247

TSA will check to see if your device turns on for international, U.S.-bound flights

TSA will require devices to be charged on international, U.S.-bound flights

As part of new security protocol at foreign airports, the United States Transportation Security Administration will require cell phones and select electronic devices to be fully charged with the ability to be powered on when going through security screening. The TSA says that devices that won't power on will not be allowed on flights headed to the U.S.

The increased security measure arises amidst concerns that al Quada may blow up a jetliner and Agency officials fear that phones, tablets, and laptops may be used as bombs. TSA will be asking travelers to power on their electronic devices at security checkpoints to verify that they are safe on board a flight.

The increased screening will be for U.S.-bound flights originating from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. So if you're headed to the U.S., be sure that your phones and electronics are fully charged before headed to the airport.

In addition to electronics-related safety concerns at airports and on planes, TSA will also be closely checking the shoes of travelers.

What do you think of the new security measures? Let us know in the comments below.

Source: NBC News

313
loading...
286
loading...
83
loading...
0
loading...

Comments

There are 247 comments. Sign in to comment

lippidp says:

Hey, my comment was deleted.  Is WPcentral run by commies or was it a technical glitch?  It wasn't important, but I don't like being muzzled.

kurtd says:

I've had forum posts deleted and got a warning. It was simple questions about Facebook so I wouldn't be surprised if yours was deleted.

kamikaze80 says:

TSA is a colossal waste of money

nanoware says:

Black TSA lady thought that my guilty gucci cologne was contraband. Didn't know how to measure ounces. Stupid lady.

ralexand56 says:

Yeah, stupid black people. :roll eyes You're an idiot.

herbertsnow says:

Damn you're a jackass retard

blends says:

Stupidity and race have nothing to do with each other. You must be stupid to not know that. Thanks for being the ignorant guy in the comments section.

WilsonBlaze says:

With such a screen name I would expect such a comment. Ever heard of kamikaze missions during world war 2

Novron says:

Yet, he's right. TSA is a colossal waste of money.

lippidp says:

At least they're attempting to keep us safe.  There are other government agencies I'd axe before the TSA.  Let's start with the United States Postal Service.  It is no longer needed.  But, go ahead and take your pick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_agencies

 

Marc_SP says:

"they're attempting to keep us safe"

Then, it is not enough. I recommend making people travel naked, strapped to the seat and with black bags on the head. It is the only way to be (almost) sure. If this fails, the next step is summary execution of all passengers before boarding. That must be secure enough, probably.

NokianWP says:

Nope. Dead mans switch.

mrskycar says:

While the post office may need restructuring, it is delivers the one form of communication that does not need redundancies and can evade security concerns that comes with electronic communication.

lippidp says:

US Mail is not without security concerns. Ask any old timer who has had their Social Security check stolen from their mailbox. USPS is no longer needed and everyone knows it. They did a great job for a long time, so it is kind of sad to see them go, but you can't or shouldn't stop progress.

Talbot690 says:

Nooo USPS deliver most of my car parts cheaper than FedEx or UPS

Duffau says:

Huh? You know that our taxes don't pay for the postal service right? If they earn their own keep, you can't really call them a waste of money. Also, I love the postal service, cheap shipping ftw.

lippidp says:

They lost billions of dollars last year. Who do you think is going to cover that shortfall?

Duffau says:

Not taxpayers. They don't receive any money from tax dollars for operating expenses, all of it comes from postal service revenue. Like any other business, they have a line of credit and borrow money. They are quite a bit in the hole, but our tax dollars don't pay for that any more than they do any private company. The reason they are losing money is because they have to follow rules set in place by congress (pre-funding health/retirement plans, delivering 6 days a week), yet are not funded by the government but cannot make their own decisions. Revenue from actual deliveries has increased by quite a bit and proposed changes could very well return the postal service to profitability (additional revenue streams, mail 5 days a week), but congress has to approve, unlike a private company.

I see the point you're trying to make, and I agree there are agencies that are a waste of money, but your example is misleading.

lippidp says:

You might be correct to date, but I can almost guarantee that the taxpayers are the ones that are going to pay these retirements benefits for 20-30 years. Postal employees are government employees. Additionally, any credit they currently have will not carry them much further. Ultimately, taxpayers are going to be on the hook.

Anyway, I'm sure you can find another agency or two on the list that we can defund today and no one would notice.

