TSA To Allow Laptops In Approved Bags 571
mnovotny writes "TIME is reporting that TSA will be allowing laptops in approved bags through security checkpoints. 'The new rules, announced Tuesday and set to take effect Aug. 16, are intended to help streamline the X-ray inspection lines. To qualify as "checkpoint friendly," a bag must have a designated laptop-only section that unfolds to lie flat on the X-ray machine belt and contains no metal snaps, zippers or buckles and no pockets.'" Don't you feel safer? I wish an independent 3rd-party group could get together and see what they could get through security without being arrested for the experiment. So little of what the TSA is doing is any more than illusion.
Adjective? (Score:3, Informative)
In July, 2008 (Score:2, Informative)
I was expecting a strip-search.
TSA Anecdote (Score:5, Informative)
A friend of mine flew a commuter airline out of SeaTac a couple of years ago (after 9/11, well into the TSA era). He started out on a cross-state drive to a family reunion, but blew his transmission a few miles out of Seattle. After a rush to get towed back home, he booked a last minute flight, called a cab and made a dash to the airport. He caught the flight at the last minute and flew to Spokane. Upon arrival (with no other hassles) he discovered that he had overlooked the fact that he was carrying two handguns (one in his jacket and one in what ended p as carry-on luggage) plus ammo. He has a permit to carry concealed weapons and is so used to doing so that he simply didn't notice.
Neither did the TSA. There's one data point for your experiment.
Re:Hey, the TSA does screw all with private planes (Score:3, Informative)
Are you sure you know what is in those packages on that FedEx or UPS plane? They could be highly valuable and/or highly dangerous, or they could have brought on board a valuable political hostage snatched earlier.
To beat the Jack Bauers in the world you need contingencies on top of contingencies nigh ad infinitum.
Re:Security theatre (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Worthless security lightened (Score:3, Informative)
I've got 9 screws and a plate. I have never set off a detector. I asked my doctor about this, and he said that the alloy they have been using for the last decade or so does not set off detectors like the old surgical steel does.
Theoretically you actually can bring screwdrivers (Score:2, Informative)
Of course good luck trying to convince the agent at the checkpoint that your 4 inch metal scissors or seven inch screwdriver are on their approved list. I never quite get used to it how insane, incompetent and contradictory the TSA is.
Re:That's actually not true... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nobody is forcing you to buy a new laptop bag (Score:3, Informative)
The reason you have to take the laptop out in the first place is because it's so big and dense it blocks the x-ray machine from scanning the rest of the bag behind it effectively.
A flip out laptop bag that allows it to be scanned, and the other half to be scanned, while not having any pockets in that section that could conceal other items easily does make sense. Whether it's worth $100 for the few seconds effort is another question.
You can thank Richard Reid filling his shoes with explosives and trying to set it off with his shoelaces for the shoe business.
The liquids ban because of that binary explosive 'threat'? That's complete horseshit though. If they were banning white powders, that would make a lot more sense.
Re:Hey, the TSA does screw all with private planes (Score:4, Informative)
Reagan National Airport is under 7 kilometers (as the crow flies) from the White House and Capitol. That works out to just about two minutes of flying time at landing speed (approx 200km/h for a 747). Do you really think our esteemed Government could react that fast if the hijacking was successfully kept a secret up until the plane was actually scheduled to land?
There are now specific areas around DC which are manned by ground-to-air missile batteries during "high risk" periods, in position that I think they could shoot down a plane flying over the Potomac towards the Capitol, but it would end up crashing on innocent people in Foggy Bottom office buildings or the State Department. I'll leave it to the readers discretion to determine the relative worth of "innocent people", "State Department workers", and "Members of Congress".
Re:Targus lobbyist What's so difficult? (Score:2, Informative)
Just take the laptop out ahead of getting in line. I have a Targus backpack, but for my 17" laptop (Gateway). Just attach a lanyard to the bag and laptop to prevent separation on the conveyor.
If you need to, attach a proximity alarm to it and to your wrist to keep the the laptop from getting separated. If they make you remove the alarm from your wrist, tell them they better put distance between you, the pax ahead, and those behind you long enough for you to retrieve your items. That way, the alarm doesn't sound if you're separated by 6+ feet. Surely, they can comply with this.
Lots of people here are mis-reading the goddamn-misleading story line. It's abusive, sensationalistic, mis-written, and Slashdot should reign in these tags. As should newspapers, when it comes to security-related stories affecting people's wallets.
If Targus PAID to have the tags displayed that way, and if they influenced the TSA to word the regulations confusingly, then THEY TOO should be bitch-slapped for this. Besides, with one-piece carry-on for "free", these days of high fuel pricing means that if your other stuff is checked, and you carry your laptop, then put it in a Mac-like sleeve with Velcro flapping and remove it from the laptop backpack. Hell, put in a rubber cord (not one that can hang or restrain people, but just strong enough to keep your stuff in sight of both YOU and the screeners...) and lash your stuff together for the screening.
