Shoe removal rule ending at US airports after nearly 20 years
The directive, issued last week, states that starting Sunday, all passengers will be allowed to keep their shoes on in general screening lanes at many major airports — not just those enrolled in TSA PreCheck.
The goal is to expand the new policy to all US airports shortly, the memo reportedly states.
The change marks a significant move toward modernising and streamlining airport security, which has long been criticised for delays and inconvenience. TSA has spent years exploring ways to improve the efficiency of checkpoint processes without compromising safety.
Previously, only passengers enrolled in TSA PreCheck — a program that allows for expedited screening — could typically keep their shoes on.
The TSA began requiring passengers to remove their shoes in 2006, in response to a 2001 incident in which British national Richard Reid attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his footwear on a flight from Paris to Miami. Reid's plot failed after he was subdued by passengers and crew, but the incident led to sweeping changes in airport screening protocols.
Despite the relaxed rule, passengers may still be asked to remove their shoes during additional screening if they trigger the alarm while passing through a scanner or magnetometer.
Anyone who triggers the alarm will still be subject to further screening, including shoe removal, the memo clarifies.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
UK man accused of offering ex-defence minister Grant Shapps' information to Russian intelligence
A British man offered personal information about former defence minister Grant Shapps to Russian intelligence for money, prosecutors said on Wednesday at the start of his trial for a National Security Act offence. Grant Shapps is a former British defence minister(Reuters) Howard Phillips is accused of offering Shapps' home address and phone number to two people he believed were Russian agents, but were in fact British undercover officers. The 65-year-old denies one count of engaging in conduct intended to materially assist a foreign intelligence service, a crime that carries a potential sentence of up to 14 years in jail. His trial began at Winchester Crown Court on Wednesday, when prosecutor Jocelyn Ledward said Phillips offered to help Russian intelligence "not necessarily for ideological reasons or because he sympathised with the Russian state". Ledward said Phillips had sought to carry out "easy – and, perhaps, interesting or exciting – work for easy money". Phillips in October 2023 applied for a job with the United Kingdom's Border Force and was approached in March 2024 by purported Russian agents, using the names Sasha and Dima, Ledward said. She added that Phillips maintained his job application despite his apparent contact with Russian agents in the belief the job "might give him access to information that he could later provide". Ledward said Phillips was asked to save a file onto a clean USB stick, stating what he could offer and why, and hide it inside a parked bicycle on a London street in April 2024. The document stated that Phillips could "facilitate the collection of an operative from any port of entry, provide them with safe harbor, travel, assistance and return them to a designated place of embarkation undetected". Phillips met Sasha and Dima in a London hotel later that month, and then met Dima in May 2024, saying he knew Shapps' home address, telephone number and where his private plane was kept as he had visited Shapps' house, Ledward said. Phillips, whose trial is due to take up to three weeks, is also accused of offering logistical support, booking a hotel and buying a mobile phone for a foreign intelligence service.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Diary of a short-seller: Viceroy's many hits, few misses
Mumbai/Bengaluru: Thirty months after the shock Hindenburg report on Adani Group, New York-based short-seller Viceroy Research took aim at billionaire Anil Agarwal's Vedanta Resources Plc, calling his mining and minerals conglomerate a Ponzi scheme. Founded in 2016 by British short-seller Fraser John Perring along with Gabriel Bernarde and Aiden Lau, Viceroy calls itself an investigative financial research group. Since its scathing report on Australian miner Syrah Resources on 23 December, 2016, the Delaware-registered short-seller has issued reports on 29 additional companies, Vedanta being the latest. Incidentally, Vedanta is the first Indian company that Viceroy has flagged for alleged wrongdoing. So, how does Viceroy, which first caught the world's attention for flagging problems at German financial payments firm Wirecard, fare? Six of the companies are trading at a higher price than when Viceroy first issued its report, according to a review of the reports and share performance by Mint. Fourteen still trade at a lower price after Viceroy's report. The remaining nine companies have either been delisted, acquired, or