Duffau says:

At first I thought you were just misinformed, but you can't just speculate and try to make your example seem valid. I am absolutely correct in what I said, and bringing in a future that you speculate on doesn't change anything. And even if it did, getting rid of them now wouldn't change anything if tax payers have to pay for it in the future, which nullifies your entire premise of the example. Like I said, I agree that there are agencies that are a waste of money, but you really shouldn't talk about agencies without proper research (some of them mean the world to a lot of people).
 

lippidp says:

OK, fine. Then spin the USPS off into its own company removed from all government control. Keep existing employees as federal employees and let them keep the benefits they were promised, but any new employees will be employees of the new private company. The government no longer needs to be involved in any capacity in this business. And yes, I do speculate that at some point the taxpayers will be bailing out the USPS if nothing is done.

Keeping a government agency for the sake of its employees and contractors is not what we as taxpayers expect for our money. These jobs are not welfare. We expect something for the money we are forced to give.

Duffau says:

Listen to yourself man. Reactive thinking is not the way to go. You can't just make major changes like that in a heartbeat, these things take time. And these jobs are the livelihood of many people; this isn't welfare, they are doing their jobs as told to them when they were hired, USPS can't just not hold up their end of the deal because it doesn't work for you. These people were promised things as government employees, even if they are not paid by the government. You’re thinking like all the armchair analyst commenters on these tech sites that proclaim doom and gloom for successful companies on a daily basis, and have no idea how the inner workings of a company operate. If they run out of money/credit, they would probably file for some form of chapter 11, just like any private company. And rest assured the USPS is proposing changes to increase its profitability. Did you actually do any research on this? Seriously, no one at USPS is using your tax money; it's so ridiculous to me that you're still complaining about a situation that doesn't exist. There are plenty of legitimate gripes with our government, and I would likely agree with you on them, but this is certainly not one of them.
 

lippidp says:

I certainly hope you're right.

Mconway031 says:

They are also required to pre-pay for the health care of all FUTURE retirees due to a mandate set in 2006. I think it was around 5.5 billion dollars over 10 years. USPS DOES NOT receive taxpayer funds, yet they are managed by politicians that want to see them destroyed.

I think they are doing pretty well, considering.

Duffau says:

Too bad the guy above you doesn't seem to want to understand that.
 

Sicarius123 says:

Travelling to the USA just feels like way too much drama. I'll spend my tourist dollars elsewhere.

Uh huh. If you are coming here in the first place, I doubt TSA checks are going to stop you. And if you aren't coming here, then I doubt TSA checks are deterring you.

Cormango says:

They do for a lot of people including myself.

Novron says:

Depends, I won't even fly internally anymore. Six trips I've driven so far that I used to fly before TSA. If it comes down to it, I'll even check a train schedule first unless they've turned that to crap too.

Sagar Limaye says:

Wouldn't trains have security too?

adrian1338 says:

Do you believe they give a damn about national things.. they are just concerned about the information they can gather from around the globe

Marc_SP says:

Because of TSA overstepping and some other "antiterror/arbitrary detention" laws, I would only go to USA if I really must.

To be fair, I have similar concerns with other countries too, such as Dubai or some central and south american countries.

All this silliness has stopped me from flying to US. Just decided to do vacation in France. And I drove there. Can't be bothered to fly, even in Europe, if I can avoid.

nanoware says:

No one is talking about the back scatter full body x-ray. God dam going through that machine is demeaning. They see your penis.

If they want to see it, then I say enjoy! (And call me later, lol.)

joeonsunset says:

I find standing in a box with my hands held in the air like a criminal more demeaning than the resulting #dickpic. If they would just scan me while I am sitting eating my Sbarro itd be a lot better for me.

NokianWP says:

You say that like its a bad thing. xD

Actually, they have a pre-set model just for that reason. No bodypart(s) are seen.

Marc_SP says:

So, you are being treated like a criminal, but, hey, an electronic image of your penis is safe from the eyes of some tired and busy security officer! (and just until someone finds a way to exchange his penis for a grenade, jaja :-P)

Talbot690 says:

Why "jaja"? Does "haha" not translate to other languages? Not trying to be rude just I see ppl saying "jaja" as if laughing yet I've never heard someone in person laugh like "jajaja that was hilarious"... Help me understand it boggles my mind!

Marc_SP says:

Friendly advice: travel more. And I don't mean as a tourist, to take photos. I mean travel to get to know other cultures, languages and ways of life. You will understand many things.

