Slashdot Mirror


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

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).'"

217 comments

  1. Walked past Security Theatre by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

    1. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    2. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by lgw · · 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!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      I prefer the Pitfall Harry model. Must leap across the alligators

    4. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, 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.

    5. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    6. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by pmontra · · Score: 2, Informative

      +1 insightful please

    7. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never understood the security checks that go on for domestic flights in Australia - Sydney and other airports have domestic only terminals. You're check for drugs and explosives. Not sure what relevance the drug check is - it's not like you're going to traffic by domestic mass flight when there's other options. As for the explosives check - it goes off quite a bit due to all the miners. I even sat next to an army demolition instructor on a flight and he was telling me how the theatre guys shat themselves when he tested positive for military explosives on a flight home. If they're checking for people with explosives on a domestic flight they're wasting their time - there'd be so many other ways to bring one down especially when the army lost over half a dozen shoulder launched grenade/rocket systems which fell into the hands of bikies and other undesirables.

    8. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by flyneye · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    9. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by parkinglot777 · · Score: 2

      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 not arrest him, the man is not terrorist and the security arrest him, and the man is not a terrorist and the security does not arrest him.

      The first possible way would be a news, but appreciation may not really be that high from people. I would also ask, how many of those who already dislikes security at the airport would say? Would they say "Oh it is their job"? Would they really appreciate their work? Very likely not.

      The second possible way would also be a news later, but the security would be chopped into pieces. It has happened before and I don't see that it will not happen again. They will be called "incompetent" and many other names. I don't blame those who call them names for this kind of event, but for myself, it also depends on how the situation happened.

      On Saturday morning, a man got off a plane at Sydney Airport in Australia and was so enchanted by the fascinating content on his iPad that he walked into a domestic terminal without bothering to go through security.

      The third possible way is this situation because the precautious causes chaos but no harm found. It is annoying and frustrating, of course, but I would try not to criticize them because it is the man's fault. He, who ignores his surrounding, goes through the terminal without going through the security. What if he is a terrorist? If I were working as the security, I would not take a risk to ensure others safety over the noise from people that blame me on my precautious.

      The last possible way, as you know, is not very important; however, there will be some people posting about it and say negative thing about how incompetent the security is (again) -- dame if you don't -- even though there is nothing happened.

      So overall, I think the situation is appropriate. No harm found and I think it is an unfortunate event to happen...

    11. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by ColdSam · · Score: 2

      There are many more options and solutions (and shades of gray) than the four you listed, including "the man is a terrorist, but they don't figure out he is a terrorist." Or perhaps they assume he is a terrorist and do everything they can for the safety of the terminal without actually shutting the entire thing down and costing millions of dollars of waste. ...

      Your calculus also leaves the misimpression that all scenarios are equally likely, which they are not.The response to any situation shouldn't be to assume the worst possible outcome, it should be to weigh the chances of that worst thing vs. the disruption (and cost).

      If you were working in security the option you chose is the right one for you - in a flawed system you would make the selfish choice to save your job, even when it is a terrible choice for everyone else.

      It was the iPad guy's fault for going the wrong way in a secure area, it is not his fault that the terminal was shutdown. That is all on the overblown security response and the people who happily tolerate it, like yourself.

    13. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      The article seems to suggest the guy wasn't arrested, so maybe "Only in Australia" is appropriate.

      In the US, I have no doubt he would have been arrested and charged with causing mass panic (whatever the legal terminology might be). And his iPad, cellphone and any other electronics confiscated. Even if the charges were dropped, it would be after very intensive interrogation and at least several days in a very high security jail cell.

      And, of course, being put on the no-fly list. (which I'm sure he is, anyway)

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    14. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      If you were working in security the option you chose is the right one for you - in a flawed system you would make the selfish choice to save your job, even when it is a terrible choice for everyone else.

      If I was one who saw that man go the wrong way I would have assumed he was a terrorist.

      Not knowing any details about the building layout and how the security officers were deployed, I can't say how I would have responded.

      Afterward, I'd very strongly curse the bean counters for not providing for enough officers to have prevented the incident.

      I have no doubt that both the security commander and the on-duty command will be raked over the coals for not having an officer there to stop the guy before trying to go the wrong way - or at least an officer closer enough to intercept and neutralize the guy before he could become a problem.

      I'm NOT claiming the commanders weren't incompetent, only that the scope of responsibility should also include the people deciding what resources to make available. If the commanders were incompetent, they should be maximally punished. If the resource planners did not provide enough resources, they should be maximally punished. And if the blame is shared, so should the punishment.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    15. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by ColdSam · · Score: 1

      If I was one who saw that man go the wrong way I would have assumed he was a terrorist.

      That would be a pretty wacky assumption that would make you do a lot of dangerous things. It would be reasonable to take precautions on the very unlikely chance that the guy was a terrorist, but to assume or presume it would be crazy. (Although that's what people in law enforcement often do.)

