The article asks an interesting question which casts doubt on this theory: why does the UK ban affect UK airlines too?

I suspect this is because Theresa May didn't want the UK policy to be so blatantly discriminatory, but still wanted to obsequiously support Donald Trump in the hopes of receiving preferential treatment from America as the UK severs its ties with other EU member states.

Whatever the intelligence says about the risk of certain devices, I can't see how that threat doesn't apply equally to passengers travelling from any country (although plausibly there could be significantly increased risks relating to passengers of certain nationalities).

This policy feels like an obvious target for someone to crowd-fund a judicial review into.

> Imho this is business and politics. This everyday safety mesure is being applied selectively in order to disadvantage some and advantage others.

This was designed to put gulf carriers at a disadvantage because American airliners can't quite match their quality of service. They have been crying about gulf carriers getting huge subsidies from their governments without doing a single thing to improve their own service.

Interestingly, UK also banned electronics but excluded major airports like Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha.

It's difficult to say that American carriers have not done a single thing to improve their service. The cost structure of United/American/Delta is very different than long haul international carriers.

http://fortune.com/united-airlines-ceo-oscar-munoz/

I tried to read the piece you linked, but TBH I couldn't be bothered to wade through the fluff and stopped before I came to the part you were referencing.

Maybe you could quote it for us?

Anyway, the question I wanted to ask is: how does United/American/Delta's structure compare to, say, Lufthansa, or Air France, or Thai Airways? I've honestly never flown a US carrier, but long-haul complaints and horror stories tend to be about US carriers, not European ones, even though I suspect they have pretty similar structure.

"This was designed to put gulf carriers at a disadvantage because American airliners can't quite match their quality of service."

If you bother to read the comments on Schneier's blog, you'll notice andy's comment:

The ban impacts ten airports and all carriers flying out of those with direct flights to the US and UK. There are no direct flights from those airports on US carriers. So to say that the rule doesn't apply to US carriers is not wholly true, it doesn't apply because they don't fly those routes.

Apples and oranges. Frankly, on the short-haul flights of US airlines I don't want the type of service offered internationals leaving Dubai. I don't want in-flight hot towels or fancy entertainment systems when I am only in the chair for a couple hours. I want polite airport staff at well-designed and run airports. I want flights that leave on time and predictable security lines so that I need not arrive hours early. US airports are horrible but that is out of the airline's hands.

Of course, I wasn't comparing US domestic service with the international ones offered by the gulf carriers. I know that's apples and oranges. The international service from US carriers is just as bad too. Just compare the flying experience from HKG to SFO on United vs Cathay Pacific. Cathay is better by a country mile.

What is your point? I don't understand why you focused on short-haul. US carriers do long-haul to, and they are terrible at it, but they are so lazy and incompetent that they just choose to whine about unfairness instead of competing. Typical. The funny thing is, these Middle East routes were wide open for the taking for a long time, and they still don't offer them.

Or those airports have poor security or are at risk of penetration by bad actors.

The TSA itself was found to have had a failure rate of 95% two years ago during a security sting operation.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/07/tsa-fa...

As someone who flies through istanbul once a year, i was always surprised by the fact that there is very little security at us airports. :)

I think it is more about penetration possibility more so than airport sevurity itself.

Security at US airports is hit-and-miss. Sometimes they check something and sometimes they dont. Rules appear to change daily and every checkpoint seems to interpret them slightly differently.

In middle eastern countries where domestic terrorism is higher, like turkey or israel, the security checks are pretty abundant.

You get searched at the airport entrance, and get your luggage checked with xray scanners. Yoy get another one after passing the passport check done by cops. If you are flying to united states you get searched again at the gate.

On top of this, they verify your legal status at the checkin. It happened to me once when my greencard was approved but i only had the ead card. We literally spent an hour to get it sorted.

So i am not sure, but adding one more layer on top makes me feel sad.

Good thing turkish airlines will use specialized storage mechanism to store laptops in cabin. At least that will prevent things from getting stolen or potentially illegally searched.

carry a little dog in a crate or weer your insulin pump, well you are getting an extra look. security is one thing but the level of ignorance at times is astounding.

Anecdotally, a family member that regularly travels with their small dog experiences much less scrutiny.

Most times they're asked to hold the dog in it's crate and walk through the basic metal detector instead of a full-body scanner. In the 15 or so trips they have gone on in the last six months, they've never once been stopped for enhanced screening.

Or not. I've never had them check my laptop once (other than the scans) in any airport I've been through, and that's quite a few. (Not that I haven't seen it done though)

This isn't about an assessment on airport capabilities in laptop security vetting.

My personal experience has been that Dubai (which I believe is one on the list?) has some of the highest security I've seen. Everytime I go through it as a passenger connecting on another flight (not leaving the airport) I've been though security (shoes off x-rays e.t.c.) after leaving the plane and getting into the terminal proper. In addition there were spot checks in the waiting lounge before actually bording my onwards flight (on one trip, not all) where my belt was swabbed (presumably for explosives?) and I was asked to turn on my laptop to prove it worked. Never had that happen anywhere else.

The Dubai people have always been great to me. They are intrusive but they are polite. They don't make you feel like a criminal or that you have done anything wrong. Being spot-checked in Dubai isn't anything as embarrassing as being surrounded by TSA agents angry because you forgot a thumbdrive in your coat pocket. In Dubai I feel like a customer purchasing a product. At US airports I feel like a peon asking permission to borrow bossman's car.

Yes politeness goes a long way in such situations.

The one time I've had anyone take a closer look at my computer equipment was an old iBook "yo yo" power supply. But that was a weird design for a power brick and not exactly a popular brand at the time. They probably looked pretty strange on an xray.

On the other hand I don't fly often, so I'm not much of a data point.

Why do only the US and U.K. care?

They see themselves as the most likely targets for this type of attack. Whether they are or not is up for debate. They are also governments supported by very scared populations that want thier governments to be the most publicly strict. Of all nations, the US and UK most enjoy the security theatre.

Canada did copy the ESTA though (authorization needed for visa-exempt travellers (ETA)).