DHS Cites 'Credible Threat' As Reason For Forcing Travelers To The US To Hand Over Powered-Up Devices To Airport Security

from the new-searches-and-screenings-because-reasons dept

Tue, Jul 8th 2014 5:34am — Tim Cushing

The Department of Homeland Security still has the power to control the world's airports, or at least those of our Five Eyes' spying allies. New DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson issued the following statement on July 2nd.

DHS continually assesses the global threat environment and reevaluates the measures we take to promote aviation security. As part of this ongoing process, I have directed TSA to implement enhanced security measures in the coming days at certain overseas airports with direct flights to the United States. We will work to ensure these necessary steps pose as few disruptions to travelers as possible. We are sharing recent and relevant information with our foreign allies and are consulting the aviation industry. These communications are an important part of our commitment to providing our security partners with situational awareness about the current environment and protecting the traveling public. Aviation security includes a number of measures, both seen and unseen, informed by an evolving environment. As always, we will continue to adjust security measures to promote aviation security without unnecessary disruptions to the traveling public.

The key part is in the second sentence: "enhanced security measures." The unspecified threat the DHS is reacting to has added a new requirement for passengers taking direct flights to the United States. In short, you'd better make sure all your electronics are charged before you reach the security checkpoint or you quite possibly won't be going anywhere.

Heathrow Airport has told passengers to ensure all electronic devices carried as hand baggage are charged before travel if they are flying to the US.

It posted details of the new rule on its website and Facebook page.

The move follows a request from the US that "certain overseas airports" implement enhanced security measures. The UK government has also revised its rules to state that if a "device doesn't switch on, you won't be allowed to bring it on to the aircraft".

Anyone who has absentmindedly allowed a battery to discharge will still have several options, according to Heathrow officials. They can use airport "charging points" to bring their devices back to life or stash them in stowed luggage. They can also mail the device to themselves if they don't mind being separated for a little extra time. This all sounds very accommodating, but simply having a drained device can place you under suspicion.

Affected passengers have been told they may also have to undergo extra screening measures.

There also seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the DHS and the affected airports as to which devices are subject to the new "charged and operable" standard. The TSA says "some devices, including mobile phones," but fails to be any more specific, exactly the sort of vague, malleable direction the TSA is fond of. Heathrow's list of electronics includes hair dryers, electric shavers, cameras and mp3 players and the wording below the list says nothing more than "make sure your electronic devices are charged before you travel."

This vagueness from everyone involved isn't a good sign. Having to present devices not normally inspected by security personnel and power them up lends itself to "incidental" device searches. The heightened suspicion of devices in general doesn't help. And wherever this "credible threat" the DHS cites in support of this move actually originates, it's apparently hoped that it will route itself through Germany, France or the UK. At this point, no other countries offering direct flights to the US have agreed to the additional security measures.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: batteries, devices, dhs, electronics, powered on, terrorism, threats, tsa

88 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 3:53am

I'm trying to find a reason why a device that doesn't power up due to a drained battery should be suspicious. Sure, the battery may have been replaced by a pack of explosives (excuse me, I'll be using my double layered tinfoil hat now) but that's easily checked: plug the device to an outlet for a few minutes and power it up. If there's any fear it will explode do it in some protected chamber. But are we really that paranoid that current security measures don't suffice?

When some alien archaeologists come they'll really believe cellphones were used as weapons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 5:50am
  
  Re:
  "Sure, the battery may have been replaced by a pack of explosives... but that's easily checked: plug the device to an outlet for a few minutes and power it up."
  
  According to what the article says, they're already doing this, minus the protective chamber part. Oh, and that suspicious device is also OK in stowed luggage, apparently.
  