      I'm NOT claiming the commanders weren't incompetent, only that the scope of responsibility should also include the people deciding what resources to make available.

      I think it highly unlikely that the right people will be blamed because they are all working from incorrect assumptions and faulty math.

    16. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      That would be a pretty wacky assumption that would make you do a lot of dangerous things.

      Why would that necessarily be so?

      Even if the commander assumes the suspect is just a clueless idiot, there's still a chance he is a terrorist, so the same precautions are necessary.

      In essence, expect the best while preparing for the worst.

      Of course, whatever any commander did would involve risk. Redeploying officers involves risking opening other avenues of incursion. Calling for an evacuation risks tipping off the suspect. The suspect might be using some kind of "dead man switch", so couldn't use a sniper, even if one was available. And a shit-ton more potential risks and other issues.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    17. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by ColdSam · · Score: 1

      Why would that necessarily be so? Even if the commander assumes the suspect is just a clueless idiot, there's still a chance he is a terrorist, so the same precautions are necessary.

      Assuming something that almost certainly isn't true can never be a good strategy, can it? Thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of people try to break the airport security rules every day, mostly inadvertently; it just happened that this guy got through. None of those people are actual terrorists (some may be, but they have the day off), so shooting them in the head if they make a sudden move or don't immediately respond to orders barked at them might be overkill.

      In essence, expect the best while preparing for the worst.

      That's a commonly used phrase that is also a terrible strategy, well evidenced by our overreaction to the very minor threat of terrorism.

      Of course, whatever any commander did would involve risk. Redeploying officers involves risking opening other avenues of incursion. Calling for an evacuation risks tipping off the suspect. The suspect might be using some kind of "dead man switch", so couldn't use a sniper, even if one was available. And a shit-ton more potential risks and other issues.

      If you really were to assume everyone who violated security rules was a terrorist the sniper option is probably your best bet. There is almost no chance that they would have a dead man switch armed while simply strolling through the terminal, it's best just to silently take out anyone who walks the wrong way past a secure door or tries to smuggle more than 3 oz of liquid through the x-ray machine.

    18. Re:Walked past Security Theatre by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      in terms of economic damage, 9-11 cost bin laden... what 50 million. the return on his investment is still being paid. that's like 3 orders of magnitude in reaction/overreaction.

  2. Some people can be so self-absorbed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...and I'm not talking about the guy on the iPad.

    1. Re:Some people can be so self-absorbed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IKR! They're so self absorbed that all they can do is come onto this site and spew their smug clouds all over the place. Your ego feeling good now, AC?

    2. Re:Some people can be so self-absorbed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was referring to the people who're whining that their flight was delayed for a few hours.

      They make it sound like the world is fucking ending.

    3. Re: Some people can be so self-absorbed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask me how I know you don't have an important job or have ever been put in a position of responsibility.

    4. Re: Some people can be so self-absorbed... by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Anyone who has real, time-sensitive responsibilities will make sure that lost time is covered before traveling. Anyone else worrying about the that time in transit is just bored, uncomfortable and selfish. (Full disclosure: I am extremely sensitive to time lost in transit, and I become a bored, uncomfortable, selfish piece of shit about it. But that doesn't mean I'm not self-aware.)

  3. No he didn't by TechyImmigrant · · 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.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's right, the guy with the Apple was just bending the rules...

    3. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    4. Re:No he didn't by Jeremi · · 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 (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.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:No he didn't by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      The next big upgrade in airports world wide; Small fountains in the exit lane to prevent those sneaky smartphone zombies.

    6. Re:No he didn't by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 0

      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.

      It's perfectly fine. The TSA jobs program is working as designed.

    7. Re:No he didn't by BradMajors · · Score: 2

      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.

    8. Re:No he didn't by mjwx · · Score: 1, Interesting

      " 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.

      He did cause the delay.

      What this moron did was leave the secure area (he was disembarking) and then walk back through. Its not like the secure area exit isn't extremely, mind-blowingly obvious. The AFP (Australian Federal Police) didn't know if this guy was a complete tool or a malicious agent, but they cant take chances. Fortunately it turned out he was a complete idiot but this all could have been avoided if he had of been doing something as silly as paying attention to what he was doing. I mean what kind of imbecile tries to walk back through a security gate?

      Security in Australia isn't as bad as the USA (yet), in fact it's quite efficient in comparison but if you ignore them they will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you suggest actually exists at Sydney airport -- like many airports, there is a simple and (normally!) effective pair of double doors.

