Britain and U.S. ban most electronic devices in cabins on flights from several Muslim-majority countries

How to Create a Mind - The Secret of Human Thought Revealed

Subscriber Link - click here to make yours.

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.

[SFW] [travel]	[+2 WTF]
[by sanepride@9:15pmGMT]

Comments

cb361 said @ 10:00pm GMT on 21st Mar [Score:1 Funsightful]

mechavolt said @ 9:52pm GMT on 21st Mar

I'm on a flight that lays over in Istanbul in a couple of weeks. I'm also furious.

sanepride said @ 10:05pm GMT on 21st Mar

A lot of details about this are still sketchy (as expected from any directive issued by the current administration), but it sounds like the ban only applies to flights to the US, not from the US, but this is still very dubious as a security measure.

mechavolt said @ 11:35pm GMT on 21st Mar

My flight lays over in Istanbul on the way to the US.

Bob Denver said @ 7:17am GMT on 22nd Mar

I never got laid over in Istanbul...

satanspenis666 said @ 11:09pm GMT on 21st Mar

Don't worry, I'm on the same flight, one seat behind you. I'm the guy who will also be kicking your seat the entire flight.

mechavolt said^[1] @ 11:36pm GMT on 21st Mar

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.

satanspenis666 said @ 1:27am GMT on 22nd Mar

I'll also have a crying baby and a kid that throws up every flight?

Mythtyn said^[1] @ 10:28pm GMT on 21st Mar

UK has also done the same...as the title says.

sanepride said @ 12:59am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful]

UK is not including the more developed gulf states like UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait, which generally have security measures as stringent (if not more) than any western airport.
They're also not directed at specific foreign carriers. Which just emphasized the dubious nature of the US ban.

Mythtyn said @ 1:17am GMT on 22nd Mar

Fair enough. I know i'd be pissed if i were on a long haul flight with no laptop.

4321 said @ 1:27am GMT on 22nd Mar

sanepride is right.

Of the gulf states, UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait are more developed.

Specifically the UAE where, "despite the penal code's mention of the death penalty, executions for same-sex sexual conduct have not been implemented."

Which is, you know, pretty great.

sanepride said @ 3:47am GMT on 22nd Mar

Go ahead and explain WTF this has to do with their airport security measures.

4321 said @ 10:44am GMT on 22nd Mar

It was you, not I, who brought up the notion of “more and less developed” gulf states within the context of this discussion. Under the circumstance, it seems churlish to turn around and complain about my employing the same distinction. This is simply an instance where your hopelessly vague characterization needed clarification, which I have helpfully provided.

sanepride said @ 9:20pm GMT on 22nd Mar

You might have something like a point if you even knew what a developed country country actually is. Of course if you want to make up your own definition just to suit your own irrelevant agenda, than be my guest and fuck off.

4321 said @ 10:34pm GMT on 22nd Mar

Re; “The UK is not including the more developed gulf states”

Silly me, I thought that by “developed” you might mean socially developed, as in not retarded, like countries that don’t have the death penalty for gays, etc.

My mistake.

So let’s do it your way.

Your link uses high gross domestic product (GDP) as the primary metric for ranking relative development.

So let’s use your criteria, just to placate you.

If the “UK ban is not including the more developed gulf states”, as you mistakenly assert, then the most developed state of them all, Saudi Arabia, couldn’t be on the UK list.

But it is.

So is Egypt for that matter, the second most developed country in the region.

So your “more developed country” argument couldn’t, statistically speaking, and by your own criteria, be more wrong.

But thanks for playing.

It always good fun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_League_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

sanepride said @ 1:21am GMT on 23rd Mar

per capita, genius.

Now be a good boy and go mod the UK Parliament attack post as 'wrong category'.

4321 said^[1] @ 1:54am GMT on 23rd Mar

Ok.

Let's try this third method of classification, just to placate you further…

Saudi Arabia is more developed, by this latest criteria, than is Bahrain.

So then, Bahrain would be under the UK ban. Saudi Arabia would not.

Except the polar opposite is true.

Saudi Arabia is on the list.

Bahrain is not.

Thanks for playing. Again.

It’s always fun to watch you make an ass of yourself.

BTW, I don’t need to mod the UK Parliament post post "wrong category".

You know it is, that's why you very kindly pointed it out.

Thanks for that.

