Man Walks Past Security Screening Staring At iPad, Causing Airport Evacuation 217
First time accepted submitter chentiangemalc writes While Australia is on "high alert" for terror threats a man walked past a Sydney Airport security screening while engrossed in his iPad and delayed flights for an hour. From the article: "This event was captured on CCTV and unnerved officials so much that they evacuated passengers. As the Sydney Morning Herald reported, the man found himself (or, perhaps, didn't) going into the terminal through an exit passage that clearly was convenient for him, but less convenient for the hordes of passengers who not only had to be removed from Terminal 3, but also re-screened. A spokeswoman for Qantas told the Morning Herald: 'The man disembarked a flight and left. It appears he wasn't paying attention, was looking at his iPad, forgot something and walked back past (the security area).'"
Walked past Security Theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm so glad that so many people were able to participate in the extended season of Security Theatre. Too bad the iPad patron missed out. Well, at least at first...
Missing out (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed it is an all around too bad for the millions of _screen lookers_ everywhere --- by focusing on that little lighted panel all the time they never know how much they have been missing out
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed it is an all around too bad for the millions of _screen lookers_ everywhere --- by focusing on that little lighted panel all the time they never know how much they have been missing out
That reminds me of the one and only time I got robbed. I'm walking along, texting on my cell phone, and next thing I know there's a punk kid pointing a gun at me. In broad daylight. Probably a newbie, as he looked really scared and all he took was my phone. Also, I didn't even notice the two henchmen behind me. Needless to say, no more zombie walking for me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missing out (Score:4, Insightful)
Because in civilization no one would dare think to use a knife, steel pipe, baseball bat, wrench, box cutter, hammer, screwdriver, ice pick, awl, straight razor or any number of commonly found items to use in a robbery.
It's only guns you have to worry about.
Re:Walked past Security Theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Walked past Security Theatre (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly the solution is to put a fountain in the security exit corridor to trap screen-lookers before they can cross the security line!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Walked past Security Theatre (Score:5, Funny)
I'm so glad that so many people were able to participate in the extended season of Security Theatre. Too bad the iPad patron missed out. Well, at least at first...
In their defense, Apple users always look kind of shifty to me.
Re:Walked past Security Theatre (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They really don't even think about that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how you know the terrorist bogeyman is bullshit. If they were still trying to bomb shit, we'd have already seen a rash of bombings at the security checkpoints. Large concentration of people, symbolism of attacking the security infrastructure itself, etc etc. And yet it doesn't happen. Because there are no fucking terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have liked to have said " Only in Australia", but sadly, the rest of the world is made up of blithering idiots, as well.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm so glad that so many people were able to participate in the extended season of Security Theatre. Too bad the iPad patron missed out. Well, at least at first...
I would think this comment to be more "funny" than "insightful" though. The reason is that this kind of event would happen to any kind of securities -- dame if you do and dame if you don't -- but many people do NOT see it that way.
Let me put it in a simple model. The man is either a terrorist or not, and the security decision either arrest him or let him go. So there are 4 possible ways that the situation can occur: the man is a terrorist and security arrest him, the man is a terrorist and security does n
No he didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
" a man walked past a Sydney Airport security screening while engrossed in his iPad and delayed flights for an hour."
TFA implies he caused the delay, when in fact incompetent airport security staff caused the delay.
Re:No he didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently the only thing you have to do to get past ultra tight airport security is not pay attention to almost anything whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No he didn't (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What they don't tell you was that it was a Golden Apple [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This just in: thoughtless (i.e. stupid) policies are shockingly expensive and annoying. Film at 11.
Re:No he didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA implies he caused the delay, when in fact incompetent airport security staff caused the delay.
I'll go you one further, and suggest that inadequate airport design caused the delay.
In particular, hiring a human being to stare at a hallway for 8 hours a day to make sure nobody walks this way instead of that way is not a good design. People -- even well-trained, competent people, with the best intentions -- are notoriously bad at doing mind-numbingly tedious tasks like this for hours at a time.
Machines, on the other hand, could be employed to do the same job more effectively and reliably. It doesn't even need to be particularly high-tech: a simple one-way turnstile [grainger.com] (perhaps augmented with a video camera to sound an alarm if the turnstile is tampered with or somehow bypassed) would do a more reliable job, and as a side benefit would not need to be paid a salary.
Re: (Score:3)
Airports were designed a long time ago. The equivalent of turnstiles are currently being installed. But, this is irrelevant. The "security" procedures were never intended to find or stop any terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. I've seen neighborhood swimming pools* with better security than this airport!
