Listen, Liberal -
Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?
|
Tuesday, 21 March 2017
quote [ Security officials cite potential threats from terrorists seeking to hide explosives in laptops and other portable electronics. ]
Full disclosure: I'm booked on a flight to Asia on Qatar Airways (through Doha) next month. I am so mad about this I can barely type.
From WaPo:
Reveal Britain and U.S. ban most electronic devices in cabins on flights from several Muslim-majority countries By Rick Noack, Luz Lazo and Devlin Barrett March 21 at 2:23 PM LONDON — Britain joined the United States on Tuesday in banning passengers traveling from airports in several Muslim-majority countries from bringing laptops, tablets and other portable electronic devices on board with them when they fly. The U.K. ban applies to six countries, while the U.S. ban applies to 10 airports in eight Muslim-majority countries. Fliers can still travel with these items, but they must be packed in their checked baggage on U.S.- and U.K.-bound flights from airports across the countries, including busy transit hubs in Istanbul, Dubai and Doha, Qatar. The British ban also includes some cellphones and is expected to apply to all airports in the six nations. The countries included in the British ban are Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia. “Direct flights to the U.K. from these destinations can continue to operate to the U.K. subject to these new measures being in place,” a government spokesman said. It’s unclear when the ban will take effect. “The affected airlines have already been informed, and we expect the measures to be in place in the next couple of days,” the spokesman said. However, when contacted Tuesday evening, some of the affected British airlines were unable to provide specifics. British Airways referred the question back to the Department for Transport. Meanwhile, the British Foreign Office updated its risk assessment website to say the measures would take effect “in the coming days but no later than 25 March.” The decision to announce the ban was made during a meeting on aviation security measures held Tuesday by British Prime Minister Theresa May, who had chaired similar meetings over the last weeks. British authorities also said they had reached out to U.S. officials before the announcement. A government spokesman added that six British and eight foreign carriers were affected by the ban. A spokesman for the prime minister’s office said the measures were based on the “same intelligence the U.S. relies on.” The six nations affected by President Trump's executive action on immigration are not actually countries where terrorists who have carried out fatal attacks the United States came from. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post) The U.S. restrictions were prompted by a growing concern within the government that terror suspects who have long sought to develop hard-to-detect bombs hidden inside electronic devices are still pursuing that goal and may have put renewed effort into that work, according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to discuss it. Officials have said that in 2014, U.S. authorities were increasingly worried that suspected terror bombmaker Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, who was already instrumental to al-Qaeda’s Yemen branch in several bomb plots, might be helping terrorists in Syria develop new, harder-to-detect improvised explosive devices. This new prohibition on devices stemmed from concerns that those individuals may have renewed or made progress with those efforts, according to people familiar with the matter. John Pistole, a former senior FBI official who also led the Transportation Security Administration during the Obama administration, said al-Asiri is a major concern for U.S. counterterrorism officials. “To my knowledge, he’s still out there, and he shares his recipes with a number of people,’’ Pistole said. Restrictions like those announced this week, he said, “are a way of trying to be as tailored as much as possible to reduce the risk.’’ Pistole, now president of Anderson University in Indiana, said aviation security officials are particularly concerned about improvised explosive devices built out of non-metals, because a majority of the world’s airports lack the screening measures to detect such bombs. New limitations on carry-on items “are both an actual physical deterrent and an overall deterrent so the bad guys see this and say, ‘They’re onto us.’ That’s a win for the good guys because then you have time to push the terrorists off to another location, another time, another type of attack. It gives law enforcement and security services more opportunity to identify and disrupt plots,’’ Pistole said. Federal officials initially described the ban as indefinite. But a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, David Lapan, said the directive runs until Oct. 14, and could be extended for another year “should the evaluation of the threat remain the same.” James Norton, a homeland security consultant who was a ranking official at the Department of Homeland Security when the liquid ban went into effect just over a decade ago, said a sudden change like this signals a significant threat. “It seems fairly urgent,” Norton said. “My initial reaction is this is based on some sort of information that the intelligence community came across as a whole. They are trying to address it working with the airlines and the countries directly trying to implement some sort of a plan.” He said the ban against liquids went into effect Aug. 10, 2006, after British and U.S. intelligence uncovered a plot to simultaneously blow up as many as 10 U.S.-bound passenger jets with liquid explosives hidden in carry-on luggage. Authorities arrested 24 suspects that day and launched new security measures that snarled air traffic. Travelers had to undergo special inspections after drinks and most other liquids and gels were banned as carry-on items. “That happened overnight based on a bunch of arrests on an incredible threat,” Norton said Norton. In this case, the response suggests urgency to prevent devices from going onto U.S. bound aircraft from those specific countries. “Evidence can be anything,” Norton said. “It is hard to know until they make some sort of announcement in terms of why they are doing this — why they picked those countries and those flights. My guess is just like with the liquid ban that they came across a potential threat.” British terrorism experts were baffled by the move however, and said the differing specifics of the American and British bans appeared contradictory. Whereas Tunisia is included in the British ban, for instance, airports in that country are not affected by U.S. restrictions. “I suspect that the U.K. included Tunisia in its ban due to the fact that airlines regularly fly out of that country into Britain,” said Daniel Falkiner, a London-based security analyst. “As to why the U.S. has included airports from five more nations in its ban; this may be linked to the Trump administration’s emphasis on displaying an abundance of caution when addressing the threat of terrorism to the U.S., regardless of the potential this may have on relations with partners and allies,” Falkiner said. “In contrast, the U.K. has very close political and security ties with the Gulf