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).'"

47 of 217 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    4. 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.

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

      +1 insightful please

    6. 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...

    7. 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.

  2. 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 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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.'"
    11. 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.
    12. 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?

    13. 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
    14. 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
    15. 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

    16. 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.

  3. 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 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!”
    2. 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.

    3. 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!”
    4. 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!”
  4. 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...

  5. The scumbag was charged with ... by Krishnoid · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  6. 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 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
    2. Re:WTFBBQ by gcnaddict · · Score: 2
      --
      Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
  7. 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 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
  8. 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.

  9. Re:What? Not again! by sehlat · · Score: 2

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

    This is an iPad!

  10. 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 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!

  11. 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.