So, at the risk of giving credit where it clearly is not due …
Assume the various US intelligence agencies have information about an individual AND
Assume that information is specific and credible enough to require a response AND
Assume the information is also vague enough that it doesn’t require an intsta-droning AND
Assume that the information relates to the travel of that individual from “somewhere” the Middle East to the US, carrying a laptop or other large electronic device, over a specific date range
Now, assuming all that, you could watch that individual to see what they do in response to the announced ban. In that specific circumstance it doesn’t matter that the ban is public, nor that it doesn’t go in to effect for a few days. In fact, giving the person under surveillance time to adjust is an explicit benefit. Do they promptly change their flight booking so they can continue to carry their laptop on board? That would be … interesting, though not necessarily proof of nefarious intent.
And, yes: I do feel I should enter Schneier’s Movie Plot contest with that convoluted tale of nested assumptions.
Rider: frankly, I think it’s far more plausible that they’re using ‘security’ as a Trojan horse for a trade war. Remember that thing about “believe the autocrat”? It applies here too.
