Terrorist plot results in air ban of gadgets
By Ryan Block 
posted August 10th 2006 12:27PM
posted August 10th 2006 12:27PM
As you may or may not have heard, this morning Scotland Yard announced 21 people were arrested in connection with a supposed terrorist plot to use liquid explosives onboard. The result was obviously arduous for travelers who suffered suspended flights and long lines -- certainly a better fate than the possible alternative -- but the collateral inconveniences were also rather interesting. Authorities banned bringing aboard liquids, gels, or lotions (aside from medicines and sustenance for small children), as well as effectively scrapping travelers' ability to carry on laptops, cameras, or cellphones until further notice. Pretty severe for those looking to get some work done or pass time on their flight, but anyone lucky enough to get on a plane in England today is probably more relieved than irritated. Just be sure these guys don't lose your luggage, ok?[Thanks, Cyrus]
Update: For clarification, as far as we know gadgets are still allowed on American flights -- this precedent pertains primarily only to British and possibly some European flights.
Update 2: Looks like things are loosening up a bit, and passengers can start carrying on a bit of baggage themselves. For more info peep the Beeb. Thanks Stewart.
How about allowing people to bring their things as carry-ons (as usual) but they're carry-on bag must be locked in the over head compartment... sure, people will have to do without an ipod or laptop for a few hours, but at least our stuff will still be there when we get off the plane.
They could secure the carry-ons with a fastening, removable, one-use, flight-coded label... this would allow people to bring their bags from security to the plane while allowing the flight attendents to ensure nothing had been tampered with since security sealed it. If people needed something out of their bag, pre-flight, they could pop the seal, but then would need security to re-check it.
Not an ideal situation for staff or travelers, but better than a complete ban while still being safe.
I forsee the once obsolete inventions of books and paper making a comeback.
The restrictions are:
Passengers may take through the airport security search point, in a single (ideally transparent) plastic carrier bag, only certain items such as small wallets, travel documents, medicines, glasses and baby food. Nothing may be carried in pockets
All carry on luggage is to be stored in the hold. There are no gadgets, books, magazines, liquids gels electronic key fobs allowed on Uk flights. I think this also counts for flights to the UK from the US. All passengers are being hand searched and having their shoes checked. The shoe checking is happening in Toronto and throughout he US also.
The terrorists have done well here, the airlines are a mess and no-one set off a bomb.
Boingboing.com made a very good point which was
"...Until they handcuff us all nude to our seats and dart us with tranquilizers, there will always be the possibility that a passenger will do something naughty on a plane..."
Hopefully the banning of books, magazines, ipods and laptops will be reversed and we'll take one step away from the future mentioned above.
My parents are flying today (within the US), I tried to get ahold of them to warn them to check their liquids (my mom always brings her cosmetics/haircare stuff carry-on) so-as to avoid delays, but they've already left for the airport and I can't reach them on their cellphones. My dad usually checks up on the flight information before leaving for a trip (to see if it's delayed or anything), so I'm hoping he saw the travel advisory on the airline's site.
Can you say go2mypc.com?
if someday human life's gonna end, it'll end because of paranoia (especially the one in the USA) not because of terrorists or a massive meteor.
As has been mentioned briefly, but to reiterate: all hand baggage allowed is essential documents (passports, boarding passes), sunglasses (no cases), baby milk (but only if tasted in front of staff), and for women sanitary items (but only in loose form) - all to be carried in a clear plastic bag. No books, magazines, even cuddly toys. That said, this situation isn't predicted to last more than a few weeks (though that doesn't make sense - security measures ought to remain in place, or security drops!).
I'm so glad I went on holiday at the beginning of last month with my laptop!
The only irony here is that elsewhere on engadget, it has been said that it was only a matter of time before laptops were banned due to explosive capability...
Jeff,
Terrorism isn't about killing people, that's just the unfortunate by product. It's the symbolism involved with destroying an important landmark. The WTC stood as a symbol for US economy/capitalism.
If killing as many people as possible was the goal, then they would have flown into the WTC later in the day, when the building was full. Or into a stadium filled with 70,000 people.
Pack a locked Pelican hardcase with a security seal and purchase extra insurance with your junk; or FedEx it to yourself at the hotel/address with a customs form.
