Eleven Year Old Kid Shows That Modern Airport Security Is Not As Secure A You Think

from the news-at-eleven dept

Wed, Aug 1st 2012 8:05am — Zachary Knight

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.

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.

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.

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

44 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:09am

False Headline
I never thought it was secure--only security theater.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:17am

In the news (future)
"US implements DNA scanning machines at their airports to ensure all persons appearing to be in the same group are related. If less than 7 epithelials match, then the person is singled out for full interrogation. DHS spokesperson says "This is the only way to avoid children running away from their parents. We need to protect the children." TSA spokesperson says "It's important that the public be safe. We all know how destructive child soldiers are."

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 thread ]
John Doe, 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:22am

Stuff can get past the luggage screeners
I was going to write a more detailed post about how I accidentally took a banned item through security 4 times (two flights out, two back). But then I figured I would get tracked down like the guy who tweeted a threat in England. So all I will say is, a few years back, I thought I had lost said item. I eventually found it wedged into the corner of my carry on bag. It had gone through security 4 times and their x-ray machine never picked it up.

I sure don't feel safer with all of the security theater. I only feel violated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:22am

Yet, this post comes on the same blog that bitches when security actually checks kids.

Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:23am

"Not content with running away to join the circus, as most little boys are want to do..."

It's "wont", not "want".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brent (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:26am

That little kid is a con-artist/spy in the making. Con-artist if he continues to be successful in his elusive tactics; Spy if a govt agency ever catches up to him. Also, he should co-host a tv show with that 3-year-old gun safe cracker. They could call it "Gubment Safety for Kids" (frequent guest appearances by Barney, or whatever is popular these days, to keep ratings up).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:29am

Re:
Um, no, I think you're exactly incorrect on that...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:31am

Re: Re:
You know what? I just looked it up (which I should have done earlier), and it turns out I'm the one who is exactly wrong, and you were right. So I'll apologize, as I am wont to do....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:34am

Re:
Think you're getting your definition of 'checking for passports' mixed with 'molesting children'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:34am

Re: Re:
No, wont is the correct word. It's a homophone of want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:36am

Re:
Hmmm, did you read the whole thing?

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.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:36am

Re: Re:
I would think that a child who has been molested would probably be more likely to run away...maybe on a plane...to Rome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:37am

Re: Re:
I'm picturing the AC at the airport:

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:38am

Re: In the news (future)
Do you know what's really sad about what you just wrote? Before I finished reading your full comment, I thought the first paragraph was true, that the US was implementing DNA scanners at airports. I honestly thought it was true, given the free groping and full body scanners they already do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:41am

Re:
No, these are two separate issues. This blog has highlighted issues when the TSA gropes six year olds, in case they were packing weapons in their underwear.
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 thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:51am

Re: In the news (future)
Given the number of children who aren't fathered by who the mother claims is the father I hope they DO do this, it'll be hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tunnen (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:53am

Re: In the news (future)
Haha, I can only imagine the awkward situation when a family passes through and the TSA agent mentions, "Sir, please step over here. These are not your children. Our records indicate these children are related to a postal worker."

=P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:59am

11 year old suicide bombers
11 years is not too young for terrorists to use. One so young, intellectually impressionable and malleable, would not be out of the question for a suicide bomb attack. It is trivial to sneak material into an airport, so once he was past security, outfitting him with an explosive vest would not be difficult.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Quryous, 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:03am

Don't kid yourself
Kids younger than 11 carried very effective AK-47s and grenades in Viet Nam. Quite common in Africa, today.

Yea, don't kid yourself about being 11.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ricky, 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:08am

Don't mind me I am just a kid not a midget with explosives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tunnen (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:15am

Re: Re: In the news (future)
Hey, I think we are onto something... We can start a reality TV show.... Maybe get Jerry Springer or Murray Polvich to host it. Get some before and after interviews from families and catch the reactions on film when the TSA breaks the news to them. We could also get some good action with people getting tased when they go into an emotional outburst in the security checkpoint. They can also throw in a few laughs by making fun of various body scanner images. I think this would fit perfectly into a daytime TV programming slot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:17am

Re: Re: In the news (future)
So, is Maury Povich going to start working for the TSA?

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-are-not-the-father
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:18am

Re: Re: Re:
In addition to [insightful] and [funny], we should have a [spoken like a gentleman] button.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:24am

Re:
Or a midget pretending to be a baby.

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 thread ]
Beta (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:26am

cost-benefit analysis
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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:42am

This is exactly the same sort of social engineering Helen Hayes' puckish-little-old-lady character used to fly all over the country for free in the movie Airport, which previewed in 1970. She quite literally lays it out in detail in the scene in the airport office where she's being questioned by Burt Lancaster's character. That's 42 years for airport security to get it right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:44am

Re:
Learn something new every day. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:47am

"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."

Are you saying that machines are the problem, or humans are the problem? This statement confuses me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:55am

Re: 11 year old suicide bombers
I don't know where to start.

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 thread ]
Jason, 1 Aug 2012 @ 10:06am

Re: False Headline
�The boy went through full security screening so the safety of passengers and the aircraft was never compromised.�

^^ 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 thread ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 10:07am

Protocol
I believe proper protocol would be to never acknowledge that this even or any events like it ever happened. That way security is maintained.

Security through obscurity is the best!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 11:24am

Re: cost-benefit analysis
This.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 11:30am

Re: Stuff can get past the luggage screeners
Don't worry, according to the porn industry you always end up enjoying it. Always.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 11:55am

Re: Re: Re: In the news (future)
I think this would fit perfectly into a daytime TV programming slot.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 12:59pm

Re:
Trash! Touching someones yin yang and calling it a "game", is not the same as just checking someone and being honest about as all government worker should be when dealing with citizens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 1:17pm

Really? A typo in the title? Cmon use fricken spellcheck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 1:17pm

Really? A typo in the title? Cmon use fricken spellcheck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
s7, 1 Aug 2012 @ 6:34pm

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/xiwk8/ive_been_on_8_flights_in_the_past_2_weeks_got/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
He might of gotten 'wont' correct, but I for one think he was being a bit of a grammar wonk ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 3:37am

So we just found a simple way to prevent our kids from boarding flights to run from us. Simply add a pack of marijuana or a bomb in his/her backpack. Problem solved =D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 4:35am

Re: Re: cost-benefit analysis
Even so, he still managed to make it sound like he was answering the wrong question. Most people don't separate the two - they'll conflate the passport/boarding card check with the physical security. I don't know if this guy was poorly quoted, but he could at least have made it sound like something other than "We bolted the barn door real good!" to the sound of fading horse hooves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 7:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Might "have" ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 8:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A wink to another wonk :p
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Benjo (profile), 27 Aug 2012 @ 4:16pm

Re: Stuff can get past the luggage screeners
I got through SFO all the way on to my plane back to Seattle with somebody else's boarding pass once. When I pointed out that I had someone elses boarding pass they freaked out and treated me like a criminal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]