Also, notice that "H" is just next to "J" on the keyboard. Think about it. :)

Talbot690 says:

I actually travel quite a bit but I'm Canadian there's not many Jose's around here

People who speak Spanish write jaja because j in Spanish is pronounced like h in English. Have you ever eaten a jalapeno or met someone named Jose? :-)

HoosierDaddy says:

Your oppinion of them is far too kind

herbertsnow says:

What a stupid idiotic thing to say.

sholokov says:

They once took away my radar detector for the car, without telling me. More like stealing!

schlubadub says:

Aren't they illegal? You're lucky they didn't fine you too

tonyfreak215 says:

They are legal. Only illegal in Washington DC and VA

schlubadub says:

Ah right... in Australia they're completely illegal in all States except Western Australia. The police actively use Radar Detector Detectors (RDD) and will prosecute anyone found with one.

Arsee17 says:

Tim Howard can block more terrorists than the TSA

RayWP7 says:

Agreed. We should be considering other forms of highly successful screening used in much more volatile and violent parts of the world.

Doesn't make too much sense.

adrian1338 says:

Just makes sense if they use it to check ur personal details on the phone and put some spyware on ur phone

Duffau says:

But what if you don't have an android phone? =D

Sounds like they have heard some chatter of a potential threat and are trying to get out in front of it.

scdkad says:

I thought they stopped with the shoe thing..

They still do it for CAN-US flights

If you have Pre-Check, yes.

Cormango says:

They did, but not really. Except when the damn thing goes off for a random check they ask you why you left your shoes on. It's just a trick to make you have to speak. I alwatys take my shoes off regardless to avoid talking to them.

joeonsunset says:

They never have a truly consistent set of rules or implementations, even between airports, which is something they publicize and say is a strategy. But then when you don't psychically know they want something different from you than last week, they treat you like a jerk at best.

nanoware says:

MURICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The TSA can be a right bunch of morons, however I'm willing to do whatever is required to ensure a safe flight. I just hope the requirements and checks are for everyone - equally.

fonix232 says:

So if it would come to that, you'd agree to get completely naked, pack all your stuff one-by-one into a TSA-issued backpack, and also your non-carry-on luggage would be scanned deep, repackaged without your approval, etc.?

Actually isnt their an airline that has nude flights?

That's the problem, the TSA doesn't make flights any safer, they just create the illusion of safety. I've flown a bunch this past month and everytime they had random security procedures: some got assigned to the pre-check line (even if you hadn't prechecked) and some for the full security line. This randomness does nothing but confirm how the normal procedure does absolutely nothing to guarantee safety. If it were actually effective, they would not randomize it. The whole process is a recognition that it's all for show.

nanoware says:

I don't agree with you. You can't say with certainty that TSA doesn't make flights safer. What would you prefer. Letting people run muck taking what ever they want on the plane. Next thing you know we will be smoking cigarettes on planes again.

Sure, I stretched it too much saying they don't make flights safer at all. Truth is much of what they do actually make flights safer, but all the common security practices for passengers in airports mostly don't do anything that brings any tangible benefit. There's a reason why they have started randomizing controls, because those procedures bring little benefit if at all.

vidwa says:

Oh I'm sure that keeping all those smokers off planes will keep you safe. TSA doesn't keep you safe, you think it does because everyone was so scared post 9/11 that we signed our rights away. There was an instance where a kid made a bomb out of things you buy in shops after the check point. Those people standing at check points going through your stuff don't even think they're helping, they're doing it for the paycheck nothing more and if they happen to see something nice in your bag you better hope it doesn't get "lost" because they could use a nice case of cameras or lenses, hell I know someone who "lost" $800+ of make up. If someone wanted to highjack a plane they would have thought of ways to avoid the TSA all together.

joeonsunset says:

Can't say for certain TSA doesn't make flights safer? Is that the standard we're operating on? Because I'm pretty sure you can't be certain only letting planes fly on Tuesday doesn't make them safer.

TSA is public policy with huge implications for both individuals and the country as a whole. I'm pretty sure we should have some reason to think the things we do on that level are effective, if we are going to continue to do them.

Hahaha... OK buddy. I'm assuming you also think that 100% of what your government tells you is true and fully legal.

Keep living in fairyland, must be nice.

Edit: I'm assuming you mean these TSA practices are useful. I might have missed irony though.

joeonsunset says:

You didnt miss irony, there was none. It all comes down to "should."

I said we should have some reason to think they are effective, in response to a person who said we should do them just because there's some vanishing chance they work.