suspended from trading. In other words, only a fifth of the calls made by Viceroy have resulted in a loss, translating to an impressive 80% success rate. At Hindenburg Research, which shut down in January, investor partners profited from three-quarters (75%) of its 45 investment calls (34 instances) over 60 months. Short sellers typically borrow a stock, betting it will fall. If the stock indeed falls, the short seller repurchases the now-cheaper shares, returns them to the broker or lender, and pockets the profit. In the case of Vedanta, Viceroy took a short position on the bonds of Vedanta Resources Ltd, the privately held holding company of Vedanta Ltd, the BSE-listed mining firm. Vedanta rejected the Viceroy report, calling it a "malicious combination of selective misinformation and baseless allegations". Unlike short-sellers like Hindenburg and Muddy Waters Research and Citron Research, one thing stands out in Viceroy—All the short-sellers play the role of activist investors. However, they rarely put out more than one report on a single company. Viceroy has put out more than one report on 23 of the 29 companies, a Mint review showed. The short-seller put out 25 reports on Arbor Realty Trust, the New York Stock Exchange-listed real estate investment trust (REIT) and 21 reports on Medical Properties Trust, another REIT. Finally, it released 28 reports on MiMedx, a Nasdaq-listed biopharmaceutical company. Shares of Arbor, Medical Properties and MiMedx are down 10%, 67% and 43%, respectively from the time these reports were released. This could spell trouble for public investors of Vedanta Ltd, as Viceroy's co-founder, Perring, has warned of more reports in the coming days. Perring told Mint that the co-founders opened a short position on the bonds of Vedanta Resources sometime in April in their personal capacity, and no investor is backing this campaign. Short-sellers share their research with a select group of investors ahead of the public release, enabling them to take short positions and profit once the report is made available. Such firms earn a commission from the profits their investor partners generate.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Vedanta has so many red flags, it will take people some time to digest: Viceroy's Perring
Fraser Perring, a British short-seller and founder of Viceroy Research, caused a stir in the markets with a critical report on Anil Agarwal's Vedanta Resources Ltd. The report, published during market hours, saw Vedanta shares tumble before they partially recouped their losses to end 3.38% lower than the previous day's close. In a telephonic interview from the UK with Mint's Varun Sood and Nehal Chaliawala, Perring said there is 'more to come", adding that 'there are so many red flags" that 'it will take people some time to digest this". Vedanta has denied the allegations. Also read | Vedanta under fire: Allegations of financial misconduct ring alarm ahead of AGM Perring and Viceroy Research have earned a reputation for being taken seriously in the financial world, largely due to their role in exposing Wirecard, the German payment processor and financial services provider that was embroiled in one of the biggest financial scandals in post-war Germany. Edited Excerpts: We've taken a short position personally here (Vedanta Resources Ltd or VRL). We opened short positions on the bonds of VRL about three to four months back. I can't remember exactly. We never disclose the size of our short, but it's a high-conviction short. It's through prime brokers. I don't know where the counterparty is. Not necessarily, we share the reports, but when we have a high-conviction idea that we may or may not publish, and we take a position that we've been short here on the bonds. Three key co-founders are generally idea-driven, and then we contract in or work with people who have a better skill set in certain areas, because it would be misleading to say that we all know everything. We conduct extensive on-the-ground research, examining what Vedanta has said over the last few months. So, timing-wise, the conception or thought process behind Vedanta was about nine months, give or take, from memory. It was September or October of last year. Yeah. What drew our attention was that key events were reported in local newspapers. Also read | Vedanta share price tanks 8%. Is Viceroy Research report behind the fall? Still, the company didn't acknowledge this, as evidenced by court cases or by increasing the value of assets, even though they were either not operational or poorly performing. It prompted us to examine some of the assertions Vedanta had made about its projects and its commitment to them. We found that many of Vedanta's promises were never actually fulfilled, such as its announcements about entering the semiconductor and nuclear industries. All of this never materialised. All it's doing is refinancing debt or enabling the payment of dividends. It's crazy. Well, for Vedanta itself, it's to raise cash, promote