The Curious Case of NYC's Selective Device Ban
When New York City released its banned items list for the 2026 mayoral inauguration, something peculiar caught the cybersecurity community's attention. Alongside the expected prohibitions on weapons, explosives, and large bags sat two specific technological devices: Flipper Zero and Raspberry Pi. What makes this particularly interesting—and frankly, a bit baffling—is what wasn't banned: laptops, smartphones, tablets, and other common computing devices.
Let's be clear about what we're looking at here. The organizers essentially said: "You can't bring this $170 multi-tool device or this $35 single-board computer, but please feel free to bring your $2,000 MacBook Pro running Kali Linux in a virtual machine, or your smartphone with NetHunter installed." It's the digital equivalent of banning Swiss Army knives while welcoming machetes through the front door.
I've been testing and writing about security tools for over a decade, and this decision represents a perfect case study in what we call "security theater"—measures that look impressive but don't actually improve security. In fact, they often create a false sense of security while missing real threats entirely. The NYC inauguration ban tells us more about how policymakers perceive technology than about actual security risks.
What Exactly Are They Banning (And Why)?
To understand why this ban is so problematic, we need to look at what these devices actually do. The Flipper Zero is a portable multi-tool for hardware hacking and security testing. It can interact with various wireless protocols—RFID, NFC, infrared, Bluetooth, and more. Think of it as a digital Swiss Army knife for security researchers, hobbyists, and IT professionals who need to test their own systems' vulnerabilities.
The Raspberry Pi, on the other hand, is a versatile single-board computer about the size of a credit card. It's used for everything from teaching kids to code to running home automation systems to serving as a low-cost web server. Yes, you could use it for nefarious purposes, but you could say the same about literally any computing device.
Here's where the irony gets thick: both devices are significantly less capable than the devices that weren't banned. A modern laptop with the right software can do everything a Flipper Zero can do, plus about a thousand other things. A smartphone with NetHunter (a penetration testing platform for Android) can perform most of the same functions while looking completely innocuous.
From what I've seen in security circles, this ban appears to be based on reputation rather than capability. The Flipper Zero has gained something of a "hacker mystique" in popular media, while Raspberry Pi boards are often featured in DIY security projects. The organizers likely recognized these names and decided they sounded dangerous, without understanding what makes a device genuinely risky in a security context.
The Real Security Threat They're Missing
Let's talk about what actually poses a security risk at events like this. If someone wanted to disrupt or surveil the inauguration, they wouldn't reach for a Flipper Zero first. They'd use tools that are more powerful, more discreet, and—crucially—not on the banned list.
Consider what a determined individual could bring through security completely unchallenged under these rules:
- A laptop running Kali Linux with a full suite of penetration testing tools
- A smartphone with NetHunter installed, capable of network scanning, man-in-the-middle attacks, and more
- A USB rubber ducky (which looks like a regular flash drive) that can emulate keyboard input to execute malicious scripts
- A Wi-Fi Pineapple or similar device for wireless network attacks
- Even something as simple as a powerful Wi-Fi scanner app on an unassuming smartphone
I've tested many of these tools in controlled environments, and I can tell you that the capabilities gap between what's banned and what's allowed is enormous. The Flipper Zero is essentially a convenient all-in-one tool for certain specific tasks, but it's not particularly powerful compared to what you can run on a standard laptop. The Raspberry Pi requires additional peripherals and setup to be useful for most security applications.
The real issue here is that security policies should focus on capabilities, not specific devices. Banning particular brands or models creates a checklist mentality rather than encouraging security personnel to think critically about what might pose a threat. It's like airport security focusing on specific shoe brands rather than looking for anything that could conceal dangerous items.
Why This Matters for Privacy and Digital Rights
Beyond the immediate security implications, this ban raises important questions about digital rights and how we regulate technology. When governments or organizations start banning specific computing devices based on reputation rather than actual risk, we're heading down a slippery slope.
Think about it this way: the Raspberry Pi is fundamentally just a computer. It runs Linux, it has USB ports, it connects to networks. By banning it specifically, what we're really saying is that certain forms of computing are suspicious while others aren't. That's a dangerous precedent for a society that increasingly relies on diverse computing platforms.
From a privacy perspective, this kind of selective banning creates concerning implications. If authorities can decide that certain tools are inherently suspicious, what stops them from extending that logic to encryption tools, privacy-focused operating systems like Tails, or even specific brands of smartphones known for strong security features?
I've spoken with security researchers who use Flipper Zero devices for legitimate work—testing their own company's RFID access systems, debugging IoT devices, or teaching students about wireless security. For them, this ban isn't just inconvenient; it sends a message that their tools (and by extension, their profession) are viewed with suspicion by default.
The Practical Impact on Security Professionals and Hobbyists
Let's get practical for a moment. Say you're a security professional attending the inauguration as part of a legitimate security detail or media team. You regularly carry a Flipper Zero because it's useful for quick diagnostics—checking if RFID readers are functioning properly, testing infrared remote signals for AV equipment, or identifying wireless devices in the area.
Under these rules, you'd have to leave your tool behind while your colleague can bring a laptop running far more powerful security testing software. The banned device is actually less capable than what's permitted, but it looks more like a "hacker tool" to someone unfamiliar with the technology.
