Log in

View Full Version : Pocket Goddess: Is Mobile Tech Grounded?


Jason Dunn
08-11-2006, 05:00 AM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pocketgoddess.com/articles/2006/08/is_mobile_tech.html' target='_blank'>http://www.pocketgoddess.com/articl...obile_tech.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Today’s events have turned the modern world of aviation on its head—news of a foiled terrorist plot involving British airliners headed to the US has led to chaos as trans-Atlantic flights are delayed or cancelled, security measures are tightened, and experts argue about what could happen next. I’m sobered by these reports, but I know that life can and will go on. I may be a bit more cautious when I fly, and know that I need to allow plenty of time to pass through security checkpoints—gone are the days of rushing to the airport at the last minute—but I’ll still travel just as I have before. Or will I? According to many reports, carry-on luggage has been virtually banned on flights originating in the UK, with passengers being allowed to take nothing more than their passport and cash. Evidently the suspected plot revolved around constructing some sort of explosive device in the air from separate components brought on a plane, and some experts speculate that an electronic device such as a radio or even the key fob from a set of car keys could have been used to set it off."</i><br /><br />This is certainly sobering news for any tech-type who travels with gadgets (I imagine that would be pretty much everyone reading this site). Safety is important of course, but the thought of a long flight without music, movies, offline email, or my laptop for that matter...is a frightening thought. I enjoy a good book, and often read on flights, but I'm also the type of person that can't read while others are talking. I need to block out the world around me with music in order to not be distracted, and thinking about listening to a crying baby or loud talker for six hours is enough to make me not want to fly. ;-) The issue of carry-on luggage is also very concerning to me: I'm going to Hawaii with my wife for our 5th wedding anniversary, and I don't trust my expensive Nikon D200 to be handled by anyone but myself. Put it in my luggage? No way! Yet it seems I may have no choice. A laptop would be even more fragile, certainly not something you'd want to pack in a suitcase, yet I can't imagine going on a vacation and not having my laptop available to dump photos onto. Is there any chance most of these regulations will "blow over" in the next couple of months? :worried:

heliod
08-11-2006, 05:45 AM
I am quite sure that this will be like this for a couple of days only, until they are sure they have caught the whole group.

After that maybe they will extend the list of forbidden items to include some other "fuels" that can be used for this purpose, but I am sure that most of what we take today will be allowed again.

Unfortunately there are still people in this world that think that going into a passenger's plane and exploding 200 innocent people is thing that will help them achieve their objectives..... what a culture.

Well, the only thing for consolation is that even in the muslim world some decent voices are beginning to be heard.... like the voice of this woman, Wafa, that had the courage to say what she said to Arab TV networks and be watched by millions in the Arab world.... the recording at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ

patrickj
08-11-2006, 07:40 AM
I like PocketPCThoughts a lot, and you do a great job on this and other sites. But - I think this post is in exceptionally poor taste, shows very poor judgement.

I think there are certain times when even if you're fascinated with mobile tech (or whatever other subject), you may want to put that fascination in context. It just sounds rank to hear your concerns about your expensive camera and your delicate laptop on a day when most of us are just thinking about how narrowly avoided a 9/11 scale atrocity was. How unsafe we probably all are every time we fly now. And just how depressing it is that those are the headlines we are seeing again.

Yeah, on days like these, I cannot work up any concern whatsoever for your expensive mobile devices, or think of any reason why you'd want to share those concerns right now ...

ADBrown
08-11-2006, 07:57 AM
Another silly overreaction from the league leader. We'll find out in a couple of days that this was, like every other report of its nature, grossly overexaggerated for PR reasons, and they actually arrested a half-dozen mentally ill incompetants with delusions of grandeur and no actual plans.

Just the nature of the supposed plot is ridiculously infeasible. Did anyone think to mention to the people who are so grossly overreacting to this supposed story that binary/explosive chemicals tend to be rather conspicuous in their own right? This isn't like mixing water and sugar to make a bomb--one of the classic examples of incompatible materials are gasolene and chlorene. On the news they're talking about peroxide-based explosives like TATP, but they fail to mention that while TATP can be made by combining the right liquids, it then has to FERMENT, which is a bit lengthy even for a trans-atlantic flight.

I suspect that the new restrictions will go away in a few days once all the PR potential has been milked from it. Preventing people from taking their water bottles and laptops onto planes is not going to be popular.

Philip Colmer
08-11-2006, 09:57 AM
Just the nature of the supposed plot is ridiculously infeasible.
Is it? The TV stations don't seem to have any trouble finding independent security consultants who are on-board with it. There hasn't been anyone that I've seen on the BBC that has tried to diss this story.

Edit: I've found a Q&amp;A on the BBC News web site with answers from a Dr at the University of Aberdeen - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4780391.stm

In addition, prior to this alert, anyone travelling to Washington by plane was subject to a very detailed baggage inspection and had to drink from any water bottles. Further to that, if you visit the Holocaust Memorial in Washington, they also make you drink from water bottles, and you aren't allowed to take any other drinks in.

--Philip

Philip Colmer
08-11-2006, 10:02 AM
I like PocketPCThoughts a lot, and you do a great job on this and other sites. But - I think this post is in exceptionally poor taste, shows very poor judgement.
I think that is a bit harsh. If you were to go over to the BBC's news web site, they have a "Have Your Say" section and there are plenty of people sharing their views in much the same way as Jason.

Yeah, on days like these, I cannot work up any concern whatsoever for your expensive mobile devices, or think of any reason why you'd want to share those concerns right now ...
Because, as human beings, we have the luxury of being able to have intelligent discussion about matters such as this. It is headline news and it affects everyone who travels by plane.

Some people won't be inconvenienced too much by these restrictions.

Others, like Jason, have invested a lot of money into their personal belongings, or carry expensive business equipment with them. They have every right to be concerned about what might happen to that equipment if it is checked in. According to the BBC this morning, up to 1 in 100 bags goes missing. That is a very high figure considering the millions of people who travel.

Even further up the scale, you've got people who are concerned about their diabetic medicine and how it would be destroyed by the extremes of the hold conditions.

If the world we live in becomes a place where we cannot have this discussions, then that is a depressing thought and I would not want our world to sink to that level.

--Philip

hamishmacdonald
08-11-2006, 10:21 AM
The simple fact is that life goes on. We can't stop and do nothing but ponder over and over again how bad this event might have been. There's no purpose, dignity, or rationale to that.

Yes, perhaps material possessions aren't important relative to the notion of losing one's life, but I see my flatmate Bob, who was supposed to fly to Orkney this morning expressly for the purpose of taking photographs there, not travelling today because he could get no assurances from the airline that his expensive camera and laptop would be handled with any care.

So Bob's daily life, and his art, are disrupted by these events, and I think that's a worthy concern, equal to the gravity of an imaginary horror.

