Newark in lockdown after security scare

[drewbles]

from SMH...

Newark Airport in lockdown after security scare

One of America's busiest airports is in lockdown after a security scare.

Security officials have shut down Newark Airport in New Jersey after a man breached security by walking on the wrong side of a security checkpoint.

Can imagine how much fun that airport would be at present

 

[anat0l]

That guy who stepped on the wrong side is probably going to get quite a dress down, possibly at least a few minutes in the slammer.

 

[samh004]

That's if they can find him...

Seems like an over-reaction to the problem tbh, but I guess it's better to them than under reacting and something catastrophic happening.

 

[harvyk]

That's if they can find him...

Seems like an over-reaction to the problem tbh, but I guess it's better to them than under reacting and something catastrophic happening.

Actually strangly enough, I wouldn't call it an overreaction. Whilst I am against stupid regulation after stupid regulation, security screening does prevent people from taking stuff onboard which they really shouldn't have.

Whilst it could have been an honest mistake but the pax (although I doubt it, surely something must have twigged that they shouldn't have been there), there is a need to re-screen everyone, because even if this person is found, what's to say he didn't hand a weapon or something else prohibited onto another pax who had already been through security screening?

 

[samh004]

Actually strangly enough, I wouldn't call it an overreaction. Whilst I am against stupid regulation after stupid regulation, security screening does prevent people from taking stuff onboard which they really shouldn't have.

Whilst it could have been an honest mistake but the pax (although I doubt it, surely something must have twigged that they shouldn't have been there), there is a need to re-screen everyone, because even if this person is found, what's to say he didn't hand a weapon or something else prohibited onto another pax who had already been through security screening?

That's true, but I'd have thought there'd be enough cameras in there that the could track him and see if he left anything or passed anything on. The fact they lost him really is astounding.

 

[anat0l]

That's true, but I'd have thought there'd be enough cameras in there that the could track him and see if he left anything or passed anything on. The fact they lost him really is astounding.

Fact of life: Unless you had a stupid number of cameras, you can almost always find a way to hide a suspicious action; at a minimum, you would be able to make it ambiguous.

Not to mention that they would need to review the security footage quick smart in order to establish this, then they need to find him and the accomplice. Locking down and rescreening everyone seems appropriate enough... although they are probably reviewing the footage at the same time, too.

 

[Danger]

I suppose they also have to do a thorough search of the airside area in case a prohibited item was hidden in a trash can or similar.

 

[medhead]

I know that this thing has happened at BNE at least once and possibly twice and the procedure adopted there was to evacuated the airport, do a search for deposited items and then rescreen everyone.

absolute bedlam, but then it didn't hurt me too much as I turned up for my flight during the rescreening bit. so besides a slight delay it was just like a normal visit to the airport.

They do this exactly because cameras can not be everywhere and people can hide things.

 

[samh004]

I thought you might like to see this video and basically the outcome of that security scare.

Seems it was deliberate, hope he gets fined a fortune.

 

[samh004]

And the plot thickens…

 

[thewinchester]

I'm all for a little romance at the airport (that's a huge hint to any of the single females under that age of 35 who might encounter me in the QP or in the cabin), but not at the sake of airport security people.

Seriously, I have to question the intellect of someone who knowingly violates any number of widely known, long standing security protocols just to sneak a last kiss from a significant other.

In a recent past life, I undertook undercover service evaluation duties in the airside zones of international airports. Albeit the company who engaged us for this work drilled security into us for 15min at a training session, my home turf airport wasn't that concerned about additional briefings and awareness for security training.

The staff almost died in shock when on at several occasions I reported people for unescorted tailgating through security doors, failing to display security passes etc. Worse still, more often than not it was Security personal who I'd encounter breaking the rules - and some of these were manning the sterile checkpoints.

Having said that, despite going through the same sterile area screening protocols as all other airport workers, none of us were ever background checked for this role either at an ASIC or equivalent level, let alone provision or retention of a clean national police certificate.

I'm a cleanskin in police parlance and plan to keep it that way, but I'd like to think that our airports did their darnedest to ensure that anyone who wasn't flying that had either escorted or un-escorted access to sterile and airside areas was given the same level of rigorous background checking as people boarding the plane.

You could easily argue, based on recent events in the US that the level of rigorous background checking and intelligence gathering doesn't work if you have a system that's garbage in, garbage out.

