry-on since X-raying baggage became standard practice, therefore X-raying is useless, right? You're taking what [i]could[/i] be evidence of a procedure's efficacy (if nobody attempts to repeat the attack vector because now it is significantly less likely to succeed) and deciding it must instead reflect uselessness (that it was always going to be a one-time thing that nobody would ever attempt again).