Kevin Daly
08-11-2006, 11:46 AM
My guess is that the security services will use the current panic as an excuse to introduce measures which people will get used to over time, and which nobody will ever "get around" to rescinding.

But then I'm a cynic.

natestera
08-11-2006, 12:21 PM
What's a "flatmate"? New kind of Pocket PC? :mrgreen:

egads
08-11-2006, 12:56 PM
My guess is that the security services will use the current panic as an excuse to introduce measures which people will get used to over time, and which nobody will ever "get around" to rescinding.

But then I'm a cynic.

I'm even more cynical; I see a day you show up at the air port and go to a room and take off your clothes and put on a disposable jump suit. You put your clothes into your check in bags then go through security and be seated on your plane.

You put your clothes back on after you land and claim your baggage.

One further step would be to sedate everyone while they were on the plane. I hope things do loosen up a bit but I would not count on it, it'll get worse before it gets better...

PDANEWBIE
08-11-2006, 01:18 PM
I think there are certain times when even if you're fascinated with mobile tech (or whatever other subject), you may want to put that fascination in context. It just sounds rank to hear your concerns about your expensive camera and your delicate laptop on a day when most of us are just thinking about how narrowly avoided a 9/11 scale atrocity was.

I tried to bite my tongue on this one but I decided since I opened up this can on another site I'll share my views here too. The problem is this "list" of banned items has been ever growing for YEARS. Does this make us more safe if someone is determined to get on a plane and do something? I don't think so. Will this list of banned items stop individuals with cruel thoughts and intentions from trying their schemes? No it probably will only change their methods.

All banning items does is 1) inconvenience the travelers. 2) make the terrorists think of a different way to accomplish their goals. 3) limit our personal freedoms.

I am sorry but how many liberties and luxuries are we going to give up "in the hopes" of stopping terrorism (which might I add will NEVER end in my lifetime and probably most people who are alive todays life time)

I for one think this tragedy avoided is a great job and I applaud the authorities that found out this plot but I really think a blanket ban on things in the "hopes" that you may stop an attack is the wrong method to use.

What will it take for you as a person to get upset? When the govt decides theres a new cerfew in place because terrorists are more likely to plot at night? When they listen to your phone conversations because they want to monitor all chat for terrorist threats? When your cities decide they want to install cameras on every street corner to watch "in case there is terrorism"?

Seriously there has to be some kind of line when limiting personal freedoms for the sake of terrorism or else soon there will be mandates turning our reality into something out of George Orwell's book 1984.

Do I think the line is banning a few items on a plane? No because I don't fly so its not important to me but what about the perpetual traveler? What about the business class man who has this as a way of life and it has now impacted upon him? I am sure its alot more upsetting to them than it is for me.

Watti3460
08-11-2006, 01:28 PM
One further step would be to sedate everyone while they were on the plane. I hope things do loosen up a bit but I would not count on it, it'll get worse before it gets better...

OK. Officially getting stoned for a flight does actually appeal to me. :lol:

Seriously, does it occur to anyone that this is actualyl a goal, albeit a minor one, of the terrorists. Surely that want to terrorize us by killing us, but failing that, they are stripping us of our personal freedoms and in some cases dignity.

If 20 years ago I told you we would live in a state where governments could strip search you at whim and legally relieve you of a 2" pen knife you would have called me a reactionary.

The Yaz
08-11-2006, 02:00 PM
Actually Jason, my company shares your concerns. Our sales team regularly flies international with laptops/projectors/etc. and are concerned about not being able to bring them as carry-on luggage.

For an upcoming meeting in Hawaii, our team has looked into opening an account with a UPS Store on the island. If its possible, we will box ship the electronic equipment the day before to the store and the sales team will pick up the packages after they land. The reverse will be done on the way back.

Its not as expensive as you would think, and you have the peace of mind that there's a tracking number for your possessions. Heck, your wfe would probably like the idea since she would be able to purchase stuff that would not fit in the return suitcase.

Just a thought,

Steve 8)

whydidnt
08-11-2006, 02:04 PM
One further step would be to sedate everyone while they were on the plane.

Maybe THEN, I could finally sleep on a plane. :lol:
Seriously I hope it doesn't come to that, if so, then the terrorists have in many ways succeeded in "terrorizing" us.

The way I understand things in the US today, electronic gadgets have not yet been banned, at least on domestic flights. Any liquid or gel has, which means those of us that prefer carry on for short trips are going to have to get used to stopping at the local pharmacy to pick up tooth paste and the like when we reach our destination. Might be a good time to invest in toothpaste and hair care stock.

Jake_Speed
08-11-2006, 02:16 PM
From what I've heard, Commercial Shipments added to passenger flights are not screened and foreign passengers are not screened for the watch list. Yet they make it very dificult for the normal innocent passenger to fly.

I know if they ban carry-on baggage, I will be cancel my next flight. I just will not put $12,000 dollars worth of camera equipment and electronics into checked baggage.

SteveHoward999
08-11-2006, 02:27 PM
Seriously there has to be some kind of line when limiting personal freedoms for the sake of terrorism or else soon there will be mandates turning our reality into something out of George Orwell's book 1984.


I really don't buy sensasionalist statements like that. If existing security measures mean I can safely arrive at my destination, then I'm happy. If restrictions applied encroach my own sense of safety or freedom then I'll choose an alternative mode of transport, or simply not travel. That's my choice and my right.

patrickj
08-11-2006, 02:31 PM
Good points Philip. My reaction was a bit late at night / visceral. You're right, life goes on and these are genuine concerns. Like I said, I love this site - that post just rubbed me wrong - but now that it's morning where I am ... my reaction was too harsh.

Cheers ...

I think that is a bit harsh. If you were to go over to the BBC's news web site, they have a "Have Your Say" section and there are plenty of people sharing their views in much the same way as Jason.

***long quote edited by mod JD***

natestera
08-11-2006, 02:55 PM
Really, there's nothing new under the sun. Back in the middle ages they had drawbridge, and sentries yelling "who goes there", who subsequently searched your horse cart. We'd probably be treated like wizards or something accused of being in collusion with demons when they found our "magical devices". They'd conficscate our gadgets and have us drawn and quartered. Your head would end up on a pike, and the King would be getting past your next level of Flux challenge. The worst that happens to geeks these days, is your camera gets busted. Long as people want to hurt each other, we must have travel precautions...

dckiwi
08-11-2006, 03:23 PM
Did anybody actually bother to check the TSA/DHS/FAA websites?