(* I'm not even exaggerating: the pool in questi
Re: (Score:2)
... in Australia?
Re: (Score:2)
it would be brilliant if it had a baggage turnstile thingy attached - the size of the "allowed" carry on bag.
I say "allowed" because people bring all kinds of crazy shit that's clearly over the limits all the time..
but this really was the fault of the security personnel - who under high threat status let just someone walk through. clearly their procedures need a re-check.
Re: (Score:2)
You can check regular size items at the gate. They are loaded into cargo last. The most common use for this is strollers, but other items are possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No he didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Security screwed up, and then they HAD to deal with it. It's not mere security theater to have a security checkpoint. Those checkpoints are demonstrably important.
Not many of us remember, but until 1973 there was no baggage screening, no metal detectors, and no id requirements for getting on a commercial flight. The number of skyjackings had climbed rapidly since the mid-50s so that in 1972 there were 11 skyjackings of commercial flights around the world, seven in the US.
After security checkpoints were introduced in the US, there wasn't another skyjacking in the US for three years. Then an occasional one now and then, as people found loopholes. There was one passenger airliner hijacking of a flight FROM the US in all the 1980s and none in the 1990s.
My conclusion is that the security measures put in place by 1990 were highly effective. 9/11 fit the pattern of the early dribs-and-drabs hijackings, the difference is Al Qaeda made an effort to do multiple simultaneous exploitations of the vulnerability they'd found. There hasn't been a hijacking of a US flight since then, but given that the last passenger hijacking BEFORE 9/11 was in 1987, it's likely that this long dry spell is mostly if not entirely due to banning blades from carry on luggage. That's not to say that EVERY other change since then is security theater. I think reinforcing cockpit doors and changing pilot training was a reasonable response. But a lot of the enhanced pat-downs, magic scanners, no-fly list shennanigans and such are no doubt bogus.
Re:No he didn't (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry to burst your buble. Right next door, in Mexico, with a much more relaxed airport security, never had an airplane hijacked... Until 2009, years after the FAA imposed flight restrictions went into effect(1).
On the other hand, in mainland China, there was an attempted hijack in 2012!
If airport security was a solution to plane hijacking, why would a country without any security (Mexico) not suffer from it and a paranoid state (China) recently had to deal with it?
If you recall, in the past (60's-80's) U.S. planes were hijacked to Havana; in the 90's the trend was reversed: Cuban planes were hijacked and taken to the U.S. Which brings the question again, if the totalitarian Cuban police was unable to stop the hijackings, why should it work in the U.S.?
Now see the perverse incentives: a flight taken to Havana was heralded as taken by "people's heros" and gave a lot of cred in certain circles; turn the coin and see the other face: hijacking a Cuban plane and taking it into the U.S. will NOT land you in jail; it will grant you political asylum!
(1) FAA rules apply to all flights landing on the U.S. even if they originated elsewhere. There used to be smoking flights to/from the U.S. (Air France, Mexicana, TACA, etc.) until the FAA ruled that any flights originating or landing in the U.S. had to be non-smoking, regardless of the carrier's flag. The same was applied to security: no flight bound to the U.S. is allowed to land if there are not TSA-like security measures in the originating country . So, in effect, the FAA and TSA determine what security measures are taken on airports as distant as Buenos Aires.
Re: (Score:2)
What does being totalitarian have to do with anything?
In the USSR there was no airport security at all and airplanes could be boarded almost like trains until several hijackings happened in the 1970ies. In fact, il-86 design allowed the passengers to bring their luggage with them.
Re:No he didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that archetypal airplane hijacking in popular imagination prior to 9/11 was "some nutcase wants to go to Cuba, and will mildly inconvenience us if we don't interfere" but is now "some nutcase wants to kill us all, and will do so if we don't stop him", I don't think the availability of blades would make much of a difference nowadays.
Re:No he didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh, the "we just need to educate our users" school of engineering. That always ends well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So the solution would be to put a lion there?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No he didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
He did cause the delay.
That is a grossly disingenuous misdescription of the events which took place. What he did was cause his person to be transported from one place to another within the airport. What the security staff did in response was to overreact. They had to do that because they were supposed to stop him from doing what he did. Instead, they noticed it after it happened, and then they went into full batshit panic overreaction mode. That's a typical reaction for law enforcement across the globe. When caught with your pants down, act like it's someone else's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't batshit panic overreaction mode. You have to re-screen everyone in the screened area - since he could have given something to someone else or dropped something for someone else to pick up. And of course search the screened area for that potential item. He might have snuck a bottle of water through after all!