  Did you perhaps expect a credible screening process rather than an extra bit of theatre?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 5:56am
  
  Re:
  It's easily checked by waving the wand that they wave over CPAP machines. I'm really, just when you think the TSA couldn't go any lower in terms of security theatre, they prove you wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:27am
  
  Re:
  Given the cramped internals of modern phones, fitting a small bomb into it could require removing some of the internals. Note that a thumb sized piece of Semtex is enough to bring a plane down, but that consumes more space than is empty in many modern devices.
  Putting devices that do not power up in the hold is slightly suspicious, unless they have definite intelligence about a suicide bomber, as a timer can be very small.
  This is not to say that the opportunity for some extra searches will not be used, or some vague intelligence is providing an excuse for some extra searches.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    Slight suspicious? Really? I'd be screwed. I usually drain the battery of my phone while waiting for a flight (playing games). How many planes have been exploded recently again? Is it really worth it? If the guy really wants to suicide they'll stick some explosive that's hard to detect in their asses/stomachs and just blow along with the plane. No amount of security will stop a determined person unless it's total surveillance: cavity exams, body x-rays and everything that is most invasive.
    
    Pitiful.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mason Wheeler (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 10:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I usually drain the battery of my phone while waiting for a flight (playing games)
      
      I usually make sure it's plugged in to my laptop while doing anything like that. Having my phone drained would be a horrible thing for me, because that means I can't turn it back on when we land to check for messages. :P
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 10:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I usually carry extra batteries for my phone when traveling. That's one of the reasons I won't buy a phone that doesn't let me replace the battery.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrTroy (profile), 9 Jul 2014 @ 12:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        While I feel this is a good and insightful point, the fact that external battery/chargers are significantly cheaper than internal batteries AND hold a much larger charge has led me to go that route. Incidentally it ameliorates the replaceable battery problem, but only until the battery NEEDS replacing because of age.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David, 8 Jul 2014 @ 3:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I usually drain the battery of my phone while waiting for a flight (playing games).
      
      And that's why TSA wants to ensure that the battery of a suicide bomber's phone will last until the plane has landed safely and everybody left.
      
      Who in his right mind would blow himself up while he still has a highscore to beat?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    Note that a thumb sized piece of Semtex is enough to bring a plane down
    
    Note that Semtex can be detected by the X-Ray scanners they have been using for the last 1/2 century.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David, 8 Jul 2014 @ 10:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, telling apart Semtex and chocolate via X-ray can be pretty difficult, and there are a number of other substances which have similar properties.
      
      Now Semtex is annoyingly inert, so what you want to be looking for on your X-rays are strange wires and the rather distinctive standard detonators used with it.
      
      I'd expect "sensible terrorists" to revert to different chemicals that are easier to blow up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Don Joe, 8 Jul 2014 @ 7:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think I might be able to fit some of this new type of explosive in the empty space of my 1980s walkman. I bet I'll even be able to listen to music afterwards.
    
    Also, if you were planning to take a walkman with you on an airplane, better do so before the NSA sends this comment to the DHS.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael, 8 Jul 2014 @ 8:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Those things are just copyright infringement tools anyway. The DHS will be arriving in SWAT gear (probably leased from a privately owned SWAT organization) to get that from you shortly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 8 Jul 2014 @ 7:18am
  
  Re:
  I'm trying to find a reason why a device that doesn't power up due to a drained battery should be suspicious
  
  I am wondering why a device that does power up is suddenly off of the suspicious list.
  
  Stupid rules like this make it easier to get things through the screening process because rather than checking if a device is full of, you know, explosives or weapons, they start to focus on whether or not it functions.
  
  It would not be difficult to take the guts out of an old IBM Thinkpad, replace it with components 1/4 of the size, and have a device full of empty space that powers up just fine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dav, 8 Jul 2014 @ 11:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd expect that it's easy enough to replace the large batteries in a ghettoblaster by a stack of mercury cells in one of the batteries and explosives in the rest. The mercury cells will be sufficient for powering up the thing for a demonstration.
    
    Now of course a ghettoblaster is not common enough to receive no extra scrutiny these days, but you get the drift.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael, 8 Jul 2014 @ 11:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Plus, the thrifty terrorist would not want to pay the extra $150 for a "bulky" carry on.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - martyburns (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 4:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      +1 for getting to talk about ghetto blasters.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - orbitalinsertion (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 9:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They want ten more "reasons" to give the public to rifle through your electronics and read the data when they randomly feel like it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vidiot (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 8:32am
  
  Sounds familiar
  The "power up" thing has generated quite a buzz, pardon the expression, but I clearly remember a time when that was pretty much standard -- don't fly with a device that wouldn't switch on. For us TV people, it meant don't pack the broadcast-camera batteries in the checked luggage... keep at least one with the carried-on camera. Can't say when that policy was ever rescinded, actually.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violynne (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 4:00am

FAA: Turn off all devices.

