Doesn't help much for people in a big corporate though - presumably the target audience. There is no way you can meaningfully transfer what's needed onto a memory stick.
Depends if there is extra screening before its checked. There was a theory amongst reddit commentators it was so some 3 letter agency can install tracking chips. If we are going to dabble in speculation we may as dabble in all of it.
> How can we mess up Middle Eastern airlines and their business prospects yet help our airlines? Security.
This ban applies to all air travel from the selected originating countries, regardless of airline. (EDIT: Technically this is true, but functionally it is the M.E. carriers that are most affected)
> Not to mention if they are loaning out laptops, who is to trust those laptops are not being spied upon?
Fair point. I wouldn’t be comfortable using a loaner for any sensitive work
> Why would any of these airlines agree to a ban without a quid pro quo for the other airlines as well?
They don’t have to agree. They either implement the ban or are denied landing I’m sure.
> This ban applies to all air travel from the selected originating countries, regardless of airline.
True, but I believe there are no US airlines that fly directly to or from those airports so they are unaffected by the ban. They'll stand to benefit from passengers using alternative routes that connect through Europe where many US airlines do fly.
Yeah, that makes sense. But it seems like a terrorist would also use that route, no? Either the ban is smart enough to include routes that connect through Europe, or it’s pretty much useless.
Most air travel by e.g. Qatar Airways is not with a final destination of Qatar - it's connecting traffic going back and forth among Europe, Africa, and East Asia. Forcing traffic to other hubs kills their business, but does not necessarily benefit American companies.
You want batteries in the cabin where you can quickly locate, ascertain and compartmentalize the treat from randomly exploding batteries. This new regulation makes travel less save. The IATA should put their foot down here.
The irony here is that CASA (Australia's aviation regulatory body) bans laptops and iPads for being checked into luggage because of the batteries.
Not that these conflicting requirements should affect anyone though - Australia flies directly to the US (or via Asia or NZ), and to the UK it usually flies through Doha, Dubai (which is not impacted by the UK ban).
Interestingly enough, Australia is the third country after US and UK to adopt the same "security protocols"[0]. And yet they're the first one not to ban the electronics.
I suspect not because they didn't want to, but simply because they couldn't, on account of the no-checked-laptops rule you mentioned.
Regulations and procedures for dangerous items are primarily codified by ICAO, a UN agency.
IATA have their own superset but that only applies to members of that organisation, as opposed to the ICAO regs which are binding on air carriers based in UN nations.
The regulation is about bombs, not batteries. There has been a report that would-be bombers are using stolen (?) airport screening equipment to develop undetectable bombs.
I’m not sure how effective this ban can be, but I assume there’s recent intelligence that prompted it.
Like all air regulations, this one is full of holes. (Pilot can’t bring a pocketknife onboard, but has an axe in the cockpit for example).
In this case, I suppose it’d be easier for the terrorist to have a manually-triggered bomb on their lap, vs having to also rig a GPS or time-delay bomb for the cargo hold. Obviously still do-able, but one step harder.
To be clear, I’m not all that impressed by the ban or it’s effectiveness.
Also, to consider the pocket knife restriction, versus the axe, the axe is an inventoried community possession, while the pocket knife is an irregularity, and inconsistent across cabin populations. Some are big, some are small, some are ineffective as actual weapons, others being designed to function solely as weapons without any other utility.
With the axe, it's a known quantity, unconcealable, large and conspicuous, but personal possessions are variable, and the only way to normalize them is to remove them from the equation.
Furthermore, bringing a pocket knife into the terminal gives the opportunity to transfer it to another person. An attacker might not be able to convince a pilot to use the cockpit axe for an attack, but could convince them to smuggle a knife through the security screening checkpoint.
I'm assuming the scanning machines for checked luggage are superior to carry-on luggage. I know in TLV they put checked luggage through a pressurisation check, in addition to all the scanning they do.
Probably not for you (assuming your reading HN means that your work mainly involves code access and key metrics, plus your expressed doubt). To some people, it can be enough:
- reading the news on a website who might not have a printed magazine but whose URL you can remember;
- personal social media account without sensitive information; chat applications;
- I would not recommend email, but I’m assuming that will be a large share of the use.
Interestingly, WhatsApp has a decent security and usability case for such a situation: your phone is secure and you use that to authenticate temporarily; the full keyboard is more convenient for communications.
But guaranteeing that someone whose name is on the flight manifest will have the need to, and only access to a pool of a handful of laptops means that targetted attack could become so much easier.
A preferable way to handle this is would be to make the Dubai-New York nonstop flight a direct flight with a 10 minute stop in Halifax to stow all devices in the cargo bay.
Still allows people to use their devices for 90% of the flight duration, and only makes the flight about half an hour longer.
How is laptop in cargo space more secure than in cabin? I cannot get rid of feeling that this is not about security, but about making money by lending laptops or promoting payed onboard infotainment systems. Basically the same thing they've done water ban - selling more sodas on board.
This isn't a ban by Qatar Airways. They are highly opposed to the ban. And on the water ban enforced at the airport (and sometimes the gate), Qatar Airways doesn't charge for beverages (including alcohol), they'll happily give you litres of bottled water for free (although for some reason odd reason they cut the label off when you ask for a 2l bottle - and no its not tank stored potable water - i get thirsty during long flights - tis just easier this way).
I think its more dangerous. How often are they yelling at people that gate check to not have any batteries in their luggage? So is it okay now? Are they putting all cargo in sealed metal containers to keep any fires from spreading?
Completely agree. Also "would you like to login to your social/email accounts while on using this public, potentially spyware, keylogger infested machine of ours?"
Presumably you can use a very small bomb more effectively if it is in your direct control. Perhaps by detonating it while holding it against the side of the plane while at cruising altitude.
Also not sticking confidential info on some random laptop.
Beyond playing minesweeper and watching movies I don't see this being useful.