SHHHSH - has no one traveled and run into adverse situations before?
I was in London last summer on my 20th anniversary WALKING TO EDGWARE road station when the bombings occurred.
Today's incident in nothing.
"Flink" and "Reality Check" are posting racist comments. I agree with NE Guy's comment. Doesn't anyone from Engadget even monitor these comments????? There's no place for racists like "Flink" and "Reality Check" in this world anymore.
WOW.. UK more paranoic that USA.
There was not way that you can protect again terrorist. For example a missile launcher cost no more that 75k. Of course it's expensive but you can destroy a civil plane in seconds. In this case any current security measure worth nothing but a bunch of laws that burden.
And there was a lot of way to destroy a plane without needing to board it. And even if you need to board it, a single cd can be used like a weapon or even a shoelaces (like the prisons)
IMHO they are more interesting in privating the freedom of the people rather to prevent and to protect the people.
If you continue to consent to the constant erosion of freedom in the name of security, you will end up strapped to the walls of a perfectly flat tube, buck-naked for the duration of any flight.
Geez I would hate to think how terrible my 25 hour (minimum) flight time between Chicago, USA and Perth, Australia would be without gadgets.
It's unfortunate that there are some crazy people out there that take pleasure in harming others. Can't we all just have fun like Austin Powers?
Crap! There goes my trip to San Fran.... I really wanted to go to the US especially for MWSF (never been there) because I adore the country. with my name and background they will never let me in.
I really hate what is happening in the world. Coming from a secular Muslim background myself and living in the UK i don't understand why these "terrorists" people want to kill humanity. they're sick!!
Flying to Kenya from Heathrow on Saturday. Just bought an FZ7; my 8hr 30min flight will be spent with me worrying about it. 'Tis annoying, but I value my safety over my camera.
I just wanted to agree with NE guy. flink's comments are immature and ignorant. They add nothing of worth to any conversation and should, as suggested, be deleted. Thanks.
Err.... the supposed security threat is from batteries. So, why not check the battery rather than the laptop? Problem solved (except for those of us who love work on our laptops). Heck, a 14 hour trans-pacific flight is going to just zip by.
But this is just ridiculous. The idea fromthe security consultants is that batteries can trigger a detonator. Gee, remember the old detonator boxes with the mechanical plunger and not a battery in sight? We'd better ban wind-up toys too. This is simply over-reaction and the terrorists instantly cause economic losses (to the airline shares - watch a couple of US carriers go under....) and fear - without even lifting a hair. Terrorists are the true purveyors of FUD.
Seemingly simple solution:
All liquids checked, all electronics carried. It doesn't matter what your gadgets can communicate with if there's nothing dangerous to communicate to. (Or, allow no checked bags that have both electronics and liquids, alongside the ban on carried-on liquids.)
Seems better than "nothing carried on", and a nice balance between a real security benefit and traveller inconvenience.
For those extreme thinkers that think that /every/ proposed security measure is necessary and reasonable: no reasonable person suggests the freeway speed limit be 30mph/50kmh, even though crashes at that speed are much more survivable. Why? It'd be horribly inconvenient to travel that slowly, so the cost of that added personal security doesn't balance with the inconvenience of doubling travel time.
I wonder how many people that tolerate zero risk of flying speed to the airport?
Again the terrorists understand less about our society then we do about thiers. This will only aggravate more people, whom in our democracy will want something done. What will be done? Increased war on terror, and less support for thier cause. IRA has lost considerable support since 9/11 even though they are a different group, americans don't care.
i flew this morning from San Diego to Kansas City and all approved electronics are fine in us-us flights. i had an iPod, my dad had a camera, and i saw a guy with a laptop. obviously international flights, expecially to britain, would probably be different. the liquids was a darn shame, though. 40$ bottles of perfume and cologne were just thrown away. if anyone lives near an airport they could go down there and get some serious cologne, if they're willing to either mooch or trash-dive.
"Terrorism isn't about killing people, that's just the unfortunate by product."
I have to agree with a previous poster. I'm pretty sure terrorism is about killing people. And specifically, it's about killing the "infidels". The mere fact that the 9/11 hijackers hit the WTC before it was fully occupied only points out that they might not have been the brightest candles in the cave.