Electronic items can be carried onboard...

http://tsa-7.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tsa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=254&amp;p_created=1155227254&amp;p_sid=qzRZiPei&amp;p_lva=&amp;p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0xNiZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9JnBfcHY9JnBfY3Y9JnBfcGFnZT0x&amp;p_li=&amp;p_topview=1

Janak Parekh
08-11-2006, 03:28 PM
I really don't buy sensasionalist statements like that. If existing security measures mean I can safely arrive at my destination, then I'm happy. If restrictions applied encroach my own sense of safety or freedom then I'll choose an alternative mode of transport, or simply not travel. That's my choice and my right.
I think PDANEWBIE's point is what happens if such security measures extend beyond the plane. Here's a very practical example: I take mass transit to work everyday. There is absolutely no feasible way that they can scan every bag that enters the New York City Subway, at least using conventional techniques. So how do we ensure safety on the subway? Do we restrict any baggage from not being allowed on the subway? Do we make people wait in interminably long lines? Do we just ban electronic devices?

Or, do we just cross our fingers and go on with our lives? To some extent, the last option may be the only practical one. Terrorism has existed for decades, if not hundreds of years. If, in the name of security, we end up drastically changing our lives now, terrorists have "won" -- it doesn't take an actual attack for them to affect us. We, as a society, should root out the causes of terrorism and attempt to fix them, but must accept that there will always be people who are looking to kill us.

--janak

p.s. "How to fix terrorism" is, of course, a politically-heavy discussion, and one I think is probably not well-suited for this board, so I'll leave it at that. ;)

Janak Parekh
08-11-2006, 03:29 PM
Did anybody actually bother to check the TSA/DHS/FAA websites?
You're right -- this is not currently an issue for North Americans not flying to the UK, but it is an issue for the British, and it's an interesting academic discussion nevertheless.

--janak

drowe
08-11-2006, 03:30 PM
Seriously there has to be some kind of line when limiting personal freedoms for the sake of terrorism or else soon there will be mandates turning our reality into something out of George Orwell's book 1984.


I really don't buy sensasionalist statements like that. If existing security measures mean I can safely arrive at my destination, then I'm happy. If restrictions applied encroach my own sense of safety or freedom then I'll choose an alternative mode of transport, or simply not travel. That's my choice and my right.

The problem is that they are using "terrorism" as an excuse to take away our rights because they are too "politically correct" to admit there are NO blonde, blue eyed terrorists! Target the men from the middle east. It's not "unfair", it's reality.

rocky_raher
08-11-2006, 03:37 PM
Seriously, does it occur to anyone that this is actualyl a goal, albeit a minor one, of the terrorists. Surely that want to terrorize us by killing us, but failing that, they are stripping us of our personal freedoms and in some cases dignity.

I disagree with this nonsense. "If we have to implement more security, the terrorists will have won!"

No, the terrorists' goal is not to make us take off our shoes and walk through metal detectors. The terrorists' goal is to KILL US!!!!

Terror comes from being blown to bits, not from having to put our lipstick and toothpaste in our checked luggage.

They are called "terrorists," not "inconveniencists."

Janak Parekh
08-11-2006, 03:38 PM
The problem is that they are using "terrorism" as an excuse to take away our rights because they are too "politically correct" to admit there are NO blonde, blue eyed terrorists!
Except there most definitely are caucasian terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_mcveigh).

Let's avoid the sociological/political aspects of the problem on this board, and focus on the technology, please. It's too complicated to solve here, and we'll devolve into another political debate. Thanks!

--janak

Janak Parekh
08-11-2006, 03:40 PM
The terrorists' goal is to KILL US!!!!
Not necessarily. For instance, cyberterrorists' goal is to attack computers or technology in general and cause damage. There's also things like ecoterrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecoterrorist). There are a lot of folks who'll settle for "economic damage", because it has much of the same effect.

If you look at the root of the word, the goal is to "cause terror" -- whichever way is effective. Killing is certainly one effective way, but is not the only one. People whose only goal is to blow things up could be described by other words, such as bombers (suicide/kamakaze or otherwise).

--janak

rocky_raher
08-11-2006, 04:11 PM
Here's what I see may happen in the near future:

Airlines and passengers will adapt. Airplanes will stock disposeable toothbrushes and samples of toothpaste, contact lens fluid, lipstick, etc.

If all carry-on is banned, planes will expand their supply of magazines and in-flight entertainment.

If laptops and PDAs are banned, first class and business class seats will be equipped with keyboards and LCD screens. Just before a flight, you FTP any files you have to work on to a secure account accessible on board, then FTP them back to your computer after landing. Or perhaps those USB memory sticks will be permitted, even if laptops are not.

Farther into the future, I believe checked baggage will be the next focus. It's been pointed out often that there is no practical way to effectively screen all checked baggage. So, to reduce the threat of bombs in checked luggage, passengers and luggage will travel in separate aircraft. Obviously, it is impractical to check bags when you board and pick them up shortly after you land if they fly separately. Thus, you will have to check your bags the day before. Yes, this is _very_ inconvenient. However, we will adapt. The package delivery companies will expand into luggage service. They will come to your home the day before your flight, pick up your bags, and deliver them to your hotel. (No more baggage carrosels!) This idea will defeat any attempt to have a bomb in checked baggage detonate at a specific point in flight. You (and the terrorists) would have no idea which aircraft your bags will travel on, when they
will be in flight, or even if they travel by air or by train.

Yes, travel will be much more of a hassle in the near future. But we will adapt.

PDANEWBIE
08-11-2006, 04:12 PM
If restrictions applied encroach my own sense of safety or freedom then I'll choose an alternative mode of transport, or simply not travel. That's my choice and my right.

It should also be your choice and your right to use a mode of transportation without them imposing undue restrictions that are put in place based on fear to the point where your rights are affected.

Janek is right. I also think that yes you have the RIGHT to not fly but this right has then been FORCED on you. The alternate option instead is flying but complying with a LONG list of negated items that are being added as knee jerk reactions to terroristic threats.

So the next terrorist that comes on with knitting needles and stabs someone now knitting needles are not permitted? When does it stop? What happens when this then gets applied to boats and then trains and all other forms of mass transit? Where do we stop saying this is okay to "lock down" and take away our freedoms just because a minority of people are determined to be fanatical in their actions?

There has to be a line between living your life on a daily basis and then living your life in a state of fear and limiting what you do because your afraid of what others will do. Personally I am afraid one of these days the regulations are going to cross that boundry.

rocky_raher
08-11-2006, 04:47 PM
The terrorists' goal is to KILL US!!!!
Not necessarily. For instance, cyberterrorists' goal is to attack computers or technology in general and cause damage. There's also things like ecoterrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecoterrorist). There are a lot of folks who'll settle for "economic damage", because it has much of the same effect.
--janak

I've heard teenage kids who spray-paint offensive graffiti referred to as "terrorists." If you wish, you may expand your definition of terrorism to include people who inconvenience us by going through the express line at the grocery store with 13 items ("expresso-terrorists"). I am only concerned with those who aim for a large body count.