 

[medhead]

Having said that, despite going through the same sterile area screening protocols as all other airport workers, none of us were ever background checked for this role either at an ASIC or equivalent level, let alone provision or retention of a clean national police certificate.

I'm a cleanskin in police parlance and plan to keep it that way, but I'd like to think that our airports did their darnedest to ensure that anyone who wasn't flying that had either escorted or un-escorted access to sterile and airside areas was given the same level of rigorous background checking as people boarding the plane.

You could easily argue, based on recent events in the US that the level of rigorous background checking and intelligence gathering doesn't work if you have a system that's garbage in, garbage out.

Gotta say I'm having trouble understanding what your on about here. couple of points:

Instead of ASIC you mean ASIO?

The vast najority of people boarding the plane are not required to have any security background check or national police certificate - these people are called the passengers.

The vast majority of the people entering airside areas are also similiar not required to have a background check - again passengers and also the people waving goodbye.

Finally, having viewed some police checks for people signing up for the military. I'd say that in general they are not worth the paper they are printed on. Why? Well I know you're a clear skin now. I just tell them that my name is your name and the reply is "the person with the name xx_ has no criminal record*" (or similar) "*we can't guarantee that the person is actually the real person named xx_"

 

[thewinchester]

Instead of ASIC you mean ASIO?

Nope, meant ASIC, as in the Airside Security Identification Card

The vast majority of people boarding the plane are not required to have any security background check or national police certificate - these people are called the passengers...

Yeah, that point does need some clarification. Most passengers before boarding international flights go through some form of electronic intelligence screening. While it may not be to the level of detail gone into for ASIC, MSIC's etc, there's a reasonable level of checking to ensure you're not a terrorist, or funding/associated with those with intent to do harm to others (broad meaning, but that's anything from terrorism groups, fundamentalist groups, violent radicals, etc)

Finally, having viewed some police checks for people signing up for the military. I'd say that in general they are not worth the paper they are printed on. Why? Well I know you're a clear skin now. I just tell them that my name is your name and the reply is "the person with the name xx_ has no criminal record*" (or similar) "*we can't guarantee that the person is actually the real person named xx_"

Very true. Most NPC's aren't required to go into the level of detail, say fingerprint or other cross-checks, necessary for confirming the person who's a cleanskin and received the clean NPC is who they say they are.

The same applies for useless name-based cross checking implemented in the US as part of their response to 'keeping the skies safe' (gag me with a spoon please).

My point is that someone who's been permitted to access an airside area for a purpose other than travel should have been subject to the same checks as others in this category of person. I know for a fact I wasn't, and that the systems in place, while better than what was there before, still leave gaping holes in the security systems protecting airlines and airports.

Similarly, how far do nations go in the area of identity verification and checking? As we know, Australians have historically been against the idea of a national identity system since the introduction of the Australia Card - but has this possibly irrational fear lead to some of the situations we currently experience with services (eg. health and welfare) and security in terms of lax systems, rorting, and excessive cost of deliver?

Anyway, that's something else entirely and way off topic.

 

[medhead]

Nope, meant ASIC, as in the Airside Security Identification Card

Similarly, how far do nations go in the area of identity verification and checking? As we know, Australians have historically been against the idea of a national identity system since the introduction of the Australia Card -

That makes sense. However, is the Australian Securities and Investment Commission was doing airport background checks it might explan how they've dropped the ball on some of their other duties recently .

Was Australian Card ever introduced. I thought it died before getting that far.

 

[tuapekastar]

Was Australian Card ever introduced. I thought it died before getting that far.

Correct. I can't recall which Government tried to introduce it, but ISTR it was knocked on the head very quickly and firmly and early.

 

[medhead]

Correct. I can't recall which Government tried to introduce it,

Hawke

I'm sure I remember Little johnny banging on against it. Plus that was also the time of the Joh for PM campaign. Great times, interesting pollies, not like these bland mof_s we have today.

"You, you, you can't go on whipping the dead horse in the back paddock forever" - Joh

 

[tuapekastar]

"You, you, you can't go on whipping the dead horse in the back paddock forever" - Joh

He mixed a few up did Joh. I recall "They've cooked their own goose, now they have to lie in it"

 

[thewinchester]

That makes sense. However, is the Australian Securities and Investment Commission was doing airport background checks it might explan how they've dropped the ball on some of their other duties recently .

Too many acronyms the same, should have said ASIC's to differentiate. Mind you, the agency behind ASIC's and ASIC are about as useless as each other.