      (you might like to try getting a suitcase through a one-way turnstile)

    10. Re:No he didn't by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ... in Australia?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    11. Re:No he didn't by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ahh, the "we just need to educate our users" school of engineering. That always ends well.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      thats one way. the other is to simply look like you belong. walk with confidence directly where you are going. maybe not generally airports but hotels, most bildings with a lot of foot traffic. Bonus points if you carry around a package and look like a delivery man

    13. Re:No he didn't by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Because people want to have to lug their enormous carry-on bags through one of those damned things. Or a gaggle of children. If you think an airport is a slow pain in the ass now, just wait until entry and exit are via single file, one at a time, man-traps.

    14. Re:No he didn't by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Sure, the guy was not paying enough attention but to argue it's only him is wrong. The money we pay for security people to frisk Meemaw's depends undergarments is surely enough to have the same security person yell "STOP".. *sigh* I'll bet that the Airport has more than one guard at every station too, so they are way more at fault than some idiot not watching where he is walking.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    15. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to take away jobs from hard working federal employees???

      How unAmerican of you... you terrorist!!

    16. Re:No he didn't by HJED · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      null
    17. Re:No he didn't by HJED · · Score: 2

      He walked back through the exit. At Sydney domestic the exit is an unmaned automated system.

      --
      null
    18. Re:No he didn't by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:No he didn't by hey! · · 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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    20. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He walked back through the exit. At Sydney domestic the exit is an unmaned automated system.

      Not true. More often than not whenever I've exited the terminal there is a security guard standing at the doors. They are automated doors, but I don't think I've even seen them without a guard there as well.

    21. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huuuurrrrrduuuurrrrrrr!

    22. Re:No he didn't by Kyogreex · · Score: 1

      Well, the turnstyle is about all that's missing from the "Welcome to City 17" experience...

    23. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have a big package and it's regularly addressed to the wives of the beta programmers at this site. During work hours.

    24. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of imbecile shuts down an entire airport because one dude walked through the security area that wasn't paying attention?

    25. Re:No he didn't by sjames · · Score: 2

      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?

    26. Re:No he didn't by jelizondo · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
    27. Re:No he didn't by pmontra · · Score: 1

      Yes, yell stop and if it fails realize no harm has been done and don't stop the whole airport. Think also to the countless hours spent around the world discussing this incident on forums and chats ;-)

    28. Re:No he didn't by Tom · · 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.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    29. Re:No he didn't by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    30. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least he wasnt bending his phone..

    31. Re:No he didn't by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    32. Re:No he didn't by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      How about one of those big fans they use for indoor skydiving, but oriented horizontally and pointed away from airside.

    33. Re:No he didn't by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    34. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! And we will name it "The Claw"...

    35. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The security checkpoint in question for terminal 3 at Sydney Airport has one-way movement sensors, if someone does go down the corridor the wrong way (even in a crowd of people) it will trigger very loud alarms throughout the entire screening area. This actually occurs a few times a week but they are stopped at the other end. There are also cameras covering the entire length of this exit corridor. How the security contractors couldn't hear the alarms I have no idea.
      Speaking anonymously due to security clearance.

    36. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the "wives". Eugh.

    37. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Well, it was handled in a non-fatal way. The guy wasn't shot dead, after all.

    38. Re:No he didn't by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      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.

    39. Re:No he didn't by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      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 question had a 6-foot-high turnstile with multiple bars to thwart jumping.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    40. Re: No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's unAmerican to complain about redundant jobs... in Australia? The world doesn't revolve around you yanks.

    41. Re:No he didn't by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Or a slide! Or a fireman pole! We could make going to the airport fun again!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    42. Re:No he didn't by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      What kind of imbecile shuts down an entire airport because one dude walked through the security area that wasn't paying attention?

      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."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    43. Re:No he didn't by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      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.

      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 catch malware, but you would need to wait through it to help reassure you that your computer system was secure. After the program began, your mouse cursor would be restricted to a certain area "for security reasons." If you moved your mouse outside of the expected area, the entire computer would lock up, all programs would quit without saving, a "security violation" message would display, and you would need to wait for the entire system to reboot.

      But if an actual virus got in, it would find it easy to infect the system.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    44. Re:No he didn't by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      At Sydney domestic the exit is an unmaned automated system.

      So the solution would be to put a lion there?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    45. Re:No he didn't by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    46. Re:No he didn't by ultranova · · Score: 1

      "User errors are user interface errors."

      User interfaces designed by this philosophy are horrendously inefficient, since they don't let you automate or customize anything.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    47. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, they noticed it after it happened, and then they went into full batshit panic overreaction mode.

      Debatable. It'd have been possible for him to pass something unauthorised onto someone already past security. Not necessarily something that should immediately kick-start an evacuation though - they could have detained him and checked CCTV to see what he had done before calling a full evacuation.

    48. Re:No he didn't by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Yup - I've done this myself. Just walk right in.

    49. Re:No he didn't by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      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 simply walk into the secure area and the blame lies with the people who let that happen not the guy who wasn't paying attention - you have to assume there's a complete idiot in any group of people after all.

