Yep travel to the US from European already is extremely cumbersome due to all the checks and long security procedures. This would not only annoy travelers but put immense pressure on the airlines flying between both continents. They must be unbelievably pissed.
Sure.
It varies a bit depending on the airline and airport that you depart from, but this is how it looks like:
1. ESTA application online form before the actual travel for those who don't need a Visa (most EU countries e.g.) with extensive range of questions, even about parents, social media profiles (still optional) and so on. You do only need to apply again once every few years, but before a flight you need to update the flight information (afaik).
2. A 5 minute "interview" at check in/baggage drop (or otherwise at the gate) in which a (contracted) security personnel asks you about your trip while you wait in line. You might hear comments such as "oh so you are traveling alone to place XY? That is uncommon...". "Where do you live?" "Do you speak language XYZ?". Some airlines don't do this interview, but United does it always and I assume all U.S. airlines do it.
3. Additional security screening at the gate for selected people (apparently by random choice), can go quick, or might take longer. They take an additional look in your luggage. Some airports even have a second official security check & and scanner infrastructure near the designated gates for U.S. flights (I have experienced this only once though, in Munich. Not sure how common it is).
4. After arrival, immigration procedure (even for those who only want to transit). The waiting time for non-residents is usually 1-2 hours until you reach the booth. The immigration officer asks a couple of questions (or not). If you are suspicious, you are being send to 2nd check (I can't speak about that one, hasn't happened to me - but that's the stuff we often read about in the media).
5. Customs. Some people are chosen for detailed luggage checks. The decisions seems to be made by the immigration officer (or his/her computer system), because it is based on the type of signs they write on your customs card.
If you are transiting, 6: Rechecking the luggage, a new security check to reach the gate. In most countries, there is a dedicated security check and logistics infrastructure for transiting passengers, which makes the process simple. On U.S. airports, you start again on square 1, as if you would just begin your travel, which means you might have to go to another terminal and queue up again for security. If you don't have airline frequent flyer status and thus access to the fast lane, this can take another hour (depending on the time of the day, airport and the number of TSA staff available). A 2 1/2 hour connection in EWR gets extremely tight for example, but airlines keep selling tickets with even shorter connecting times.
Overall, it is quite an ordeal. And I don't even belong to an ethnical or religious group who might be specifically targeted. For them, the stress level must be even higher.
Dublin also has a second us security check. Going Dublin to Baltimore gets the immigration questions three times at least, once at the check in line, once after the second security line and once on arrival in BWI. The queues for the second and third time are reasonably lengthy and the TSA security in Dublin airport is more pushy and invasive than normal Dublin airport security.
I fly 10-12x / year between Europe and US. I don't find the security checks particularly lengthy nor cumbersome. (I have TSA pre-check for the way to the EU and on the way back, PRG, ZRH, AMS, and CDG are all fairly reasonable security wait wise.)
I'm going with 2. It's honestly hilarious how ineptly the administration is trying to pretend this isn't a Muslim ban. There was a thread on Reddit a couple days ago about how all Trump's verbatim "we will ban Muslims" quotes have been scrubbed from his campaign site... except you can still see them with the right combination of URL parameters.
We're talking about moving laptops from the passenger cabin to checked luggage, as a purported security measure.
Not sure why Canada and UK doing something similar would be make it any more likely to be a true terrorist threat, you point out already that it's Five Eyes so they're our friends.
Calling this "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is pretty damn nutty, besides being whiny.
>We're talking about moving laptops from the passenger cabin to checked luggage, as a purported security measure.
Yes, just like moving liquids to your checked luggage was a security measure. Remember that one? Tried to take a bottle of water through security lately?
>Not sure why Canada and UK doing something similar would be make it any more likely to be a true terrorist threat
Because Canada and the UK aren't likely to be in on your "it must be a muslim ban" conspiracy theory?
>Calling this "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is pretty damn nutty, besides being whiny.
Take it up with Fareed. That you think it's "whiny" does not change the fact that large parts of the left seem to have lost the capacity to distinguish normal from abnormal behaviour on the part of the Trump administration.