Janak Parekh
08-11-2006, 04:53 PM
There has to be a line between living your life on a daily basis and then living your life in a state of fear and limiting what you do because your afraid of what others will do. Personally I am afraid one of these days the regulations are going to cross that boundry.
Well, as rocky_raher and SteveHoward imply, there is one saving grace: if flight becomes so much of a hassle, I do think many people will stop it (at least for casual travel -- I, for one, hate travel and would stop all non-business flying if it got to such an extent). As such, it is in the airlines (and the airline lobby's interest) to see that some reasonable balance is achieved.

Here's what I see may happen in the near future:
Eminently practical post! I have to be honest, though, and say I hope it doesn't go nearly this far. Reasonable safety should be achievable without ridiculously long ban lists. People in the airline industry have pointed out how arbitrary the censorship of some items are (e.g., plastic utensils).

--janak

Ed Hansberry
08-11-2006, 05:21 PM
Did anybody actually bother to check the TSA/DHS/FAA websites?

Electronic items can be carried onboard...

http://tsa-7.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tsa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=254&amp;p_created=1155227254&amp;p_sid=qzRZiPei&amp;p_lva=&amp;p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0xNiZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9JnBfcHY9JnBfY3Y9JnBfcGFnZT0x&amp;p_li=&amp;p_topview=1
Great link. Yesterday though, they were actually banning books and newspapers on some flights.

Paragon
08-11-2006, 06:05 PM
Terrorists don't actually need to carry out anything any more. All they need to do is come up with half baked ideas, find a few twisted individuals, convince them to try to carry out the plan. Then let the most important part of the plan take place. Let it be discovered. When this happens our world leaders p their pants and go completely overboard. Completely disrupting our air travel. Its an incredibly bright strategy, really.

I honestly believe that if anyone thinks you can bring down a plain with a bottle of soda and an Ipod have been watching too many Coke/Mentos, video clips. ;)

Peace and happy tavel to everyone.
Dave

pmgibson
08-11-2006, 07:26 PM
One, there was no attack. So we are not watching in horror and thinking about the victims. Thus, we are free to a) be glad and grateful that we avoided a 2nd 9/11 and b) figure out how to travel with the current restrictions.

One thing to consider -- even if these restrictions are eased in a few days or weeks, there's nothing to say similiar incidents won't happen again and similiar restrictions won't be put back in place. This means that we not only need to think of preparing to start our travels under these restrictions, but to have them imposed mid-trip. What will you do if you are traveling home (say from China where you've just adopted a baby girl) and you change planes somewhere in Europe and find that everything but your passport and some baby food has to be checked in the simple, non-padded, backpack you are carrying. (See, I'm a paranoid type -- I haven't done this yet, but will in the next few months, so I'm thinking about contingencies)

I, like others, would be concerned about putting a laptop, PDA, camera, or just about anything else in checked luggage. I suspect there are some baggage handlers who treat luggage viciously on purpose just because they can. In fact, having known a young man who used to work as a package handler at UPS, I'm sure of it.

I also would not want to travel without at least my PDA -- I have a very good taste of it today -- I forgot to grab the PDA from it's cradle this morning before leaving for work and I feel like I have half a brain. If that much.

My practical side is trying to think of ways to work around the restrictions. Not "beat" them and sneak something aboard, mind you. But have my electronics at my destination in some fashion that complies with the regs. (Yeah, I'm big on complying with these regs -- the TSA website says that taking a forbidden item TO (not through, but to) a security checkpoint, EVEN ACCIDENTALLY, is illegal.)

So, lets see if we can come up with ways of accomplishing the task.

1. Would a laptop, PDA, camera, etc. be protected in a hard case of some sort inside a regular piece of luggage surrounded by your clothes? I'm guessing there are all sorts of ruggedized cases available on military supply/surplies websites. What about cases that are used to transport firearms?

2. What about shipping an item via FEDEX or UPS (my earlier comment notwithstanding) to your destination hotel? Again, perhaps protected in a hard, metal case inside the shipping box.

3. Playing sudoku on paper to get my mind flexible again so that I can do without the PDA. (Ok, yes, this one is a joke to lighten things up)


The only other thing I've thought of is that when making travel reservations, in addition to flight, rental car, and hotel, we are also going to have find the nearest Walmart just in case the airline loses the toothpaste and antiperspirant that now has to go in the checked luggage.

I'd welcome any other ideas folks have on getting your electronics to travel with you legally.

hamishmacdonald
08-11-2006, 07:28 PM
This could have degraded into yet another internet shouting match, but instead it elicited some lucid thinking (including a few ideas for some great speculative fiction). I'm really impressed with the majority of the discussion here.

Thanks, folks. Yet another reason why this is a great website.

PocketGoddess
08-11-2006, 07:39 PM
Very good points! I hadn't considered what to do if the restrictions are relaxed at some point and then tightened again *during* a trip!

I think the best bet is to ship things ahead, if possible, though that can get expensive depending on what you need to send--and that's assuming you have someone (hotel, business, friend, etc.) to receive it on the other end.

I'd do that before I'd actually pack any of my mobile gear. I don't worry about protecting it, thanks to OtterBox (those things really are indestructible) but I am worried about loss or theft.

And about the possibility that someday bikinis/Speedos will be required for all airline passengers. Only the supermodels would get anywhere! :lol:

pjtrader
08-11-2006, 07:54 PM
I have to admit that I felt the utmost sympathy to the British travelers yesterday who weren't even allowed to carry a old-fashioned paper book onboard their flights yesterday. It made my selfish thoughts about "what, no laptop/DVD Player/iPod/PPC" seem petty in comparison. I jokingly suggested they may need extra air marshals for flights these days for bored and cranky passengers.

Quite honestly, it wouldn't hurt my feelings a great deal if carry-on baggage were permanently reduced to a more manageable amount, like one laptop sized bag per person. But that's a personal pet peeve of mine...

And yes, as of today the TSA has not restricted electronic devices in the US. However, given the ease of using a cell phone to detonate a bomb it's not unreasonable to foresee a time when these devices are banned.

So it did get me to thnking, how can we protect essential electronics if we can't carry them on-board? What do we expect the airlines to be able to provide for us?

Some idea:

- Padded and locked storage boxes that we hold the keys to until arrival?
- Special "porters" who must sign for custody of equipment as it goes through the baggage process?
- Automatic insurance for checked equipment?

pmgibson
08-11-2006, 08:15 PM
Well, as rocky_raher and SteveHoward imply, there is one saving grace: if flight becomes so much of a hassle, I do think many people will stop it (at least for casual travel -- I, for one, hate travel and would stop all non-business flying if it got to such an extent). As such, it is in the airlines (and the airline lobby's interest) to see that some reasonable balance is achieved.
--janak


See I've wondered since 2001 if the technology for video conferencing wasn't going to take a dramatic rise in quality. It won't sub for *all* business travel but it will for a significant portion.