I meant that we should only do something if its effective (at the very least.) I did not mean that the very fact we are doing it gives us cause to believe it effective--which I can see how it could have read that way I guess.

fonix232 says:

Thing is, the checks only get more intrusive, but not better prepared at all. We did not progress forward in the past 13 years since the 9/11 scare, but we're almost at the point where the TSA has the rights to violate you anally just because you "look funny".

But let's take a step back and look at EU airports. Even though they are in different countries, the same rules apply, same security checks, and it is quite rare that there's anything unacceptable in the bags (okay once I left my charger in there, the lady at the x-ray machine saw it, told me to unpack it next time, then sent me off to my plane smiling).

The stupidest thing, thouh, is the one with fluids. Why am I not allowed to take more than 100ml onboard? My deodorants usually are 150ml, perfumes are 122ml, so why this shit? So that we can't bring any drinking water with us, and rather buy the expensive shit at the airport? (irony intended, I DO know that this is the goal of this rule).

PepperdotNet says:

Yes. If an unknown number of passengers are carrying their legal concealed pistols, any hijacker would think twice.

Olerius says:

Spot on.  While TSA procedures have made it so people can't (easily) get on the pane with boxcutters and guns, it's only a surface-level precaution.  For those who realy WANT to cause damage/destruction/fear/whatever, it really doesn't take much planning or creativity to circumvent these precaustions, and they do little to address other means of terrorism.

Exactly, that was my point: actual crazy people trying to do damage won't be stopped by this kind of thing. I mean, consider this new device power up rule: a terrorist could use a Macbook, have it dual boot and just boot to the Mac partition when screened by TSA. Unlike in Windows, where you see all partitions in most of the boot sequences, in Mac it'll directly load the primary partition unless you press OPTION. Thus, a terrorist could boot into what seems like a normal Mac partition and then later boot into whatever other partition he has crazy stuff in, and that's just using a consumer tech product that you can purchase anywhere, who knows what advances stuff these a**holes might actually be using. That's why this new rule = useless.

joanzen says:

I doubt the TSA is going to audit the contents of these devices. I don't think this new rule is to look at what's on the device, it's to make sure it's an actual device and not just a shell holding explosives.

That's what I thought at first, but considering we all have to scan our laptops anyway, wouldn't any explosive show up in the xray thing? That's why the turning-on thing doesn't make sense to me.

joanzen says:

I see your point and agree. It just doesn't make sense, time wise, that they're going to be able to look at the contents of all these devices.

No, C4 looks alot like a battery under an XRay.

Please tell me that's a joke, because if it's true, that means security personell have been letting millions of passengers board planes with what looks like explosives. Don't see how that could make anyone feel better.

Fritzly says:

There are machines sniffing for explosives and also check fore residues.

J Mac Jordan says:

Sure they use scanners for explosives, they can even have dogs trained to sniff for explosives or a TSA agent visually inspect a device for explosives; unfortunately, even if an explosive is detected, due to popular usage and market forces, explosive material is detected, recognized, and allowed onto US & US-bound commercial planes constantly. The material is within the devices they are purposefully targeting at the moment because people are learning about more and more each day of the dangerous situations that can be initiated by faulting the basic components of a given device. Look at Youtube and all the different ways to acquire Lithium batteries generally out of standard usage due to the risk of explosion; then notice how people can create a battery rigged for an explosion with little required for detonation.

No one is going to be hiding a dual bootable HDD in a mac to circumnavigate the high wits of the TSA, then secretly boot into some program that detonates all passengers' devices' batteries via Bluetooth whilst simultaneously transmits through wifi for the emergency exit to blow open so when the terrorist hastily dives out the plane during the chaos, they will be able to orchestrate unimpeded their perfect escape using a simple, yet highly stylish, pair of MC Hammer's terrorist-funded/developed parachute pants.

Speculation of why they are looking and what they are looking for can go wild, but it's most likely low tech, easily producible /cancelable explosive devices - an improperly charged lithium battery that might appear to properly fit inside a given device could easily pass security and cripple a plane an hour later; how do you mitigate the risk? Have people charge their devices, then get them to show their device has a power source that is not rigged or likely a danger by just asking for their device(s) to be powered on. All this espionage /spyware/pornography viewing bs is the height of absurdity. If you're so afraid of that activity, just don't come to (or leave with the intentions of coming back to) a sovereign nation that dictates the standards necessary for a foreign-inbound commercial airliner to land passengers with intentions beyond shopping the duty-free shops and then going back aboard a plane headed for another nation whose security policies don't have the apparent high-pornography upload risk.