No, but they seriously considered it, and said they were basing their consideration on information that had been shared with them. Which would suggest it was not an attempt to impose a Muslim ban.
Perhaps in the trade-off between good international relations and trade on one hand, and security on the other, Trump leans more toward security than prior administrations. Certainly the Trump administration has demonstrated that the value relations and trade much less than their predecessors.
Could it be that the latest generation of laptop bombs are undetectable, and these bombs could be taken on board a USA bound flight from European airports?
Yes, per Occam's razor. Sorry to discount your conspiracy theories though.
It's not the last version of bombs. There's no reason since the invention of li-ion why terrorists wouldn't short-circuit the batteries. Guaranteed entertainment outdoors, super dangerous in confined space.
Do you have any source on anyone creating anything to do with a latest generation undetectable laptop bomb? That seems very less likely than the parent posters theories.
Wait, what? We're putting laptops in luggage because we're afraid that they are bombs. But laptops stored closely together in luggage with pressure changes can explode..and we don't know how to handle that.
In the name of safety we're introducing a restriction that makes people and airplanes less safe!
Well if you think about it, it makes sense. Something could be potentially improvised by a passenger. But to make a device, you would open yourself to detection via X-Rays. However, I think that the rest of the world should return the favor and ban all laptops from US incoming flights. Just as a quid pro quo.
Soon though hopefully solid state cells will come into play and this will no longer be a problem. China for instance has banned shipping all lithium ion batteries via China Post and searches actively for them... as it's a risk. You have to ship them specially declared which is pretty expensive.
>China for instance has banned shipping all lithium ion batteries via China Post
Fedex and UPS both treat lithium ion batteries as dangerous goods, with the exception of batteries shipped "with equipment" i.e. shipping a laptop with its battery, without the battery being plugged in.
How does that make sense? If item A is dangerous, how does putting item B in the same shipment suddenly make item A not dangerous? Is the non-powered-on laptop capable of putting out fires or something?
The Chinese rule is extremely annoying, but I'm forced to admit that at least it makes logical sense.
"With equipment" doesn't require the battery to be actually plugged into the laptop. Most laptop manufacturers ship the laptop and the battery in separate plastic bags, and this still qualifies for the exemption.
The rule would make a lot of sense if it requires the battery to be plugged in, but it doesn't.
This is true. You can read about safety incidents involving Li batteries carried as cargo on airplanes. It's surprising what people will do - like put a spare Li battery in a plastic bag with a bunch of cables and wires. A wire then falls across the terminals, and you have trouble.
No, they're not. That would be far too heavy. The containers are regular aluminum lined unit load devices (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_load_device). They are not resistant to explosives.
Some airlines that are particularly sensitive (El Al, for example) have additional mitigations like a reinforced floor between the cargo and passenger compartments or one particular piece of the cargo hold that's more structurally sound for sensitive items, but wide body aircraft do not have "containers that are built to withstand bombs". It's just not practical to do so.
totally unrelated, but I'm doubtful that pressure changes have any impact whatsoever on li-ion batteries. The materials in a battery expand by 13.4% between discharged and charged, and the PTC (safety disconnect) goes off at 145 psi. The can itself takes thousands of psi before it blows. The minor pressure difference at altitude shouldn't be able to distort the can enough to mess with the materials inside.
This doesn't hold for things like pouch cells, which can and have been affected by altitude changes (leading to problems in airplane batteries). Standardized cylindrical cells like those in a laptop should be fine.
Checked bags go through a CT scanner, carry on just goes through an Xray scanner. The CT scans are much more detailed, so the thought is that potential explosive devices are easier to detect in checked bags than ones carried on. At least, that's the reasoning I've heard.
> On the operational side, measures such as stopping online check-in for U.S. bound flights or ensuring U.S. flights depart from a dedicated part of terminals are among ideas being mulled, although no decisions have yet been taken.
How would stopping online check-in help with laptops? Wouldn't a laptop ban be enforced during security screening of hand luggage?
Yes, but it probably costs the airport/airline less to tell everybody that they can't take laptop in hand luggage in person, than to deal with all cases of people trying to take laptops through security and being sent back. (Speculation)
We've had the liquids and sharp tools ban for years now and the bins at security are still full of them. You wouldn't throw out your laptop though.