Simplest way to re-screen everyone is have everyone in the area leave it and then reenter it through the security screening. While you search the area.
Of course the idea is not to let someone s
Re: (Score:3)
No. The cause of the delay was that he could unintentionally (and even inattentively) violate the security setup. If nobody is supposed to go that way then it shouldn't be possible at all. If only some people are supposed to go that way then someone should be posted to make sure only authorized people do that.
If it was such a security emergency, shouldn't someone have seen him sooner and led him back the right way so he wouldn't contact anyone already screened?
Re:No he didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
He did cause the delay.
"User errors are user interface errors."
Last line of a keynote speech I gave two years ago. If someone walking back through that exit is so serious that it causes this, then it should not be possible, period.
It's easy to prevent. You post a security guard there, and/or you use appropriate doors. The last is a bit tricky due to large passenger volume and baggage, but some airports I know have these doors just before the baggage pickup area, for example.
He didn't cause the delay. If you build systems for normal users, you have to expect them to make errors, and the system has to catch those errors and handle them in a non-fatal way. If it doesn't, your system is broken.
Re: (Score:2)
How about one of those big fans they use for indoor skydiving, but oriented horizontally and pointed away from airside.
Re: (Score:3)
Or a slide! Or a fireman pole! We could make going to the airport fun again!
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't cause the delay. If you build systems for normal users, you have to expect them to make errors, and the system has to catch those errors and handle them in a non-fatal way. If it doesn't, your system is broken.
To be fair, Sydney Airport processed 37.9 million passengers in 2013, so one or two people mucking it up ain't too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I just had a frightening thought. Imagine if airport security personnel designed computer systems. It would be worse than the worst stereotypes of Windows. Click to run a file and you would need to wait for fifty scans of the file and all of its dependencies. Not that this would actually
Re: (Score:2)
User interfaces designed by this philosophy are horrendously inefficient, since they don't let you automate or customize anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, they don't like being called "imbeciles." They prefer "professional airport security personnel" although a better title might be "actors in a security theater."
The terrorist won. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is all.
Re:The terrorist won. (Score:5, Insightful)
The State Inc. won. They created this perpetual "terrorist" gag for all their own profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is in charge of the Australian government?
Re: (Score:3)
When it comes it airport security, pretty much.
There's $AU630M in extra funding to security agencies, some of which will be spent on the latest high-tech toys at airports. Australia doesn't currently do finger-printing or eye scanning but expect that to be standard for any flights bound for the USA.
Obama, or rather his 3-letter agencies, will be keen to insure "terrorists" never get on a flight to US airspace, which involves sympathetic nations rolling out new protocols and technologies in each departure te
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could just say no and if the U.S. want to jump into a hidey hole and pull the opening in after it, so be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, the Queen is in charge. Obama's role is entirely ceremonial.
Re: (Score:2)
By participating you're part of the problem, not the solution.
The creed of the lazy slacker who never does shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear! I hope you don't pay taxes, or use money.
Re: (Score:2)
That is all.
Terrorists don't give a crap about your airline experience.
Queue up First World Problems.
They are much more concerned with politics, religion and ideology, and the use of violence or threats to those ends. Hold on, that might actually be the definition of terrorism, you all might want to check. If it's not aimed at changing minds, terrorism is probably not the word you are looking for.
Believe it or not, there are people out there that would kill you because you disagree with them, or just... because. Whe
LAX has this solved. (Score:4, Insightful)
LAX just runs people through huge powered revolving doors to enforce one-way traffic. They used to have a sign that said "Once you have passed this point you cannot return".
Re:LAX has this solved. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was in Africa, they had a guy standing there. I couldn't read the language so I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to go that way. I walked up and he held up a finger and said "No." while shaking his head. Then pointed at the security check in... "Ah! thanks! I said" and he smiled. Amazing what real employees can do.
Re:LAX has this solved. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you have passed this point you cannot return".
I think the voters are finding this out...
Re: (Score:2)
LAX just runs people through huge powered revolving doors to enforce one-way traffic. They used to have a sign that said "Once you have passed this point you cannot return".
Most Aussie airports use automatic sliding doors so the disabled can use the same exit without having someone there all day to assist them. They only have sensors on one side so they will only open for people airside but this means someone can walk in against the flow of traffic... but you've got to be a complete idiot not to notice you're going in the wrong direction to everyone else (we assume most people aren't complete morons in Australia).