For hobbyists and makers, the Raspberry Pi ban is equally puzzling. I know people who use Raspberry Pi devices as portable media centers, retro gaming consoles, or even just to tinker with during downtime. None of these uses pose any security threat, but the blanket ban treats all Pi devices as potentially dangerous.
What's particularly frustrating is that these bans create a false sense of accomplishment. Security personnel can point to the banned items list and say "See? We're taking cybersecurity seriously!" while completely missing actual threats. In my experience, this is how security theater works—it's designed to look effective rather than be effective.
How Security Should Actually Be Handled at Public Events
If we're serious about security at high-profile events, we need to move beyond device-specific bans and toward capability-based assessments. Here's what that might look like in practice:
First, security personnel should be trained to recognize suspicious behavior rather than just suspicious devices. Someone trying to hide their laptop's screen while typing furiously is more concerning than someone openly carrying a Flipper Zero on their belt.
Second, we need policies that focus on intent and context. A device used for legitimate professional purposes shouldn't be treated the same as one being used maliciously. This requires security staff who can have informed conversations about technology rather than just checking items off a list.
Third, if we're going to restrict computing devices at all, we should be consistent. Either all general-purpose computing devices pose some risk (in which case laptops and smartphones should get similar scrutiny), or we acknowledge that the risk comes from how devices are used rather than what they are.
From what I've seen at other major events, the most effective security approaches combine technical measures with human judgment. They use network monitoring to detect unusual activity, they train staff to spot social engineering attempts, and they create layered security rather than relying on simple device bans.
What This Means for the Future of Device Regulation
The NYC inauguration ban isn't happening in a vacuum. We're seeing increasing attempts to regulate specific technologies based on their perceived risks rather than their actual capabilities. The Flipper Zero has faced scrutiny in several countries, with some considering outright bans on its sale.
This approach fundamentally misunderstands how technology works. Banning a specific device doesn't eliminate its capabilities—it just pushes those capabilities into other forms. If you ban Flipper Zero, people will use smartphones with similar apps. If you ban Raspberry Pi, people will use other single-board computers or mini PCs.
What we should be focusing on instead is education and responsible use. Rather than treating certain tools as inherently dangerous, we should acknowledge that any powerful technology can be misused. The solution isn't to ban the technology but to promote ethical guidelines and legal frameworks that address misuse directly.
I'm particularly concerned about how this affects security research and education. Tools like the Flipper Zero and Raspberry Pi have democratized access to security testing and hardware hacking. Making them seem "dangerous" or "suspicious" could discourage people from learning valuable skills in these areas.
Practical Advice for Navigating These Restrictions
If you're someone who uses these tools professionally or as a hobbyist, here's my practical advice for dealing with increasingly common device restrictions:
First, always check the specific wording of bans. Some might say "Flipper Zero devices" while others might say "wireless testing tools" or similar. Understanding exactly what's prohibited can help you determine if there are alternative tools you can use.
Second, consider whether you truly need to bring specialized hardware. For many tasks, software solutions on a laptop or smartphone can achieve similar results. For example, instead of a Flipper Zero for RFID testing, you might use an NFC-enabled smartphone with appropriate apps.
Third, if you do need to bring specialized equipment for legitimate purposes, be prepared to explain what it is and why you have it. Having documentation from your employer or a clear professional reason can sometimes help navigate security checkpoints.
Finally, advocate for more sensible policies when you have the opportunity. Security personnel and policymakers often make these decisions based on limited information. Sharing your expertise about what these tools actually do (and don't do) can help create more informed policies in the future.
Common Questions and Misconceptions
Let's address some of the questions I've seen circulating about this ban and similar restrictions:
"Aren't these tools mainly used by hackers?" This is the biggest misconception. While these tools can be used for unauthorized access, they're primarily used by security professionals, researchers, and hobbyists for legitimate purposes. Banning them is like banning lockpicks because burglars might use them, ignoring that locksmiths need them too.
"Why not just ban all computers to be safe?" In today's world, that's simply not practical. More importantly, it wouldn't actually improve security—it would just inconvenience everyone while determined individuals found workarounds.
"Can't these devices do things regular computers can't?" Generally, no. The Flipper Zero combines several functions in one portable package, but individual functions can be replicated with other devices. The Raspberry Pi is just a small, inexpensive computer running standard software.
"What should I use instead if I can't bring these tools?" For most purposes, a laptop with appropriate software or a smartphone with security testing apps will serve you fine. The main advantage of devices like the Flipper Zero is convenience and portability, not unique capabilities.
Looking Beyond the Security Theater
The NYC mayoral inauguration device ban reveals a deeper issue in how we approach security in the digital age. We're quick to latch onto specific technologies that seem threatening without understanding what actually makes them risky or how easily their capabilities can be replicated through other means.
What we need instead is a more nuanced approach—one that recognizes that security isn't about banning specific objects but about understanding risks, training personnel to recognize real threats, and creating policies that address capabilities rather than appearances.
As we move further into 2026 and beyond, we'll likely see more attempts to regulate specific technologies based on fear rather than understanding. The challenge for privacy advocates, security professionals, and informed citizens is to push back against security theater and advocate for approaches that actually make us safer.
Because here's the uncomfortable truth: the most dangerous security vulnerabilities usually aren't in the devices people bring to events. They're in the unpatched software, the weak passwords, the social engineering opportunities, and the human errors that no device ban will ever address. Focusing on Flipper Zeros and Raspberry Pis might make for good headlines, but it does little to address the actual security challenges we face.
