It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.
What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that particular scam.
Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could be?
HN
It proves that you haven't replaced *ALL* the batteries with little canisters of C4.
But if a terrorist can disguise a bomb to look like a battery, and a phone is considered a risk also. Logic suggests that a mass similar to a phone battery would be a threat.
The clue is in the word "battery". A collection of low capacity cells to power up the laptop for a short period does not really seem like it may be a major problem for for a bombmaker.
HN
Put in contact with the pressure hull of a 'plane, it could be.
It is if your laptop is packed as tightly internally as mine are. Unless they can make a 50/ 50 bomb/ battery unit that will also pass the screening test. It could also fail with a few older laptops that I owned that had space for 2 or in one case, 3 batteries. I liked that one, it could actually do a decent amount of work away from base.
Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince the travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about. In the same way that taking a swig from a sealed, branded 500ml mineral water bottle is not considered to be proof that it is actually water. If it's over 100ml, it's in the bin...
In much the same way, every coach passing through the ferry ports travelling from France to England is stopped, and all the passengers made to get off and walk through passport control while the coach is searched. Superficially. It inconveniences people, and makes them think that something necessary is being done. Or the random explosives screening on the Channel Tunnel. One in ten vehicles or thereabouts is stopped at random. If it's not random, it's a good imitation, as they seem to run a one out, one in policy at the screening bays.
In message , hugh neary writes
If the case is full of battery plus the necessary electronics to power up the screen and load up an operating system there's not much room for anything else. No it's not foolproof or if it is it may well not be tomorrow. What's your alternative? Just wait for an aircraft to be blown out the sky and then blame the security services? Thanks to Snowden it's just that much harder for them to do their job. And yes there are would-be terrorists about.
"security theatre"
Yeah, but it also keeps the proletariat compliant with ever further erosion of their civil liberties in the pursuit of the government "doing something"
Following the shoe bomber every time you go through security in the USA sho es had to be taken off should imagine it has contributed to a verruca epide mic. I was just grateful he did not conceal it in one of his orifices like drug mules, god knows what you would have to do to get through security - " Bend over sir while we search you!"
Richard
...
It simply makes me more determined than ever to avoid flying whenever I can.
Google for "Bum Bomber".
I am serious.
And you would be best to turn graphics off, unless you have a strong stomach.
A smartphone or tablet takes care of the electronics and operating system, and many will output to an 'external' display, so you'd only have to power the LCD. Or an Android mini stick is smaller than a smartphone:
If you only have to get as far as a pseudo-'boot screen' then pretty simple electronics will do - bitmap in ROM.
Owain
Yup.
Flying is very safe, the plane exploding and falling apart into thousands of pieces at 30000 feet and then hitting the ground a few minutes later is the dangerous bit.
Phil L presented the following explanation :
The entire internals of a phone or a laptop could be removed to turn it into a bomb, not just the battery.
I don't mind flying. What I object to is usually spending more time in the airport than in the air. It is simply no longer an enjoyable experience. These days I drive whenever possible and fly only when it is completely unavoidable.
Richard
That has already been done. An assassination attempt in Saudi Arabia. The Xrays are supposed to pick that up.
I do agree that the queues, a few less than enlightened staff (IME), and the ridiculous 'thinking' behind the screening can be cause for fury.
However, how much time does it add to a flight? An hour at most. And a bit of indignity as you wrestle with belts and shoes, and run the risk of your 'special items getting a public show?
Where's the harm?
:-)
Well, I'd imagine it was to make passengers feel something was being done. As we all know if anyone is determined enough to cause mayhem, death or injury, and do not care about their own safety,t there is little one can do. Brian
I was reading some article on line about two years ago about how small a container of Sarin gas could be to effectively disable a whole aircraft through the air circulation system. It is frightening and not an explosive in sight. Really, it is worrying but then again, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time there are lots fo dangers in the world. Brian
I don't buy the posted argument that it's all about scaring passengers and showing "something is being done".
I think there are sound (and pragmatic) technical arguments behind the advice, and that it is a bad idea to discuss them here. I am sure that many of us could come up with good terrorist strategies and counter-strategies; but why risk giving bad people good ideas.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.