I also wondered if some entrepreneur wasn't going to figure out a business model for public centers where small businesses could hold video conferences without having to invest in the tele/video infrastructure. For the price of airline tickets, you could hold a video conference - documents can be emailed or ftp's or some such.

So, I agree, the airline lobby will work hard for reasonable restrictions. I know many folks like their iPods and videos during flights. I'm happy with books and magazines (and snoozing -- have to take sinus meds anyway and with them I sleep whether it's noisy or not). So I could do without using my electronics during the flight if I could just be sure some guy in baggage handling wasn't going to bounce them off the wall just 'cause he's in a bad mood that day. Maybe alot of people would come to feel that way and that would become the reasonable restriction.

And, let's face it, many of us are Americans. We don't like restrictions. It's part of our national character and has been since that famous tea party in Boston. But we're going to have to live with some restrictions -- it's up to "we, the people" as to the level of restrictions. So we vote, we stop flying if we don't like the restrictions, and we voice our concerns in forums like this. Some of us will have ideas that become new business services and products that make the restrictions more palatable. And we move on.....

pmgibson
08-11-2006, 08:19 PM
And about the possibility that someday bikinis/Speedos will be required for all airline passengers. Only the supermodels would get anywhere! :lol:

You know, if you put me in a bikini, the terrorists will probably commit suicide. Problem solved. :D :D :D

pmgibson
08-11-2006, 08:23 PM
I apologize for the double posts about the video conferencing thing. After I submitted the first time, my internet connection errored out. When I went back to the post, I realized that I had done the egocentric thing and forgotten that many folks on this forum are NOT Americans. So I changed my wording to reflect that and submitted again, and voila, two almost identical posts.

If the admins want to delete the first one (the egocentric one), I wouldn't mind at all. :)

Tye
08-11-2006, 08:30 PM
Here's what I see may happen in the near future...

I was about to express very similar thoughts. I think it's time we call Burt Rutan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Rutan and ask him to develop an add on "sky trailer" for all of the luggage. It will just fly behind the airliner with all the baggage.

In reference to everyone who has said that it's their choice whether or not they want to risk their lives with reduced security (paraphrased there), I must respectfully disagree especially when air travel is the method. If an airliner crashes onto a neighborhood or, say, into a building, the people not in the plane had no choice. It has been proven that an airliner can be a formidable weapon.

***long quote edited down by mod JD***

SteveHoward999
08-11-2006, 10:54 PM
The point of terrorism is to create fear and - oh what is the word ... - oh yeah, terror. The point is that they do things to encourage the belief that you never know when or where they might strike next.

I find the posts form Americans rather funny, since they gripe and whine about freedoms, yet you can't buy a simple 6-pack of beer without being hounded for ID unless you look over 35. SHEESH!

I stand by what I said earlier. We have the ability to make choices no matter where we live about how and where we live, where we work, how we travel, and, indeed, if we travel at all. There is nothing that forces us to use public transport to get to work. There are viable alternatives, including changing your job! If you are not up to making such a decision, don't cry to me about personal liberties. As far as I am concerned, making the choice not to be a corporate slave and opting out of the daily commute was the most powerful exercise of my right to freedom and choice that I have ever made. No one is stopping you making similar choices.

Meantime, the terrorists scare the weak, get the mouthy to spout weird political and social ideas, and get all of us distracted from our daily lives in some way or another. Job done. And they didn't even have to light a match this time.

See - I'm spouting nonsense too :-)

Janak Parekh
08-11-2006, 11:37 PM
This could have degraded into yet another internet shouting match, but instead it elicited some lucid thinking (including a few ideas for some great speculative fiction). I'm really impressed with the majority of the discussion here.
Me too. :)

Quite honestly, it wouldn't hurt my feelings a great deal if carry-on baggage were permanently reduced to a more manageable amount, like one laptop sized bag per person. But that's a personal pet peeve of mine...
I'm the opposite. What little travel I do tends to be short trips, and the convenience of carry-ons, especially on arrival, is amazing. I tend to pack pretty light (gadgets excluded :lol:) and really, really detest checked-in luggage. I have a standard airline-sized carry-on on wheels, and it suffices for up to a week of travel. I'll be a little cranky if I have to give that up. :)

--janak

Janak Parekh
08-11-2006, 11:45 PM
I apologize for the double posts about the video conferencing thing.
Fixed!

It has been proven that an airliner can be a formidable weapon.
I'm not so sure -- I have an interesting theory in this regard, actually. Airlines used to be formidable weapons and/or negotiating tools, thanks to the fact that the traditional passenger model of handling a terrorist takeover was to do whatever they said (usually, sit still) in the hopes they would let them survive. (I remember being in a stopover in Dubai in the 80s, and being forced to sit in an shut-off airplane with the door closed and locked in stifling heat while they refueled, to prevent the chance of a terrorist takeover.)

After the first three flights on 9/11, though, I think pretty much any airline takeover -- especially on this side of the world -- will ensure an immediate and significant passenger uprising, knowing they may die anyway... essentially eliminating that as a terrorist strategy.

I stand by what I said earlier. We have the ability to make choices no matter where we live about how and where we live, where we work, how we travel, and, indeed, if we travel at all.
While that's mostly true, there's also the expectations of non-corporates, such as family. Sure, I could be heartless and avoid weddings, funerals, etc. But that's not always a reasonable choice to make (despite the fact I find many weddings tedious ;)).

--janak

Paragon
08-12-2006, 12:02 AM
I'll be a little cranky if I have to give that up. :)

--janak

Ditto. I really dislike checked baggage. It is very time consuming, and will be much, much worse if we are left with no option of using carry on.

As well, when flying, I read a lot. I have not picked up a paper book since before I owned a Palm III. I don't look forward to not being able to read in flight.

Dave

Jason Dunn
08-12-2006, 12:11 AM
A few thoughts from me:

- I see that patrickj has already apologized for being too harsh, so I won't respond to that post. I will say, however, that my intent was not to say that my need to listen to music on a plane is more important than the lives and safety of others. I was trying to convey, perhaps poorly in that hastily-written post, that music/movies/writing makes travel tolerable for me, and that if I wasn't able to do those things, I would seriously reconsider traveling. In particular, I love travel photography, and I'd probably change my destination if it meant I could take my camera with me.

- I think almost everyone is willing to put up with a certain level of inconvenience in order to enhance the safety of flying. Longer security lines? Ok. Having to arrive early to go through extra steps? Ok. Taking off your shoes, belt, etc.? Ok. Having your bags searched? Ok. But at some point, the math says that 80% more security measures for 1% more security just doesn't make sense.

