[schtitt]

I think the core of the issue here is that at some point, the nuisance outweighs the risk. How long will this ban be in place? Until the terrorists forget how to make laptop bombs? In the meantime, how many hours of productive work is being lost?

To put it another way, let's say the US got intelligence that terrorists now are able to make bombs out of, say, shoes. Should everyone be forced to remove their shoes before boarding? A silly and contrived example, to be sure, but it is meant to illustrate a point: Where do we draw the line between safety and inconvenience?

[janoc]

Uh, didn't we have the mandatory shoe removal for a while already after the shoe bomber? Shoe removal is still commonly demanded if the metal detector gets triggered and many places have special shoe scanning devices too.

And we still have the liquid ban, thanks to one plot that wasn't even realistic to start with.

So sadly "safety" and security theater where you get to show to your electorate that you are "doing something about it" will always win over inconvenience and common sense.

[vivekd]

Its not just ability to make bombs out of laptops, but also discovered plans to do so. If in our silly senario it came out that we did a raid on a terrorist hideout and found plans to hide bombs inside shoes to bomb planes, and that shoes are more suitable than other items to making these bombs and that terrorists had been perfecting shoe bombs - then yes it might be prudent to ask people to remove shoes during flights. You are right - its a balancing act between risk and precaution, in this case I dont think its unreasonable to ask people to check in laptops when we find terrorist plans to blow up planes with laptop bombs