I guess it would force people to the check-in desk where they could be asked 'do you have a laptop in your carry-on?'. If they don't know about the ban this gives them a chance to put it in hold luggage. If it wasn't noticed until security it may be a bit of a nightmare.
That question could be asked during online check-in, especially if the passenger indicates they are traveling without hold luggage. There is already an online check-in question for hazardous materials.
Not comparable. You often need passport information for online check-in and the entire experience is already tied to legal/immigration requirements. If you're doing online check-in, your goal is to avoid the time cost of agent check-in lines, so it's worth the effort to carefully enter all mandatory data.
There is absolutely no way I'm parting with my laptop in an airport. If that's going to be the next line then flying will cease to be an option for me.
Non-US flight still allow laptop. In every airport terminal with a mix of US and non-US flights security is done at the same point. Additional rule means isolating those flights.
Isolation is already done in big airport for similar reason (eg: EU flights vs Non-EU flights), some airport have the capability of doing security check at boarding gates (eg: Schiphol) But that's would still require between a little and a ton of problem depending on the airports.
Unlike a bottle of water, you won't throw away your laptop. The in-person check-in is there to avoid the situation of being rejected at security.
We have offices in Europe and US. While today we travel multiple times a quarter between the offices, I can see how people will not want to cross US borders no more than once a year. I also wonder how this (plus all the shenanigans on borders control, immigrations restrictions, etc) will affect budget and headcount allocations for international companies.
I think we will see an expansion of companies building R&D centers abroad and call it a day.
> DHS spokesman Dave Lapan said Kelly "hasn't made a decision but we continue to evaluate the threat environment and have engaged in discussions with airline representatives and other stakeholders about the threat."
So, our homeland security department has acknowledged that there is a threat and will discuss it with the airlines. This has been transformed into "likely" by the writer, and the "some EU" countries part has been expanded to "Europe" in the headline. This is why I'm skeptical about so many things I read in the news.
[...] officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.
[...] Six U.S. and European officials said they expect the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make an
announcement but declined to say when.
This makes pretty clear that the article isn't based on the single-sentence comment by the spokesman. This is why journalists think so many of their readers lack the skills to read the ingredient list for bottled water.
> [...] officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.
In context:
> is reviewing how to ensure lithium batteries stored in luggage holds do not explode in midair, officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.
"reviewing" is the key word.
> [...] make an announcement
But we won't know what the policy will be until they make the announcement. There is nothing in those two excerpts to indicate that this isn't speculation by the writer.
> This is why journalists think so many of their readers lack the skills to read the ingredient list for bottled water.
"The Trump administration is likely to expand a ban on laptops on commercial aircraft to include some European countries, but is reviewing how to ensure lithium batteries stored in luggage holds do not explode in midair, officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday."
That means, literally, that officials said: "['We are' or 'The Trump administration is'] likely to expand a ban on laptops on commercial aircraft to include some European countries"
The uncertainty expressed by 'likely' is just that: uncertainty. It's not speculation by the journalist, who is actually just repeating what his sources told him.
To criticise such reporting means you will never hear about any policy until it becomes law. That would mean nobody would ever get a chance to weigh in until after the fact.
> There is nothing in those two excerpts to indicate that this isn't speculation by the writer.
What's even more important is what's outside those two paragraphs: namely the name "Reuters", and the authors' byline: "Mark Hosenball and David Shepardson". The are institutions/people, and to a certain extend the whole system is build on the idea of trust, in the same way that you trust the neighbour you've known for years to water your plants when you're away.
Except that's the public position, not the insider position - and I think as anyone who's ever been on the inside of a headline knows, the public position is "don't give away information until we announce".
In all fairness, more like by some editor. Writers often don't write the headlines (or they have them changed into something more attention grabbing even if less nuanced).
Sounds like a detection technology problem. The article says it is very difficult to tell the difference between dense items on X-ray (i.e. battery v. plastic explosive). Anyone have suggestions for the TSA on better scanning technology?