Re: (Score:2)
(we assume most people aren't complete morons in Australia).
Did you _see_ the results of the last election?
Touche.
But in our defence, only 32% of people voted for the Libs, the remaining 13% was made up of the various national parties. The 5% that got them over the post were due to dodgy preference deals.
Re: (Score:2)
(we assume most people aren't complete morons in Australia).
Did you _see_ the results of the last election?
Touche.
But in our defence, only 32% of people voted for the Libs, the remaining 13% was made up of the various national parties. The 5% that got them over the post were due to dodgy preference deals.
But realistically the dregs of Labor weren't getting back in to office.
The scumbag was charged with ... (Score:4, Funny)
Negligent distracted attempted terrorism? That's a thing, right?
WTFBBQ (Score:5, Insightful)
The man disembarked a flight and left. It appears he wasn't paying attention, was looking at his iPad, forgot something and walked back past (the security area).
If he got off a flight, he was already screened. Unless he left the airport grounds entirely and was out of view of security before returning, why did this require going Full Madagascar? The way it's described, it doesn't sound like he left the area. Just that he went out the exit, remembered something, turned around, and went the wrong way thru the exit. OMG EVERYBODY PANIC!
Re: (Score:3)
he left a secured area, and then returned without screening.
That is a security risk becasue someone could have given him something that wasn't allowed past security..
Of course, a security person walking over and talking to him wold have solve the whole issue.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not very helpful focusing on the fact he was looking at an iPad. It could have just as easily been a cell phone or a magazine.
Re: (Score:2)
He walked through the exit. That means he left the secure area. Theoretically, he could have grabbed something that had not been screened, and taken it back in. that's why it's such a no-no - nothing or nobody that has not been screened is supposed to cross that line.
Re: (Score:2)
He may have been screened. Airport security measures seem to depend upon the type of airport and the type of flight. This means that it is possible to enter some secure areas of an airport with no screening whatsoever by simply booking a flight to that airport.
Re: (Score:2)
"Shut. Down. EVERYTHING." Especially as regards transit hubs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At the last few airports I flew out of, they have one way doors designed to stop anyone walking the wrong way back into the secured area (the only way into the secured area is through the security screening)
Why Sydney doesn't have the same thing baffles me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So just have 2 sets of doors and arrange so that they cannot both be open simultaneously - ie an airlock type system. The first set of doors is open and the second closed. People pass through the 1st door, the door closes and the 2nd door opens to allow the people to exit. The second door will not close (and the first remains closed) while there is anyone in the area between the doors. This means that if someone does try to go the wrong way, they will have to turn back and exit through the door they entered
Re: (Score:3)
They should have simultaneously shut down dozens of other airports because the same thing could of happened there too.
Re: (Score:2)
because the same thing could have happened there too.
FTFY.
I'm not normally a grammar Nazi but I'm seeing this so any times that it seems as if there's an epidemic of this particular grammatical idiosyncrasy.
What? Not again! (Score:2)
The guy worked for the NFL, and he was staring at his Microsoft Surface! Sheesh, Microsoft spends $400 million and still can't catch a break, even in Australia!
Re: (Score:2)
The correct phrasing is:
That's [microsoft.com] not an iPad!
This [apple.com] is an iPad!
Well done (Score:2)
I'm comfortable with the notion that Apple users should bear extra scrutiny.
Safety first, I say.
2 categories of dumbass (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Airport security (obviously) for freaking out over the oblivious iPad Man.
Ipadguy made a mistake, but you cannot forgive him (Score:5, Insightful)
1. iPad Man, for not actually paying attention to his surroundings. 2. Airport security (obviously) for freaking out over the oblivious iPad Man.
Nope, the full extent of the dumbarsery is entirely on number 1. He was walking in the opposite direction to everyone else and in order for the doors at to be open somoene had to be walking the right way (at an airport, this would likely be dozens of other people). If he didn't notice this, he is the idiot. The AFP (Australian Federal Police) who secure our airports cant take chances. They cant tell whether dumb Ipad man is just Dumb Ipad man or Disgruntled Steve who wants to beat up Bill in the airside cafe until they talk to him. Now the AFP did just that and released the man without charge (they could have charged him, but under the circumstances they chose not to), so good on them for that but it is a real shame that this kind of idiocy isn't a crime... or painful.
