Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
International Air Travel with Cameras
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Mar 21, 2017 11:21:40   #
JimRPhoto Loc: Raleigh NC
 
TSA is doing its job, and sometimes it causes problems for the traveler. I did not like the random "electronics" check since both my carry ons were completely searched after being opened on their table. But I know why they are doing it. As to liability for theft, the liability should "ride" with those we pay, and to whom we entrust our belongings. The airlines are the ones who can control their baggage processes and security, and they, not the TSA (or any other nation's security force) should be the ones accountable. The point in all this discussion on UHH is awareness. It is better to avoid surprises at the airport if you can know ahead of time what to expect.

Reply
Mar 21, 2017 12:20:03   #
Ghery Loc: Olympia, WA
 
From what I've seen this applies to direct flights to the US from certain countries. Possibly on certain foreign airlines. Coming from Canada or the EU this shouldn't be an issue (based on the stories I've seen so far). If it is certain airlines, no problem. I just won't ride them. There is no way I'm checking my laptop or camera. I've had items stolen from luggage before and I'm not giving people a chance at higher value items. I don't trust TSA or airline employed baggage handlers. Anywhere. I'll travel with lots of paper documents before I'll put my laptop at risk (or buy a cheap one for the trip, which I may do for a meeting in October anyway). And the camera in my cell phone will just have to do for such a trip. I hate airline travel (and I've done a bunch of it over the years) and this would just add to the list of reasons.

Keep watching the news reports and plan accordingly.

Reply
Mar 21, 2017 12:50:27   #
mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois
 
Ghery wrote:
From what I've seen this applies to direct flights to the US from certain countries. Possibly on certain foreign airlines. Coming from Canada or the EU this shouldn't be an issue (based on the stories I've seen so far). If it is certain airlines, no problem. I just won't ride them. There is no way I'm checking my laptop or camera. I've had items stolen from luggage before and I'm not giving people a chance at higher value items. I don't trust TSA or airline employed baggage handlers. Anywhere. I'll travel with lots of paper documents before I'll put my laptop at risk (or buy a cheap one for the trip, which I may do for a meeting in October anyway). And the camera in my cell phone will just have to do for such a trip. I hate airline travel (and I've done a bunch of it over the years) and this would just add to the list of reasons.

Keep watching the news reports and plan accordingly.
From what I've seen this applies to direct flights... (show quote)


While I regard this post as largely correct, I think the response is overkill. I travel in and out of the US very often, and so for no problems other than occasional minor delays and annoyances. If you're really concerned, buy insurance. I don't though - I hate insurance. I believe I could buy three luxury cars and a yacht on what I have NOT spent on insurance over the years. For insurance, first you pay the agent's 30% commission, then you pay for the transgressions of fraudsters, then you pay the administrative expense of the insurers and their enormous profit. What's remains is the actual risk factor - a rather small share of the premium. Not my cup of tea.
The persons inconvenienced by the new rules are only those persons traveling TO the US on foreign flag carriers from eight named countries. No changes - so far - for outbound flights on any carrier, nor or inbound flights on US carriers.

Reply
 
 
Mar 21, 2017 13:04:20   #
rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA
 
JimRPhoto wrote:
swabbed with a small square swab, one at a time.


The small swab is intended to pick up any explosives residue. It's put into a mass spectrometer for chemical analysis.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/02/explosive-trace-detection-usage.html

Reply
Mar 21, 2017 13:51:52   #
rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA
 
jerryc41 wrote:
Nothing larger than a cell phone? That's not going to make anyone happy. No food, no luggage, no movies, no cameras, no laptops.


Not only will this affect tourists, but also journalists, traveling business people, academic scholars, etc. - professionals who rely on a laptop, tablet or camera for work. The consequences will be a disaster.

Reply
Mar 21, 2017 13:54:58   #
mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois
 
rook2c4 wrote:
Not only will this affect tourists, but also journalists, traveling business people, academic scholars, etc. - professionals who rely on a laptop, tablet or camera for work. The consequences will be a disaster.


Probably not so. They will still be permitted to carry the gear on checked baggage.

Reply
Mar 22, 2017 00:33:42   #
fantom Loc: Colorado
 
jerryc41 wrote:
Nothing larger than a cell phone? That's not going to make anyone happy. No food, no luggage, no movies, no cameras, no laptops.


Yeah, I'm going to miss my electronic food, especially the electronic Snickers bars.

Reply
 
 
Mar 22, 2017 00:53:52   #
Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
 
mikegreenwald wrote:
Probably not so. They will still be permitted to carry the gear on checked baggage.


It will have a huge impact on some people, and certain airlines. It is also very unlikely to make anyone safer. It will make people with photographic equipment change their behavior.

