DHS Requires carried on electronics to be able to power up

[SteveG1988]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28185149

Phone doesn't turn on, tough luck, you may not be able to fly with it unless you put it in with your checked luggage.

[Scott5114]

Christ, can we ban the TSA already?

[Dr Frankenstein]

Well, there goes carrying my laptop on a flight (battery's been out of service since 2011).

[jeffandnicole]

How many people really travel with electronics that don't turn on? I've seen several complaints about this new policy, and the vast majority of them seem to fear that suddenly their phone won't turn on, even though they haven't turned their phone off since purchasing the thing in 2012 and are probably taking selfies while standing in the security line anyway!

If it's other equipment, they want to see it turned on.  If the battery is dead, then I'm sure the 'additional' screening involves them plugging it into an outlet and turning it on.

And if that doesn't work, then I would absolutely think they should further investigate the person for bringing electronic equipment on board that doesn't turn on.

[Brandon]

^^ It's an asinine policy anyway.  Quite frankly, I'm just a bit sick of seeing security theater.  The people I'd rather rely on are my fellow passengers, not some TSA puke who can't figure out which end takes his/her head out of his/her ass.

If someone wants to do bad things on a plane, he/she will get past TSA and do it anyway.

[Mr_Northside]

Well, there goes carrying my laptop on a flight (battery's been out of service since 2011).

If it's other equipment, they want to see it turned on.  If the battery is dead, then I'm sure the 'additional' screening involves them plugging it into an outlet and turning it on.

My laptop also doesn't have a working battery anymore... I would hope they would let people plug their stuff in to test it.... I sure would be pissed if they DIDN'T.
Though, there is a good chance I would just have it with my checked luggage.

[US81]

While I suspect that most TSA officials would make some provision for plug-in testing, I wouldn't rule out a few finding a way to exploit this new rule. I've had the 'pleasure' of meeting some of the "good ol' boys" who re-sell confiscated items and I am certain that there will be some who find opportunity for personal gain.

[formulanone]

The problem is when you arrive to your airport and the battery in your laptop or phone is now dead, which has happened to me on a few occasions, because I carry two laptops and sometimes two phones.

What a waste of time for everyone...but yet another "thank goodness for TSA Pre-Check" moment.

[jakeroot]

How many people really travel with electronics that don't turn on? I've seen several complaints about this new policy, and the vast majority of them seem to fear that suddenly their phone won't turn on, even though they haven't turned their phone off since purchasing the thing in 2012 and are probably taking selfies while standing in the security line anyway!

If it's other equipment, they want to see it turned on.  If the battery is dead, then I'm sure the 'additional' screening involves them plugging it into an outlet and turning it on.

And if that doesn't work, then I would absolutely think they should further investigate the person for bringing electronic equipment on board that doesn't turn on.

Agreed. The majority of people opposed to this new requirement are generally just opposed to the TSA altogether (Scott5114). I can't really think of a time when my electronics have been turned off (besides my laptop). If you have an ancient laptop that takes 2 minutes to start, I could see the concern. But that doesn't apply for most people, and thus most people shouldn't be opposed to this rule.

Speaking of which, being born in 1995 means that I was born into TSA. To me, TSA seems completely normal. When I go online and read about flight hijackings, it certainly seems like they've dropped off in the last decade, no? If that's truly the case, why are we complaining? Invasion of privacy? What privacy? You're at an airport with thousands of other people...you have no privacy. If you want privacy, drive. If you can't drive, take the train. If neither of those are feasible alternatives, life sucks I guess? Or you could move to Russia -- I've heard that's a safe place to fly.

[NJRoadfan]

Flight hijackings dropped dramatically after airlines started security screenings in the 1970s. Prior to that they resisted because it inconvenienced their customers. Pre-TSA checkpoints were run directly by the airlines and private security companies. It consisted of walking through a metal detector and having your carry on bags x-rayed.

The only airline with "strict" security screening back in the day was El-Al (Israel's national airline). They had to fight for a waver to maintain their own security screening staff and procedures since the TSA tried to take it over. Eventually the TSA deemed their security procedures in line with their standards.

[jakeroot]

The only airline with "strict" security screening back in the day was El-Al (Israel's national airline). They had to fight for a waver to maintain their own security screening staff and procedures since the TSA tried to take it over. Eventually the TSA deemed their security procedures in line with their standards.

The way you wrote that is slightly misleading since TSA has only existed since 2001, but I understand your point.

I read a little about El-Al -- that's some kickass stuff right there. I admire their commitment to security, and based on their record, it has paid off.

[vdeane]

How many people really travel with electronics that don't turn on? I've seen several complaints about this new policy, and the vast majority of them seem to fear that suddenly their phone won't turn on, even though they haven't turned their phone off since purchasing the thing in 2012 and are probably taking selfies while standing in the security line anyway!