Ipadguy made a mistake! There was no mens rea. Do you really have to blame someone who just spaced out and not just leave the blame on the security guards and the police force. Why is it the we must always punish the little guy. Talk about bias. I am sure there are people who would imprison someone who accidentally brought in a bottled water across airport security or who forgot about a metal pen in his/her pocket. For once, just for once, can we just NOT advocate putting someone is prison for an honest mistake. Can we hold the those who really messed up accountable. The statement above just gets at how we punish the tiny infraction and ignore the huge calamity.
This why the bankers that caused the worst economic crisis in 80 years are not in prison. Because we focus on some tiny potatoes. And we want to punish people for making a mistake we all could make. I am sure plenty of people have spaced out and tried to walk the wrong way into a secured area. They were just politely stopped. But it's not enough for some people and we sleepwalk into a police state.
Murdoch? You're an idiot. (Score:2)
Way to swallow the Murdoch bullshit and regurgitate it.
The two articles have nothing to do with Murdoch or Newscorp.
The first is published by CNet which is owned by CBS (American) and the second is the Sydney Morning Herald, which is Fairfax.
You dont know your arse from your elbow.
Sigh, mods still on crack. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The attempts to censor my posts are terrible. I've got plenty of Karma to burn, how many mod points have you got left?
Because the correct response to being modded down is to keep posting the same thing and go for volume. Jerkass.
actually Australia does have some sanity (Score:5, Informative)
For example, there are some regional flights that arrive into Sydney from airports that cannot support full security screening. (on regional jets or turboprops) Instead of causing US-style security craziness and cost, after arrival they dump those passengers directly out into the non-sterile terminal public area (and then make them go back through security if connections are needed).
This in contrast to US security, which cannot be compartmentalized, and forces everyone in every small podunk airport to be screened, at huge cost and bureaucracy / apparatus / unionized idiot workforce creation.
Of course, this is partly because Australia has a few international / regional airports versus the US which has airports and connections galore. But still, you would think that in a place like Hawaii, for example, the US could try this approach and be more sane about applying various levels of rules.
Re: (Score:2)
I will say though, that I credit Australia for having some rational procedures regarding security.
This would have been rational had their security not be a complete failure in the first place. If you can "accidentally" stroll through their security checkpoint without even looking up, the entire premise of security is pretty much lost. It's pretty easy... each exit, 1 person wide with a guard standing there. Break away doors (like at the super market) in case there's an emergency like a fire, people can push them open.
The problem is the FAA(or Australian version of it in this case) think they can replace
Re: (Score:3)
The US system makes much more sense security-wise (note: this is purely security POV, not meant as opinion on effectiveness or so).
What they're trying to do is keep the airways safe: prevent hijackings of planes, planes flown into buildings, whatnot. For a terrorist it doesn't matter too much whether they hijack a small 50-seater turboprop or a massive 747 or A380. Such a smaller plane would have set fire to the WTC just as well, it may have been a bit less of a fireball on impact but there's enough fuel on
Re: (Score:2)
and it was the fire that caused the structures to collapse in the end.
citation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what were they charged with? (Score:2)
Wait, what? The guy wandering around in a fog was charged? With what, exposing the inherent flaws in the security theater?
Re: (Score:2)
If you expose a giant, gaping hole in their security theater, then terrorists will notice and abuse it. Right away, too. They're constantly milling around all airports trying to find a way through the air tight security. As to the question of wouldn't the terrorists notice the giant, gaping hole themselves: No, because terrorists can't see giant, gaping security holes unless Joe Citizen points them out.
In other news, this Kool-aid tastes funny.
Not news (Score:2)
Not news for 2 reasons
1) standard practice to re-screen if someone has bypassed screening
2) this has happened several times before (see links below)
The only thing that made this relevant for slashdot was the presence of an iPad (Ah Ha! A technology angle!). That said, the exit from T3 isn't that secure, but it is a domestic terminal. The domestic terminals use pretty standard x-ray of belongings and a metal detector. In other words, just like getting into an office building
Headlines wrong (Score:2)
"Security overreaction/faulty airport exit/wholly inadequate security measure causes Airport evacuation" would be a far more accurate headline.
Let me fix that headline for you... (Score:2)
why not post a guard? (Score:2)
The problem is misstated (Score:2)
The problem isn't that some idiot walked past security staring at his iPad. The problem is that some idiots in security let a fool walk past them (were they staring at iPads too?).
Re: (Score:2)
Not for a couple of years at the federal level.
But scaring the proles coincides with bombing Islamic State to smithareens.