Uncharged Phones And Laptops Banned From US Flights

originally posted by: ecapsretuo
Perhaps they are secretly implementing devices that suck data from phones in proximity, remotely. This way everyone must have their data exposed electronically, and it can be sucked.

Thats what i was thinking.

a reply to: Psynic

These latest measures are a response to the methods used by Al Qaeda to take control of the Malaysian airliner.

Your entire post is based on a "fact" that AQ took that plane?
Seems like you are reaching quite far there IMO.

This is just them trying to look proactive instead of reactive, plain and simple

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Psynic

These latest measures are a response to the methods used by Al Qaeda to take control of the Malaysian airliner.

Your entire post is based on a "fact" that AQ took that plane?
Seems like you are reaching quite far there IMO.

This is just them trying to look proactive instead of reactive, plain and simple

The incarcerated 'Shoe Bomber' has testified he was ordered by his superiors to deliver an example of his device to an Al Qaeda cell in Malaysia.

The only ones "reaching quite far" are those that believe they can get away with covering up the hijacking of MH370.

IMO

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: ecapsretuo
Perhaps they are secretly implementing devices that suck data from phones in proximity, remotely. This way everyone must have their data exposed electronically, and it can be sucked.

Thats what i was thinking.

There would not be sufficient time or resources to process the amount of information contained on a phone or lap top in the process of boarding an aircraft.

The information is already in their possession, a charged phone or laptop simply allows that information to be connected with the passenger being processed.

Identifying the phone or computer can then IMMEDIATELY activate a red flag, or not.

originally posted by: generik
another stupid thing from the TSA. seriously i would have expected a rule about all devices must be discharged, after all hard to make something go boom without a source of ignition. and the most widely used is electricity. think about it, if you were going to build a bomb, and make it look like an electronic device, wouldn't you ensure it could function just as a real device? likely even using a real device and modify it to suit your purposes? so yet another pointless restriction that will only impact normal, honest travelers, yet will have no effect on those that might wish to cause harm.

does this mean they will force all aircraft to have electrical outlets and usb charging ports? my travels tend to take me over 24 hours. i have drained my multiple electronic devices in that time easily. i have even completely drained some on the flights before the flight that would bring me into the US, thus making them prohibited? it's not like airports have electrical outlets free and plentiful enough for every single traveler to be able to charge their devices there, and just imagine the liability issues having thousands of charging cords crossing the floors. seriously it's hazardous enough with the few limited outlets you might be lucky enough to find in an airport, with cords stretching across the floors. on another note are they intending to check each and every device? if so they will have to change the time you need to be at the airport from 3 hours to at least 6 hours before a flight. not to mention will screw up connection times, since as it is 2 hours is barely enough time as is between actually being able to exit the plane, going through security checks as you exit the aircraft, (which still drives me nuts, like did i pick up a weapon somehow while i was ON the airplane?), traveling across airports to your next flight etc. heck sometimes you even have to pick up you checked luggage and the recheck it, possibly having to take IT through an inspection. turning on and even just checking a couple basic functions on each device will be EXTREMELY time consuming. i personally will carry upwards of TEN electronic devices when i fly. things like a couple laptops, a couple phones, a phone simcard extender(lets me use an extra simcard for my phone), cameras, a pad, a reader, hand held video games, multiple mice and game controllers, external hard drives etc. from experience if you ever want to screw with airport security around the world, bring an ordinary computer joystick with you. EVERY airport you go through will want to look at it, it seems to confuse them. i suspect since many are basically a solid metal bar with lots of wires under the plastic it looks like a bomb lol.

That's the funny thing. Security go into your suitcases to pull the batteries out of anything electronic like alarm clocks.

It might depend on the airport and country, but computer cables upset the French (detonation cord), and wide angle lenses upset the English (looks metallic and spherical).

You will probably end up having airport shops that offer "charging services". Give them your phone or laptop, they give you a ticket, and then you come back 30 minutes later to collect the charged up phone.

With mobile phones and laptops that had removable batteries, some tourist destinations actually had traders that sold "charged batteries".

Bit surprised that those of you who travel havent got a powerbank to recharge when travelling .
with the one i have from samsung can recharge my tab 3 four times and my bt headset twice before need to recharge the powerbank.