Yeah... no. I've had a laptop stolen out of checked-in luggage together with other valuables. Seems like the US really doesn't want to be visited by anybody anymore.
Sounds like a business opportunity.
Airport A: Declare laptop at pre-checkin where security declares it 'not a bomb' and seals it in a rugged case that only authorised officers can unlock. Receive baggage token.
Airport B: Take token to collection counter and retrieve laptop.
In other words: You pay the airline to transport luggage, then another company for them not to break/irradiate/magnetize/flood things inside your luggage. I'm still at the age where changing the world seems more appealing, but I bet by my sixties I'll start such a business.
What they want is to be able to scan/image your hard drive.
Not every passenger, but as you've mentioned, it's trivial for people to get at the contents of your luggage and for TSA agents with the keys to your TSA luggage locks it's even easier still.
If this ban is ever extended I will likely never consider flying to the states. I can only hope it doesn't infect the rest of the airline industry like the water and liquid theatre did.
Aww man, if only an airline could target the "no-bullshit" niche... Minimal screening, come on board with water and even soap and knifes if you need to, just be aware that the liability of the company for murder/piracy is 100k. But of course the major problem is the TSA, not the airline.
DHS has already made it clear that you don't want to enter the USA with any electronics if you value your privacy so perhaps this is a blessing in disguise.
It reminds me of the pathetic pack of attorneys general who shutdown Backpage and Craigslist's hookup page, simply making it harder to find and intervene in human trafficking. DHS is simply making it harder for them to find bad guys. As if that were their goal.
ah - but when you "enter" the US you only have your carry on luggage, before you hit the baggage carousel, how are they going to make you unlock your laptop for them when it's not yet in your possession?
There will be plenty to discuss if it actually happens, but in the meantime this is just a leak of a possible announcement. That's not substantive and therefore it's off topic here.
"We might make an announcement" is even weaker than "We will make an announcement", a gold standard of weakness to begin with.
Notice the words 'some', 'likely', and 'but' in the first sentence. This article walks back its own headline,
like the previous one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14311073).
"Likely" indicates a >50% chance. There are actual meetings planned, this week. This is not "fake news", or some "internet rumor". The actual plan is seriously considered, and only the risks of Li-Ion batteries in cargo holds is holding it up, and possibly pushback from the airlines and countries concerned.
This is valuable information because it's much easier to stop something like this before it's officially announced.
At that time it's already implemented, requires the same march through the bureaucracy to be repealed, has consequences for the administration's reputation, may invite lawsuits if airlines and airports have started spending money etc etc.
If internet forums can affect that process, you'd be better off putting such energy into larger ones whose mandates it fits. This isn't that kind that of site.
There are always urgent things going on that are more important than almost everything here. Letting HN be swayed by those means giving up on the idea of a site dedicated to intellectual curiosity, and that would be a shame.
Look at it this way: if the story happens, we'll have a thread about it. It will burn hot with toxic fumes (bad for HN) but the substantive aspects (good for HN) will hopefully outweigh that, making it worth the hit. But since the story hasn't happened yet, why burn all those health points for none of the gain?
Flying to North America from Europe? Please fly to Canada first and enjoy using your laptop onboard. Then take a short hop to your US destination on which you can also use your laptop since your flight originated in Canada.
89 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadCould you provide more detail?
1. ESTA application online form before the actual travel for those who don't need a Visa (most EU countries e.g.) with extensive range of questions, even about parents, social media profiles (still optional) and so on. You do only need to apply again once every few years, but before a flight you need to update the flight information (afaik).
2. A 5 minute "interview" at check in/baggage drop (or otherwise at the gate) in which a (contracted) security personnel asks you about your trip while you wait in line. You might hear comments such as "oh so you are traveling alone to place XY? That is uncommon...". "Where do you live?" "Do you speak language XYZ?". Some airlines don't do this interview, but United does it always and I assume all U.S. airlines do it.
3. Additional security screening at the gate for selected people (apparently by random choice), can go quick, or might take longer. They take an additional look in your luggage. Some airports even have a second official security check & and scanner infrastructure near the designated gates for U.S. flights (I have experienced this only once though, in Munich. Not sure how common it is).