DHS: Turn on all devices.

Our wonderful government is so screwed up, they can't even give the same instructions to its people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 5:43am
  
  Re:
  I think the goal is to have so many rules that one loses sight of them, and as many conflicting rules as possible. The goal is to have something on everyone, to eliminate the bother of finding due cause.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jaack65 (profile), 9 Jul 2014 @ 8:28am
  
  Re: FAA DHS Then FCC
  The FCC says most devices must accept any type of interference but were not thinking of any TSA official INTERFERENCE.
  Must I leave my underwear behind(pun intended) if it has skid mark or evidence of explosive discharges? My shoes might be excessively worn too are they next? Where does it stop???
  
  Follow El Al airlines security. They don't have hijackings, are less invasive of children and their security really works. But they pay their security people a very good salary, live depend on the quality of their work!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marvin (profile), 9 Jul 2014 @ 5:51pm
  
  Re: Bureacratic self contradictory admisnstrative law
  How can they do this without a jury of my peers?
  
  Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
  
  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sheogorath (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 5:24am
    
    Re: Re: Bureacratic self contradictory admisnstrative law
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.
    And isn't that just what you get at US airports nowadays, trial by groping in full view of the public?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 5:48am

They're just doing their best to create a voluntary no-fly list. I know I have no desire to fly under the TSA's rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 5:57am

Cell phone bombs? Didn't screening machines become advanced enough to detect explosives over say a lithium polymer cell?

Yes, indeed they have. This is nothing but security theatre all over again. The lazy way out. "Does it turn on?"

Why not just eliminate public passenger flight in the US entirely and get it over with, because sooner or later every airline there will go bankrupt due to the excessive regulations as nobody will want to fly them anymore.

Oh, the government will bail them out? Thats makes it okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:03am

Meanwhile the former head of MI6 had a nice bit to say about government and media hyperbole - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10952585/Pathetic-Britons-in-Syria-and-Ir aq-do-not-pose-threat-says-former-MI6-chief.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 10:18am
  
  Re: 'pathetic' characters
  He's got a point. The Daily Mail has an article about a couple of numpties who bought "Islam For Dummies, the Koran For Dummies and Arabic For Dummies from Amazon" before heading off to a war zone.
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2684714/I-tell-I-m-going-jihad-Lol-I-ll-arrested-What-B ritish-terrorist-Birmingham-told-childhood-friend-travelled-Syria-join-rebel-fighters.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ThatFatMan (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:13am

Maybe TSA is french...

Agence de Sécurité Theater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Seegras (profile), 9 Jul 2014 @ 2:19am
  
  Re:
  DHS, Department of Hokey Security?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sheogorath (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 5:27am
  
  Re:
  No, not French. TSA actually stands for Security Theater Agency.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nathan Brathahn (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:15am

no body cavity search?
I thought three letter agencies could do better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 9:05pm
  
  Re: no body cavity search?
  Just to make sure there are batteries all up in there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manok, 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:17am

Another thing to worry and be nervous about, when traveling. Osama doesn't scare many, but the security itself does.

I also highly doubt whether there are new/extra charging points available on the airport. But I suppose tere aren't. Mailing service? On the other side of the airport, with of course limited opening hours. And with an airport price tag.

If they wanted to do it right, they would have charging points right where the inspection is, including the chargers themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RadioactiveSmurf (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:18am

Anyone else read the name Jeh and think it's a partial name? Apparantly it's a variant of Jay. Off topic I realize but that name just makes me pause everytime I read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BeeAitch (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 4:43pm
  
  Re:
  JEH
  
  Name of a female demon in a small number of Zoroastrian Middle Persian texts. The name of Jeh is commonly, but with little justification, translated as “whore.” It is the Middle Persian rendering of Avestan jahī- (or jahikā-). That word is used in a number of different meanings, but it appears to have originally meant “woman” and can still be recognized in this meaning in many Avestan passages...
  
