AviationTechnology experts question device ban

Published 21 March 2017

The decision by DHS to ban passengers, boarding U.S.-bound planes at ten airports in eight Muslim-majority countries, from carrying in electric or electronic devices larger than a cellphone into the cabin, is criticized by technology experts who say the new rules appear to be at odds with basic computer science. Another line of criticism suggests that the ban may have less to do with security and more to do with the Trump’s administration’s plan to play hard ball with countries subsidizing major industries in order to gain a competitive advantage over U.S. companies.

The decision by DHS to ban passengers, boarding U.S.-bound planes at ten airports in eight Muslim-majority countries, from carrying in electric or electronic devices larger than a cellphone into the cabin, is criticized by technology experts who say the new rules appear to be at odds with basic computer science.

These experts argue that if there are concerns about laptops on board being used as explosives, then these same risks exist in checked baggage. Moreover, many smartphones, which passengers are allowed to bring into the cabin, have the same capabilities as larger devices.

“It’s weird, because it doesn’t match a conventional threat model,” said Nicholas Weaver, researcher at the International Computer Science Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, told the Guardian. “If you assume the attacker is interested in turning a laptop into a bomb, it would work just as well in the cargo hold.”

“If you’re worried about hacking, a cellphone is a computer,” he said

Bruce Schneier, a security technologist, described the directive an “onerous travel restriction”.

“From a technological perspective, nothing has changed between the last dozen years and today. That is, there are no new technological breakthroughs that make this threat any more serious today,” he said in an email. “And there is certainly nothing technological that would limit this newfound threat to a handful of Middle Eastern airlines,” he said

Paul Schwartz, professor at the University of California, Berkeley law school, noting that the leaders of the 9/11 hijackers came from a terrorist cell in Hamburg, Germany, told the Guardian: “One potential problem with this approach where you single out countries is that you ignore the extent to which the terrorist threat is kind of state-less,” he said. “The terrorists have cells throughout the entire world.”

Chris Hoofnagle, professor of law at the University of California, said that efforts to more broadly restrict laptops on planes would likely face widespread resistance. “It’s a massive inconvenience to have to check a laptop, and you can imagine that such a demand is met with resistance by air carriers, who are powerful lobbies.”

Another line of criticism of the electronic device ban is offered by Demitri Sevastopulo and Robert Wright, who write in the Financial Times that the ban may have less to do with security and more to do with the Trump’s administration’s plan to play hard ball with countries subsidizing major industries in order to gain a competitive advantage over U.S. companies (see also Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman, “Trump won’t allow you to use iPads or laptops on certain airlines. Here’s why.” Washington Post, 21 March 2017).

U.S. airlines have ling charged that three of the airlines affected by the ban — Emirates, Etihad Airways, and Qatar Airways — have been receiving massive subsidies from their governments. As Sevastopulo and Wright note, the ban order affects not only the airlines’ direct flights to and from the United States — it also targets the “hub” airports which are at the core of these airlines’ business models.

The three heavily subsidized airlines, but also the other airlines affected, stand to lose a large amount of business from their most lucrative customers — passengers who travel in business class and first class, typically business travelers who want to work on the plane