This damned tag gives readers the angering impression that they MUST go and buy a new bag. The case/bag is good for reducing damage to your laptop, but if yours is rugged or already scratched like hell, you don't need to care too much as long as it's NOT DROPPED or dropped upon by sharp & heavy carry-on items.
Jeez.
A little sympathy for the TSA (Score:2, Informative)
I'm in email security, and I have a little sympathy for the TSA and believe that the level of criticism they are receiving WRT what they screen is at least somewhat unwarranted.
Is much of what they are doing fighting yesterday's battle? Sure it is. So is much of what we do in anti-spam/anti-virus. The trouble is that if we didn't close yesterday's holes and keep checking for those techniques, even if they are not so commonly used or attempted anymore, the attackers *would* keep using them.
Example from email security: using fixed netblocks to send spam doesn't work nearly as well as it used to, because they quickly wind up on the major public RBLs as well as the private ones maintained by anti-spam vendors. However, if we stopped the practice of RBLing those netblocks known to belong to spammers, we would quickly see a shift back to using them because it would make the current most popular technique (botnets) more trouble than just getting a netblock at some spam-friendly provider.
Another example from email security: anti-botnet efforts have been effective enough that some spammers, particularly phishers have for some months been targeting .edu (and some ISP) accounts for phishing, primarily for the purpose of obtaining those account credentials and using them to send spam through legit, real accounts using mail servers with good reputations. But if we stopped working so hard to counter botnets and counter abuse of free email services, they probably wouldn't bother with this attack vector because, again, it would be more trouble than using a botnet.
Examples from TSA practices: if they didn't check electronics for explosives, terrorists would certainly try getting explosives onto planes. They might still succeed if they tried, at least sometimes, but the odds of being caught are high enough that they are less likely to try that approach. If they didn't check shoes, someone else would try the Richard Reid approach. If box cutters and small knives were allowed, someone might try that one again (although after 9/11, I suspect trying to hijack a plane with a box cutter would just end with the would-be hijacker having the box cutter shoved up his ass by angry passengers). Etc.
That is, it's about raising the bar of success/lowering the odds of being able to use any given attack vector and successfully got on a plane and carry out the attack. Is much of what TSA has done so far consisted of picking the low-hanging fruit? Yes, I think it's fair to say that. Email security companies pick low-hanging fruit, too. Most spam is ridiculously easy to block. However, that doesn't mean the low-hanging fruit shouldn't be picked. If we didn't block the easy attack vectors, they'd keep using them. Spammers and terrorists are both no more ambitious than they have to be; if easy achieves they're goals, they aren't going to bother with hard.
Could TSA improve? Sure. Some of their procedures - liquids, for example - are aimed at techniques that (at least, based on what some experts have said) would be pretty hard to carry out, even with all the necessary components on board. I think the blanket ban on liquids not in tiny containers is aimed at keeping the lines moving. If they tried to actually inspect them all, the lines would crawl. It's not a great solution and I think in the longer term they could find some technology to speed that up, but I appreciate the problem they face: speed matters in message filtering, too, and we're always looking for ways to improve both performance and efficacy, while reducing false positives. It's not easy. Are we in the email security better at it than TSA? Sure, but we also have at least one tool available to us that they don't: profiling. Email security companies look at where a message is coming from and what reputation that source has in deciding whether to accept it, and, having accepted it, how to classify it thereafter.
If TSA were to even suggest profiling based on national origin or appearance, people would be all over them. Whether it
Re:So my new bag is out? (Score:3, Informative)
How long ago was that?
In the last 5 years, I've had to take the laptop out in most of Europe, including the UK (which you're listing), Belgium, Netherlands, France (there I even had to turn it on! what if I had had a dead battery?), Spain, Portugal, and Italy. I don't remember having to do it in Asia, but wherever I stop in Europe, it's "laptop out, sir".
Getting through security isn't the delay... (Score:4, Informative)
...it's the other people. I've been flying rather regularly the last years and I got the routine down to a pat. My laptop goes on top of the bag, in the line I put all the junk in my pockets in my jacket and remove my belt so I got it in my hand. So when I'm at the checkpoint, I put the suitcase on, take out the laptop, put my jacket, belt and shoes (you don't have to take them off here but mine have metal that beep) and head on through. Then slip the laptop back on top of my bag, put on belt, shoes and jacket. The whole operation takes me just a few seconds and getting everything out of my jacket I can do at the next queue, usually waiting for the plane to board.
Whatever goes on the conveyor belt I've never or extremely rarely been stopped for. The downtime is due to the people that inevitably seem to take 2-5 minutes each to get their act together and get everything on the belt, beep so they have to pass through again or be manually scanned. Or they still haven't figured out the limitation on liquids and that airport security just got told the rules, don't bother arguing with them. Some of you are IT admins - would you let people have access in direct violation of company security policy on the spot because they're sweet talkers? Didn't think so. Even when I have all my electronics like laptop, external disk, video camera, wii and accessories and whatnot on the belt it'll pass through. To be honest, I'd like my own line - not with less security controls but a frequent flyer line - it'd take so much less time.