In this case, what they're asking for is reasonable; yes, other stuff that has been implemented is questionable, but this is not invasive as people are screaming it is...

shaan sarode says:

The article states that the electronic devices may be actually physically used as a bomb. Therefore a walkman or some old hardware device which has a large enough housing can be converted into a mini bomb of sorts. Take a large handheld video recorder and strip the insides and replace it with "circuit" looking nonsense that actually is a bomb and no one would be wiser. This precaution makes sense BC tech isn't something that just by looking at it be neutralized. The article doesn't mention software as being the cause of these precautions

As I commented on the previous post, that's what I thought at first, but considering we all have to scan our laptops anyway, wouldn't any explosive show up in the xray thing? That's why the turning-on thing doesn't make sense to me.

C4, plastic explosives and liquid explosives can be made to look like a battery under an x-ray.

As I mentioned in the other comment, I hope that's a joke, otherwise it means security personell have been letting millions of passengers board planes with what looks like explosives for decades. That kind of policy is hardly reassuring to anyone.

Nope not a joke.

kb4000 says:

So why does that mean we shouldn't try to prevent it? Just to avoid scaring people? So if there is a chance that stuff has been getting through we would just let it keep happening?

ChrisLynch says:

Sorry but that is just a stupid opinion. Lie the TSA is going to become IT experts. It's just to make sure the decide powers on and isn't a bomb or other device. the TSA it's one level of defense. Remember, there are local police that also patrol, so it's not just the TSA heading the airports.

Like I mentioned in the previous 2 posts, but considering we all have to scan our laptops anyway, wouldn't any explosive show up in the xray thing? That's why the turning-on thing doesn't make sense to me.

Plus, if the TSA are so worried about laptops and computers being used for dangerous purposes, I damn well expect them to be IT experts, otherwise it's just a moron looking at a computer and understanding nothing about what he sees... which makes no one safer.

WPenvy says:

It's funny that you think you're safe. If only you knew how many vulnerabilities there are at airports. Security is a joke.

War is peace,
Ignorance is strength,
Freedom is slavery. -Orwell

Posted via Windows Phone Central App

Checks are for everyone, equally. Absolutely!

Just as long as you don't have a beard and look middle-Eastern / Indian / Pakistani.

 

 

leo74 says:

As stupid as it gets... I had several situations traveling internationally where I ran out of battery before my last leg back to the US. It happens. So unless they provide me with a power outlet at the security checkpoint and have the patience to wait until my phone comes back to life, this measure is ridiculous...

danadill says:

Agreed!!  the only way they can really do this.. most peoples phones are not at 100% especially travelling.. mine never is.. 

erasure25 says:

Or YOU could just plan ahead and not be a total douche and inconvenience the other travelers in line behind you.... I swear, the second you ask someone to plan ahead they get all up in arms.... What?? You mean I actually have to plan ahead when flying internationally?!!?!?!?!?!???

leo74 says:

Well, I travel Internationally for about 50% of my work time. You WILL run out of battery at some point. For the occasional tourist planning for the one trip a year is great. For people on the go, planning happens when you change the flight heading to Rome for the one Heading to New York because a meeting changed.

paulheu says:

I carry a 13,000 mAh Anker battery with me which ensure my phone will NEVER run out when I travel. It will keep my phone going for days without the need to plug in to a charger.

sundawg#WP says:

Yup..and for the last few years every international flight I've had has had a USB charging port in the headrest in front of me or down under the seat.

Sicarius123 says:

Hahah, you are so goddamn brainwashed if you think this is acceptable.

MikeSo says:

No kidding.

Atanu Nath says:

Erasure25, you don't fly much, do you

Flying is no right, its a privilege, & if they feel this will leave other passengers safer, so be it. I can't complain for flying on their planes.

Says who? TSA? Flying is not a privilege. That's the biggest bs I've ever heard in my life.

erasure25 says:

Flying IS a privilege. Just like driving is a privilege. Both can be taken away with due cause. Seems like the BS is all yours.

leo74 says:

Might want to tell that to the company who sends me on travels on planes every week. It is a commodity and for most frequent travelers it is a annoying necessity...

erasure25 says:

Uhm, some companies send their employees on deliveries with company owned cars. Guess what happens if the privilege of driving (e.g., having your state issues license revoked) is taken away? You probably lose your job or get re-assigned. So your example proves nothing.

kalo88 says:

Walking must be a privilege too then because that can be taken away from you quite easily.

