So how would a ban at flights originating at these airports prevent someone from exploiting this on a flight with a layover in this airport i.e while the plane was in route to one of these 10 airports?
>"While administration officials didn’t comment on any new and specific threats, ..."
This is used to justify every questionable action or inaction in the "Endless War on Terror." The claim is always "we can't comment because its an issue of national security." Do people of that "Nation" have no right to be informed about decisions being made on their behalf? Especially where safety is concerned?
Shouldn't this information be shared with the citizens of that nation so they can make up their own minds and make informed decisions? This level of infantilizing is just completely unacceptable. Those in the U.S security apparatus seems to take the view that they are parents and everyone else is a child.
When is the government telling the truth or not and what policies lead to these decisions. This is compounded by the feeble attempts we have made at performing oversight on this resulting in things that looks like failures such as the whole FISA court system. I don't know if FISA is a failure or not in terms of respecting the interests of Americans, because their trials are secret and that is a failure to protect the interests of Americans.
Please provide one single example where communication and sharing of information with one's fellow citizens made them less safe.
"Evaluated intelligence indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation and are aggressively pursuing innovative methods to undertake their attacks"[1]
It says nothing about them making progress. Also that's a pretty nebulous statement. "Evaluated intelligence indicates"? Why not share the details with the public in the form of a redacted report?
Could you imagine the Surgeon General in the US issuing a statement that some food causes cancer and then not releasing any of the details? Of course not.
Withholding details that allow your citizens to make their own informed decisions regarding their safety and welfare is unacceptable.
Also did anyone ever assume that terrorists had stopped being interested in damaging aircraft? We are reminded of that every time we fly in the US and are berated and abused by TSA personal. So this isn't really a new development is it?
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/21/fact-sheet-aviation-secu...
The reason for the ban has nothing to do with jihadists and everything to do with protecting domestic business.
Emirates and Turkish Airlines were eating US flag carriers' lunch on profitable routes by offering reasonably priced service that doesn't suck. So the domestic airlines called their friends in Washington and asked them to tip the scales.
You'll notice that the laptop banned routes were cash cows for the foreign airlines while being wholly unimportant to Delta, United et al. This tells you everything you need to know about the actual security impact of the laptop ban. It's just regulatory capture of the "security" agencies.
Trump already let slip that it was the Israelis who uncovered the plot.
Have you been to a middle east hub? There's a specific security section you have to go through to get to the US bound flights - it's a completely different screening process and would be quite easy easy for them to check for laptops and get them checked as luggage.
http://www.iprofesional.com/notas/252113-computadoras-tecnol...
"The United States government will strengthen security measures for people traveling to that country with computers and tablets. Official sources from that country confirmed that you can still travel normally, with personal electronic devices. However, they said that in three weeks the stricter controls will apply.
....airports and airlines flying to the United States from 105 countries of the world, including Argentina, will be asked to install state-of-the-art scanners that detect traces of explosives in electronic equipment....From the moment they request it, passengers traveling to the USA from airports or by companies that do not have them, will not be able to carry either computers or tablets on board. Nor in the cargo hold....
....In this context, the transport authorities, representatives of the airlines and PSA [airport police] officials met urgently this Friday at the headquarters of the Ministry of Transport to discuss the issue. "What we defined is that this Tuesday we are going to communicate to companies a procedural plan: from what types of scanners to how to get them and how we are going to train those who operate them," explained Oscar Rubio, director of The Airport Security Police, Clarín.
In three weeks, passengers of companies or airports that do not have them, will be unable to bring the computers and tablets on board, and perhaps also in the hold because of the current restrictions on equipment containing nickel," added the official...."The truth is that it is not a difficult technology to get, it can be bought, acquired by leasing or through a supplier, it is not impossible, and we are moving with the fastest speed because we want to prevent the restriction from being applied. Therefore, we are not facing a prohibition, but before a new measure. If it is not fulfilled, then the impediment can come."
Now usa probably has more experience with false positives, i am curious how i will be treated when i go visit my parent :)
If there was a way to turn a laptop into a bomb I am sure the terrorist would just jump on a local US aircraft.
The ban is because authorities believe security at those airports is inadequate to detect a bomb built into a laptop. This implies they believe security at other airports is able to detect such things. If the ban is being lifted for specific airlines, it's because those airlines have security sufficient to detect these laptop bombs (or at least the authorities believe they do).
It is not necessarily the case that every airline at a given airport has the exact same security. It's possible for terminals to be separated and security measures to be enhanced at only one terminal. It's possible for additional security screening to be done at the gate.
[1]: http://observer.com/2016/02/midair-hack-shows-the-dangers-of...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/tr...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/tr...
The target wasn't commercial but political. The US just chose to put commercial pressure to achieve political goals. Have a look at the demands that were made.
EDIT: Qatar is still on the list... ah well.
Upon arrival in the US there were again special staff that would hand you your laptop box after checking ID and boarding pass, which an airline seal still on it.
At no point did I feel like my laptop was handled by someone who doesn't care about what happens to it.