Even with that theres no way in hell will travel to the states anytime soon as dont get hazard pay anymore and no interest in being molested by the tsa ..
the rate the u.s becoming a totalitarian state they starting to make lil kim in nk green with envy ..

originally posted by: ecapsretuo
Perhaps they are secretly implementing devices that suck data from phones in proximity, remotely. This way everyone must have their data exposed electronically, and it can be sucked.

Look into "Stingrays," already confirmed by ACLU court documents to be in use by state and local police forces in at least seven states.

I think you're right on the money on this one.

originally posted by: nixie_nox
Wouldn't the xray scans show if it is a legit device?

Seems much more efficient than a line of people charging up devices. I would be SOL as mine dies every 5 hours.

To take it further, wouldn't a detection dog roaming the airport do an even better job than the machines they keep buying? I think the real issue, is that this is somehow a cost saving measure, on both labor and overall wear & tear on equipment.

Here is why I believe this to be so, the Israelis, immediately following 9/11, recommended to our government, that we should use detection dogs, combined with "profiling" to find hidden contraband, NOT back scatter x-rays machines or other expensive equipment. Not surprisingly our leaders didn't use ANY of their recommendations.

I believe when the bean counters crunched the numbers, the cost to maintain a dog detection team potentially cost more, in regard to life-cycle, than a x-ray scanner and also didn't enrich a well connector government contractor. So, in the end, we got scanners and equipment, not dogs. But those scanners need maintenance and skilled personnel to do so. I'm sure there is an on-call repair contract that a number of companies have, with a pre-negotiated billable hourly rate to do repairs and maintenance.

The Israelis are even using mice currently to detect contraband in airports. Why? Because they want the MOST effective solutions and will try to save money when possible. They have a totally different mindset set than our leaders do in America. We create contracts and grease the palms of campaign donating contractors. You can't do that with a well trained dog team or mice, so they trade your ACTUAL safety away regardless of the financial costs.

So, in closing, my thought is that "powering on the unit" somehow is a cost saving measure, that doesn't disrupt the existing "private contractor" relationships entrenched in our airport security protocols, BUT also lowers the overall amount of on-call repairs and maintenance done across the country.

a reply to: Psynic

You said that the new measures were in response to Al-Qaeda taking control of MH-370. I'm curious as to the thinking behind this? How do you hijack an airliner with a dummy phone, or even with an explosive one, for that matter? I could envision a cell-bomb destroying a plane, but to seize control of an aircraft in this way, doesn't really seem viable.

originally posted by: SlowNail
a reply to: Psynic

You said that the new measures were in response to Al-Qaeda taking control of MH-370. I'm curious as to the thinking behind this? How do you hijack an airliner with a dummy phone, or even with an explosive one, for that matter? I could envision a cell-bomb destroying a plane, but to seize control of an aircraft in this way, doesn't really seem viable.

Half ounce charge of Semtex put into a phone, used to breach a locked cockpit door with minimal collateral damage.

ETA: I only throw this out there as a similar plan was used in the 90's by the Israelis. They used a small charge of Semtex placed into the assassination target's phone, leaving 5 bystanders in close range unharmed.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Seems incredibly risky to me, and not a plan I'd call viable. Certainly not one that, in my mind, can be attributed to MH-370. If you were planning to hijack a plane and keep it intact... Bombs?

a reply to: SlowNail

I agree that using the justification of Al-Qaeda and MH370 to institute this policy is just smoke and mirrors to further erode our liberties.



Here's a demonstration of what I was talking about. When using explosives in such a small amount, it would be perfectly viable for breaching a locked door without depressurizing the cabin.

On a long flight to NY york while I was bored I figured out 5 ways to blow a plane up, was piss easy.

I wont say how because I was just a dark game (i hate flying) and certainly dont want my ideas everused.

But the fact remains no matter what security you put in place a dertmined bastard will figure something out.
Unless you ban all bagage and make everyone travel naked you cant stop terrorism completly.


Lucky muslim wack jobs seem to be thick as crap and narrow in thinking and cant think of novel ideas. Thank goodness!

originally posted by: SlowNail
a reply to: Psynic

You said that the new measures were in response to Al-Qaeda taking control of MH-370. I'm curious as to the thinking behind this? How do you hijack an airliner with a dummy phone, or even with an explosive one, for that matter? I could envision a cell-bomb destroying a plane, but to seize control of an aircraft in this way, doesn't really seem viable.

