Support NeoGAF

[Syriel]

An incident on Jet Blue 915 from JFK to SFO yesterday illustrates what pretty much every tech expert has been saying: lots of lithium batteries in the cargo hold are a bad idea if one does catch fire, as one did on B6 915.

Thankfully the laptop in this case was in the passenger compartment, had it been in the cargo hold, the damage could have easily been a lot worse.

But hey, security theater to please the masses, right?

On Tuesday, JetBlue Flight 915 from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport to San Francisco was diverted to Michigan after a lithium-ion battery in a device in a passenger's bag caused a fire.

It's an occurrence that exposes one of the major dangers experts have associated with the Trump administration's ban on large electronics in the cabins of certain airliners.

There have been persistent concerns about the increased risk of cargo fires caused by lithium batteries in the bellies of commercial airliners.

"Lithium-ion batteries are inherently volatile," Michael Mo, the cofounder and CEO of KULR Technologies, told Business Insider earlier this year. "It's statistics. It's not a matter of if, but a matter of when, one of these things blow."

According to Mo, who specializes in thermal-management systems for batteries, it's better for the batteries to be in the cabin as opposed to the cargo hold. He said that when a fire happens, "it's better to have humans nearby to react and put out the fire."

Source:
http://www.businessinsider.com/jetb...landing-lithium-fire-danger-laptop-ban-2017-5

 

[KingSnake]

This is exactly what I said in one of the threads concerning this ban. Having several laptops/tablets in the cargo with their lithium-ion batteries is just an accident waiting to happen. The propagating fire from them would be catastrophic. And it's probable to happen sooner and/or more often than a bomb hidden in a laptop.

 

[Tranqueris]

Honestly, this feels like a scenario with a ton of shitty options. One on hand there's laptop fires, on the other hand, there's trusting that the TSA can manage to actually catch one of these new laptop bombs that have people so worried.

 

[Dyle]

Hopefully this will help convince DHS/TSA to not go through with this stupid ban and direct resources towards measures that actually keep planes safe

 

[tearsintherain]

I thought it should be pretty obvious why it wasn't stupid, but I guess not. Imagine they found a camp where ISIS was experimenting with replacing components of a laptop with bomb equipment. What should airline/intelligence service response should be?

The smart thing to do would be to immediately ban laptops from all airplanes until they figure out what exactly ISIS is trying to do, and verify that current screening procedures account for it. It may be something trivial like they have replaced half of the battery with C4 and a detonator, and existing C4 chemical detectors would cover it. Done, don't really need to change anything as scanners will pick up the explosives. So a few days later lift the ban.

What if its however a new mix of chemical explosives that isn't detected by current scanners? Need to update the scanners to account for the new bomb mix. Or a million other scenarios. In any case, you first ban the laptops, work out if there are any holes in your system, then let laptops back on.

This isn't a situation of "WELL ISIS HAD LAPTOPS SO LAPTOPS MUST GO". I'm sure there are thousands of things terrorists are trying out, and a small group of people have to decide what is an incredibly dangerous, credible threat and what isn't. Backseat coaching by the general population isn't going to help much, and while I'm sure some would like more information I'm not sure open sourcing all potential terrorist threats is that smart. Trump isn't the one who directly saw real time feeds of ISIS camps and decided laptops had to go, hopefully it was someone high up the intelligence chain. Clearly they were playing around with something, it was worrisome enough that they had to temporarily ban it to make sure there weren't any security holes ISIS was exploiting, and I'd guess (although they will probably never confirm) that steps have been taken to close any loopholes.

and guess what, this isn't going to be the first or last time. Hell, just using an airplane as a missile was a huge loophole that can never 100% be closed, and I'm sure there are hundreds more that we won't know about until they get taken advantage of. Not much different from computer zero day exploits, but much more deadly.

 

[MUnited83]

Honestly, this feels like a scenario with a ton of shitty options. One on hand there's laptop fires, on the other hand, there's trusting that the TSA can manage to actually catch one of these new laptop bombs that have people so worried.

The TSA is useless and has been useless for a shitload of time, new laptop bombs or not. They don't stop or catch anything.

They have a mindblowing 95% failure rate in tests ( https://www.google.pt/amp/s/amp.cnn...undercover-airport-screening-tests/index.html ) . They are nothing but security theater.

 

[Kettch]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does putting laptops in the cargo hold prevent laptop bombs? They have to be set off manually for some reason?

 

[stuminus3]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does putting laptops in the cargo hold prevent laptop bombs? They have to be set off manually for some reason?

