What's next? No cameras allowed anywhere?

Ah yes, like laptops in checked-baggage cannot be outfitted with explosives that defy detection by HI x-rays. This is an utter joke, security theatre at its best. I don't know if those departure countries incorporate the newly devised, TSA's (here in the US), "hey baby, let me get a free feel or two whilst checking out your ***** for explosives, so the electronics ban may well only rank as #2 on the theatre list. 😀 😀 😀 😀
 
Of course, I hate these rules, but accept things that are necessary for safety.
But so far, this doesn't make a lot of sense.
Firstly, I don't understand why it is the airline and not the departure point that is important. I saw the exception for where the U.S. has pre-clearance at those airports, but in Toronto, anyway, that doesn't involve a second screening of carry-on. Security checks at airports are not usually for one airline and not for another. (Maybe there is something about the information collected and or verification procedures by some airlines and not by others that would explain this.)
Secondly, why the flexibility in when the airlines can implement the policy. I think the British one said up to 96 hours; is that based on information that terrorists aren't doing anything for the reset of this week.
I've always been one to believe: don't check anything you don't want to lose (via theft or carelessness or incompetence or whatever.) Glad I'm not planning to travel for a while.
 
Steve M. said:
With this White House every day brings something new. I wasn't aware of this because I finally had to stop reading the newspapers, which worked well! I have no idea what is going on politically anymore and do not much care either, so this was news to me.

As much as I do not like what is going on in D.C., this makes sense though. If it were up to me, I would allow passengers to fly w/ only what they had on, and send their stuff on ahead on a separate unmanned flight. In the end, it would save a fortune because a lot of security people could be let go of, and put a full stop to bombs on planes. As soon as passengers entered the airports, they would hand off all their luggage and possessions to specified people, walk through a metal detector, and they could catch up to their stuff once they landed. This would simplify everything.
Click to expand...

I have been telling my wife for 5 or 10 years now we will all have to fly naked. Do you not see it coming?

I guess you never heard of theft by TSA. Its real. That`s why people keep valuables with them.

The airlines will never sell me a seat. Cattle going to market have better accommodations.

Anyway, this is in response to "chatter" and is to nullify the next step up by those who will do us harm.
 
Oh goody! When they (who the heck are 'they' anyway) extend this ban worldwide, I'll at least be able to take along my Minox IIIs since it's quite a bit smaller than my cell phone.
 
frank-grumman said:
Ah yes, like laptops in checked-baggage cannot be outfitted with explosives that defy detection by HI x-rays. This is an utter f'g joke, security theatre at its best. I don't know if those departure countries incorporate the newly devised, TSA's (here in the US), "hey baby, let me get a free feel or two whilst checking out your ***** for explosives, so the electronics ban may well only rank as #2 on the theatre list. 😀 😀 😀 😀
Click to expand...
Dear Frank,

"Security theatre" sums it up perfectly.

Along with "Something must be done. This is something, therefore it must be done."

Cheers,

R.
 
Pretty soon the TSA will want to know if you ate beans in the last few hours. You may be planing a 'gas' attack on the passengers.

PS; I love beans.
 
Hogarth Ferguson said:
That will only depend on the airport you came from and the building you pray in.
Click to expand...
INFIDEL!

(Remember, this means "anyone who doesn't believe in what I believe in", and many vegetarians are great believers in dried beans. Do we need a vegetarian ban?)

(More brackets: I am not a vegetarian so I am not directly affected.)

Cheers,

R.
 
Let's see, there are two reasons this action is being taken by America and the UK this week.

1. Because they want to make your life difficult, when you fly to Syria or Iran, and thought this would be a fun way to stir up the world!
-or-
2. There is credible intelligence that an active threat situation has come up, that disallowing large electronics until better scanning can be installed, will possibly save lives.

If any of you have ever served your countries in the military, I'm sure you've seen the levels to which ISIS and terrorists will try to blow you up in cafe's, bars, trains, subways, buildings, and...yes, Airplanes. Any of you smug fellows that want to whine about his recent action, do me a favor. Go to Iran, Afghanistan, or any of these countries, and walk up and down the street pounding your chest about how stupid this law is. You will either get wacked right then and there, or recruited to help them.

Blather is easy from the safety of your home. Fly from one of those countries, and hope your life doesn't end in a ball of fire at 35,000 feet.
 
goamules said:
Let's see, there are two reasons this action is being taken by America and the UK this week.