States, for example, which may mean London is more content than Washington is with the security protocols at major regional hubs like Dubai,” Falkiner said. Security experts also said that it would be extremely unusual for the British government to announce such extensive restrictions — which affect flights from tourist destinations of British travelers such as Tunisia or Egypt — without the emergence of new details in recent weeks. But another U.S. security expert questioned how the ban was applied. “Why should I feel safer if the laptop is stowed in the belly of the plane and the perpetrator can use his iPhone to set if off?” said a senior official with an international travel organization. “I’m not personally privy to what [information] the TSA or DHS has, but I just don’t get it.” The official, who asked not to be identified because he works in the industry, said that the logistics of enforcing the laptop ban will be daunting, particularly in instances where passengers take connecting flights elsewhere in the world before boarding a plane bound for the U.S. “You’ve got to wonder, if somebody’s connecting and doesn’t have access to his checked bag to put his laptop in, what does he do?” the official asked. “I guess people will figure out that if you’re connecting in Casa Blanca, you’d better have your laptop in your checked bag.” Under the restrictions, travelers to the United States from 10 mostly Middle Eastern airports will be required to put all personal electronic devices larger than a cellphone or smartphone in their checked baggage. U.S. airlines are not affected by the ban because none offer direct U.S.-bound flights from the affected airports. Ten airports in eight countries — Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — are affected. Officials said the airports were selected based on the “current threat picture.” The airports are: Queen Alia International Airport (AMM) in Jordan, Cairo International Airport (CAI) in Egypt, Ataturk International Airport (IST) in Turkey, King Abdulaziz International Airport (JED) and King Khalid International Airport (RUH) in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait International Airport (KWI) in Kuwait, Mohammed V International Airport (CMN) in Morocco, Hamad International Airport (DOH) in Qatar, and Dubai International Airport (DXB) and Abu Dhabi International Airport (AUH) in the United Arab Emirates. Officials said the change will affect passengers who travel on roughly 50 daily flights. Crew members are not included in the device ban. The British ban does not include crews either. Turkey’s transport minister, Ahmet Arslan, criticized the ban, telling reporters in Ankara that it was not “beneficial” for passengers and that Turkey already has stringent security measures in place, according to Turkey’s semiofficial Anadolu news agency. He added that Turkish officials had spoken about the regulations with their American counterparts and were discussing whether the Trump administration should “step back.” Word of the ban was first made public Monday afternoon — not by administration officials but in a tweet sent out by Royal Jordanian Airlines. Initially, U.S. officials declined to comment on the report, saying only that they would provide an update “when appropriate.” In the tweet, which was later deleted, airline officials advised passengers of the new requirements that would affect travelers on its flights to New York, Chicago, Detroit and Montreal. Emirates Airlines issued a similar statement Tuesday, saying “electronic devices larger than a cellphone/smartphone, excluding medical devices, cannot be carried in the cabin of the aircraft” on U.S.-bound flights. The U.S. routes of Emirates include Dulles International Airport. U.S. officials began outlining the new rules to carriers Sunday. The International Air Transport Association, which represents international carriers, issued a statement Tuesday, say a number of airlines had been contacted by TSA in regard to the new U.S. restrictions. “IATA is working with its members and the TSA to achieve greater clarity on required actions,” the statement said. The group asked travelers going through the affected airports to add extra time to their travels. “Safety and security is the top priority of everyone involved in aviation,” the statement said. “Airlines comply with government requirements and they can do this most effectively when measures are well coordinated.” Officials said airlines will have 96 hours to comply with the restrictions. Carriers that fail to follow them risk losing their authorization to operate in the United States. James Buck, a professional photographer from Burlington, Vt., was vacationing in Jordan when he read about the ban on Facebook on Monday. As of Tuesday, he said it was still unclear if his Royal Jordanian flight to Montreal scheduled to leave at 3 a.m. Thursday from Queen Alia International Airport will be affected. “It is really scary because I don’t know what the ban is about. I don’t know if there is a specific threat,” he said. “It only applies to these airlines, so should I try to rebook myself on another airline to get out of here?” Like other travelers, Buck has plenty of questions about the ban. He said he hasn’t heard from the airline or seen any government notices for travelers. The questions from travelers on social media, mostly, are about what exactly the ban means. Does it apply to his cameras. Can he bring a big smartphone? “It’s troubling to me that the State Department hasn’t posted a travel warning on its website or any travel explanation,” said Buck, a former Washington Post employee. “Is there any current situation that we need to be aware of? It is unbelievable that the information was disseminated so poorly.” Information that travelers have received also has been conflicting and inaccurate, he said. First, he read that the ban would take effect immediately and last only 96 hours. Then the airline said it had 96 hours to implement the ban and that it would last indefinitely. Buck had been traveling in Jordan since March 13, photographing sites and the desert, and carrying equipment that is worth half his annual salary, he said. “I’ve got a backpack full of cameras and a laptop and stuff,” he said, adding that he’d spent the entire day Tuesday driving all over Amman trying to find a hard case. “No luck.” Electronics ban makes no sense, unless it's simply a form of economic protectionism aimed at certain foreign air carriers. Because protectionist retribution disguised as security measures is such a great idea.
|
mechavolt said @ 11:36pm GMT on 21st March
That's okay, I'll be the guy reclining his seat all the way back and playing music so loud you can hear it even though I'm wearing earbuds.
mechavolt said @ 11:36pm GMT on 21st March
That's okay, I'll be the guy reclining his seat all the way back and playing music so loud you can hear it even though I'm wearing earbuds.
EDIT: Aw, shit, no I won't, cause I can't bring anything besides my phone on the flight.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
mechavolt said @ 11:36pm GMT on 21st March
That's okay, I'll be the guy reclining his seat all the way back and playing music so loud you can hear it even though I'm wearing earbuds.
EDIT: Aw, shit, no I won't, cause I can't bring anything besides my phone on the flight.
