Eleven Year Old Kid Shows That Modern Airport Security Is Not As Secure A You Think
from the news-at-eleven dept
We talk a whole lot about the security theater in airports these days. While most of what we write revolves around the TSA and its crazy policies that never seem to do anything to actually protect the people, there is still plenty to talk about in other nations. Take this recent story as an example of how little it takes to bypass modern security using nothing more than a little social engineering.An eleven year old Manchester boy decided that shopping with his mother was just a little on the boring side and decided to run away. Not content with running away to join the circus, as most little boys are wont to do, he decided that running away on flight to Rome was the better option. Despite not having a passport or a boarding pass, the boy was able to make it through airport security and board the flight. How?
It's then understood Liam ‘tail-gated’ a family with other children even though he had no passport or boarding card tricking security staff into thinking he was part of the group. By the time he passed through the scanner at security, it was 1.15pm.Since the boy was only eleven, he was able to pass for a member of a family traveling through the security checks without any questions. He was then able to pull the same maneuver when boarding the flight. While it might be easier for a kid to pull off something of this nature, it does show that there is still a major weakness in security, something that no amount of post 9/11 security policy can fix.
It is understood Liam headed almost immediately to the first departing flight, the 2pm service to Rome where passengers were already queuing to board the flight.
Airline staff at the gate again appear to have thought he was with a family and failed to check for a passport or a boarding card and allowed him to walk to the plane.
One of these weaknesses is that we are training our security to look for the wrong things.
Aviation security expert Chris Yates said: “This was a lapse but I don't believe this was a serious security breach. Anybody who passes through Manchester Airport must be screened whether that is through a full body scanner or a metal detector. That did happen in this instance.You see, the people running security were so caught up in looking for potentially dangerous objects such as liquids over 3 ounces or nail clippers that they completely neglected to check if the people entering the gates or boarding the flights were supposed to be there. Even with this kid being eleven years old, that is a pretty big slip up. One that resulted in a lot of people being suspended while an investigation is under way.
I know what some of you are going to say. "The kid was eleven, how much of a threat could he be?" Sure this kid was eleven. He couldn't have been too much of a threat. However, it shows a major weakness in our security: the human element. Humans are naturally fallible. We make mistakes. As long as there is a human element, no amount of security is foolproof. Even though this kid was eleven, social engineering knows no age boundaries. Even the strongest security systems in the world can fall by a single lapse in judgment by a human being. As we become more and more dependent on machines to scan and screen passengers, we will be opening up larger and larger holes via the human element.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: airports, kids, security, social engineering
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
False Headline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False Headline
^^ See, you just have to read the linked article. The safety of passengers...was never compromised.
Well, except of course for the small child who almost never saw his family again, but who cares about the children. The people who mattered were totally safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the news (future)
And in other news, a former DHS top-ranking member has recently accepted an executive position at the manufacturer of said DNA scanners, NoLiberty4U. Profits for NoLiberty4U have soared, despite several class action lawsuits being filed against the company over privacy concerns. Though a spokesperson for the CIA says those lawsuits should be dropped within the hour, once the field agents check in with completion of their tasks."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the news (future)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the news (future)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In the news (future)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In the news (future)
This will only work if NBC takes it on and uses Matt Lauer for the color commentary. That way he can tell people to Google the celebrities that appear on film or make jingoistic jokes and statements about where the person comes from. Of course, they will have to include a commercial right at the point where the show gets interesting, and then come back from the picture three or four people later without any coverage of the stuff they missed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the news (future)
=P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In the news (future)
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-are-not-the-father
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuff can get past the luggage screeners
I sure don't feel safer with all of the security theater. I only feel violated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stuff can get past the luggage screeners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stuff can get past the luggage screeners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Security: You passport please.
AC: You are not touching my genitals, you pervert!
(I'm assuming by his poor display of intellect that he must be a kid)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So he was screened; they just didn't check that he was supposed to be there in the first place.
Have you seen a post here about how kids shouldn't have to have boarding passes? I can't recall any myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a completely separate issue from a kid passing the security checks but somehow ending up on a plane with no ticket or boarding pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's "wont", not "want".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
11 year old suicide bombers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 11 year old suicide bombers
Who's going to carry the explosive vest through security, to give it to the boy after he's gone through security?
If getting explosives past security is trivial, then what does it matter whether there's an 11-year-old involved?
If an 11-year-old can work some kind of jedi-mind-trick attack on security, then what prevents terrorists from bringing him to the airport and buying him a ticket?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't kid yourself
Yea, don't kid yourself about being 11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good thing the TSA already has a procedure in place for dealing with that sort of situation.
I feel safer already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cost-benefit analysis
This makes so much sense that I suspect this man doesn't actually work for airport security.
Their job was to prevent weapons and explosives from getting onto the plane, and that's what they did. Preventing people from flying without buying tickets is a separate problem, with simpler economics since it has nothing to do with safety. (Let's not get into the idiocy of the No-Fly List.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cost-benefit analysis
Being able to get on an airplane without a ticket is not a security issue in the sense of being a risk to the safety of the airplane or passengers.
Being able to get on an airplane with a gun or a bomb, regardless of whether a person has a ticket, is a severe security issue.
Part of the problem is that we've conflated law enforcement (finding criminals) with safety (ensuring everyone is unarmed).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cost-benefit analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you saying that machines are the problem, or humans are the problem? This statement confuses me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protocol
Security through obscurity is the best!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]