    50. Re:No he didn't by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      What they don't tell you was that it was a Golden Apple.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    51. Re:No he didn't by Tom · · Score: 1

      You believe that user interfaces have to be made either for idiots or for geeks. Nothing could be further from the truth. A good interface allows both automation and is tolerant of failures. This is not only not exclusive, it is mutually supporting - when you want to automate something, proper error handling is even more important.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    52. Re:No he didn't by Tom · · Score: 1

      Not friendly to disabled or old people.

      However, one-way walkways are entirely possible. You could have moving stairs that only move in one direction - that way a user erroneously going the wrong way would definitely notice.

      It's all about assuming that users make mistakes and changing your mindset from shaking your head and mumbling "stupid lusers" to "let's see how we can handle that..."

      It's quite an interesting subject, and finding great solutions to these problems is a challenge to more than just math skills.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    53. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If there was a real terrorist threat, they'd bomb the huge lines of people waiting for security screening. Checkpoints are theater designed to make the passengers feel safe by treating them like crap.

    54. Re:No he didn't by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "User errors are user interface errors."

      While I don't disagree in this situation, isn't this the mentality that's caused us to require fifteen safety stickers on a simple ladder? There certainly is such a thing as a user error that is not a faulty design.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    55. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Get it right: it's law enFARCEment. It's only law enFORCEment when they're actually accomplishing their job, which these days is becoming increasingly rare.

    56. Re:No he didn't by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Now they've gone back to trying to just blow the plane up. It's not impossible to get explosives past security, but they've resorted to complex ways to hide them, and they seem to suck at it. They get derogatory names like the Shoe Bomber and the Underwear Bomber because they failed.

      Their incompetence suggests that they were individuals rather than concerted efforts, as the 9/11 hijackers were. Those were coordinated attacks on multiple targets, and a fair bit of effort was put into training them. It's certainly clear that they won't be able to get control of the cockpit any more, even if they threaten to kill the passengers.

      That change alone probably accounts for the lack of hijackings, though having to risk passing through even theater security also means the chance of capture, and thus potentially turning into an intelligence bonanza. So the core of al Qaeda seems to have given up, and instead of unaffiliated nuts going to Cuba we get unaffiliated nuts trying to blow things up.

    57. Re:No he didn't by Tom · · Score: 1

      isn't this the mentality that's caused us to require fifteen safety stickers on a simple ladder?

      No, it is the exact opposite.

      Stickers and security awareness training and all this nonsense are attempts to put the responsibility on the user by telling him what to do, instead of handling the responsibility yourself by making sure that your product is safe.

      As with all things, there is, of course, a limit. You cannot (with current technology) design a power drill so that it will work on a wall, but not on a hand. And if your user knows the master password that will destroy your company then he should be told to keep it secret. But you should also ask yourself if you really need such a gaping security hole or if you couldn't compartmentalise things better. Or if the power drill can be designed so that it only works if the user has both hands on the machine, to at least reduce risk.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    58. Re:No he didn't by lgw · · Score: 1

      the power drill can be designed so that it only works if the user has both hands on the machine, to at least reduce risk.

      Somehow this seems doubly relevant. "After a few such run-ins, when I got ready to use the Hole Hawg my heart actually began to pound with atavistic terror." - so much software right there.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    59. Re:No he didn't by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      And you fail security 101. Entry (or exit) point security is useful only if they are fast. If enough people accumulate at those points, whole security becomes useless.

      Unless, of course, the security is of something else, but that is not very relevant here.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    60. Re:No he didn't by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Thinking about this on the train this morning I reckon you could get close by using Doppler sensing sonar along a corridor with one way doors at each end. A Doppler shift which indicates somebody going the wrong way would disable both doors until humans sort it out. It could probably be augmented with a camera based system. There would inevitably be false positives from kids darting around, etc but you wouldn't have to shut down the terminal.

    61. Re:No he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      implying they didnt already have snakes and scorpions there

  4. The terrorist won. by koan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is all.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:The terrorist won. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News at 6!

    2. Re:The terrorist won. by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:The terrorist won. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that a government under Romney would not have been legitimate?

    4. Re:The terrorist won. by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Obama is in charge of the Australian government?

    5. Re:The terrorist won. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By participating you're part of the problem, not the solution.

    6. Re:The terrorist won. by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      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 terminal.

    7. Re:The terrorist won. by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      He believes he is...

    8. Re:The terrorist won. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      By participating you're part of the problem, not the solution.

      The creed of the lazy slacker who never does shit.

    9. Re:The terrorist won. by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Oh dear! I hope you don't pay taxes, or use money.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:The terrorist won. by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, the Queen is in charge. Obama's role is entirely ceremonial.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:The terrorist won. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I love how this narrative completely ignores the fact that there are shit-tons of right-wing terrorists who would gladly bomb all of us into oblivion. All you have to do is shout "profit" and completely ignore the very real threats that challenge us today. These people are armed to the teeth and mean us harm.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:The terrorist won. by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      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. When they do we call them "Murderers". That's just one of the things your country tries to prevent with their inconvenient security policies.