I can only say that we keep trading our liberties for a modicum of safety. Perhaps it is because we are trying to walk the line between capitulation and violence (we don't annihilate the enemy nor do we surrender). However, people who are willing to trade their liberties for this kind of nonsense are worse than terrorists in that they only believe in saving their oh-so-precious skin. I can understand a temporary ban given the supposed intel, that seems reasonable and related
And, of course, there are reasonable temporary alternatives. They could also require the airlines to provide a guaranty for your laptop against damage as part of security. They could seal the storage compartments so that you could be responsible for your own property but not access them during the flight. They could also require airlines to supply and supplement those goods deemed necessary (basic drinks, contact lens solution...)
I would also like to point out that cell phones allowed the United 93 passengers to make their heroic sacrifice. Without knowing the goals of the terrorists, they might not have realized that the terrorists were not mere ransom-hijackers...
if the airlines don't get serious about intelligent security they will find themselves wihout passengers. I'm not a criminal and I don't care to be treated like one.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
This is just another convenient excuse to keep the public terrified and feeling helpless. Just try and walk on the plane with NO fucking carrying on luggage or checked bags and see what happens. You'll get pulled aside anyway, just like the guy carring a pack full of sharp objects, shampoo, and contact lens solution.
Philip,
So they were smart enough to learn to fly, smart enough to coordinate (finance and plan) an attack, smart enough to actually pull it off, but too dumb to wait an extra 2 hours so that the building would be full and thereby kill as many poeple as possible?
You still buying your arguement? They attacked early because they wanted to make sure everyone in America would wake up in the morning and see the WTC burning and have that image ingrained into the heads forever. I know it is for me. Now that's smart.
"kballs - The reason they are banning liquids, etc, from carry-on, is that it is possible to take several liquids, each, on its own harmless and non-identifiable as an explosive. But when you combine them you can get an explosive. Combining them in the cabin would be considerably easier than combining them in the cargo hold."
this sounds just like the idea the joker had in the original tim burton batman. only the cosmetics explode instead of making people laugh to death.
Real reason behind the terror is the root cause- get it in this video because no one believes in what is written. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUmFvg2zNU&mode=related&search=mullah
"The reason they are banning liquids, etc, from carry-on, is that it is possible to take several liquids, each, on its own harmless and non-identifiable as an explosive. But when you combine them you can get an explosive.
Posted at 2:00PM on Aug 10th 2006 by bongo"
i, too, have seen "Die Hard With A Vengeance".
I had a water bottle at an airport once recently and an airport guy looked at me funny...I showed him when I drank some of the water!
x23 -
Then you are probably familiar with the non-fictional PLX explosive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLX). Although in this particular case it seems as if the explosive of choice was some peroxide compound.
Looks like that Sierra Mist commercial was ahead of its time!
For 6 years, it didn't matter if the trip took 2 or 12 hours, I drove it. Last month, I flew for the first time since I bought my vehicle in 2000. My bags were searched coming and going. To my surprise, I found that I didn't really care, as long as I got all my stuff back, didn't get any false positives and got where I was going.
I was planning to get a newer vehicle in September, something hopefully more reliable for the longer drives (not that I had serious problems, but the current ride is about a decade old), and now I'm even more determined, just in case. I will do that much for the public good, because I'm not letting the handlers up any more of my technology.
http://www.pixelthieves.com/index.aspx?View=ForumReply&PostId=226
I can see the airlines cashing on this especially with their on-board entertainment systems and potential access to the web. But hey, here's a novel idea - why not just sit back and read a papsrback or even better - get some downtime.
I say that TSA should put on some sun-glases and watch every person that walks by-- we're talking safety here! http://spungle.blogspot.com/2006/07/hidefspex-verdict-hideflove.html
I find it all a bit depressing, 2006 and still to get on a plane we have to prove we aren't trying to blow it up.
Security is a joke, there are multiple ways to sneak bombs aboard planes and all it takes is one Stinger missile in the back of an SUV to bring down any airliner, you don't even need a suicider for that one.
I have an idea, and to be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure why it's bad or won't work. There's probably a reason, but I don't know what it is.
Why not let airlines make their own rules?