The shoe bomb that we know was in the possession of an Al Qaeda cell in Kuala Lumpur must have consisted of the combustible material in the sole of the shoe itself and a separate detonator. The detonator could have been electronic and based on a modified cell phone.

I don't believe the explosive was part of the phone itself.

originally posted by: SlowNail
a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Seems incredibly risky to me, and not a plan I'd call viable. Certainly not one that, in my mind, can be attributed to MH-370. If you were planning to hijack a plane and keep it intact... Bombs?

The bomb need only be big enough to penetrate a lightweight door.

What's the worst that could happen?

Paradise and virgins.

Any degree of success would be considered a victory.

If the plane comes apart from the blast in an attempt to take control, they win.

If they take control and the plane is shot out of the sky, they win more.

If they manage to get the plane and hostages to Kazakhstan or Kashmir they hit the jackpot.

So far the damage is in the hundreds of millions of dollars and climbing.

a reply to: Psynic
Okay, I understand that it's plausible, but I still can't swallow that. I don't believe that someone goes to all the planning and trouble of hijacking a plane, only to resort to risky, brute force methods during the takeover. Not to my logic, anyway. With some of the minds on that plane, I believe real, working, high-end mobiles would have been far more use than explosive ones. I think there was even a report on the hackability of the craft in question via such devices that came up around the time of MH-370. I don't know, maybe I'm reading into it too much. Perhaps the CIA are more primitive than I give them credit for.

originally posted by: SlowNail
a reply to: Psynic
Okay, I understand that it's plausible, but I still can't swallow that. I don't believe that someone goes to all the planning and trouble of hijacking a plane, only to resort to risky, brute force methods during the takeover. Not to my logic, anyway. With some of the minds on that plane, I believe real, working, high-end mobiles would have been far more use than explosive ones. I think there was even a report on the hackability of the craft in question via such devices that came up around the time of MH-370. I don't know, maybe I'm reading into it too much. Perhaps the CIA are more primitive than I give them credit for.

What were the 4 hijackings on 9/11 if not brutal?

As far as the "hackability of the craft in question" by the use of onboard cell phones, that's a new one on me.

I never said anything about "explosive cell phones", but that the battery could be used to detonate explosives.

And finally, I don't understand your last comment about the "CIA (being) more primitive" than you thought?

Are you saying the CIA hijacked the plane?

originally posted by: generik
another stupid thing from the TSA. seriously i would have expected a rule about all devices must be discharged, after all hard to make something go boom without a source of ignition. and the most widely used is electricity. think about it, if you were going to build a bomb, and make it look like an electronic device, wouldn't you ensure it could function just as a real device? likely even using a real device and modify it to suit your purposes? so yet another pointless restriction that will only impact normal, honest travelers, yet will have no effect on those that might wish to cause harm.

This is a good point, it would be fairly easy to set up a laptop to boot from a small SSD card negating the need for a hard drive, the space the hard drive once filled could be raplaced with enough semtex to blow a hole in a fuselage, the laptops own power supply would make it easy for the terrorist to communicate wirelessly via there CHARGED smartphone to detonate the device, I can imagine ol' Abdul having a chuckle at the noobs that still use box cutters and effort to cause mass murder.

Okay. So the laptop I am taking with me on the plane might be a bomb.
To prove that it is not a bomb you want me to open it up and turn it on right there where 300+ people are all packed in shoulder to shoulder waiting to board the plane.

Ummmm.....

Is this one of those things where 100 dead people on the ground are preferable to 100 dead people in the air? Sort of how being murdered is okay as long as it's not with a gun because that's like extra bad?

a reply to: Psynic

See you my frame of mind

So many ways to down a plane it would be impossible to stop.


Im just thankful al queda like big elaborate plans easy to foil!


PS to NSA and GCHQ watching I dont plan to down a plane and have no reason too, I just have a dark twisted mind. If you wish to employ that mind to help foil the bad guys I will take £40,000 a year + London allowance and full health benefits, you know how to contact me