4. After arrival, immigration procedure (even for those who only want to transit). The waiting time for non-residents is usually 1-2 hours until you reach the booth. The immigration officer asks a couple of questions (or not). If you are suspicious, you are being send to 2nd check (I can't speak about that one, hasn't happened to me - but that's the stuff we often read about in the media).
5. Customs. Some people are chosen for detailed luggage checks. The decisions seems to be made by the immigration officer (or his/her computer system), because it is based on the type of signs they write on your customs card.
If you are transiting, 6: Rechecking the luggage, a new security check to reach the gate. In most countries, there is a dedicated security check and logistics infrastructure for transiting passengers, which makes the process simple. On U.S. airports, you start again on square 1, as if you would just begin your travel, which means you might have to go to another terminal and queue up again for security. If you don't have airline frequent flyer status and thus access to the fast lane, this can take another hour (depending on the time of the day, airport and the number of TSA staff available). A 2 1/2 hour connection in EWR gets extremely tight for example, but airlines keep selling tickets with even shorter connecting times.
Overall, it is quite an ordeal. And I don't even belong to an ethnical or religious group who might be specifically targeted. For them, the stress level must be even higher.
What part do you think would be unenforceable?
I can think of two possible reasons:
1- The administration is trying to distract people from the Comey scandal
2- The administration expects the current ban to be challenged in court and defeated, so they are expanding it to include non-Muslim countries
We live in interesting times.
Which might explain why Canada and the UK (you know, Five Eyes countries with whom the US shares intelligence) also did the same thing.
Seriously, Trump Derangement Syndrome is getting a bit nutty.
http://www.news1130.com/2017/03/20/ban-aimed-at-electronics-...
Not sure why Canada and UK doing something similar would be make it any more likely to be a true terrorist threat, you point out already that it's Five Eyes so they're our friends.
Calling this "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is pretty damn nutty, besides being whiny.
Yes, just like moving liquids to your checked luggage was a security measure. Remember that one? Tried to take a bottle of water through security lately?
>Not sure why Canada and UK doing something similar would be make it any more likely to be a true terrorist threat
Because Canada and the UK aren't likely to be in on your "it must be a muslim ban" conspiracy theory?
>Calling this "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is pretty damn nutty, besides being whiny.
Take it up with Fareed. That you think it's "whiny" does not change the fact that large parts of the left seem to have lost the capacity to distinguish normal from abnormal behaviour on the part of the Trump administration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberals-have-to-avo...
Yes, per Occam's razor. Sorry to discount your conspiracy theories though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbVHe5A6rJs
In the name of safety we're introducing a restriction that makes people and airplanes less safe!
Soon though hopefully solid state cells will come into play and this will no longer be a problem. China for instance has banned shipping all lithium ion batteries via China Post and searches actively for them... as it's a risk. You have to ship them specially declared which is pretty expensive.
I mean, that will basically be the case anyway. If I leave the US, I'm not taking a laptop since I can't bring it back.
Oh, and also charge them the equivalency of the ESTA fee.
Fedex and UPS both treat lithium ion batteries as dangerous goods, with the exception of batteries shipped "with equipment" i.e. shipping a laptop with its battery, without the battery being plugged in.
How does that make sense? If item A is dangerous, how does putting item B in the same shipment suddenly make item A not dangerous? Is the non-powered-on laptop capable of putting out fires or something?
The Chinese rule is extremely annoying, but I'm forced to admit that at least it makes logical sense.
[0] https://www.ups.com/content/ca/en/resources/ship/packaging/g...
[1] http://www.labelmaster.com/fedex-battery-shipping-policy
The likelihood of crushing a lithium ion battery is lower if the battery is enclosed in a device.
The rule would make a lot of sense if it requires the battery to be plugged in, but it doesn't.
I mean, that will basically be the case anyway. If I leave the US, I'm not taking a laptop since I can't bring it back.
Anyways the concern about the batteries in the hold is straight from the article.
Laughing cynically, however...