There are some amoung us would would rather bring their notebooks and shampoo on the plane. People don't always want to throw out their expensive shampoo which cleans their hair just right, knowing full-well the free stuff at the hotel is going to awful. And, thanks to the invention of the laptop, time in the air has - possibly irreversably - turned from acceptable downtime to easily billable worktime. Remember when no one was actually expected to work 24/7 because it was impossible? These gadgets have not created more time for our work; they've created more work for our time. But, I digress.
Anyway, that's some people. Other people will gladly travel with nothing more than a clear plastic bag containing only their passport, some cash, and possibly an Advil or two. For some, the safety aspect trumps everything else. Besides, there are magazines in the seatback, just as there have been for decades. Those people will gladly make do with what they have available, and enjoy the flight time as a few hours away from work.
Alright, so we have two entirely seperate groups of people here. Why not let them fly different airlines and let the problem sort itself out?
You wanna carry-on the stuff you've grown accustomed to and hope that the odds of an attack are low enough? Go ahead and fly the airline with lower security. Good luck! You want to minimize the chances of something going wrong, no matter what inconvenience attaches itself to such a choice? Jump on the airline with the most intensive passenger search known to man. Enjoy yourselves.
As airlines begin adopting their own security measures, some will thrive and some will not. Policies will be adjusted and business will shift. The people flying will make the decisions with their wallets what's a good idea and what isn't.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that capitalism at its finest?
Every plane, flown by every company, in or out of every country, of course, still needs a locked and bulletproof door to the cockpit. Never again can we allow control of a flightpath to be altered. Until it's possible to robotically control a plane's every move from the ground, we might even wanna start keeping missles aimed at all passenger aircraft. If one of 'em gets outta line, boom!
I'll let someone else work on the finer details of that last part. But I really think the majority of this idea has some real promise. Why can't it be implimented?
Those BASTARDS are such...BASTARDS!
Oh my gosh...I'm heading to Heathrow (from Toronto) tomorrow, and I'm gonna have to go seven hours without my iPod. But it's not as flying without a camera on-board -- I like take pictures of clouds in the air!
I guess the terrorists have still succeeded...causing trouble for all of us 8-).
I find it curious that invoncenience somehow equals the terrorists "winning" here on Endgadget.
Inconvenience is inconvenience, nothing more.
Has nobody EVER thought about Israel's airline El Al? They have not had a highjacking or bombing in 20? 30? years. If someone is suspicious (flying alone and been to multiple mid-east countries) they're kicked off and told to go to another carrier. Does that mean the terrorists win? I really doubt all the people flying El Al safely think so. And being bumped is a hell of a lot more restrictive and inconvenient than "no gadgets."
Being inconvenienced, making MINOR changes to lifestyle, does not mean the terrorists have won. When we are all dead, and the world is the one of their making, THEN they have won.
Inconvenience is inconvenience. Suck it up... I did for 8 eight hours of flying today.
-Pie
The main focus of terrorists is not just killing people, they do have something in larger scale usually political gain. They do however killing people to strike fear in our hearts, causing chaos and eventually the downfall of the government. Inconvenience is one thing, the main purposes of these attack is to create another fear of travel in our minds and this time bring most American Airlines to bankruptcy. Lucky it didn't succeed, most people won't get frighten until they see any dead.
Interesting someone should mention El Al airlines. I was reading an interview with the former head of security at Ben Gurion airport in Israel. He pretty much thought our governments were focusing on the wrong things trying to make the planes safe. He opined that the terrorists will always find a way to get something on the plane. A far more successful method for the Israelis was to focus on the people at the airport, not the things they were carrying. He said a person preparing to kill themselves and several hundred people is usually easier to spot than the thing they are going use to do the dirty deed.
It's alarming how easily some folks believe the US & UK governments when they claim they've stopped a terrorist attack. Blair & Bush are in serious political trouble. They lied to get into a war in Iraq. Why wouldn't they lie now to make themselves look like heroes - and conveniently there's an election in the US just around the corner. Of course, they've never manipulated the threat level to score a few political points or divert our attention before. No sir. Not them.
Has it been asked anywhere for those passengers flying with small infants that are secured in safety seats/carriers? Are those banned too where they will require the parent/guardian to hold the child for the entire flight?
I don't give a DAMN about gadgets on a plane. As long as they still allow snakes on a plane....I'm gravey!!!