The important thing is that people don't think about that.

 

[pelicansurf]

So is this ban in effect or is it just being mulled over?

 

[Syriel]

I thought it should be pretty obvious why it wasn't stupid, but I guess not. Imagine they found a camp where ISIS was experimenting with replacing components of a laptop with bomb equipment. What should airline/intelligence service response should be?

The smart thing to do would be to immediately ban laptops from all airplanes until they figure out what exactly ISIS is trying to do, and verify that current screening procedures account for it. It may be something trivial like they have replaced half of the battery with C4 and a detonator, and existing C4 chemical detectors would cover it. Done, don't really need to change anything as scanners will pick up the explosives. So a few days later lift the ban.

If the ban isn't stupid, please explain why not?

If we assume that there is a legitimate risk, that TSA cannot catch, then how does requiring said laptop bomb be placed in the cargo hold (along with a whole bunch of other devices with Lithium batteries) reduce any risk for the plane in question?

Remember, the Trump admin did not ban laptops and tablets from flights. It only banned them from the passenger cabin. They're still letting the potential bombs on the planes. Meanwhile, the risk of catastrophic fire has been increased for every other flight.

It's not like the Trump admin said "Hey, here's a threat, you can't bring them on the plane at all."

In other words, a single Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (which was rightfully banned), is a greater risk to an airplane than one of the potential laptop bombs in question in the eyes of the government, as the former is completely banned, while the latter is still allowed in the cargo hold.

 

[numble]

I thought it should be pretty obvious why it wasn't stupid, but I guess not. Imagine they found a camp where ISIS was experimenting with replacing components of a laptop with bomb equipment. What should airline/intelligence service response should be?

The smart thing to do would be to immediately ban laptops from all airplanes until they figure out what exactly ISIS is trying to do, and verify that current screening procedures account for it. It may be something trivial like they have replaced half of the battery with C4 and a detonator, and existing C4 chemical detectors would cover it. Done, don't really need to change anything as scanners will pick up the explosives. So a few days later lift the ban.

What if its however a new mix of chemical explosives that isn't detected by current scanners? Need to update the scanners to account for the new bomb mix. Or a million other scenarios. In any case, you first ban the laptops, work out if there are any holes in your system, then let laptops back on.

This isn't a situation of "WELL ISIS HAD LAPTOPS SO LAPTOPS MUST GO". I'm sure there are thousands of things terrorists are trying out, and a small group of people have to decide what is an incredibly dangerous, credible threat and what isn't. Backseat coaching by the general population isn't going to help much, and while I'm sure some would like more information I'm not sure open sourcing all potential terrorist threats is that smart. Trump isn't the one who directly saw real time feeds of ISIS camps and decided laptops had to go, hopefully it was someone high up the intelligence chain. Clearly they were playing around with something, it was worrisome enough that they had to temporarily ban it to make sure there weren't any security holes ISIS was exploiting, and I'd guess (although they will probably never confirm) that steps have been taken to close any loopholes.

and guess what, this isn't going to be the first or last time. Hell, just using an airplane as a missile was a huge loophole that can never 100% be closed, and I'm sure there are hundreds more that we won't know about until they get taken advantage of. Not much different from computer zero day exploits, but much more deadly.

Except the policy is not to ban laptops, it is to force you to check them in so they sit in the cargo hold.

 

[andymcc]

I thought it should be pretty obvious why it wasn't stupid, but I guess not. Imagine they found a camp where ISIS was experimenting with replacing components of a laptop with bomb equipment. What should airline/intelligence service response should be?

The smart thing to do would be to immediately ban laptops from all airplanes until they figure out what exactly ISIS is trying to do, and verify that current screening procedures account for it. It may be something trivial like they have replaced half of the battery with C4 and a detonator, and existing C4 chemical detectors would cover it. Done, don't really need to change anything as scanners will pick up the explosives. So a few days later lift the ban.

What if its however a new mix of chemical explosives that isn't detected by current scanners? Need to update the scanners to account for the new bomb mix. Or a million other scenarios. In any case, you first ban the laptops, work out if there are any holes in your system, then let laptops back on.

