Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Security Transportation United States Hardware Technology

US Imposes Stricter Security Screenings At Foreign Airports, But Won't Expand Laptop Ban Yet (theverge.com) 64

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The United States will require foreign airports to implement stricter security practices and screenings for any passengers headed to the U.S. John Kelly, the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security, announced today that the new measures were being put in place. Though he didn't go into specifics, Kelly said the new requirements would include further screenings of electronics, more thorough vetting of passengers, and measures meant to stop "insider attacks." The U.S. is also encouraging the use of more bomb-detecting dogs, "advanced checkpoint screening technology," and the addition of "preclearance" locations, which station U.S. customs officers overseas, allowing them to screen passengers before boarding instead of after they land. One thing Kelly didn't announce was an expansion of the tablet and laptop ban, which is currently in effect on flights from 10 airports in the Middle East and North Africa. If airports don't comply with the new screening rules, Kelly said, they may be subject to additional electronics bans. But for the time being, it sounds like the ban will be kept to those 10 locations. According to Reuters, airlines have 21 days to comply with the new rules for explosives screenings and four months to comply with everything else.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Imposes Stricter Security Screenings At Foreign Airports, But Won't Expand Laptop Ban Yet

Comments Filter:
  • So this means that every airport with US-bound flights needs to have a 2nd security checkpoint just for the US-bound gates ?

    • by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @06:47PM (#54708815)

      So this means that every airport with US-bound flights needs to have a 2nd security checkpoint just for the US-bound gates ?

      Many of them already do. When I flew from Munich to the US last time, I went through three different security screenings. And I'm not counting the interrogation that takes place before they even let you into the check-in line, or the outbound customs and immigration folks.

      • by TFlan91 ( 2615727 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @07:13PM (#54708969)

        Yea, Munich has quite the security whenever I visit home.

        Not all of them do though. Iceland is pretty relaxed, and they are ramping up flights to and from the States.

        However, this is pure ridiculousness. I absolutely hate traveling home, I'm going to hate it even more now and I'm an American. I can't imagine how many foreigners just won't even bother anymore.

        I'm not even sure I want to bring my hard drives for work any more. I encrypt them of course, but just the thought of an image they could spend limitless resources trying to break, for god knows what reason, I think I'll just keep stationary hard drives and find a more private and secure cloud service.

        • I'm scheduled to go to the US in April. We have put the trip on a wait and see list and are looking at whether the venue can be moved to another country.

          One of the people scheduled to attend had major issues going to the states in January because he is a Sikh and wears a turban.

    • In Australia they have at-gate screening for liquids, in addition to the general airside security screening for liquids, for US-bound flights. US-bound security has been this way for some years. The world has been bending over and taking it from the US for quite some time.
    • by Alioth ( 221270 )

      Many already do, many airports say "go to security at least 1 hour before your flight, or if your flight is to the US, at least 2 hours before your flight" or something similar to allow time for the second screening.

  • by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @06:42PM (#54708787)
    In the past ten years, there has been one successful plane bombing. [wikipedia.org] When the fuck are voters going to grow up and realize it's not something anyone should worry about?

    Something like 10,000 people are murdered with guns every year in the US, [fivethirtyeight.com] yet we hear NOTHING about banning laptops on guns!
    • When the fuck are voters going to grow up and realize it's not something anyone should worry about?

      Honestly, it's when the media stops showing stories about it all the time. We're pretty screwed for the foreseeable future on this issue.

    • The Most Important Question About ISIS That Nobody Is Asking: [zerohedge.com]
      Who is buying ISIS oil?

      U.S. General: West Created ISIS [americanfreepress.net]

      General Wesley Kanne Clark, Sr., former Supreme Allied commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during the war against Yugoslavia and presidential candidate, revealed recently on CNN that the Islamic State (ISIS) was âoefunded by our friends and allies in order to fight Hezbollah.â

      Top 10 Indications or Proofs ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation [toolsforfreedom.com]

      How the US Helped Create Al Q [counterpunch.org]

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      People are generally bad at assessing risks. Smart people can usually compensate by thinking about it, but most people are stupid. Hence most people are fearing entirely the wrong things. And politicians without a shred of personal integrity (the standard kind) are quick to take advantage of that.

  • by Hadlock ( 143607 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @06:50PM (#54708833) Homepage Journal

    I basically avoid airports now unless I am traveling more than 8 hours by car. It was barely worth it before, it's absolutely not worth it anymore. I submit to airport screenings for international travel, but travel is just miserable now, knowing you have to go through that degrading experience, and will have to do it again on the way home.

    • by antdude ( 79039 )

      What we really need is t(rans/ele)porters. :(

    • If and when the US has high-speed rail, TSA will be waiting for you at the train station. The only reason they don't do it now is that because AmTrak cannot afford to lose any passengers for a mode of transportation that costs more than flying and takes longer than driving.

    • I'm exactly the same way these days. I've traveled across the country by car just to avoid having to deal with security theatre.
  • This is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)

    by t4eXanadu ( 143668 ) <t4exanadu@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @07:09PM (#54708943)

    Because if I were a terrorist who wanted to reach my target in the US, I would just fly out of another country that isn't on the list. Maybe even one with less strict security. Problem solved. So, explain to me how this is going to protect us?

    • Re:This is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sit1963nz ( 934837 ) on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @08:11PM (#54709223)
      If the government actually wanted to protect "people" they would be:
      Tightening up on Medical procedures, Death by medical misadventure kills hundreds of thousands in the US each year.
      Tightening up on motor vehicle safety and driver safety which kills tens of thousands in the US each year
      Tightening up on pollution which kills tens of thousands in the US each year
      Tightening up on sugar which kills tens of thousands in the US each year
      Tightening up on Gun control which kills about 15,000 a year
      etc etc etc then we get to
      Provide better protection against lightening strikes which kills more US people than terrorism
      Provide better protection against shark attacks which kills more US people than terrorism
      Provide better protection against tipping vending machines which kills more US people than terrorism

      The security theatre has zero to do with making US citizens safer, it is simply part of the system where by they over hype the problem, offer a solution and use that to actually remove peoples rights to freedom and privacy .

      Scared people will listen and obey anyone who seems to offer a solution that will make them "safe" , even when that means giving up their rights.
      People are stupid.
      • I totally agree to the general idea of your post, but I think you are wrong about shark attacks. On average 19 Americans are attacked by sharks yearly resulting in 0.5 fatalities.
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      A laptop/device still with an interesting user is of more value for device/OS alternation given "random" plausible reasons for physical access or questions.
      The ability to get access to all images, video, accounts, request passwords, the chat down is more interesting than having people know they have to travel without any devices.
      Getting a person to lie when questioned about any or some aspect of the device use, history.
      More questions can asked, help requested. No gov methods or gov intelligence has to b
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The worst part is that other countries react by introducing the enhanced screening for everyone, not just people flying to the US. So now even if I'm going somewhere that doesn't buy into the security theatre, there is a chance they will want me to go into the strip search machine. Then I have to explain that I can't for medical reasons, blah blah, eventually get sexually assaulted by some bloke and go on my way.

  • Technically they can't require foreign airports to do this. However, they can stop planes there from coming to the US, so it will be done.

"To IBM, 'open' means there is a modicum of interoperability among some of their equipment." -- Harv Masterson

Working...