The golden rule of travel is that one should place valuables in carry-on luggage, but since March 25 travelers to the United States from ten Middle Eastern and North African airports have had to check in their most expensive electronic devices. Anything larger than a mobile phone, including tablets, laptops and cameras cannot be carried into the cabin. Exemptions only apply for approved medical devices after additional screenings.

The United States Department of Homeland Security’s restrictions on in-flight electronic devices is one of the latest examples of the high cost and personal toll of security. Islamist groups, however outnumbered, are able to disrupt the convenience of much larger groups of passengers traveling from the United States via Gulf hubs. But if the threat of laptops is so imminent and urgent, why isn’t the DHS calling for a universal ban? The targeting of these specific airports by US authorities, followed quickly by the UK, shows the power of a small group of legislators in deciding the fate of many travelers.

Is the ban warranted? Middle Eastern countries already have a vested interest in security. Their reputation, laden with misconceptions from abroad, is already on the line. Instead of the DHS giving 96 hours to implement the ban, the Department should have cooperated with these countries to increase security measures. The security measures introduced after 9/11 or the requirement from July 2014 to have electronic devices charged provide a precedent for collaboration. Abu Dhabi International Airport, for example, is one of the 15 airports in the world to use DHS preclearance techniques. Considering that 9 out of the 15 are Canadian airports, and Abu Dhabi is the only airport in the region with preclearance facilities, this is a commendable feat. On a Q&A on why the Transportation Security Administration is only implementing measures overseas and not domestically, the DHS’s Office of the Press Secretary wrote: “Security procedures, both seen and unseen, are in place to mitigate the risk to flights in the United States.” This suggests that the U.S. has knowledge of the measures to take, but will only undertake these measures domestically rather than working with Middle Eastern airports. Ultimately, from a security standpoint, the ban appears to be aimed at detecting explosives on their arrival in the U.S.. The TSA has increased screening measures before releasing luggage to passengers. However costly security and its measures may be, the toll of the electronics ban needn’t have fallen so directly on the passengers and their right to carry their belongings.

The decision to target Gulf countries is said to have stemmed from intelligence reports. Most actual threats and danger have occurred at airports not covered by the ban. If there is a credible threat of assembling a bomb out of laptop parts and lithium ion batteries, why are they not instead universally banned? What makes European airports, for example, less vulnerable? What extra measures are there that are so different? One of the cited terrorism incidents is the Brussels attack. Yet the country is not on the laptop ban country list. The Somalia plane bomb in February 2016, sparked by an explosives-laden laptop is what most closely resembles the type of threat the electronics restriction tries to target. But Somalia did not make the cut either. Perhaps the threats were never there, so directly, in the first place.

Many journalists and commentators look past the the security claims, labelling the new restriction as one motivated by retaliation against Gulf airline protectionism. These measures will drastically reduce business and family travel through those airlines. People are projected to fly instead through European hubs. My feeling is that if the US was most concerned about protecting its business interests, taxing customers so visibility under the guise of security is a sloppy way to achieve to achieve this goal. Fairness in competition is a legitimate issue to raise and negotiate. There are other ways of responding to protectionist measures without directly impacting the private sphere of travelers. What is more clear is that this restriction spreads the idea that the Middle Eastern hubs are dangerous. They are where Islamists groups are from, and are how they will reach the US.

What is worrisome is that this restriction comes in the aftermath of two failed immigration bans on Muslim-majority countries. It is thus not surprising that this laptop ban was quickly dubbed as the Muslim laptop ban. The cost of security is high. Maybe in retrospect this restriction will be normalized, just like how we don’t make a fuss about taking our shoes off or being seen naked through X-rayed lights. However, when such a security measure is not uniformly applied, it punishes the customers on affected flights directly. It forces people to part from their personal devices and data, stripping them from a right and comfort available to most other passengers to the US. Infringements in the personal sphere are all too familiar to the Muslim population.

If the question now is, how do we deal with this? — then Emirates has started to offer services that will not require passengers to check-in their devices until immidiately prior to boarding, as well as offering laptop loan programs. But not all are provided with this privilege, and Emirates advises its customers to check-in their electronics. Another issue is security itself — if large electronic devices are dangerous, aren’t they dangerous in cargo? The Federal Aviation Administration, for example, prohibits loose lithium batteries in checked baggage due to fire risks, but allows them in carry-on. The Aviation Herald, which reports on incidents and news in aviation, cites a lack of inflight access to the cargo as a reason why fires in the hold are more dangerous than in the cabin. The restriction could mean more lithium batteries in cargo. It is also unclear whether electronic devices will be able to be better examined. The benefit of passengers taking their devices in carry-on luggage is that airport security and control may request them to turn them on, for example. There are many additional questions that have come up from this restriction.

This hasty response to terrorism is one that gives the illusion of making a difference and targeting a root cause. In reality, this new restriction poses an inconvenience to the world at large and creates enemies. It is a broad-stroke benighted approach that even potentially does more harm than it prevents.