    13. Re:The terrorist won. by sjames · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:The terrorist won. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Oh! So scary the evildoers... So go lock yourself up somewhere and lease the rest of us alone.

      These people are armed to the teeth...

      Yeah, with our weapons, that we sell to them even now. Ironic AND tragic all at the same time, very Shakespearean.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re:The terrorist won. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who modded this down?! That's not right. The post is absolutely correct. The voters should be held responsible for the people they elect. It's the only way to get them to think... When you participate you consent, that's all there is to it. Read "No Treason"

    16. Re:The terrorist won. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      As someone who probably has a point, you really should learn to communicate it much better. You're just throwing all of your potentially good ideas into the garbage.

      Helpful hints:

      What is the problem?
      What does it mean to participate?

    17. Re:The terrorist won. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      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.

      It's also strikingly similar to politics, religion and ideology. Incidentally, it's even similar to sports fandom. People become dangerously irrational in a line for a pocket computer. There are varying degrees of course, but "terrorism" isn't some unique or horrifying phenomenon. It's just reality failing to go away and stop inconveniencing us.

      "Terrorism" is basically a modernized form of revolutionary movements. It's more careless, it's less organized, and it's put in a defensive position against an increasingly stable (and rigid) world order. It's reactionary because the more astute movements sold out a long time ago.

      Basically it's a joke. And we keep electing and accepting "leaders" who don't have a sense of humor; or a sense of leadership.

      The single best way to fight real terrorism is to get real honest about real grievances real fast.

  5. LAX has this solved. by Animats · · Score: 3, 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".

    1. Re:LAX has this solved. by Charliemopps · · 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.

    2. Re:LAX has this solved. by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once you have passed this point you cannot return".

      I think the voters are finding this out...

    3. Re:LAX has this solved. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      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).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:LAX has this solved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (we assume most people aren't complete morons in Australia).

      Did you _see_ the results of the last election?

    5. Re:LAX has this solved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy aren't you just full of bullshit tonight? Oh wait, you're in Houston. I meant you're full of HORSESHIT!

    6. Re:LAX has this solved. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      (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.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:LAX has this solved. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      (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.

    8. Re:LAX has this solved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm trying to picture how a revolving door enforces one-way traffic. One of the things intrinsic in the design of a revolving door (machine or human powered) is that it allows for simultaneous 2-way traffic, that's pretty much why they were invented. Do you mean turnstiles perhaps?

    9. Re:LAX has this solved. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Actually, LAX doesn't do this at all checkpoints. I just walked through one with a security drone watching to make sure people didn't go the wrong way.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    10. Re:LAX has this solved. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Sorry for replying twice, but they should just change the signs to read "Welcome to the Hotel California".

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    11. Re:LAX has this solved. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      (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.

      Whcih is a sad indictment of Australia because instead of putting Labor back in office, they picked the worse alternative.

      Since Abbott got into power the economy has nosedived and unemployment is rising. If he keeps going, everyday costs will skyrocket as well. Labor wasn't perfect by a long shot, but the mob we have now makes them look like they were. Sad to say, the only thing preventing this is Palmer United (and lets face it, Clive's there to look after Clive and only Clive).

      On their own, the Libs didn't have enough votes to get in, if the preference deals were favouring Labor, they would have gotten in with the Greens.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  6. The scumbag was charged with ... by Krishnoid · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  7. WTFBBQ by jtownatpunk.net · · 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!

    1. Re:WTFBBQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't that he went through the exit backwards, it's that he was ALLOWED to. It created a big-ass hole in their screen when they realized that anyone in there could have done the same thing.

    2. Re:WTFBBQ by ze_jua · · Score: 1

      "going Full Madagascar" ? Reference ?

    3. Re:WTFBBQ by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      "Shut. Down. EVERYTHING." Especially as regards transit hubs.

    4. Re:WTFBBQ by geekoid · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:WTFBBQ by gcnaddict · · Score: 2
      --
      Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:WTFBBQ by jonwil · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:WTFBBQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't sound like a secured area to me, name notwithstanding.

    8. Re:WTFBBQ by BradMajors · · Score: 2

      They should have simultaneously shut down dozens of other airports because the same thing could of happened there too.

    9. Re:WTFBBQ by Trogre · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    10. Re:WTFBBQ by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    11. Re:WTFBBQ by MacTO · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:WTFBBQ by HJED · · Score: 1

      That's what they have a sydney. If there is constant traffic on them you could easily walk all the way through in the opposite direction

      --
      null
    13. Re:WTFBBQ by Kalium70 · · Score: 1

      Once they realized that this one guy made it through, it was a signal that the security station was not being monitored effectively. The concern then is whether other people also made it through without being processed.