This is an innocent sounding measure that has quite insidious implications. It may also just be the beginning of more restrictions. If an explosive device gets through the checks who cares whether it is in the cabin or the cargo hold?

Reply
Mar 22, 2017 01:17:17   #
Orson Burleigh Loc: Annapolis, Maryland, USA
 
Peterff wrote:
Isn't that a rather socialist perspective, to make others pay for your personal problems?


No, it is not a socialist perspective and nor is it a personal problem. If I am required to put my personal gear at substantially increased risk the responsibility for predictable losses rests with those who imposed that additional risk (DHS in this case). The airlines' specific liability, as outlined in the very small print on airline tickets, is limited by international agreements and is not sufficient to cover the loss of valuable equipment.

Reply
Mar 22, 2017 01:22:13   #
Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
 
Orson Burleigh wrote:
No, it is not a socialist perspective and nor is it a personal problem. If I am required to put my personal gear at substantially increased risk the responsibility for predictable losses rests with those who imposed that additional risk (DHS in this case). The airlines' specific liability, as outlined in the very small print on airline tickets, is limited by international agreements and is not sufficient to cover the loss of valuable equipment.


If the DHS pays, then the tax payer pays. Buy insurance to cover your own stuff, don't ask everybody else to pay for you.

Reply
Mar 22, 2017 05:27:21   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
Peterff wrote:
So far just speculation, but this just in from Reuters. Remember all those discussions we have about air travel and checking cameras? How would you or do you react? Could this also extend to US airlines or redirected flights?

...............................

By David Shepardson and Mark Hosenball, Reuters.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. authorities are planning to ban passengers traveling on certain U.S.-bound foreign airline flights from carrying into the cabin larger electronic devices in response to an unspecified terrorism threat, U.S. officials told Reuters on Monday.

The new rule is expected to be announced as early as Monday by the Department of Homeland Security, the officials said, adding that it had been under consideration since the U.S. government learned of a threat several weeks ago.

A source said the rule would cover nearly a dozen foreign airlines. A separate government official confirmed an Associated Press report that the ban will impact 10 airports in eight countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Reuters reported earlier the ban would include airlines based in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The officials did not name the other countries.

The officials said no American carriers were affected by the ban, which would apply to devices larger than a cell phone, and none travel directly to the airports impacted from U.S. cities Passengers would be allowed to carry larger devices in their checked luggage like tablets, portable DVD players, laptops and cameras.

Royal Jordanian Airlines said in a tweet on Monday that U.S.-bound passengers would be barred from carrying most electronic devices aboard aircraft starting Tuesday at the request of U.S. officials, including those that transit through Canada. Passengers can still carry cell phones and approved medical devices.

Al Riyadh newspaper, which is close to the Saudi government, reported that the civil aviation authority had informed "airlines flying from the kingdom's (Saudi) airports to U.S. airports of the latest measures from U.S. security agencies in which passengers must store laptops and tablets" in checked in baggage.

Al Riyadh quoted a civil aviation authority source as saying that these measures from senior U.S. authorities were relayed to the Saudi interior ministry.

Saudia Airlines confirmed in a tweet that U.S. transportation authorities had barred carrying larger electronic devices in cabin luggage.

The White House declined to comment.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, David Lapan, said the agency has "no comment on potential security precautions, but will provide an update when appropriate.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly called congressional lawmakers this weekend to notify them of the plan, congressional aides said.

In July 2014, the Homeland Security Department stepped up security of U.S.-bound flights, requiring tougher screening of mobile phones and other electronic devices and requiring them to be powered up before passengers could board flights to the United States.

(Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy; Editing by Sandra Maler, Toni Reinhold and Lisa Shumaker)
So far just speculation, but this just in from Reu... (show quote)


Only incoming flights from Muslim countries were originally effected. But Domestic flights and flights leaving US are also not effected.

Reply
 
 
Mar 22, 2017 07:40:09   #
Orson Burleigh Loc: Annapolis, Maryland, USA
 
Peterff wrote:
If the DHS pays, then the tax payer pays. Buy insurance to cover your own stuff, don't ask everybody else to pay for you.

Are you selling insurance Snowflake?

Reply
Mar 22, 2017 09:31:03   #
brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky
 
Peterff wrote:
If the DHS pays, then the tax payer pays. Buy insurance to cover your own stuff, don't ask everybody else to pay for you.



Reply
Mar 22, 2017 09:41:55   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
Peterff wrote:
If the DHS pays, then the tax payer pays. Buy insurance to cover your own stuff, don't ask everybody else to pay for you.

Exactly. Just more sense of entitlement.

Reply
Mar 22, 2017 10:14:05   #
Orson Burleigh Loc: Annapolis, Maryland, USA
 
A government entity that facilitates theft should be responsible, exactly as a government entity that receives or facilitates the receipt of stolen goods should be responsible.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.