Topic: Harsher travel regulations might ban portable gaming on aircraft? (UPDATE: Safe to game again!)

There was actually something of an electronic ban (at least in the UK) after the liquid bomb plot for a few months. Though that was actually made official by the authorities. Right now TSA is apparently enforcing all kinds of security procedures and it's not all the same, so some people may be fine with consoles, just depends where your flying from and what airline you are with.

Bit confusing but apparently this is on purpose to stop any more attempts happening right now. Just expect when flying to US that the authorities will be a bit edgy again for a while

I get so scared flying I never do anything but grip my seat and stare out the window. Shutting my eyes and humming is another favorite plane activity for me. So, um, this doesn't effect me.

I'd be one of those passengers that would leap over my seat and wrestle you to the ground. Suspicious for sure!

Books will be banned next. Those things are dangerous! I mean...if someone can take over an entire plane with a stupid box cutter, imagine what someone could do with all of the dangerous ideas inside a book!

they'll have to have professional readers now who'll scan your books for you. the screening process will now take a minimum of two days in order for the readers to fully digest what they've read and then make a ruling regarding whether or not it contains said 'dangerous ideas'. Thanks a lot for giving 'em the idea, Magi.
_{also, i lol'd}

Funny thing is, instead of actually following through with their tip offs so they wont hurt the poor guys feelings they could just freaking actually start tracking these guys and anytime they travel ANYWHERE search them. Screw their feelings. Sorry but Im gettin really annoyed at the way things are being handled. This punishing EVERYONE for a few and still NOT even pushing harder at the ones they already know about really pissed me off big time.
As for me I do take my PSP/DSi with me when I travel always, but I do read quite a bit as well and like to read on flights so not a big deal.

Better safe than sorry.

I was at Liverpool Airport yesterday, to see me Ma back to Spain. Due to recent events, security was obviously much tighter. What annoys me, is that once an attempted attack is out of the headlines, security relaxes... why?! :/

[doom-monger] We are in the middle of a holy war, one that will threaten normal life for decades to come. [/doom-monger] I'd much rather get stopped, searched and thoroughly inconvenienced, than be on board a plane that passengers have strolled upon freely. If they want to ban electronic devices too, good, I'm all for it.

Don't like it? Don't fly!

_{but yeah, we shall relax, until the next attempt/attack. stoopid f'ing humans durgh :/}

There are real threats, extremists (does not matter the race or origin of a person, you can be an extremist) if you will that want to kill normal hard working people across this world for no good reasons. I say this as an older person that I think I would rather be safe than sorry.

I take issue with the hammer coming down on everyone, when every.single.one of these kinds of attacks/attempts has been perpetrated by a very specific type of individual, which can be readily profiled. But political correctness forces us to act stupidly and pretend we don't know what we know, and lie to ourselves that the 80-year old lily-white grandmother is just as valid a potential threat as the 24-year old single male of Arab descent traveling on a one-way ticket purchased with cash. How [self-edited] messed up is that?

Spot on V (as always). We don't need to stop and search everyone, but being so civilized we are unwilling to stop just those who 'fit the bill'. I can totally understand why though, imagine being that 24-year old single male of Arab descent, who is innocent of any ill will. If I were him, and my motives were questioned, would I understand the need for such checks, or would I feel deeply offended and marginalised? Hmm...

Funnily enough, they are discussing it on the radio right now, body scanners and profiling seem to be the most effective solutions. But of course they are expensive and will more than likely inconvenience passengers, and then there is the issue of employees abusing such scanners, more moral fog to get lost in.

I'd just like to see the authorities pick a strategy and stick with it, rather than fleeting from one to another depending on the current 'state of alert' which is meaningless, as any half intelligent terrorist will just wait until things have calmed down again. The OP being a good example, they panic, then they relax.

Check your email, 'Chu.

The only problem is that if you do target a specific group and ignore the others, those looking to blow a plane up will find someone in those "safe" groups to do it. The terrorists are fanatics, but not stupid.

I hear you Fox, but two things... First, members of those "safe" groups are usually not inclined to blow themsleves to mushy bits for others' misguided beliefs, and second, I don't believe anyone would suggest we ignore everyone else.

And as a bonus, it's tough for "safe" people to become part of the planning and attack groups - heck, it's even tough for "natives" to get in. Look what happened to those 5 guys that fled the US to Pakistan to join up. They were hard core, and yet denied access because they didn't have the proper "references." Hey you gotta hand it to al Queda, at least they have a halfway decent HR department.

I don't think it hurts to check everyone, does it? Bombs are not the only things that people will try to sneak on international flights that shouldn't be there. I definitely think all who fit the description of your average terrorist should be taken under special consideration without worrying about being PC, but I don't know that it's a matter of their not noticing him but just being inept at detecting the bomb. Then again, they can't exactly demand everyone boarding a plane take off their pants, can they? That would be one special kind of plane ride. As long as security measures don't harm anyone and they actually do serve some good -- besides the mere appearance of taking action -- I don't mind. Of course, some of their suggested changes don't really make sense or even have anything to do with this case, from what I've read.

Not arguing either side, just voicing my poorly informed thoughts.

Adam has a point. I did something very naughty in my younger days, I brought a souvenir back from Amsterdam (no not a hooker, the other one) but only after I had made the trip half a dozen times and been witness to the complete lack of checks that went on. This was before 911 though, so I don't even know why I'm mentioning it, or what my point was. 0_o

For the sake of national security, I will happily take my trousers off before getting on a plane. Pants? That's a bit much!

You're going to have to explain to me the difference, there, Machu. Pants, trousers? Could have sworn they were synonyms, or at least close. I don't know if it's my poor fashion sense or my constant misunderstanding of British-American language differences that's acting up here. Or maybe, just maybe, you're messing with me here. I won't write that one off just yet, haha.

Yeah, they were (as well as the stewardesses.... )

@Adam: Yeah sorry it's another transatlantic thing, you say pants, and we giggle. I'm not sure why you call trousers pants, and I'm not sure why we don't. But yes, that special kind of plane ride would be even more interesting using the UK translation.

This has made me think.... if airport staff are gonna be ogling our naked bits as we walk past the scanners, why not just let everyone see? I hereby suggest, that to ensure air travel safety, we must all travel naked. Sorted.

Not so fast, Machu...

Can you imagine?

I am really trying not to.

It takes all kinds, guys.