TSA Prohibits Taking Discharged Electronic Devices Onto Planes 702
Trachman writes The US Transport Security Administration revealed on Sunday that enhanced security procedures on flights coming to the US now include not allowing uncharged cell phones and other devices onto planes. “During the security examination, officers may also ask that owners power up some devices, including cell phones. Powerless devices will not be permitted on board the aircraft. The traveler may also undergo additional screening,” TSA said in a statement.
Re:Actually makes good sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Actually makes good sense (Score:5, Interesting)
a discontinuity would be obvious on the x-ray, if a part of the battery would have been replaced with other material then the rest of the battery.
I once had to unpack my hand luggage because I mixed two different brands of batteries in a spare battery container. When the different brand label matched the different x-ray signatures, it was no further problem.
TSA = the USA's Gestapo (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: Actually makes good sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Because nobody could ever hook up an ARM SBC to the LVDS connector on a 17" laptop and play a video to fake a boot sequence that would fool a telemarketer in purple gloves, leaving the rest of the case available for whatever can be molded into plastic.
Because TSA is there to protect us from imbicilic terrorists, even though 9/11 was orchestrated by degreed engineers, physicians, etc.?
Or just maybe it's not about terrorists but rather obedience conditioning, and they need a new rule once in a while to keep the people regressing (from presumption of Constitutional rights).
Only one of those hypotheses fits the data.
Real TSA Motivations (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm starting to think that the TSA's real motivation is to slowly put all of the airlines out of business.
If so, they're going to be one of the most successful covert operations in history.
But you can still (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, absolutely .... (Score:5, Interesting)
I know a couple of people who work for the TSA too, and sadly, they view all of this stuff as amusing ways to irritate the general public, who they regard as generally stupid and annoying in the first place.
If you corner them on any of the security policies, they'll readily admit they don't necessarily enhance security or serve a useful purpose. They just feel like all of that is unimportant, vs. the expectation that travelers just "follow the orders and instructions". If you don't cooperate, you're one of those "stupid and annoying people who can't follow directions" - so they ridicule you and enjoy your suffering as they put you through extra screening, detain you, or what-not.
It's funny how you can take practically anyone, dress them up in a uniform and a badge, and give them some sort of arbitrary control or power over others, and they suddenly feel superior.
Re:Oh, absolutely .... (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually it might have something to do with American culture which is actually heavily class ridden and treats those lower down like crap.
So give one of the underlings a uniform and the power and of course they enjoy torturing passengers, because those passengers are from the class that treats them badly in real life.
You reap what you sow
Re:Christmas is coming early this year (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Christmas is coming early this year (Score:2, Interesting)
Such a bomb could well house a small battery for detonation, big enough to also power the device for a short time for the trigger swipe. Rejecting devices that don't work is absolute insanity.
A bomb is a device with a high level of potential energy that can be released very rapidly.
So are batteries, as Apple, among others, has proven.
Re:Actually makes good sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Show me a bigger melting pot, and maybe we can talk about institutionalized prejudice. Sure, we have our problems, and yes prejudice is one of them, but I doubt any other country can claim to have admitted (and made citizens of) more people from virtually every country in the world.
Re:Christmas is coming early this year (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't see a problem showing a device is working as intended. If it can prevent even one bomb from going on a plane it's well worth it.
I don't see why people are getting bent out of shape about this. Take a chill pill people.
Dunno why I'm responding to a subhuman troll, but hey it's Monday, so:
First of all, it won't prevent any bombs from being brought onboard. How difficult do you think it is to show a working laptop which happens to have 500g of C4 wedged inside?
Second, it's an absurd abuse of reality, since as everyone and his brother already said, any device w/ dead battery -- or heaven forbid, some toy that only runs on AC and you didn't bring the adapter-- gets tagged as "dangerous terrorist thingie."
Third, it'll be cheaper to pay $10 million per person injured, let alone killed, by your fictional device-bomb than the direct and indirect cost of this screening program.
Finally, it'll take approximately negative 5 seconds for any potential bomber (of which there aren't any in the first place) to use some other gizmo to carry a bomb. Like a fake tin of sardines. Ooops, apologies to everyone who was going to bring a snack on board.
Re:Incoming international flights (Score:5, Interesting)
Terrorists already go for softer targets, namely shopping malls. It's happened in Mumbai and in Kenya. It just hasn't happened in the US. That means that either our security is so good that the terrorists are prevented from coming here and shooting up malls (extremely unlikely since our southern border is wide-open and guns are easy to obtain here), OR the terrorists just aren't interested in messing with us that much.
Battery not removeable? No HTC One M8 for me. (Score:2, Interesting)
If a company engages in sneaky, tricky behavior, I try to avoid buy its products. The sneakiness and trickery I know about may be only part of the attempts to trick the customers.
Re:Incoming international flights (Score:5, Interesting)
"the psychological impact"
Consider the psychological impact of targeting the security apparatus itself: the thing that is claimed to keep people safe turns out to be what enabled them to be killed.