- I'm no expert on terrorism, nor do I play an expert on TV, but it seems to me that once a terrorist group tries a certain ploy, and it's foiled, they won't try it again, and thus all the bans become a problem only for the airline passengers.

- I'm very happy to see the intelligent level of discourse in this thread. This could have been a very explosive, political discussion, but for the most part everyone is being well behaved. ;-)

haesslich
08-12-2006, 04:04 AM
Well, I see one major problem with the approach the UK has taken, including the banning of PAPERBACK BOOKS on the plane - any person who's smart and dedicated enough will find ways around these restrictions, so the inconveniences that are imposed on the passengers may very well force a change of habits among the flying public, including a reduction in the number of people willing to fly... thus possibly causing further monetary woes for the airline industry, already battered by the sharp rises in fuel costs as well as the changes imposed on the airlines in the post-September 11th period.

How far is too far? In my opinion, they've pretty much skated right to the edge and are sliding beyond it into the realm of the ludicrous - does anyone remember Mr. Reid and a certain shoe-bomb? Did they forbid passengers from wearing shoes onto airplanes? No. In fact, they've let their passengers keep their clothes, even though Mr. Reid (who was also flying from Britain to the United States, from what I remember) attempted to blow up his plane with them. But now they're afraid that everyone with an iPod, PDA, or laptop is a terrorist with an agenda to kill their fellow passengers? I had thought the original precautions with 'turn the thing on and make sure it worked right' guidelines worked well enough. Yes, I can understand them banning certain items (liquid-based toiletries, spray cans, etc) because of the potential for a hazard... but they're going beyond what I'd consider acceptable and decent.

The FTP solution is a useful one, assuming Internet access exists on the other side, and that special software isn't required to display or use the data at the other site. However, this brings up security issues regarding information; it means you're either opening up your network to outside access (again, this is an issue because the more points of entry you create means that you're introducing more vulnerabilities to exploit), or else you're just leaving possibly classified or proprietary data open to be stolen, altered, or otherwise modified. This also assumes that the amount of data being taken from the FTP site or the like isn't excessive; if it's a Powerpoint presentation, then this is nothing - if it's about 30GB worth of graphics, plans, and programs... then we're looking at a problem, especially if you need another 400-700MB worth of program to access the data at the remote site. Hardware may also be a problem for the remote site, depending on where it is - if I'm going to Uganda, I can't assume they'll have all the gear I need or the access to the programs I need, much less the internet connection required to download all that data present when I need it.

In the end, I do expect more teleconferencing for anything but the most critical of meetings - video teleconferencing would be better, if they could solve the bandwidth and equipment issues which it currently involves. This would save the companies money and time, as well as be more convenient for those who previously would've had to travel... but be yet another blow to the airlines, whose dependence on the business traveller class has grown over the past 15 or so years as rising airfares have taken a bite out of the number of vacationers willing to pay a bit extra to travel in style (and who are more likely to wait for a seat sale anyways).

Perhaps the money the airlines could bring forth (and the lobbyists they can hire) may change the way the rules work in the future. But for now, I expect more ham-handed approaches to security; about the only way I could really see them securing flights is to keep passengers unconscious, restrained, travelling in what are effectively cargo flights with no clothing or extra baggage, after scanning them thoroughly and giving them body-cavity searches to ensure they're not carrying explosives or other weapons in certain places. Otherwise, they're going to have to make compromises SOMEWHERE.

karen
08-12-2006, 04:27 AM
My cynical predictions:

- Air Canada and United will announce next week that they can no longer afford to offer free sodas due to increased demand. So they will be charging $4 for a can of sode and $7 for mixed drinks so that they may better serve their customers.

- Gadgets will be banded, except for parents with infants, business class passengers and company employees.

- Carry ons will be limited to what fits in a sandwich-sized ziploc bag

- Checked luggage allowances will be lowered to zero bags, with a $20 fee for each bag that you need to check, in order to better serve their customers.

- Duty free shops will move off airport, but offer FedEx shipping to your destination. Then they will go out of business for lack of traffic.

- Terrorists, starting yesterday, will now switch to their original plan, which was to bring on solid explosive componets, using them while TSA staff is focused on grandma's denture cream and a semi-dried up grape in the bottom of my briefcase.

- All these ineffective rules, with giant loophole, will cause the bad guys just to be less obvious with their threats, making it harder and harder to detect.

The only 100% confident solution to keeping terrorists from using commercial planes is to just stop having commercial flights. All this other stuff is just lipstick on the safety pig.

And I fly weekly, so I'm not just making this up. Ok, I am, but it seems to make sense to me.

SteveHoward999
08-12-2006, 04:29 AM
Well, I see one major problem with the approach the UK has taken, including the banning of PAPERBACK BOOKS on the plane - any person who's smart and dedicated enough will find ways around these restrictions, ...

How far is too far? In my opinion, they've pretty much skated right to the edge and are sliding beyond it into the realm of the ludicrous - does anyone remember Mr. Reid and a certain shoe-bomb? Did they forbid passengers from wearing shoes onto airplanes? No.

The problem is that if they do not take such apperantly extreme precautions, you or someone else will be screaming and demanding restitution for their stupidity and carelessness. Plus, hundreds or thousands of people would be dead, and many more will be mourning. In spite of the outcries over infringement of freedoms, the ultimate removal of freedom - death - isn't something that can be fixed.

As for the shoe bomber - I guess you must have missed the requirement to remove your shoes in many (or all?) airports for much of the last two or three years. Of **course** they didn't stop people wearing shoes or cloths. Instead they learnt how to detect possible issues with shoes so they could deal with any anomolies. The same will happen in response to the recent scare, but it will take a little time.

Meantime the sensationalists will have a ball.

Paragon
08-12-2006, 04:36 AM
My cynical predictions:

- Air Canada and United will announce next week that they can no longer afford to offer free sodas due to increased demand. So they will be charging $4 for a can ............................................................................................................
The only 100% confident solution to keeping terrorists from using commercial planes is to just stop having commercial flights. All this other stuff is just lipstick on the safety pig.



Ha! As silly as that all sounds it is all completely within the realm of possibility.

Dave

SteveHoward999
08-12-2006, 04:44 AM
As for the shoe bomber - I guess you must have missed the requirement to remove your shoes in many (or all?) airports for much of the last two or three years. Of **course** they didn't stop people wearing shoes or cloths. Instead they learnt how to detect possible issues with shoes so they could deal with any anomolies. The same will happen in response to the recent scare, but it will take a little time.

Funny, 10 minutes after I wrote this, a news report on tv showed advanced X-ray machines that can detect anomolies in liquids and suggest that a piece of baggage should be opened and investigated.

