Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Australia Security Transportation

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).'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man Walks Past Security Screening Staring At iPad, Causing Airport Evacuation

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29, 2014 @05:14PM (#48023197)

    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)

      by Taco Cowboy ( 5327 )

      ... Too bad the iPad patron missed out ...

      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

      • 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.

    • by houstonbofh ( 602064 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @06:53PM (#48023805)
      And nice to know we are holding back the terrorists with a security force that can not stop people known to walk into walls, poles, and fountains...
    • by kelemvor4 ( 1980226 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @08:15PM (#48024289)

      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.

    • by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @10:59PM (#48024921)
      Isn't it brilliant? We don't even need any real terrorists any more, we're so ready to terrorise ourselves that they've become redundant.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by pmontra ( 738736 )
        +1 insightful please
      • I was thinking the very same thing. Besides, what fun in there in hijacking an aircraft anymore when you can just terrorize the thousands of people in an airport instead.

        They really don't even think about that.
        • 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.

    • by flyneye ( 84093 )

      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.

    • 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)

    by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @05:15PM (#48023209) Homepage Journal

    " 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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29, 2014 @05:51PM (#48023455)

      Apparently the only thing you have to do to get past ultra tight airport security is not pay attention to almost anything whatsoever.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29, 2014 @05:51PM (#48023457)
      That's right, the guy with the Apple was just bending the rules...
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This just in: thoughtless (i.e. stupid) policies are shockingly expensive and annoying. Film at 11.

    • Re:No he didn't (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @06:37PM (#48023713) Homepage

      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.

      • 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.

      • by HJED ( 1304957 )
        At sydney they have sensor activated doors that only open in one direction, and about three sets of them in a row. Problem is the delay on them is way to long, so people can just walk back the other way. Suitcases and turnstiles are not a good combination
      • 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 (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.

        No kidding. I've seen neighborhood swimming pools* with better security than this airport!

        (* I'm not even exaggerating: the pool in questi

    • The next big upgrade in airports world wide; Small fountains in the exit lane to prevent those sneaky smartphone zombies.
    • Re:No he didn't (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @09:03PM (#48024477) Homepage Journal

      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)

        by jelizondo ( 183861 ) <jerry.elizondo@NOSpAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday September 30, 2014 @12:49AM (#48025243)

        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.

        • 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)

        by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2014 @07:50AM (#48026341)

        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.

        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.

  • The terrorist won. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by koan ( 80826 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @05:16PM (#48023225)

    That is all.

    • by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @05:35PM (#48023341) Journal

      The State Inc. won. They created this perpetual "terrorist" gag for all their own profit.

    • 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

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @05:22PM (#48023265) Homepage

    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".

    • by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @06:38PM (#48023721)

      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.

    • by houstonbofh ( 602064 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @06:58PM (#48023827)

      Once you have passed this point you cannot return".

      I think the voters are finding this out...

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      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).

  • by Krishnoid ( 984597 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @05:30PM (#48023313) Journal

    Negligent distracted attempted terrorism? That's a thing, right?

  • WTFBBQ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jtownatpunk.net ( 245670 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @05:34PM (#48023331)

    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!

    • by geekoid ( 135745 )

      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.

    • by Trogre ( 513942 )

      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.

    • 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.

    • by MacTO ( 1161105 )

      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.

  • 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!

  • I'm comfortable with the notion that Apple users should bear extra scrutiny.

    Safety first, I say.

  • by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @06:15PM (#48023595)
    1. iPad Man, for not actually paying attention to his surroundings.

    2. Airport security (obviously) for freaking out over the oblivious iPad Man.
  • by supernova87a ( 532540 ) <kepler1&hotmail,com> on Monday September 29, 2014 @06:24PM (#48023635)
    I will say though, that I credit Australia for having some rational procedures regarding security.

    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.
    • 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

    • 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

      • and it was the fire that caused the structures to collapse in the end.

        citation?

        • by dave420 ( 699308 )
          The fact they didn't fall down immediately after the planes struck, and all the evidence gathered and analysed by reputable structural engineers and scientists. You know - physics an' such. Or are you claiming it was the wind? Or one of the towers sneezed? Or a suicidal sparrow decided to end it all and kamikaze itself, providing just enough push in the process?
      • by ruir ( 2709173 )
        I would understand security inbound a flight for preventing "terrorism", but not inbound AND outbound.
      • by dave420 ( 699308 )
        None of it makes any sense security-wise. All we'll end up with (after security is perfect) is some nutter blowing up the check-in area in departures. Then airports as we know cease to exist.
  • So, what were the incompetent security guards charged with?
    Wait, what? The guy wandering around in a fog was charged? With what, exposing the inherent flaws in the security theater?
    • 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.

  • by oh ( 68589 )

    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

  • "Security overreaction/faulty airport exit/wholly inadequate security measure causes Airport evacuation" would be a far more accurate headline.

  • "Self-Absorbed Asshole Walks Past Security...."
  • Seriously, there is nobody watching the exit to see if people walk the wrong direction through it and they had to catch him on CCTV? Plus, shouldn't they be watching Apple fans for explosive outbursts and opinionated hate speech that makes them a danger to everyone around them? Because that's how they are everywhere else.
  • 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?).

Love makes the world go 'round, with a little help from intrinsic angular momentum.

Working...