  From (and more at): http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/jeh
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haggie, 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:20am

This is simply nonsensical. What if I have a corded electronic device?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:24am
  
  Re:
  You cannot apply sense to an organization like this...
  
  Terrorist... who uses cords these days?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:28am
  
  Re:
  What is a corded electronic device?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    A corded electronic device can be anything from an alarm clock, to an adult massage aid.
    
    "Airport Security Officer: it's a dildo. Of course it's company policy never to, imply ownership in the event of a dildo... always use the indefinite article a dildo, never your dildo."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 11:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh crap... what if the TSA is nothing but a figment of our collective imagination, projecting a repressed love of authoritarianism hidden behind our professed desire for civil liberty?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Sheogorath (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 5:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh crap... what if the TSA is nothing but a figment of our collective imagination, projecting a repressed love of authoritarianism hidden behind our professed desire for civil liberty?
        Unfortunately not. The DHS, TSA, and other intrusive three-letter agencies are the result of governments bringing George Orwell's 1984 to life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 10:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    A corded mouse. Also has plenty of space inside ? (I am not going to kill one of my old ones to check, I may need it and am cheap enough to keep them as spares). They need to check all mice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 2:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Normal-sized mice tend to have a fair amount of empty space in them unless they're antiques.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - orbitalinsertion (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 9:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    A device you can strangle 50 people with, almost instantly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:20am

Fly on commercial airlines sounds a lot like flying on Con Air. Except you have to pay for your ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris ODonnell (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:25am

If they were series about security the answer is simple.

No carry on anything allowed, and everybody flies naked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:35am
  
  Re:
  Not only no carry on, but no luggage whatsoever, it could contain a bomb.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - justok (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Rectum, stomach and intestines are not permitted either. You may mail them to yourself, 'tho.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 7:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So that's what "have your ass handed to yourself" mean.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 7:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    I've been doing this for over a decade now. I ship my luggage to my destination ahead of time through UPS. Originally, it was to guarantee my luggage wouldn't get lost. Now it's to avoid having it searched and exposed to the resultant threat of theft. Also, given the luggage surcharges that many airlines have now, it's not even much more expensive than checking a bag.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael, 8 Jul 2014 @ 8:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It would not be so expensive if the NSA didn't have to keep intercepting it to add recording devices.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 10:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And the irony is in order to get it to your destination, they still have to put it on a plane.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bt Garner (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:47am

I used to travel to europe a lot in the early 2000s, and this was standard practice at most places (Germany, Switzerland, UK) after 9/11.

They wanted you to power up your electronics to show that they still worked and that you had not replaced a component with some sort of incendiary device,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:50am

Look on the plus side
Maybe theft by TSA will go down if they believe they might explode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:51am

Who's the source for the "credible threat"? Lindsey Graham?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:56am

it's to look into your phone
The bomb-sniffers will catch your explosive-laden devices. Having your cellphone on means the TSA can browse your phone's data. Turned off, they can't without powering it up and presumably bypassing your passcode.

Keep your phones encrypted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 8 Jul 2014 @ 7:06am

This used to be routine in Britain in the 90s, but that was because the casing of a laptop from those days could hold a handgun and several spare magazines with room to spare if you stripped out the works. (Not to mention the fact that we had a real terrorist threat back then!)

But what the hell is the point in this now? Especially if it only applies to hand baggage, not stuff that's going in the hold? I bet you could still fit a decent-sized bomb or a few grand's worth of cocaine into a modern laptop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew Norton (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 7:12am

most credible threat to the US
It's been clear for years there is indeed a credible threat to the US. It's the Department of Homeland Security, including it's subsidiary, the TSA.

I think their actions have shown them to be more than credible threats to Americans and their freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SimonB (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 7:17am

What is next? When will they be happy?
Are we to have body cavity searches if we don't use the rest rooms and provide a receipt of material expelled?