    14. Re:WTFBBQ by righteousness · · 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.

      --
      Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    15. Re:WTFBBQ by grahammm · · Score: 1

      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 by.

    16. Re:WTFBBQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apparently it wasn't in fact a secured area

    17. Re:WTFBBQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he left a secured area, and then returned without screening.

      If you can return without screening, it's not really a secured area though, is it?

    18. Re:WTFBBQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Although it's not useful to focus on the type and brand of device in relation to what happened, it could most certainly not as easily have been a cell phone or magazine. Looking at your handheld while traversing a busy area is a typical Apple user affliction.

  8. Sue Apple! by sehlat · · Score: 1

    After all, if an iPad (or its content) can be so engrossing that casual use can cause a full-on screaming panic at a major airport, it MUST be the iPad's fault!

  9. More disturbing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is that Australia is on "high alert" due to an "imminent threat" even though the government isn't aware of any active plots.

    Must be election season in Australia as well.

    1. Re:More disturbing.... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Not for a couple of years at the federal level.

      But scaring the proles coincides with bombing Islamic State to smithareens.

  10. In the near future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should install a sign. It could say:

    DO NOT BACK UP. SEVERE TABLET DAMAGE.

    Ah, but you say, he wouldn't have read it because he was distracted. That's why Android will bundle the warning app. Apple will too. It's the perfect excuse to lock you away and torture you for jail-breaking your device. Don't worry though. You'll be safe from terrorists in prison. Your rights will be protected. You even get visits from clergy. I knew a guy like that. Before prison, he didn't believe in anything. Now he attends mosque every day. Very devoted. You might even say he's a... oh, nevermind.

  11. It was a Surface... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It wasn't an iPad, it was a Microsoft Surface Pro II.

  12. Missing out by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... 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

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Missing out by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    2. Re:Missing out by dave420 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or you could just move to civilization and not have to worry about guns...

    3. Re:Missing out by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    4. Re:Missing out by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      ^ What he said. In this particular case, I was so oblivious that they could have just snatched the phone out of my hand without need of any weapons at all to threaten me.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    5. Re:Missing out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can run away from "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".

      You can't run away from a gun.

    6. Re:Missing out by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You can run away from "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".

      You can try, sure. If they run faster than you, though (and you never know until you try), you may come to regret it.

    7. Re:Missing out by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      Most people are such poor shots with a handgun, if you get more than 10 feet away from them, they haven't got a hope in hell of hitting you.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    8. Re:Missing out by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You missed "slow, easily defeatable" when describing those alternative weapons. If you think they're as deadly and effective as guns, why do people want guns for self defense? Just use a knife, steel pipe, baseball bat, wrench, box cutter, hammer, screwdriver, ice pick, awl, or a straight razor for protection.

  13. What? Not again! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    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!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:What? Not again! by sehlat · · Score: 2

      The correct phrasing is:
      That's not an iPad!

      This is an iPad!

  14. Yet Another... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 0

    Yet another Slashdot Airport Security troll article.

    You might as well just copy the comments from the last airport security article and paste them here. The same tired subject will elicit the same responses.

    Security theatre this, TSA that, incompetent this, overpaid that, privacy violation this, strip search, x-ray, grandma searched, water/liquids... on and on... apply, rinse, repeat... oh, wait... no liquids!

    Not that I disagree with most of it...

    --
    Beware of the Leopard.
  15. Well done by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

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

    Safety first, I say.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  16. 2 categories of dumbass by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1. iPad Man, for not actually paying attention to his surroundings.

    2. Airport security (obviously) for freaking out over the oblivious iPad Man.

    1. Re:2 categories of dumbass by mjwx · · Score: 0, Troll

      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.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:2 categories of dumbass by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Way to swallow the Murdoch bullshit and regurgitate it.

  17. actually Australia does have some sanity by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      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 a $40k/yr employee with a $50k machine and $10k in process. Sorry, you can't.

    2. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      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 board to set it on fire (especially if you plan the hijack and final target to be not too far out, so lots of fuel still on board), and it was the fire that caused the structures to collapse in the end.

      If you only screen international flights thoroughly, but not your local flights, the local flights become a weak spot, and the obvious target of a terrorist seeing to hijack a plane. It is only as safe as your weakest link, and by not screening domestic flights (well), these domestic flights become a high security risk relative to the international flights. I'm sure a terrorist can really cause lots of mayhem even with smallish airliners!

    3. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My sister flew from Abu Dhabi to New York recently and was able to bypass security in NY as the security in Abu Dhabi is deemed to be "sufficient". She's not a US citizen, just an Australian working in A D, but interesting that she didn't need to pass customs in NY due to some "agreement".