If it's other equipment, they want to see it turned on.  If the battery is dead, then I'm sure the 'additional' screening involves them plugging it into an outlet and turning it on.

And if that doesn't work, then I would absolutely think they should further investigate the person for bringing electronic equipment on board that doesn't turn on.

Agreed. The majority of people opposed to this new requirement are generally just opposed to the TSA altogether (Scott5114). I can't really think of a time when my electronics have been turned off (besides my laptop). If you have an ancient laptop that takes 2 minutes to start, I could see the concern. But that doesn't apply for most people, and thus most people shouldn't be opposed to this rule.

Speaking of which, being born in 1995 means that I was born into TSA. To me, TSA seems completely normal. When I go online and read about flight hijackings, it certainly seems like they've dropped off in the last decade, no? If that's truly the case, why are we complaining? Invasion of privacy? What privacy? You're at an airport with thousands of other people...you have no privacy. If you want privacy, drive. If you can't drive, take the train. If neither of those are feasible alternatives, life sucks I guess? Or you could move to Russia -- I've heard that's a safe place to fly.

Keep in mind that the idea that an airplane could be used in terrorist attacks was a foreign concept to Americans before 9/11.  Back then, if a plane was hijacked, it meant the passengers would be held hostage for a few hours, so nobody resisted.  100% of terrorist plots since 9/11 have been foiled by passengers, not the TSA.

I don't consider groping/sexual assault, for example, to be a reasonable security measure (and the ban on liquids is pure politics).  When did we decide that we were willing to sacrifice the 4th Amendment for some security theater?  As Benjamin Franklin said, "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security would deserve neither and lose both".  We once had a sentiment that it was better to let thousands of guilty people go free than to even so much as inconvenience someone who's innocent.  Now it's the opposite.  Fear does strange things to people, I guess.

[corco]

How many people really travel with electronics that don't turn on? I've seen several complaints about this new policy, and the vast majority of them seem to fear that suddenly their phone won't turn on, even though they haven't turned their phone off since purchasing the thing in 2012 and are probably taking selfies while standing in the security line anyway!

If it's other equipment, they want to see it turned on.  If the battery is dead, then I'm sure the 'additional' screening involves them plugging it into an outlet and turning it on.

And if that doesn't work, then I would absolutely think they should further investigate the person for bringing electronic equipment on board that doesn't turn on.

As a matter of fact, when I flew back from the NYC meet last week, my phone was dead. This happens a lot during travel- sporadic access to electric outlets combined with use of phone as a camera meant I had a dead phone. I don't think this is an unusual thing at all.

I also think that we did what we needed to do to keep 9/11 from happening again- we armed cockpit doors so terrorists can't get into the cockpit without some serious shit that would arouse the suspicions and defense mechanisms of passengers as the pilots guide the plane to safety.

Everything else has been useless.

[jakeroot]

As Benjamin Franklin said, "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security would deserve neither and lose both".  We once had a sentiment that it was better to let thousands of guilty people go free than to even so much as inconvenience someone who's innocent.  Now it's the opposite.  Fear does strange things to people, I guess.

I'd like to believe that (the principle of the quite, not the quote itself), but facts prove otherwise:

A) Australia banned guns -- gun violence disappeared. People were angry that they couldn't have guns anymore, but suddenly no one was dying and now Australia is a safer place.
B) Mexico bans very little drugs -- not surprisingly, "gang wars" and "drug wars" are rampant across Mexico, which is partly why I refuse to step foot into the country.
C) TSA came into existence, hijackings and bombings dropped off. Regardless if it's because of them or citizens, I don't fear for my life on a plane, and that's a win in my book.

It's worth mentioning that I forgot to include bombings, not just hijackings, in my original post. Those seem to have leveled off as well.

[corco]

B) Mexico bans very little drugs -- not surprisingly, "gang wars" and "drug wars" are rampant across Mexico, which is partly why I refuse to step foot into the country.
C) TSA came into existence, hijackings and bombings dropped off. Regardless if it's because of them or citizens, I don't fear for my life on a plane, and that's a win in my book.

I can't disprove you on A), but B) is fairly incorrect.

Drug production is still very much illegal in Mexico, and the wars are pretty much universally accepted as a result of drug demand in the United States.

As for C), even when you factor in 9/11 pre-TSA, you were still way more likely to die behind the wheel of a car than you were in an airplane. If you feared for your life when you got on a plane before the TSA came into existence, and now you don't, that's totally irrational.

[andy]

I'm not a big fan of TSA,  but if the concern is for batteries being replaced with explosives,  the plug in test will, rightly, not satisfy the TSA without physically inspecting the device.