This isn't a situation of "WELL ISIS HAD LAPTOPS SO LAPTOPS MUST GO". I'm sure there are thousands of things terrorists are trying out, and a small group of people have to decide what is an incredibly dangerous, credible threat and what isn't. Backseat coaching by the general population isn't going to help much, and while I'm sure some would like more information I'm not sure open sourcing all potential terrorist threats is that smart. Trump isn't the one who directly saw real time feeds of ISIS camps and decided laptops had to go, hopefully it was someone high up the intelligence chain. Clearly they were playing around with something, it was worrisome enough that they had to temporarily ban it to make sure there weren't any security holes ISIS was exploiting, and I'd guess (although they will probably never confirm) that steps have been taken to close any loopholes.

and guess what, this isn't going to be the first or last time. Hell, just using an airplane as a missile was a huge loophole that can never 100% be closed, and I'm sure there are hundreds more that we won't know about until they get taken advantage of. Not much different from computer zero day exploits, but much more deadly.

Banning all laptops from all flights? Not even in checked in luggage? That would literally kill the primary use of international flights for most people.

 

[Gallbaro]

Honestly, this feels like a scenario with a ton of shitty options. One on hand there's laptop fires, on the other hand, there's trusting that the TSA can manage to actually catch one of these new laptop bombs that have people so worried.

Or you can just accept that dying in an airplane crash or terrorist attack is an extremely low possibility (in the USA) and sucks for those that do but once the flight deck was locked we did all we needed to do.

Banning all laptops from all flights? Not even in checked in luggage? That would literally kill the primary use of international flights for most people.

I have already bought four laptops in four different countries that just sit there.

A long with a bunch of duty free American cigarettes.

 

[Lord Error]

Honestly, this feels like a scenario with a ton of shitty options. One on hand there's laptop fires, on the other hand, there's trusting that the TSA can manage to actually catch one of these new laptop bombs that have people so worried.

The laptop bomb, if smuggled successfully, will go off in the cargo hold, just the same as it would in the passenger cabin. Moving it from one place to another in an airplane does not provide a solution to a bomb problem. Essentially, this just leaves us with one shitty option - the one that inconveniences a ton of people, while at the same time increasing danger from legitimate laptop battery fire and explosion.

 

[GuyKazama]

It seems like a small bomb must be placed in a specific location (article cites fuel line) to actually take down the plane, which would explain the reason to ban carry-ons.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/whats-really-behind-trumps-laptop-ban-214943

 

[Diablos]

The laptop bomb, if smuggled successfully, will go off in the cargo hold, just the same as it would in the passenger cabin. Moving it from one place to another in an airplane does not provide a solution to a bomb problem.

Exactly.

 

[Slayven]

The TSA is useless and has been useless for a shitload of time, new laptop bombs or not. They don't stop or catch anything.

They have a mindblowing 95% failure rate in tests ( https://www.google.pt/amp/s/amp.cnn...undercover-airport-screening-tests/index.html ) . They are nothing but security theater.

Has the TSA ever been useful is the question?

 

[Dyle]

I thought it should be pretty obvious why it wasn't stupid, but I guess not. Imagine they found a camp where ISIS was experimenting with replacing components of a laptop with bomb equipment. What should airline/intelligence service response should be?

The smart thing to do would be to immediately ban laptops from all airplanes until they figure out what exactly ISIS is trying to do, and verify that current screening procedures account for it. It may be something trivial like they have replaced half of the battery with C4 and a detonator, and existing C4 chemical detectors would cover it. Done, don't really need to change anything as scanners will pick up the explosives. So a few days later lift the ban.

What if its however a new mix of chemical explosives that isn't detected by current scanners? Need to update the scanners to account for the new bomb mix. Or a million other scenarios. In any case, you first ban the laptops, work out if there are any holes in your system, then let laptops back on.

This isn't a situation of "WELL ISIS HAD LAPTOPS SO LAPTOPS MUST GO". I'm sure there are thousands of things terrorists are trying out, and a small group of people have to decide what is an incredibly dangerous, credible threat and what isn't. Backseat coaching by the general population isn't going to help much, and while I'm sure some would like more information I'm not sure open sourcing all potential terrorist threats is that smart. Trump isn't the one who directly saw real time feeds of ISIS camps and decided laptops had to go, hopefully it was someone high up the intelligence chain. Clearly they were playing around with something, it was worrisome enough that they had to temporarily ban it to make sure there weren't any security holes ISIS was exploiting, and I'd guess (although they will probably never confirm) that steps have been taken to close any loopholes.

and guess what, this isn't going to be the first or last time. Hell, just using an airplane as a missile was a huge loophole that can never 100% be closed, and I'm sure there are hundreds more that we won't know about until they get taken advantage of. Not much different from computer zero day exploits, but much more deadly.