    4. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

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

      citation?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by ruir · · Score: 1

      I would understand security inbound a flight for preventing "terrorism", but not inbound AND outbound.

    6. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I don't know how planes are allocated in Australia, but many larger planes fly a mix of domestic and international routes. I've taken local flights (Chicago to Orlando, I believe) on a 757. Sure, at secondary airports, there are only small turbo-props. And some of them don't have security. Getting dumped off in the insecure area and then having to screen once you get to a larger airport is considered terribly inconvenient. The largest airports have the longest security lines and they are unpredictable. You have to either have long layovers to ensure plenty of time to screen and get back to a gate or deal with a stream of missed connections. Generally it's a hassle. Better to just screen at your origin and never leave the secure area.

    7. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Many large international airports have US pre-clearance areas where you take care of US customs / immigration before boarding. It's a completely isolated area of the airport. When you land in the US, you are considered a domestic flight. I don't know about Abu Dhabi but this is the norm when flying from Canada. It's nice because if you do customs in the US, you have to pick up your checked baggage. Since some items are allowed in checked baggage but not carryon, you now have to rescreen to make sure you didn't transfer any of those items. If you do pre-clearance it's only one security check.

    8. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by dave420 · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by dave420 · · Score: 1

      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?

    10. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9...

      Three buildings in the World Trade Center complex collapsed due to fire-induced structural failure.[96] The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. after burning for 56 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 and the explosion of its fuel.[96] The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m. after burning for 102 minutes.[96] When the North Tower collapsed, debris fell on the nearby 7 World Trade Center building (7 WTC), damaging it and starting fires. These fires burned for hours, compromising the building's structural integrity, and 7 WTC collapsed at 5:21 p.m.[97][98] The Pentagon sustained major damage.

      So, #96-98:
      http://articles.orlandosentine...
      World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Ch. 5 WTC 7 – section 5.5.4
      Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, p. xxxvii.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    11. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a conspiracy theory I haven't heard before. That one of these did it?

    12. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by friesofdoom · · Score: 1

      They've started doing this everywhere I think, even if you came from a 5* security check. If you have a layover these days, it seems most likely you'll be security screened again before you begin your second leg. Tough luck if you bought perfume or alcohol in the previous duty-free area, as they'll take that rite off you when they screen you for your layover flight.

    13. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with being 'dumped' like you said is that connections can sometimes be close enough together that you barely have time to get across the airport to your departing terminal, let alone slog through security again. I'd rather be screened at the small airport quickly than the clusterfuck of everyone getting screened at the large hubs.

    14. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Have you actually been to Hawaii? Security at Honolulu International Airport is compartmentalized in exactly the way you describe.

    15. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by supernova87a · · Score: 1

      Are you willing to pay $15 on your ticket to fund the small airport screening process then that has to be staffed and trained fully, just for 4-5 flights per day?

    16. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by supernova87a · · Score: 1

      I didn't think it was. Interisland/commuter terminal has similar levels of security, despite the fact that the planes couldn't do damage to anything of importance if they wanted to...

    17. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always thought it is nice that we can take domestic flights without necessarily showing ID. Pre-check in online and with carry on only, best way to travel.

      We're allowed e.g. wrenches up to 5 inches in size, in carry on (I've taken bike tools interstate for a cycling trip). If hijacking was a likelihood, something would have happened by now. But it's been fine. That little bit of freedom in air travel is in huge contrast when you arrive in the US.

      It's been nice to be treated like grown ups and not fearful, dangerous children. Up to this point. We'll go down the security panic road, same as the US, as if that's helped anything. IT HASN'T.

    18. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are coming to the commuter terminal from a flight that was screened, then you can choose to be escorted to the secure area of the rest of the airport Interisland/International or be dumped into the arrivals area of the commuter terminal, which is unsecured. There is a covered, secured walkway behind a fence which runs parallel to the sidewalk that connects the commuter terminal and the interisland terminal.

    19. Re:actually Australia does have some sanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, but the point is that interisland commuter flights could be completely not security screened given how low risk they are.

  18. And what were they charged with? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    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 are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:And what were they charged with? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  19. Not news by oh · · Score: 1

    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 in downtown New York. The security is nothing like the international terminals which are about the same level as at US airports.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
      http://www.theaustralian.com.a...

    --
    Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
    1. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes it news is that it happened at the same day as the Aussie Rules football grand final and there were people dressed up in all their team colours stressing about whether they'd make it to the game.

  20. First the woman walked off a pier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...into the ocean while overly engaged looking at a cell phone*, now this.
    Australians! Wake up!
    Actually, the cure may be a book by Ram Das, "Be Here Now."

    *In December, 2013 tourists in Melbourne walked off a pier into the ocean while texting. Meanwhile, pedestrian deaths caused in part by inattention to their physical surroundings increase.

  21. Old Japanese Proverb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you ignore it,
    it will go away.

    Ha ha

    Shows the worth(lessness) of the TSA security theater.