[jakeroot]

B) Mexico bans very little drugs -- not surprisingly, "gang wars" and "drug wars" are rampant across Mexico, which is partly why I refuse to step foot into the country.
C) TSA came into existence, hijackings and bombings dropped off. Regardless if it's because of them or citizens, I don't fear for my life on a plane, and that's a win in my book.

I can't disprove you on A), but B) is fairly incorrect.

Drug production is still very much illegal in Mexico, and the wars are pretty much universally accepted as a result of drug demand in the United States.

As for C), even when you factor in 9/11 pre-TSA, you were still way more likely to die behind the wheel of a car than you were in an airplane. If you feared for your life when you got on a plane before the TSA came into existence, and now you don't, that's totally irrational.

I suppose you are correct about the US demand. That does appear to be the case.

But as for pre/post 9-11, I wouldn't know. I was 5 when it was created. I only flew on a place once, and it was one month after 9/11.

[Scott5114]

I am more concerned about what they want to look at on my phone badly enough that they want it turned on. Sure, it's theoretically supposed to be to make sure it's not explosive, but now that my phone is required to be turned on, they can find a reason that they need to inspect its contents...

The TSA makes flying into a game of Calvinball, where arcane rule after arcane rule to address a single incident stack up. Gotta take off your shoes, turn on your phone, carry less than an arbitrary amount of liquid in a container of arbitrary design, not have a name on a hit list, etc. Honestly, at this point I'm wary of flying in the US because I'm bound to violate one of the rules which I no doubt haven't heard of through cultural osmosis and end up missing the flight because I'm too busy being interrogated.

[Brandon]

B) Mexico bans very little drugs -- not surprisingly, "gang wars" and "drug wars" are rampant across Mexico, which is partly why I refuse to step foot into the country.
C) TSA came into existence, hijackings and bombings dropped off. Regardless if it's because of them or citizens, I don't fear for my life on a plane, and that's a win in my book.

I can't disprove you on A), but B) is fairly incorrect.

Drug production is still very much illegal in Mexico, and the wars are pretty much universally accepted as a result of drug demand in the United States.

As for C), even when you factor in 9/11 pre-TSA, you were still way more likely to die behind the wheel of a car than you were in an airplane. If you feared for your life when you got on a plane before the TSA came into existence, and now you don't, that's totally irrational.

I'd go so far as to say that the TSA has not made flying any safer or more dangerous.  Just annoying.  If there is a government agency that has made flying safer, it's the NTSB and their recommendations after an incident.

[formulanone]

The TSA makes flying into a game of Calvinball, where arcane rule after arcane rule to address a single incident stack up...Honestly, at this point I'm wary of flying in the US because I'm bound to violate one of the rules which I no doubt haven't heard of through cultural osmosis and end up missing the flight because I'm too busy being interrogated.

Good way to put it...though it does seem like it's changed a lot over the years, the recommendations and unacceptable items or limits are vaguely the same over the past 4-5 years. If anything, they actually seem less inept than before, which to me, was the real frustration - if you don't really know what to do and aren't able to get help with your important job, leave me the hell alone. The skill and ability (and/or care? apathy?) of the staff from one airport to another varies. The more crowded the lines, the more annoying, extra-suspicious, and order-barking the TSA becomes, and you feel like a complete automaton.

In my travels, I've rarely seen the TSA really sound the alarm, so to speak. I've accidentally left items like knives  or tools in my bag, and all they do is remind you that "we're going to discard this" (I've had to say a few quick goodbyes to a knife, and two multi-tools over the years); then they X-ray the container it came from once more, and then send you on your merry way. It's the one or two people who scream, piss, and moan at the agents that get everything re-scanned, are personally hand-screened, and that's a pain for them.

Have they made things safer? Probably stopped one or two jackasses, if any...there's still roughly 4 folks a week that bring a gun in their carry-on, something that hasn't been allowed for many decades.

[jakeroot]

In my travels, I've rarely seen the TSA really sound the alarm, so to speak. I've accidentally left items like knives  or tools in my bag, and all they do is remind you that "we're going to discard this" (I've had to say a few quick goodbyes to a knife, and two multi-tools over the years); then they X-ray the container it came from once more, and then send you on your merry way. It's the one or two people who scream, piss, and moan at the agents that get everything re-scanned, are personally hand-screened, and that's a pain for them.

Have they made things safer? Probably stopped one or two jackasses, if any...there's still roughly 4 folks a week that bring a gun in their carry-on, something that hasn't been allowed for many decades.

Pardon me if I make a gross generalization, but I'd be willing to bet that a good majority of people who get scanned, re-scanned, and or patted down are probably the people who show up at their airport fully prepared for such things to happen (excluding children and senior citizens). It's as though they are hoping the TSA catches something (like something they "left" in their bag or their purposely strange behavior) and pats them down so they have a reason to get angry and get on the news, etc.