Some airlines that are particularly sensitive (El Al, for example) have additional mitigations like a reinforced floor between the cargo and passenger compartments or one particular piece of the cargo hold that's more structurally sound for sensitive items, but wide body aircraft do not have "containers that are built to withstand bombs". It's just not practical to do so.
This doesn't hold for things like pouch cells, which can and have been affected by altitude changes (leading to problems in airplane batteries). Standardized cylindrical cells like those in a laptop should be fine.
How would stopping online check-in help with laptops? Wouldn't a laptop ban be enforced during security screening of hand luggage?
We've had the liquids and sharp tools ban for years now and the bins at security are still full of them. You wouldn't throw out your laptop though.
Isolation is already done in big airport for similar reason (eg: EU flights vs Non-EU flights), some airport have the capability of doing security check at boarding gates (eg: Schiphol) But that's would still require between a little and a ton of problem depending on the airports.
Unlike a bottle of water, you won't throw away your laptop. The in-person check-in is there to avoid the situation of being rejected at security.
So, our homeland security department has acknowledged that there is a threat and will discuss it with the airlines. This has been transformed into "likely" by the writer, and the "some EU" countries part has been expanded to "Europe" in the headline. This is why I'm skeptical about so many things I read in the news.
In context:
> is reviewing how to ensure lithium batteries stored in luggage holds do not explode in midair, officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.
"reviewing" is the key word.
> [...] make an announcement
But we won't know what the policy will be until they make the announcement. There is nothing in those two excerpts to indicate that this isn't speculation by the writer.
> This is why journalists think so many of their readers lack the skills to read the ingredient list for bottled water.
That was petty.
"The Trump administration is likely to expand a ban on laptops on commercial aircraft to include some European countries, but is reviewing how to ensure lithium batteries stored in luggage holds do not explode in midair, officials briefed on the matter said on Wednesday."
That means, literally, that officials said: "['We are' or 'The Trump administration is'] likely to expand a ban on laptops on commercial aircraft to include some European countries"
The uncertainty expressed by 'likely' is just that: uncertainty. It's not speculation by the journalist, who is actually just repeating what his sources told him.
To criticise such reporting means you will never hear about any policy until it becomes law. That would mean nobody would ever get a chance to weigh in until after the fact.
> There is nothing in those two excerpts to indicate that this isn't speculation by the writer.
What's even more important is what's outside those two paragraphs: namely the name "Reuters", and the authors' byline: "Mark Hosenball and David Shepardson". The are institutions/people, and to a certain extend the whole system is build on the idea of trust, in the same way that you trust the neighbour you've known for years to water your plants when you're away.
In all fairness, more like by some editor. Writers often don't write the headlines (or they have them changed into something more attention grabbing even if less nuanced).
Not every passenger, but as you've mentioned, it's trivial for people to get at the contents of your luggage and for TSA agents with the keys to your TSA luggage locks it's even easier still.
If this ban is ever extended I will likely never consider flying to the states. I can only hope it doesn't infect the rest of the airline industry like the water and liquid theatre did.
It reminds me of the pathetic pack of attorneys general who shutdown Backpage and Craigslist's hookup page, simply making it harder to find and intervene in human trafficking. DHS is simply making it harder for them to find bad guys. As if that were their goal.
"We might make an announcement" is even weaker than "We will make an announcement", a gold standard of weakness to begin with.
Notice the words 'some', 'likely', and 'but' in the first sentence. This article walks back its own headline, like the previous one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14311073).
This is valuable information because it's much easier to stop something like this before it's officially announced.
At that time it's already implemented, requires the same march through the bureaucracy to be repealed, has consequences for the administration's reputation, may invite lawsuits if airlines and airports have started spending money etc etc.
It might be but HN is not really focused on delivering timely warnings to potential travelers.
There are always urgent things going on that are more important than almost everything here. Letting HN be swayed by those means giving up on the idea of a site dedicated to intellectual curiosity, and that would be a shame.
Look at it this way: if the story happens, we'll have a thread about it. It will burn hot with toxic fumes (bad for HN) but the substantive aspects (good for HN) will hopefully outweigh that, making it worth the hit. But since the story hasn't happened yet, why burn all those health points for none of the gain?