    Hey! Combat TSA Security Theater with Real Theater!

    Ha ha Fuck You.

  22. Headlines wrong by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

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

  23. If you are suggesting a UNION turnstyle, then OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we let it vote in elections too?

  24. Ipadguy made a mistake, but you cannot forgive him by Raisey-raison · · Score: 4, 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.

  25. Headlines wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never been to an Australian airport have you?

  26. Mesmerized? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Must have been the Mother Of All Porn.

  27. Murdoch? You're an idiot. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  28. Sigh, mods on crack again. by mjwx · · Score: 0, Troll

    Who modded this Troll? I pointed out that Ipad man did something incredibly and all the AFP did was the job they're meant to do.

    The guy was released without charge, although I reiterate it's a shame stupidity like this isn't painful.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  29. Sigh, mods still on crack. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    The attempts to censor my posts are terrible. I've got plenty of Karma to burn, how many mod points have you got left? I pointed out that the AFP (Australian Federal Police) did exactly what they were meant to do, at first glance they dont know whether the guy was an idiot or a meth addict. They didn't know he'd just gotten off a flight. All they saw was a guy walking the wrong way through the doors. They caught up with the guy, questioned him and let him go because he wasn't malicious, just a complete tool (like the people modding this down). It's a shame stupidity isn't painful. It would stop people walking the wrong way though security doors and bad moderation.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Sigh, mods still on crack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If stupidity was painfull, what makes you think you wouldn't feel a thing? I mean, I don't know of many people who believe they are stupid, and you sure sound like you think a lot of yourself, but who knows?

    2. Re:Sigh, mods still on crack. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    3. Re:Sigh, mods still on crack. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      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.

      Because eventually they run out of mod points, dickhead. Looks like that's happened.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Sigh, mods still on crack. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Practically speaking, yes. My point was that you might want to stop and reexamine *why* you keep getting modded down instead of trying to drown them out.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  30. Guess what is to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The airport.

    As a passenger, I am not paid to ensure your procedures are working properly. There are no signs on the normal walkways that say "You are allowed to walk here" and there was no sign saying he wasn't allowed to walk where he went.

    I am not supposed to second guess what I am doing at all times, that's the job of the airport. If I can walk through something without realizing I wasn't supposed to THAT'S YOUR FAULT.

    I used the work 'airport' here to be terse, but what I mean is, the person in charge of security and process - probably two people - how people move around, and how people move around securely, THEY are to blame.

  31. Raise your hand by sabbede · · Score: 1

    if this could have been you.

    1. Re:Raise your hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not me. I own a surface, which i don't bring to airports to get stolen by airport security.

  32. Shocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Self-absorbed Apple user ignores the rules and causes major inconvenience for everyone else? I'm flabbergasted.

  33. Re:Ipadguy is retarded, he didn't make a mistake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree, anyone who makes any kind of mistake anywhere should be shot, no shooting is too good for them, burn them, burn them alive. Especially software developers who put bugs in code! They should be the first to die.

    The highly sarcastic point I am trying to make, is that anyone can make a mistake, and if you are not forgiving of other peoples mistakes, why should anyone be forgiving of yours.

  34. Let me fix that headline for you... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    "Self-Absorbed Asshole Walks Past Security...."

  35. Shoe-bomber Redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, now we're going to have to get our iPads patted down. Just better hope it's charged.

  36. why not post a guard? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    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.

  37. The problem is misstated by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    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?).

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  38. Suppose he's got a pointed stick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all!

  39. Insane by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    This world has gone fucking insane. Fuck the world!

  40. the all important screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quit staring at your damn screens all the time people. Life is out there, live it.

    1. Re:the all important screen by Imazalil · · Score: 1

      I think I'd rather go with an tablet/phone screen over airport security, thanks.

  41. Re:Ipadguy is retarded, he didn't make a mistake. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    I find it ironic that you say ipadguy is a retard and wasn't looking where he was going, and that somehow equates to deliberate action to cause hundreds of other people problems. If he wasn't looking, then it wasn't deliberate, was it? The security dimwits on the other hand should have known the result of their actions and so they deliberately caused problems for hundreds of people.

    It seems to me that you do not have a clear understanding of the word deliberate. It is truly a shame that this kind of idiocy isn't a crime... or painful. I would propose you be shot for your retarded and deliberate act of stupidity!

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  42. What kind of security checkpoint is this? by Imazalil · · Score: 1

    Wait, who in the world designed a security checkpoint that can be walked through in a single line without bumping into anyone or anything? Is this not on the most basic level something a checkpoint should be designed to prevent?

    Not sure if the checkpoint designer is incompetent or brilliant.

  43. Moral of the story: iPads cause delays by Shalhav · · Score: 0

    Yet another problem with Apple. This would never have happened with an Android device.