Flying and driving is a necessity.

You are not required to utilize a private company's multimillion dollar aircraft to walk. You use your own two feet. Driving, as well, utilizes YOUR car. If you're on a public road YOU paid tax dollars for, it IS a right in a sense. Flying, in every essence, is a privilege, unless its YOUR plane.

BDBDBD says:

Of course flying is privelege not a right. Look up the Bill of Rights and show us where it mentions flying.

I recall not too long ago being in a courtroom in the US where a judge took away someone's driver's license and told him "Driving is a privilege, not a right". Same goes for flying. Don't want to play by the airline/airport rules? Simple, don't fly. It's your right to choose.

 

leo74 says:

And the fact that I cam power on a device means that it is impossible to hide explosives in it? As I said: Plain stupid. On top of that they x-ray the device anyway

jjmorgan64 says:

Actually, up until the last couple of years the bill of rights does not give us rights, it lists restrictions on our government.
Obviously our government has matured to a point where they no longer require any restrictions.

joeonsunset says:

Your completely and total understanding of the Bill of Rights must be the document's name.

Rubios says:

Absolutely everything that is not especified in your cute "Bill of Rights" is supposed to be a privilege then?

My sides are flotating past Venus right now.

Amen. There is a whole lot of things in the world right now where people confuse the difference between right and privilege.

Fritzly says:

Wrong! Traveling, regardless of the used vector, is a right... in democratic Countries.

Nope. Travel with in your own country is a right. How you travel may or may not be. You do not have the right to get on a plane or drive a car. You must take a test to revive a license to drive said car on anything other than private land. Cant pass the test or do something dumb to lose the license you cant drive. That is a privilege not a right. Same goes for a plane. Take a taxi or an airlines plane that is someone else's property that you are paying for the privilege to use, don't follow their rules or pay their fee you can't get in the taxi or in the plane. Again privilege not a right.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness those are rights.

Nope. The goverment can take your right for liberty away, if you can't behave. In *some* countries you can even loose the right for life.

And happiness, well, flying used to make me happy.

What if my battery is at 20% capacity, because it's already 3 years old? It will show its fully charged of course.... Makes no sense, but I'm not surprised.

edsal says:

Doesn't make much sense Until you're at 35.000 feet I know the feeling.

Adiliyo says:

Fully charged seems an odd requirement, being able to power on should be enough.

Yay for longer lines due to people not being prepared for things the entire time they are in line!

majohnny says:

They probably just say fully charged so it won't be empty. But even that seems like a little too much for me, unless they have a power source there.

BigDre97 says:

Won't help a lick

danadill says:

Really really stupid.. so if I have no power with my $600 phone they are just going to take it!!??  I am all for security but omg this is just too much!!  

erasure25 says:

You can just use these things called plugs to charge them while at the airport. Most airports have plugs available.

adrian1338 says:

Do they also have cables available? i would also rather not just plug my usb port into US soil plugs

This isn't freedom, this is fear!

leo74 says:

Right to the point! Since 9/11 everything we do seems to be based on fear and panic rather than on rational thinking and logic...

Geddeeee says:

The terrorists have won!!!!! Their reason to exist is to cause terror. It seems to be working!!!

Security is one thing, but if it based on fear, which it seems it is in the U.S., then it takes away any freedom whatsoever.

Land of the free?? Yeah right!!!!

adrian1338 says:

actually not the terrorists have won but the US government

Rubios says:

Terrorists are still laughting at how easily they won at the whole terror thing.

Remove your eyeballs to check if there's any kind of explosive behind, citizen.

dcutting says:

Really? Fully charged? They better hold my flight of I have to wait until my battery is 100%...

dcutting says:

The source article says nothing about being "fully" charged, just that it has to power up. WP Central should probably edit this article

As a TSA officer (I like to thank you guys for hate-spewing about our jobs), this article doesn't make sense. Since when did other countries have TSA? I thought TSA company was only for flights leaving the U.S.?

leo74 says:

Well, let me tell you about your agency then. At international airports with flights heading to the US, one has to go through additional security checkpoints with, you guessed it: TSA personal.

Rubios says:

I flied 3 times to the US and never went through those stupid checks.

eshy says:

TSA can require airline security procedures for any flights that want to land in the US. Any country can do that (for example, I flew to Israel recently and they require that all passnegers will be in their seats 30 minutes before landing, no moving around).

