[borski]

With respect (I mean that in earnest), I think you may be the one missing the forest for the trees.

Nobody is arguing we should ban phones. The argument is that banning flipper zeros doesn’t accomplish anything meaningful toward security.

[kube-system]

Yeah, they are probably a disturbance at best. Like pets, large signs, beach balls, and alcohol alcoholic beverages, which are other things on the list.

"security" is a lot more broad than just "preventing terrorist attacks"

You don't need to be a super l33et h4x0r to disrupt an event -- you could knock around a beach ball or turn off a display with the IR blaster on a flipper zero. Not everything is life or death.

[borski]

What’s more likely? That they were banned due to misunderstandings of what these devices are, or that they were banned they are “causing a disturbance”? Can you find an example of such a case? I’m not sure why this feels so important to defend.

There are several definitions of security, but the most relevant (in this context) are:

1. the state of being protected against or safe from danger or threat.

2. the safety of a state or organization against criminal activity such as terrorism, theft, or espionage.

3. procedures followed or measures taken to ensure the safety of a state or organization.

I fail to see how these devices fall into those definitions. I also don’t see how beach balls do either.

So if your argument is changing to: it isn’t security, but rather preventing people from getting in each other’s way (large signs, strollers, beach balls) I once again don’t see how that applies.

I agree those items have nothing to do with security either.