the share price and enrich the majority shareholders at the expense of the minority shareholders. The question really should be, how is it allowed to go on where real investors are having their investment jeopardised by a financial management system that's going to, if they continue in this way, jeopardise all the shareholders. In double-digits. Maybe 15 or 20 people. We focus on people with skill sets to almost try and disprove our thesis, because from a research perspective, it's better to try and prove yourself wrong as a short seller, because your piece will be more solid. But you are also testing the facts more, rather than assuming you're right. Also read | Vedanta expects demerger to complete by Sept-end: CFO No journalists. Predominantly forensic accountants, people in the commodities or infrastructure sector, things like that, getting their views … testing out whether what we believe is happening is correct or whether we are wrong. We wouldn't expect a strong initial reaction. In reality, it will take people some time to digest this. There are so many red flags in this report that I don't think it'd be appreciated until people get to the bottom of it, if I may. It's a combination of all three, as you'll see in our follow-up, depending on how transparent Vedanta wants to be. Obviously, we don't give everything at once. There's more to come. We will be sharing some anecdotes, but we don't want to spoil this surprise. We've spent a considerable amount of time on this report, making it one of the few we intend to produce, which offers in-depth coverage of the company, requiring transparency. Obviously, the company needs to be allowed to respond fully, rather than with a childish response. And if that changes, then we will publish more details. There will be a series of reports. I am yet to find where the last regulator made things challenging. It happened during the Wirecard episode in Germany, with which we were also heavily involved. There are enough short sellers out there and where they still do damn good work, and our experience of regulators, particularly over the two and a half years, has been, if I'm being really honest, quite positive … we have assisted with investigations into fraudulent companies on three continents. Yes, they don't appreciate the work that we do to the level they should, but they have also been very respectful. They have quite clearly embraced reports, and you can see that out of the charges that were brought by the work. According to the statement today, all the information that we published is known. That's poppycock. That's what companies rely on as a defence, because they don't want to have to explain how bad it is. We have seen that, all over the world, there is a complete denial. It's malicious. That we profit from being short. Also read | Anil Agarwal on success: 'It begins in quite years, no praise, just work…' But in reality, they've been profiting for years, completely underrepresenting risks and misstating the performance of assets, appreciating the value of assets, falsely capitalising projects, and that's even down to amortising a large fine, which is in complete contradiction to accounting rules. There are no coercive or malicious events surrounding the time of our report. It's just that it was ready when it was, and the company, irrespective of our timing. So let's ignore the timing. There's nothing to see there. Why don't they respond fully point by point? Ultimately, the end goal is for minority shareholders to protect themselves. The stakeholders, other than those implementing this strategy, have been misled and should be in uproar. Because, if this continues, the parasite, as we refer to it, is just a financial extraction. If we believe that we wouldn't do it. One thing we do is highlight transparency. We published on Wirecard. It's about transparency, which is lacking in the public markets, where companies are too willing to highlight the positives and overlook what's happening, not necessarily behind the scenes, but the things that could impact them. And accountability is key, but more importantly, we're advocating for greater transparency from companies, particularly those that perpetually spin plates of prosperity versus the reality of their underlying performance. Also read | Vedanta's Anil Agarwal sees BIG opportunity for India amid Harvard-Trump row In the case of Nate (Nathan Anderson, founder of Hindenburg), he attempted to bring transparency to shareholders (at Adani). I'm sure that the corporate governance is either better managed at Adani now, or at least people believe it is. Suppose it has improved, kudos. The reality is also that the conviction in Adani Enterprises is 30% less than when Hindenburg published the report. It depends on what investors want to believe. We've held on to some shorts for two years. We'd welcome an invitation if you'd like that as your headline. We'd dial in. Yeah. We are more than willing to have anyone with an invite ask questions.