You may finally be finally catching on.

sanepride said @ 2:47am GMT on 23rd Mar

Ha. You're the one devoting all the time and effort parsing my general, vague observation just to get in a little requisite Mooslim bashing.
Thanks for playing indeed.

Abdul Alhazred said @ 5:22am GMT on 22nd Mar

Oh, numbers, you're so cute when you get outraged. Your provincial ignorance always brings a smile to my face

4321 said @ 10:45am GMT on 22nd Mar

Hey Abdul, still fart catching for that theocratic shithole you live in? We’ve been around this a few times. You always lose.
But I admire your spunk. I understand Martin Shkreli is looking for a new PR flack. You should consider the gig.
Inshallah.

Abdul Alhazred said @ 11:24am GMT on 22nd Mar

You should visit this "shithole", or at least get to know a few Emiratis. The vast majority are pretty close to American in their ideals, and actually like hanging out with us socially. A good percentage of them drink beer and whiskey and some even drink wine. They like our music, like to dress like us when they're not around their conservative elders, and will even discuss religion with an open mind. The government is getting more progressive, as quickly as the more backwoods population will let them- they have resistance the same way we have Kansas and Indiana and Texas. But both Sheikh Mohammeds would very much like the population to become more western.

As for the laws- have you ever looked up the blue laws in most states, the anti-sodomy laws? Pretty much anything other than penis-in-vagina is illegal. Get a blowjob and you're committing a crime. Use a sex toy and you're a criminal. But are these enforced?

In the time I've lived here the only cases of anyone being put to death have been the Rheem Island Ghost and a guy who raped and murdered a young boy. The US has put far more people to death in that time. Sure, the death penalties here exist- stoning is still a legal method of execution, though it hasn't been done in decades at the least- but it is very seldom enforced.

But hey, them Ay-rabs are all murdering barbarians, right?

As I said, your ignorance has been amusing. No, I have not lost any arguments, I just generally don't feel like being your educator, and generally can't be bothered to type out a load of why you're broadcasting alternative facts. It's like trying to get through to a Trump supporter or a Tea Party religious right type. But today I'm taking a break with a beer and felt mellow, and writing this has been fun.

And now I have to go finish packing for my spring break trip to Sri Lanka.

4321 said @ 11:58am GMT on 22nd Mar

Most of your post is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the UAE is a theocratic shithole, but I confess you caught my attention briefly with the accusation that I “broadcast alternative facts”.

Care to provide any proof to support that claim?

Or is that just more bullshit.

(That’s what I thought).

You’ll fit in nicely in Sri Lanka. It’s illegal to be gay there too, just like back home.

Inshallah.

5th Earth said @ 2:44pm GMT on 22nd Mar

I don't think Inshallah means what you think it means.

Abdul Alhazred said @ 1:42pm GMT on 24th Mar

Ummm... there's one right there. Sri Lanka doesn't care about your sexuality. Look up Arthur C. Clarke and why he moved here. Hint: it wasn't because of the food.

And yeah, you're using Insh'Allah wrong.

4321 said @ 2:05pm GMT on 24th Mar

“Sri Lanka doesn't care about your sexuality.”

I suspect you’re right.

But they sure as fuck care about their own gay population, because being gay is illegal in Sri Lanka..

You should try to learn something about the culture you’re visiting before you go. Buy a guide book or something, otherwise you come off as a stupid tourist.

Better still, stick with being an apologist for that theocratic shithole you live in.
That’s more than enough fart catching for anyone.

BTW – Any proof of your contention that I “broadcast alternative facts”?

Or are you just shooting blanks?

Inshallah.

Abdul Alhazred said @ 6:28pm GMT on 24th Mar

See, here you perfectly illustrate the problem. You sit there with your browser and think you have all the right information at your fingertips, but never actually see for yourself. It's the difference between reading a meteorology text and actually experiencing a sunny day or a thunderstorm. You're utterly ignorant and don't even know it.

As God Wills, as you tend to say.

4321 said @ 11:27am GMT on 25th Mar

I have the penal code.

You have…

… a weather metaphor???

At least you’ve cleared up who’s broadcasting alternate facts.

Abdul Alhazred said @ 1:19pm GMT on 25th Mar

Tee hee.

Look up the penal codes for Texas. Then speak to me of theocracy and death penalties. The American Taliban is virulent. But hey, it's all about them savage brown people, right?