Again, gross generalization, but being born to a pilot (AS) and an FAA agent have sort of turned me against the majority, being able to understand all the background work.

[jeffandnicole]

From what I've seen, the patdowns at the airport were less instrusive than the patdowns I've received going to football and baseball games. 

I'm not a fan of the TSA at all, but since 9/11, there hasn't been any real issues with flights leaving the USA.  Some of that has to do with the TSA.  Is the TSA perfect?  Not even close.  Most of their 'security' is reactionary - ie: Taking your shoes off. And there's been numerous stories of people that have boarded with banned firearms and knifes.  But they do a good enough job to keep the true criminals at bay, because if they were arrested, chances are the authorities would look deeper into their potential affiliations with extremist groups.

It also helps that when an incident does occur in-flight, that passengers have basically been given free-reign to subdue and restrain the idiot.  And this helps too...from what I can tell, those passengers can simply disembark and continue on with their lives.  Too often on the ground, if a civilian tried to intervene in stopping a criminal, they need to give statements, show up at court, have their name printed in the papers, possibly risk getting sued by the criminal, etc.  Most of these people don't want the exposure & the headaches...they just to continue with their normal, daily lives.   Since it appears that's the case on a plane, people are way more willing to stop someone before anything can happen.

I always sense that if the TSA is suddenly implimenting something new such as the electronics issue, that they have enough information to warrant a concern.  But what happens is what we see here...Since an issue hasn't arised yet, people are upset because they don't see anything wrong.  If an issue did occur, and a plane went down killing a few hundred, people would be upset that the TSA didn't do anything about it before it happened. 

[formulanone]

Pardon me if I make a gross generalization, but I'd be willing to bet that a good majority of people who get scanned, re-scanned, and or patted down are probably the people who show up at their airport fully prepared for such things to happen (excluding children and senior citizens). It's as though they are hoping the TSA catches something (like something they "left" in their bag or their purposely strange behavior) and pats them down so they have a reason to get angry and get on the news, etc.

I think there's a few...please, you're not wearing that NRA shirt on a Wednesday, you're saving it for the Friday afternoon flight home, because you really think it's going to stop the baddies inside the confines of a pressurized aluminum tube with enough fuel in it to vaporize me at 500 miles an hour. As much as it's a hassle and invasion of one's rights, nobody's forcing you to fly - at least, that's what I tell myself each week as my rights are inevitably slipping away for a good paycheck and some aerial photos.

On the other hand, there's also the clueless ones...people who make the line drag because they seem to have missed all the warnings via the loudspeaker, the website, the back of the ticket, the placards affixed to the ticket counter, the signs along the line itself. If you have to part with a $5 item you can buy again in a grocery store because you forgot, be an adult and discard it promptly and quietly.

Do I really think that the lady with a 16 ounce bottle of shampoo is a threat? No.
When she begs the TSA agent to let her keep it, is she holding up my time? Yes.

It's a dog-and-pony show, but lines and the security checkpoints are totally different at an airport with lots of casual fliers, those travelling internationally, the small regional airport, and those packed with mostly business travel regulars. Also, whether there's a rush or not...that's when you notice that the security agents are just (usually nice) people stuck in a crummy job.

I do worry that if random people are told to turn on their laptops and/or phones, the checks will take one-third longer to get through. I'm sure they don't really want to deal with that, either.

[Scott5114]

The TSA makes flying into a game of Calvinball, where arcane rule after arcane rule to address a single incident stack up...Honestly, at this point I'm wary of flying in the US because I'm bound to violate one of the rules which I no doubt haven't heard of through cultural osmosis and end up missing the flight because I'm too busy being interrogated.

Good way to put it...though it does seem like it's changed a lot over the years, the recommendations and unacceptable items or limits are vaguely the same over the past 4-5 years. If anything, they actually seem less inept than before, which to me, was the real frustration - if you don't really know what to do and aren't able to get help with your important job, leave me the hell alone. The skill and ability (and/or care? apathy?) of the staff from one airport to another varies. The more crowded the lines, the more annoying, extra-suspicious, and order-barking the TSA becomes, and you feel like a complete automaton.

I'm sure for frequent air travelers, it's not much of a problem to keep up with new rules as they are being passed. I have never flown in my adult life, just as a kid, before the TSA existed, so I'm sure I missed when some obscure rule was added that I would trip over.

That and thought of having to deal with TSA at all simply feels unpleasant and something I'd rather not deal with. As you say, nobody's forcing me to fly, so I don't fly. Driving is more interesting anyway.

If I ever had a serious need to fly non-internationally on a regular basis, I'd be tempted to get into general aviation myself and take my dad's Piper.

[bing101]

What is "Suspicious Activity" exactly? 

Well I heard of stories of the defense contractors need to get stimulated economically to TSA looking for loopholes. But there will never be a perfect security system as long as we are alive.