Anything larger than a cell phone now banned for Carryon?

MikeD said:
I wonder if TSA is coming under the budget cutting of fed agencies?

Just saw a news blurb that UK is considering some sort of airline electronics ban too.
Click to expand...

Could be, or they're fearing it. Thing is there is always a credible threat, just like there were before TSA. Bojinka threatened to eclipse the September 11 attacks using liquid bombs, yet even after a deadly test run the traveling public blissfully travelled hydrated. Of course, that was when security professionals were in charge, and their greatest reward was seeing people live their lives without fear.

The need to publicize and act with new regulations to every threat seems to have come about with the creation of a massive security apparatus that is high profile, public in nature, seems to have difficulty proving its effectiveness and is ran by career bureaucrats chasing budgets.

Sure is suspicious every time a cut might be threatened a new restriction is called for, a new threat realized, a new article of clothing must be removed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Pretty soon all our flights will look like this

721269715.jpg
 
NovemberEcho said:
I still don't get what's good with a 13% cut to the CG with how much they've been struggling already.
Click to expand...
Yeah, especially with a campaign heavy with border security rhetoric. Hopefully they're just focusing on the seemingly somewhat unnecessary blue water expansion and creep into Navy type stuff.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
 
Cazadores said:
Yeah, especially with a campaign heavy with border security rhetoric. Hopefully they're just focusing on the seemingly somewhat unnecessary blue water expansion and creep into Navy type stuff.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This was exactly the reason. Cut included another NSC cutter made of solid pork which they neither need nor want, along with cuts to MSRT which is a worthless overlap. Just distractions from the real and valuable work that they do.
 
There are way too many government agencies with overlapping security mandates now. The attempt to streamline things after 9/11 helped a bit for a while, but Inter-agency warfare has not been eliminated (they all compete for funding at some point).

One of the problems with our government is that they tend to create more agencies and layers of government in lieu of fixing a problem with an agency.

More agencies and layers haven't improved the results or made us feel safer, haven't increased the transparency (even to Congress), and God only knows if there is any efficiency - we can't look and find out. Yup, no mega-terrorist attacks, but that's like trying to prove a negative.

I suppose one could consider the amount we've spent to attack and control Al Quaida, ISIS, et all as an attack on the US budget.
 
FloridaLarry said:
There are way too many government agencies with overlapping security mandates now. The attempt to streamline things after 9/11 helped a bit for a while, but Inter-agency warfare has not been eliminated (they all compete for funding at some point).

One of the problems with our government is that they tend to create more agencies and layers of government in lieu of fixing a problem with an agency.

More agencies and layers haven't improved the results or made us feel safer, haven't increased the transparency (even to Congress), and God only knows if there is any efficiency - we can't look and find out. Yup, no mega-terrorist attacks, but that's like trying to prove a negative.

I suppose one could consider the amount we've spent to attack and control Al Quaida, ISIS, et all as an attack on the US budget.
Click to expand...

Gotta remember the single hardest to quantify cost that isn't typically thought of by people outside the circle....

What will the political cost be if an attack of such were to take place and you didn't do "everything possible" to prevent it Coke election time.

I can tell you from where I sit right now in Iraq, there is a reason the Iran nuclear deal happened and it wasn't because we were "taking a new more progressive approach" in diplomacy with them. It was to basically buy favor with them in the fight against ISIS and have them reign in some of the 3rd party Shia groups in the region who would just as happily shoot at us as the Sunni ISIS elements in Mosul. Also the reason for all the tough rhetoric is limited to speeches and media clips and not tangible sanctions despite them doing things like firing off missiles they aren't supposed to have into the Gulf or harassing shipping/Navy vessels in the region.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MikeD said:
Doesn't apply.

Two parts of case law:

U.S. vs Davis (1973), 9th circuit court basically saying that administrative searches are allowed if "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

And U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 (1986) where the 9th curcuit court ruled that "To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, the 9th Circus. The same court that took the Heller decision, and basically said "Screw Heller, I do what I want!"
 
Last edited:
NovemberEcho said:
What's their explanation for why U.K. seems about to do the same thing? Although I would like hear the reasoning that these devices are ok in the luggage but not the cabin.

Apparently Canada is also considering something similar.
Click to expand...

It is far more difficult (and more preventable from its employment) to create explosives with a remote capability vs point of command detonation.

It's not impossible, but it takes a greater magnitude of understanding to create a weapon robust enough to go into the cargo hold of a plane through baggage handling and security checks that exist in that means and simultaneously maintain its ability to reliably receive signal. Not to mention having to manufacture and disguise the remote system to trigger it (can't just use a cell phone when there is no cell network like a 2007 circa IED).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I also find it interesting that it's now okay to mandate high-energy lithium ion batteries go into cargo holds by forcing laptops into checked baggage. Up until this week there was a push against doing this. I can just imagine the argument on this one: Safety or security. You cannot have both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top