So can the sensationalists please sit down? Normal service will return shortly :-)

haesslich
08-12-2006, 06:26 AM
As for the shoe bomber - I guess you must have missed the requirement to remove your shoes in many (or all?) airports for much of the last two or three years.

No, I haven't missed the requirement, but notice that people are STILL allowed to bring their shoes on the plane - they just have to take them off and let them get examined. Why should this be any different from a cell phone, PDA, or MP3 player? Both can be used to carry explosives, and both have fairly simple tests to see if they're explosive - use sniffers on them, turn them on, and then look them over before returning them. They don't demand that people leave their shoes in the luggage compartment, so why leave the PDAs and laptops there? They can be examined just as easily, or relatively so, as the shoes which Mr. Reid tried to trigger several years back.

Still, it's one thing to examine the electronics - I'm all in favor of that, as my post noted. It's just the outright banning of them in carry-on which I am against, since in the end it won't change all that much - I can think of a few other ways to smuggle a bomb onto a plane, although it'd be slightly more difficult without a laptop to hide the circuitry required for an electronic detonator. Chemical ones are still an option, in which case I could probably find some other way to bring them onto the plane.

In the end, I do expect things to change - either they'll unban the electronics and start examining them again, as they were prior to the U.K. incident, or else airlines will continue to lose business as companies turn more and more towards telepresence and other technologies to replace travelling to remote locations. I suspect both will happen, sooner or later - and I'm actually looking forward to more use of telepresence and teleconferencing, if only because it'll save the hassle of jet lag, physical travel and all that involves, the extra time lost moving to and from the airport, and the financial savings from not having to pay for gas, transportation, etc.

The restrictions that were put in regarding paperback books and PDAs, on the other hand, I find somewhat less amusing. It's a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't help anyone in the end - using better techniques to figure out what's legit and what isn't, employing the technology they have in more efficient ways or replacing it with better gear, and educating their security crews are better deterrents than just banning a whole class of items from an airplane's passenger compartment. I'm expecting them to release those bans soon enough, because otherwise.. well, I'd hate to imagine the mocking they'll get for declaring paperback books and iPods to be deadly weapons.

***long quote edited by mod JD***

heliod
08-12-2006, 08:49 AM
The problem is that they are using "terrorism" as an excuse to take away our rights because they are too "politically correct" to admit there are NO blonde, blue eyed terrorists! Target the men from the middle east. It's not "unfair", it's reality.

This is wrong thinking, although in general would match some 90% of the cases. In case you remember the Israeli hijacked plane in Entebbe, a great part of the terrorists were German, blonde, blue-eyed.

And one of the terrorists that managed to make the greatest damages in Israel, killing dozens of people in an attack at the arrivals hall at the Tel-Aviv airport was..... Japanese. And in the last years there are many cases that involved women as well.

So, although you can do profiling and focus on the people with biggest probability to be the target, you have to be very careful with two things:

1. Not to be hard and treat badly people that have nothing to do with terror just because they fit the profile.

2. Not to let pass unharmed a terrorist just because he doesn't fit the profile.

This is the dilemma. Most western countries, including mine, don't know how to deal with that. Just three or four days ago we have had a missile in Haifa that killed some 4 people and wounded more than one hundred; later, we saw a report on TV showing that our air-force had identified that launcher 3 hours before the launch and was about to blow it apart, but the mission was aborted at the last minute because there were "children playing around the launcher". Most people here can imagine why these children were playing there and who has put them exactly there to play.

So, it is very difficult for all of us to find the way to deal with that, since our cultural logic is different from theirs. I believe that security services in the UK and in the US do the best they can according to Western logic and rules of morality. But it is much more complicated than it looks.

***long quote edited by mod JD***

Marcel_Proust
08-12-2006, 02:35 PM
This is wrong thinking, although in general would match some 90% of the cases. In case you remember the Israeli hijacked plane in Entebbe, a great part of the terrorists were German, blonde, blue-eyed.

I think this is post exactly right in all its points. We are working with a fundamentlaly different logic in regards to life and the fate of the human organism.

I am worried this could be the future of air travel. And if you'e brave enough to look at the pictures, it ain't pretty:

http://www.naked-air.com/

***long quote edited by mod JD***

Jason Dunn
08-12-2006, 05:15 PM
Let me play site admin here for a minute by going off topic and encourage all the participants of this thread:

http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=41934&amp;highlight=excessive+quoting

Please take just a moment and before you post a message, quote only what you need to in order to make your point. Everyone reading this thread on a mobile device thanks you! :D

heliod
08-13-2006, 05:54 AM
I think this is post exactly right in all its points. We are working with a fundamentlaly different logic in regards to life and the fate of the human organism.

Our biggest morality problem is that sometimes we have to deal with the choice of disrespecting human rights from one side (and sometimes even killing) in order to achieve human rights in the other. And then, the question that rises is "where we should draw the lines".

For example, from my previous post, I could ask if the lives of those 3-4 Lebanese kids playing around the launcher (on orders from Hezbollah) are worth more than the lives of the 4 Israelis that were killed by the rocket sent from there.... but then, if we bomb the launcher knowing that there are innocent people around, don't we become like them?

So where is the line drawn when it comes to fighting terror? We know that their morality rules are completely different from ours... But where will the world be 10 years from now if we let them drag us to their standards? And yet, will the world be able to win this war (yes, it is a war, and a global one) using our own standards without getting dragged to a place where human life is worth nothing?

Paragon
08-13-2006, 08:48 PM
Hey Helio...longtime.

I hope you are not in harms way there. Be cool, and stay safe. :)

Dave

PDANEWBIE
08-14-2006, 01:27 PM
And yet, will the world be able to win this war (yes, it is a war, and a global one) using our own standards without getting dragged to a place where human life is worth nothing

Unfortunately this is a war that has no "winning" to it. There will always be fundamentalists and radicals out there that are more than willing to trade innocent life for their beliefs. What we as a society need to decide is where is our line and stick to it. We don't let them goad us into unecessary actions and those actions we take CANNOT be kneejerk reactions. They have to be carefully decided upon and evaluated.

My concern is that there isn't enough deciding and evaluating and that this is all being done in a knee jerk reactionary manner. When this gets done we ultimately end up losing as much as the terrorists.

heliod I like your scenario - it brings home the fact that while you fight in a war there is no winning. I really don't like our inccursion overseas but at the same time I also can see why we are there. Ever since 9/11 we have been standing on a double edged sword since we decided to make an presence in the middle east and now I fear we don't have the proper leadership to get us out of the spot we have put ourselves in (with a little help from rash decision making due to the terrorist attacks on our soil).

I also have to say though that alot of us in America are ignorant when it comes to what we are actually doing over there and alot of people lump Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda all together. I wish more people would realize that these are all majorly different struggles going on.