What's stupid about this ban is that laptops are going to be on the plane anyway. They aren't in anyway preventing them from being on the plane, they are just moving them from the passenger area to the cargo hold. While this would potentially lessen causalities in some cases, as the blasts would be further from passengers, it would also make it extremely difficult to put out and prevent the damage from taking down the entire plane. If a laptop is in the passenger hold it could be extinguished before irreparable damage could be done.

If the threat was legitimately that serious, you would be correct in saying that they should be banned entirely, but that seems unlikely to be the case given the TSA's statements and would cost travelers millions of dollars per day. What the TSA is rumored to be doing would actually increase the amount of risk to travelers while not stopping any potential weapons from getting on the plane.

 

[Oppo]

But hey, security theater to please the masses, right?

I don't know where this idea came from, in this instance. No one asked to have their laptop taken away.

A lot of airport security (Most?) is theater, but this is just wildly unpopular AND ineffective.

 

[Stinkles]

Trump is responsible for most harm in the world, but this is TSA based on real intelligence - they can make a working laptop with some fake and some real innards, that functions as a small bomb and potentially cause massive decompression/failure in the air.

As checked bags there's no guarantee it will puncture the plane's skin, or overwhelm internal fire extinguishing. A person would need to place the laptop up against the interior fuselage or a window to do the most directed damage.


Banning laptops is reaction to something that really exists. Ultimately we have to decide as a society if we're willing to take that risk. Banning laptops is a stopgap measure. They will come up with other plans to defeat security. This is just an evolution.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Honestly, this feels like a scenario with a ton of shitty options. One on hand there's laptop fires, on the other hand, there's trusting that the TSA can manage to actually catch one of these new laptop bombs that have people so worried.

Put all the laptops in a special fireproof bin.

 

[suaveric]

It seems like a small bomb must be placed in a specific location (article cites fuel line) to actually take down the plane, which would explain the reason to ban carry-ons.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/whats-really-behind-trumps-laptop-ban-214943

Bingo. Here's another article that explains it a bit more: http://www.ubergizmo.com/articles/why-laptop-ban-airplane/

The bottom line is that with a small bomb, it matters a lot more about where it would go off inside a plane. If it's in the baggage hold, the terrorist has no control over where the actual explosion would happen and that can make all the difference.

 

[Lord Error]

As checked bags there's no guarantee it will puncture the plane's skin, or overwhelm internal fire extinguishing. A person would need to place the laptop up against the interior fuselage or a window to do the most directed damage.

I still think that wouldn't solve anything - if they know the laptops will go into cargo hold, they'll just put bigger explosive into a bigger laptop. Hell, when it's in the checked luggage, it's likely they don't even have to care anymore whether laptop works or not - it's very doubtful every one of the luggages will be opened and laptop inside inspected to see if it works.

Either way though - I think that legitimate laptop catching fire in the cargo hold, and the chain reaction it could cause, is far more likely to occur than a terrorist attack - so it's a more serious threat to be considered.

 

[Daedardus]

Honestly, this feels like a scenario with a ton of shitty options. One on hand there's laptop fires, on the other hand, there's trusting that the TSA can manage to actually catch one of these new laptop bombs that have people so worried.

But how powerful are these laptop bombs? Since the laptop needs to be able to turn on, the bomb can't be greater than a normal-sized battery. That makes it just powerful enough to have a chance at blowing a tiny hole in the fuselage and leave some burn marks and hearing damage on the people surrounding the bomb. You're better off by puncturing all your batteries that you took with you and making a fuss in the cabin and beating some people up.

 

[Gallbaro]

Ultimately we have to decide as a society if we're willing to take that risk. .

I accept the risk. Maybe my TSA/Customs bribe will let me have a day of productivity while traveling around this rock.

 

[dark10x]

Honestly, this feels like a scenario with a ton of shitty options. One on hand there's laptop fires, on the other hand, there's trusting that the TSA can manage to actually catch one of these new laptop bombs that have people so worried.

...OK, so a bomb like that goes on board in the cargo hold versus the cabin - I'm not sure there would be much of a difference in the outcome based on where it detonates.

As checked bags there's no guarantee it will puncture the plane's skin, or overwhelm internal fire extinguishing.

...OK, maybe not.

 

[shem935]

Yeah the move to the cargo hold is to get potential bombs away from fuel lines.

 

[Gallbaro]

Yeah the move to the cargo hold is to get potential bombs away from fuel lines.

Yea, cause those laptops will get to the cargo hold lol.