It's up to airlines to enforce. If they don't, they could lost the right to land in the US (although I'm sure that will be a long process and only if purposely ignoring these guidelines).

The decision itself is as stupid as most TSA guidelines. 

baahhh says:

When did TSA become officers?  Is this another form of control?  You guys are screeners, by definition.  There has been legislature to stop the attempted use of the word "Officer."  Your inability to properly define your position instills even less confidence in my ability to believe in the legitimacy of your job.
 

Look I could argue with you about the semantics about my job title. The fact is the define us as officers with a badge. I just work the job and enforce the rules, I dont make them. The reason they probably call us officers is because we all was sworn in.

I know you just doing your jobs....a couple of years ago i was picked for a thorough check....they found residue of explosives on my hands. Lol as a military instructor just coming from field training what do you expect. That joke cost me about three hours....and not even a cup of coffee. Six months later i had a couple of us militairy officers in my class for a exchange project ( partnership for peace ) well one of the first things i said was....your ass is mine....felt good though :)

adrian1338 says:

They said the same 80 years ago in Germany :)

erzhik says:

This is retarded. Most of the flights I've been on were at least 15 hours of flight + another 6 hours of waiting for my connecting flight. How the hell am I supposed to keep it fully charged? Most airports are notorious for not having power sockets for passengers.

dkp23 says:

I'm pretty sure the checkpoint is when you go through security before you get to the gate. So if you don't have your phone charged before you even enter through security, no go. Makes sense.

MarkusSB says:

fully charged makes no sense at all. like yeah, i will bomb you away with my 50% charged phone.

erzhik says:

Majority of European airports have checkpoints everywhere. When you land into European airport and have a connecting flight to US, you will go through security checkpoint even if you don't go through passport control. This is why this rule makes zero sense.

Maaz Mansori says:

What do they mean by fully charged? 100%? 90%? 80%? What about those of us with a 1520? A 50% battery could easily last the duration of the flight.

Maaz Mansori says:

Nevermind, apparently this Chuong H Nguyen misinterpreted the NBC News article. It doesn't state anywhere that the phone must be fully charged. It simply states charged up so that a security agent is able to see the phone turned on upon request. Not a big deal. Most people have at least some charge so they can communicate once they get off the plane. We used to have to show the phone to a security agent before 9/11 and then it was changed to have the phones run through the x-rays instead.

cspencer4253 says:

They better be careful! With all of these security enhancements at the airports, people may one day decide to just stop flying and transport other ways

MediaCastleX says:

I rather do miss the 70-something day trips across the Atlantic...lol =P

Sicarius123 says:

Nah, just stop flying to the USA lol

Does anyone know how to post a comment in YouTube ??? , I don't know :(

ahmedjan87 says:

Are you seriously asking this question here ?

Posted via Windows Phone Central App

Try to post a comment on YouTube smart guy

From your phone

MarkusSB says:

next level fake and factitious security.

BritDad says:

If the increased screening only covers EMEA flights, won't terrorists just take an indirect flight via a different route?

IceDree says:

This is not new ... They have been doing it here in Saudi Arabia for years now ... Alongside the shoes & belts.

IceDree says:

What about Asia, Central & South America ?

Olerius says:

I've never understood this "precaution" for any electronic device.  I can't imagine a bomb-like device could cause that much damage when it's packed into something that small.  (Yeah, yeah, it COULD cause enough damage to decompress the plane, blah blah blah, BUT...)  Even if you HAD fit a bomb inside a larger device like a laptop, it would cause MORE damage detonating it INSIDE the terminal while it was "tested".  While a plane holds 250-ish people, there are AT LEAST that many people within 100ft waiting in line at the security checkpoints for multiple destinations (never mind the people who have already been screened and checked in).  Add to that the number of security personelle inside the blast radius at the checkpoint, the damage to the airport itself, and the chaos it would cause redirecting/grounding every flight in the area, and "testing" a device becomes a greater security RISK than letting them go!

MediaCastleX says:

Do yourself a favor, research the subject and then let the agents explain it to you when they come and pick you up... =P

Precisely what I want to know.

topleya says:

It's terrorism, any explosion anywhere, big it small creates terror, which is the point.