When will they realise that this is exactly the kind of reaction that is desired? They want us to give up our freedoms? They want to impose capricious authoritarian laws. At the rate we are going we are going we are going to achieve all they want without them actually carrying out any further atrocities in Europe or the States.

I for one would like to see a reduction in the FUD and a near blanket removal of most of the pointless security checks introduced since 9/11, Richard Reid and the liquid bomb plot.

Lets face it most of the security measures introduced won't actually stop any of these happening again. I do say most as clearly making it much harder for high-jackers to enter the cockpit and therefore take over the plane. But the rest of it? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: What is next? When will they be happy?
  In reality, the powers that be are huge South Park fans and are trying to make http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s14e09-its-a-jersey-thing prophetic instead of funny. They are hoping if they push us far enough, we will start to see the terrorists as potential liberators instead of a threat.
  
  For the humor impaired, I'm being sarcastic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 7:37am

So, UK mentality is...

"Only terrorists have flat batteries."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 8:05am
  
  Re:
  No, the UK mentality is "we have to do what the US tells us to". Note that it's only flights to the US affected here. You can fly anywhere else through the UK without this restriction according to their own guidelines.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2014 @ 3:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    This article says otherwise.
    
    So does this one; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28223150
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 9 Jul 2014 @ 3:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, both say what I said they did:
      
      "The move follows a request from the US that "certain overseas airports" implement enhanced security measures."
      
      "But the Department for Transport (DfT) has now issued updated guidelines, saying: "In line with the US advice..."
      
      "American officials ordered some overseas airports with direct flights to the US to intensify screening of electronic devices last week."
      
      What do you think they say?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 8:28am

As part of this ongoing process, I have directed TSA to implement enhanced security measures in the coming days at certain overseas airports with direct flights to the United States.

Does that not reek of Empire, implying that the TSA has jurisdiction in foreign countries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TestPilotDummy, 8 Jul 2014 @ 8:32am

devices (TM)
I guess I just don't understand this one. With all the unemployed people, who can afford to have a mobile phone, let alone the cost of aircraft travel? But even with that unanswered to myself, pretending for a moment there's enough people that can afford it, the question is WHY do you still buy it when they spy on you? Why would you pay for something that is a named known spy target? In fact why are mobile services still not bankrupt? Should have been a global boycott by now. Oh that's right it wasn't on MSNBC so it ain't the truth yet.

Idiots. Stop Paying to be spied on.
I Say..
Let Ma Bell Burn in Hell.
Restore the US Constitution

With all the spying going on, you'd be better off with a two way radio instead. Your not giving bank account last four's "accidentally" over a radio, since you will be doing your business in person. And if ya got CB, then you don't really even need a name. Not to mention with anal oath breakers out there, there's no contacts, addresses, phones, etc., inside a CB for them to illegally search.

I know, repetitive rant, but that's why you love my posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 8 Jul 2014 @ 8:35am
  
  Re: devices (TM)
  Idiots. Stop Paying to be spied on.
  
  How did you mail in your comment? Does TechDirt have a special dropbox to send them to?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 8:55am
    
    Re: Re: devices (TM)
    Carrier pigeon. The USPS is known to snoop threw mail.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrTroy (profile), 9 Jul 2014 @ 2:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: devices (TM)
      Aren't all the carrier pigeon services covered by sattelites and drones nowadays?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
afn29129 (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 8:33am

unlock your device...
Unlock your device so we can search it's digital contents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 8 Jul 2014 @ 10:30am

Heathrow Airport Security
I went through Heathrow on the way back to the States and every 4th person had their carry-on set aside for a "random enhanced security" check. Took 45 minutes to get my carry-on through the security check point.

No reason given, just every 4th passenger. Seems to me it was the, "Your country started it!" friends of mine got when flying out of Germany.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 8 Jul 2014 @ 10:54am

Does anyone find anything about the DHS 'credible' these days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John85851 (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 12:36pm

What if the kids drain the battery?
On the one hand, I remember having to turn on my laptop when going through security before 9/11. So, asking people to turn on their device in theory is a sound idea.