1. Because they want to make your life difficult, when you fly to Syria or Iran, and thought this would be a fun way to stir upr the world!
-or-
2. There is credible intelligence that an active threat situation has come up, that disallowing large electronics until better scanning can be installed, will possibly save lives.

If any of you have ever served your countries in the military, I'm sure you've seen the levels to which ISIS and terrorists will try to blow you up in cafe's, bars, trains, subways, buildings, and...yes, Airplanes. Any of you smug fellows that want to whine about his recent action, do me a favor. Go to Iran, Afghanistan, or any of these countries, and walk up and down the street pounding your chest about how stupid this law is. You will either get wacked right then and there, or recruited to help them.

Blather is easy from the safety of your home. Fly from one of those countries, and hope your life doesn't end in a ball of fire at 35,000 feet.
Click to expand...
There's always possibility 3, that this is a meaningless piece of security theatre designed to appeal to the hard of thinking. Those who have served in military intelligence (not me, but I have many friends who have), rather than being hired to shoot at people, will probably go for (3).

As you say, blather is easy from the safety of your home. Thinking is a bit more difficult.

Cheers,

R.
 
goamules said:
Let's see, there are two reasons this action is being taken by America and the UK this week.

1. Because they want to make your life difficult, when you fly to Syria or Iran, and thought this would be a fun way to stir up the world!
-or-
2. There is credible intelligence that an active threat situation has come up, that disallowing large electronics until better scanning can be installed, will possibly save lives.

If any of you have ever served your countries in the military, I'm sure you've seen the levels to which ISIS and terrorists will try to blow you up in cafe's, bars, trains, subways, buildings, and...yes, Airplanes. Any of you smug fellows that want to whine about his recent action, do me a favor. Go to Iran, Afghanistan, or any of these countries, and walk up and down the street pounding your chest about how stupid this law is. You will either get wacked right then and there, or recruited to help them.

Blather is easy from the safety of your home. Fly from one of those countries, and hope your life doesn't end in a ball of fire at 35,000 feet.
Click to expand...

Again, this affects some of the largest airlines in the world. Again, this is just an inconvenience. Again, it just shows us how much of safetytheater things are because we are admitting that we are one of two things

One, we really don't know who to check people for things, so lets just ban more things
OR
Two, we really don't care and are just making things harder to make things harder to continue the facade we have always had.

Of course you've chosen two of the most destroyed nations in the world after years and years of war. I can tell you I've been to quite a few places on this little list, walked up and down the street in my clearly, white as can be, skin, and not once have I been blown up. I know it is shocking, but i have not been blown up.

We kill enough of ourselves and each other without having to pretend that ISIS is a real threat we should be focusing so much money and resources towards.
 
I think that was the ludicrous nature of my comment. Apparently, anyone in Syria who isn't Syrian gets blown up on the spot (as implied by the previous guy's comment). I've never been blown up in any of the majority Muslim nations I've been to.

I find the whole situation absurd to think that we are all willing to forgo our rights, convenience and so forth simply because someone says there is a danger, without any actual proof. I've had to take my shoes off on planes for years and years now, because of Richard Reid. Where was he flying? Paris to Miami.

Where did the underwear bomber get on a plane? Schipol.
 
this thread probably will be locked as it gets political.

not hard to see which direction things are changing. few years and this electronics ban is common practice everywhere?
 
Has anyone discovered the logic – if there is such a thing – as to why electronic items larger than a mobile phone are now banned in the cabin but not in the hold?

I’m not aware that airplanes are immune from being blown out of sky from explosives in the hold but not in the cabin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of the 110 Cartridge Format. Part 1: Drop-in cartridge film formats: Prioritizing user convenience.
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
neal3k
neal3k
J
  • Article Article
What's happening with Photographic Film in 2025? Is this robust niche still growing?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
7K
wlewisiii
W
J
  • Article Article
What exactly is a point & shoot camera? Glad you asked!The Kodak of 1888 may have been the first, and even Leica got into the act!
Replies
17
Views
861
Mos6502
Mos6502
J
  • Article Article
What’s the best U.S.-made interchangeable lens rangefinder 35? It depends on your criteria.
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
rick oleson
R
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
703
Jason Schneider
J
Back
Top Bottom