Also, do some research buddy. You would be amazed at how much damage a small amount of the correct substance can do

vinxent10 says:

I think it's spelled Al-Qaida
 

MediaCastleX says:

It's not Al-Qaeda? I'm confused... =s

vinxent10 says:

Just searched wiki, turns out it can be spelled differently :o

 

Al-Qaeda (/ælˈkdə/ al-KY-də; Arabic: القاعدة‎ al-qāʿidah, Arabic: [ælqɑːʕɪdɐ], translation: "The Base" and alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida)

Laubscherc says:

I'm from South Africa. We do not blow up other nations, so no one wants to blow us up. This is an American problem, apparently created by America.

iSeeiSheep says:

Yeah such a peaceful area of the globe! Spam the entire planet, hijack ships, kidnap people, and killing people because their gay. But you don't blow people up, just shoot them in the head and kidnap small children.... Sounds quite peaceful...

Don't forget the white farmers, not so long ago....but I believe the poster means to say that south Africa doesn't interfere with the cat and mouse game of terror and terrorist.... The real terror is to let people live in fear....since 9/11 USA does everything and all under the name of terrorism....NSA etc etc...always wanting the best for the world and USA. In a country where almost every one can buy a gun and allowed to wear it. First clean out your own house then talk about your neighbours house. Multimillion dollars to the war industry and poverty in the backyard.... How long does it takes to bring a country on there knees when economics drops down. Bombs are not the weapons of the real terrorist....real terrorist uses politics just look at Europe all torn down by crazy ideas of even more crazier politician. Taxes are rising and poverty is growing. About 75 years ago one man created a black page on human history, the reason why people followed him was poverty, no jobs and no food.....history repeats it self, it only takes one man. But I believe I am going way of topic here. ;)

leo74 says:

Great logic: I can power on my device = all safe. Not being able to power it on = dangerous. Not to mention that the device is being x-rayed anyway.

offbeatbop says:

So if you all start a change.org petition and the measure is repealed, and then someone blows up a plane with your mom on it with a cellphone...

RichardBurt says:

Thankfully the TSA has no jurisdiction outside of the US.

American paranoia being forced down the throats of those of us who live in other countries.

Because, yeah, a 30 second computer boot or 1 second phone power on is SUCH an inconvenience.

jonathonpm says:

I would be pretty annoyed if my phone happened to be out of battery when I was going through security and they took it off me. They need to have chargers/cables on hand to allow people to plug it in and turn it on if there phone is out of battery. 

wpn00b says:

I agree with this. But most people will charge while at the airport.
That reminds me. Have you all seen that portable Qi charger from Nokia? So awesome.

Could you please send me a link didnt see it. Thanks

wpn00b says:

This is new? I remember back in the mid 90s I had a CD Walkman that I was required to power on our else it wasn't allowed. Maybe it just wasn't required for international flights but definitely domestic within the US.

elangab says:

Everytime I read these kind of articles, I think of "Team America world Police". The US is such a weird place....

Funny idea. When I fly to the US from Europe, the TSA has no say in security checks. No shoes are taken off, liquid amounts are less strict (no Ziploc bags needed) small knives are regularly overlooked and they will certainly not be checking whether my electronics turn on. Security checkpoints at European airports are for all passengers travelling internationally. They will certainly not introduce separate checkpoints for US-bound flights. Ridiculous!

MikeSo says:

What? Yours must be the exception. ALL flights to the US follow special security protocols. When was the last time you flew?

sundawg#WP says:

The flights I take from Schiphol to the US have a second security check at the gate. TSA agents and rescanning based on US rules.

Memristor says:

Absolutely not true. I have passed through many European airports and all of them have a separate TSA checkpoint at the gate for U.S. bound flights.

nanoware says:

I am loving the entertaining comments. Who would of thought a TSA article would be so dramatic.

Memristor says:

Who would have...

offbeatbop says:

Relax people. I'm sure the multibillion-dollar national security budget will provide the airports with some $20 chargers. Especially with thousands of people that complain as much as you do going through the airports everyday. If they don't have them on day one, after a few days of people complaining Obama will head over to Radio Shack and pickup some chargers. 

MikeSo says:

My phone is never fully charged. What the hell are they thinking? Or is it just bad journalism?

MaulerX says:

Does it literally have to be "fully" charged? Or just enough to be able to turn on?

elitelibra says:

I think it has to be charged enough to get through the process

sundawg#WP says:

People, read the NBC sited article. It says nothing of "fully charged". Just that it turns on. Plus, it says "may" check.

MikeSo says:

I expected WP Central to be accurate...

topleya says:

WPCentral was once accurate, but they are becoming more and more like WMPoweruser

Pages