However, what happens when a family charges their iPad, gets on a flight from London to New York, and their kid drains the battery while in flight?
Will the TSA let the parents charge the device or will they assume they're terrorists in disguise?

I'm sure the TSA will let them through, especially if they're a white family with a US passport. But heaven help the dark-skinned family coming from Iran through London to New York.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Case, 8 Jul 2014 @ 2:02pm

Anyone who has absentmindedly allowed a battery to discharge will still have several options, according to Heathrow officials. They can use airport "charging points" to bring their devices back to life

...and since the charger happens to be the USB port these days, it's only a matter of time till the NSA will start putting some extras into those kindly provided chargers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 9 Jul 2014 @ 1:36am
  
  Re:
  I'd have to dig around, but I'm pretty sure a good while back there was an article about pretty much exactly that happening at a security conference, where a group wanted to point out just how insanely easy it would be to compromise a bunch of electronic devices by helpfully offering 'charging' stations.
  
  Of course I'm sure such a stunt would never be used by the TSA or another agency working alongside them that would love to have access to countless electronic devices and the data on them... /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrTroy (profile), 9 Jul 2014 @ 2:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd have to dig around, but I'm pretty sure a good while back there was an article about pretty much exactly that happening at a security conference, where a group wanted to point out just how insanely easy it would be to compromise a bunch of electronic devices by helpfully offering 'charging' stations.
    
    I remember that one (the story, not the URL)
    
    http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/08/beware-of-juice-jacking/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sheogorath (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 5:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd have to dig around [...]
    That's just what the TSA wants to do, in your bodily 'cavities'!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 2:23pm

Coming soon the TSA will perform Anal Cavity Searching to enter Airports.

I avoid flying year round except the minimal parent visiting I have to do other wise I do not fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 3:46pm
  
  Re:
  I envy you. I have managed to whittle things down to 2-3 flights per year. I wish I could make it zero. Thanks, TSA, for turning something that is inherently fun into an even more expensive dystopian nightmare.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 4:18pm

Meanwhile....
The dumbasses can't stop the reckless or suicidal from becoming wheel well stowaways. Which means everything going on inside the airport is a complete waste of time when malevolent actors could simply wander onto the runway with a hand-truck containing a man-sized bomb and put it in the wheel well, then walk away and watch the news waiting for the breaking story about a plane exploding. Mission accomplished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2014 @ 4:30pm

Now even less interest in visiting the USA
Years ago, I made a decision to never visit the USA - it had gone bad to worse then. This just increases the justification of my arguments to never visit the USA.

Maybe we should start calling it the United States of Angst, a much more appropriate title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Seegras (profile), 9 Jul 2014 @ 2:43am
  
  Re: Now even less interest in visiting the USA
  I won't visit any states in which due process is not respected and people are subject to being fingerprinted and recorded by the police upon arrival.
  
  So I won't travel to North Korea, Turkmenistan or the USA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sheogorath (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 5:43am
  
  Re: Now even less interest in visiting the USA
  Maybe we should start calling it the United States of Angst, a much more appropriate title.
  Or the United States of Asshattery.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JMT (profile), 8 Jul 2014 @ 6:03pm

Classic security theatre
"Anyone who has absentmindedly allowed a battery to discharge will still have several options, according to Heathrow officials. They can use airport "charging points" to bring their devices back to life or stash them in stowed luggage. They can also mail the device to themselves..."

So if your electronic device is deemed too suspicious to be allowed into the plane's cabin, they give you the option of putting it somewhere else on the plane, or put it on another plane! How is this safer?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe K, 8 Jul 2014 @ 8:18pm

why assume it's about explosives?
Not that i know anything about it, but I would assume that the rule
has more to do with fingerprinting the devices in question.

Or something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 5:41am

What's the betting...
The next terrorist atrocity won't even involve an aircraft, it'll be committed in the now overcrowded departures lounge by someone without a ticket, who isn't a foreign insurgent, but a domestic one whose actions are driven by being groped a few too many times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2014 @ 11:35am

I will never visit USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]