What I have to wonder is now us trying Saddam a good thing because YES he had attrocities but at least he had an accord to keep the terrorists in his region in line partially.

This in itself makes me sad due to the fact that I am forced to wonder if keeping a semi-tyrant in rule is a good thing. What has our world come to when you think keeping someone who is like Saddam in power may have been the best thing to do?

SteveHoward999
08-14-2006, 05:50 PM
This in itself makes me sad due to the fact that I am forced to wonder if keeping a semi-tyrant in rule is a good thing. What has our world come to when you think keeping someone who is like Saddam in power may have been the best thing to do?

The CIA has been playing that game for decades. You don't want to go there. The world would be a better place if politicians were not allowed to poke there noses into other countries, with or without the aid of secret police.

Janak Parekh
08-14-2006, 07:15 PM
The CIA has been playing that game for decades. You don't want to go there.
Yeah, we'll devolve into unsolvable, immensely complex yet lame politics. ;)

The world would be a better place if politicians were not allowed to poke there noses into other countries, with or without the aid of secret police.
It's that old adage about power corrupting. Politicians were once human... :|

Anyway, back ontopic: the good news is that the threat level is slowly dropping. Whether or not it's merited, I think the UK will eventually have to allow electronic devices back on the plane. Of course, I may be wrong, but that's my gut feeling... there's just too many business travelers out there that'll ditch the airlines, especially the European flights, in favor of travel or remote work options that don't have such restrictions -- and these business travelers are typically the ones who pay top dollar for their first-class seats.

--janak

Philip Colmer
08-14-2006, 07:25 PM
The UK threat level got reduced overnight. Travellers are now allowed ONE carry-on bag, and that can include electronic devices but NO liquids.

More here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4789593.stm

Because of the complexity of the rules, BAA (the company that runs the bigger airports in the UK) said that they would be sticking with no carry-on luggage today, but would go with the change from tomorrow morning. That was because of the announcement coming in overnight.

I suspect that there will still be flights being cancelled, though, simply because the security checks take so long. For the budget airlines especially, this causes problems with their timetable so the flights get scrapped.

Apparently they are now reducing the number of passengers being searched - down from 100% to 50%.

--Philip

haesslich
08-15-2006, 01:16 AM
Anyway, back ontopic: the good news is that the threat level is slowly dropping. Whether or not it's merited, I think the UK will eventually have to allow electronic devices back on the plane. Of course, I may be wrong, but that's my gut feeling... there's just too many business travelers out there that'll ditch the airlines, especially the European flights, in favor of travel or remote work options that don't have such restrictions -- and these business travelers are typically the ones who pay top dollar for their first-class seats.

--janak

That's pretty much what I said - although I can agree with the ban on liquids for now... even if it'll make it kinda difficult for some passengers who require certain things (especially the diabetics). I guess they realized what sorta problems it would involve if they permanently banned the guy who pays $2000 for his seat from bringing along his PDA cell phone on the plane with him.

heliod
08-15-2006, 06:07 AM
if it'll make it kinda difficult for some passengers who require certain things (especially the diabetics). .

The ban is not on all liquids. I am soon travelling to Latin America via the US and have received yesterday the new rules. They seem quite logical, banning almost everything that is alcoholic or explosive, but allowing things like baby-food and others. I am quite sure that someone with a medical condition that requires some specific medicine (like diabetics and insuline) will not find very big problems to go into the plane.

Regarding all the political issues raised before, this is quite right: most of the countries create the monsters that they have to deal with later. The US has created most of the Latin American military dictatorships in the past in order to prevent the success of communism in the area and later had to deal with them. Israel is not better in this area. Let me say it with all words: we have created the HAMMAS! Yes, some 20 years ago we helped the organization of the Hammas as a local movement that would challenge the leadership of Yasser Arafat who was in Tunisia and create a pragmatic leadership that would bring to a creation of a Palestinian country living side-by-side with Israel. Nobody imagined then that the Hammas would become a fundamentalist terror organization, but at the moment you begin creating a group to oppose a terrorist group, it should be quite clear that this must be some kind of a terrorist group itself.....

Again, the problem exists and will still exist for many years. And many times we will still come out of conflicts feeling that different interests have caused the UN to save terror organizations from defeat.

Even if different groups have different interests, I believe that the only way of getting out of this cycle is having the whole western world understanding that we are not talking about localized conflicts anymore. When you talk about terror, this is a global problem, and if not treated immediately by every country from the same point-of-view (eliminating it), it will get to everybody's home sooner or later, no matter if in the last round their country just defended the countries that support terror. Today's friend may be tomorrow's victim just because it is a country in which it is easiest to base the operation. This is one thing that some countries in Europe still haven't learnt. The lesson that says that "Fearing that you might be the next victim might just create the conditions for you to be the next victim".

So, we must deal with this internal conflict: on one side, not to ignore the danger and to give it the best possible treatment so that it doesn't spread around; on the other, act with the maximum of conscience in order not to let them drag us to be just like them.

Difficult? Surely yes. Possible? I believe it can be done. But then, only when the modern world begin acting as a unique front, clean of interests, hidden-agendas and hypocrisy.

haesslich
08-16-2006, 03:59 AM
In the U.K., last I looked, all liquids are still banned from the passenger areas, with only prescription medicines in the person's name being allowed onboard. This would mean things like water bottles (which aren't a problem, if the airlines carry them) as well as things like meal replacements (important for insulin-using diabetics who HAVE to keep their blood sugar steady), from what I recall.

Still, I'm glad they're starting to take the more sensible approach of scanning and watching the people who are going on, rather than just banning items outright - especially since part of the reason air travel became popular was the convenience -and- speed. For business-class fliers, not having access to their laptop, PDAs, or cell phones in carry on would've been a major turn-off on such travel, and it appears that the point was made.

Paragon
08-16-2006, 04:24 AM
I'm a diabetic and take insulin. Insulin is not a drug that comes in a package with your name and other info on it. They are going to have quite a time telling the millions of diabetics who travel that they must check their insulin. Even on a short flight, my insulin stays with me. I'm not about to trust the airlines not to loose something as important as that.

In Canada the reports are that the ban on liquids is now permanent, but little has been publically stated concerning electronics. Has anyone had any experience yet? I also wonder if drinks bought behind security are all right onboard?

Dave

Philip Colmer
08-16-2006, 07:49 AM
In Canada the reports are that the ban on liquids is now permanent, but little has been publically stated concerning electronics. Has anyone had any experience yet? I also wonder if drinks bought behind security are all right onboard?

Dave
For flights from the UK, you are allowed to buy drinks behind security. However, if you are then flying to the US, you are not allowed to take them onboard. I believe you are if the flight is going anywhere else.

--Philip

Paragon
08-16-2006, 09:04 PM
Thanks, Philip