Oh numbers. You always make me chuckle.

4321 said @ 1:22pm GMT on 25th Mar

Blanks.

Abdul Alhazred said @ 1:36pm GMT on 25th Mar

Do you really expect me to go searching through your many accounts that you've made in search of your bullshit? Had you stuck to one account I might have bothered, but as you have to spread it out all over it's too much effort while on vacation.

I'll just keep an eye out in the future and point them out as we go, m'kay?

As God Wills.

4321 said @ 1:52pm GMT on 25th Mar

Blanks.

Ussmak said @ 12:11am GMT on 22nd Mar

Neo-liberals: Perfectly ok with government overreach until it affects their personal convenience.

sanepride said @ 12:47am GMT on 22nd Mar

Just FYI, despite the fashionable trend of using this term to describe mainstream Democratic party-types, the actual definition of neo-liberalism is a kind of free-market libertarianism that would be more associated with someone like Ron Paul, so not OK with 'government overreach'.

HoZay said @ 2:07am GMT on 22nd Mar

It's a very flexible word.

sanepride said @ 3:48am GMT on 22nd Mar

That's what happens when people use a word that doesn't mean what they think it means.

Abdul Alhazred said @ 4:09am GMT on 22nd Mar

Yeah. Sixteen hours with not even my Kindle. Thanks, Trump.

4321 said @ 11:19am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-1 Troll]
filtered comment under your threshold

Abdul Alhazred said @ 11:27am GMT on 22nd Mar

Dunno why all the names. Ask the Spanish.

If you look up the history here, Zayed was elected by the other sheikhs. Khalifa took over when he stepped down, but now that Khalifa is not in good health the two Mohammeds are ruling for now, and there will likely be an election to determine who's next.

Unlike, say, England.

4321 said @ 12:00pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-1 Troll]
filtered comment under your threshold

Abdul Alhazred said @ 11:29am GMT on 22nd Mar

Oh, and as for Trump? Have you been following the news regarding his campaign and Russia?

HoZay said @ 1:28pm GMT on 22nd Mar

It's a ploy to sell books at Trumpco Airport Bookstore.

C18H27NO3 said @ 4:53pm GMT on 22nd Mar

You know, that's kinda where I was hovering. I think it's basically to accomplish two goals. 1. make it a pain in the ass for anyone traveling to and from those muslim countries. Similar to the alarming rate of smart phone seizures and password forfeiture requirements that has recently been occurring, coupled with the detention of US passport and green card holders entering the U.S. And 2. To lay the groundwork for eliminating personal entertainment on board aircraft. They already do it with alcohol, and then with bottled beverages. I wonder what kind of revenue bump F&B vendors at airports got after the 100 ml limit per container in a quart sized bag was implemented. I know you can get wifi, but can you stream? Not that I can recall. Last flight I was on had about 20% of the passengers using in-flight entertainment provided by the airline. Maybe it's my disdain for capitalism that is driving this. . .

Airplane travel is starting to get like what it was like in Russia circa 1990 when I was there. First class had all the normal amenities compared to western economy class. Economy class was like traveling in a budget class train in India. People were boarding the plane with plastic bags filled with clothes, chickens in cages, and boxes wrapped up in duct tape.

On the other hand, I don't know what kind of explosive capability a lithium battery on steroids has. Either way, it smells like something nasty from a dumpster.

sanepride said @ 9:25pm GMT on 22nd Mar

As was noted in a recent post, it actually makes more business sense for airlines to allow personal devices and stream entertainment so they can phase out the expensive, hard-to-maintain inflight entertainment systems. This rule is a potential revenue loss for the airlines affected. The true ulterior motive, mentioned in the extended links, is to hurt these subsidized airlines and boost US carriers.

C18H27NO3 said @ 11:25pm GMT on 22nd Mar

Yeah. That makes sense. i didn't read the links in extended. Fuck me dead. But limiting arab carriers limits arab visits as well. Especially when they have to be filtered through US carriers with limited service.

sanepride said @ 1:33am GMT on 23rd Mar

Limiting Arab visits, even from wealthy allied countries, is probably seen as a side benefit by the current administration. Another side benefit- all those laptops stowed in checked baggage are far more accessible for prying eyes.

1	ScoobySnacks
2	HoZay
3	Paracetamol
4	lilmookieesquire
5	Ankylosaur