

Stranded Jet Skier Breaches Multimillion Dollar Security System At JFK Airport - JumpCrisscross
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/08/14/158752675/stranded-jet-skier-breaches-multimillion-dollar-security-system-at-jfk-airport

======
noonespecial
What would sane people do? A simple alarm(1) would have sent a patrol car out
to investigate. A wet tired man would have been brought to the airport
infirmary where a few questions would have been asked verifying his story
while he was checked for hypothermia. The truly paranoid might have sent a
coast guard boat out to get the jet-ski, further confirming his story (and
hooray, getting him his wallet back). He's home for dinner with a story to
tell.

Honestly now, how many Americans think that this isn't the way this should
have happened? How in the hell did we get this far off course? It sounds from
the story that the thing they're most upset about is missing an opportunity to
lock down the whole airport while they dressed up as storm troopers and
traipsed about in their armored doohickeys pretending to save the world. I
think we're voting on all the wrong stuff this November.

(1) ...That works because we've had that technology since 1947.

~~~
brk
_A simple alarm(1) would have sent a patrol car out to investigate._

Sorry, but no. They're covering miles of outdoor perimeter. The problem is
that there are very few technologies that can reliably detect things like
people, while ignoring things like various animals (or heat from jet engines,
etc.).

~~~
noonespecial
Ported Coaxial Cable Sensor (or leaky cable) has been around for a very long
time(1) and was quite reliable even before the advent of computerized DSP to
help with detection.

(1)I think you could buy them commercially at least as early as the 70's

~~~
brk
Buried coax and fiber detection systems tend to rank in the bottom 1/3rd of
overall reliability (just above the systems that try to detect fence movement
and tension changes).

In fact, I rarely hear of new deployments considering these technologies
(though I'm sure there are plenty of them, as the companies are still in
business).

------
pyre

      > Immediately there should have been an armed response. Heavy weapons,
      > armored cars to the area that the perimeter was breached. The
      > airport should have been locked down.
    

I realize the need to protect the security of the airport, but "heavy weapons"
and "armored cars?" Someone watch a little too much Die Hard 2? If a terrorist
(or terrorist group) wants to breach airport security, I have a hard time
believing they will be storming the airport with artillery and automatic
weapons.

~~~
droithomme
They don't even need to "protect the security of the airport" to the extent of
stopping lost people from wandering in. Because they can't totally lock it
down, so they should assume sometimes (and this is extremely rare) people will
wander in, just like anywhere else in the world. It's not a maximum security
prison. Will they establish a mine field with robotically controlled laser
beams next that fries any wayward dog that happens onto the runway?

Arresting the guy is a crime against humanity, and shows the complete lack of
moral authority or common sense held by the various paranoid autocratic and
senseless state and federal agencies within the US.

The guy making the comment about a military response involving armored cars
and heavy weapons is completely insane and should be removed from his
position. He is a danger to the public.

~~~
uvdiv
_The guy making the comment about a military response involving armored cars
and heavy weapons is completely insane and should be removed from his
position. He is a danger to the public._

It appears he was already fired, some allegations about fabricating evidence.
He's a private investigator now.

[http://articles.nydailynews.com/2003-04-02/news/18218527_1_m...](http://articles.nydailynews.com/2003-04-02/news/18218527_1_mta-
informant-accusations)

<http://casaleassociates.com/>

~~~
droithomme
Wow that's really interesting and now I'm confused. So in 2003 Casale is fired
for being a lying dirty cop, and in 2012, he is commenting to the AP about the
jetski case calling for a military response against lost jetskiers, but in
what authority? The way the article presents it he seems to have something to
do with the story, but perhaps he is just a random person the journalist has
decided to quote for no particular reason?

~~~
uvdiv
He wasn't an ordinary cop, he was a high-ranking "deputy director of security
for counterterrorism" in NYC.

------
noonespecial
_The Port Authority told ABC it's undertaking a fast review of Castillo's
breach and will find out how the perimeter detection system, built by defense
contractor Raytheon "could be improved."_

Oh, I know this one. It could be upgraded to _actually detect_ intruders. I'm
a taxpayer. I want a freakin' refund. I don't want a "congressional review" or
"hearings". It didn't work. Give the money back.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
I'm curious how similar this perimeter detection system is to the ones rolled
out by the U.S. Army about its bases, or DoS for U.S. embassies.

~~~
elemeno
I'd imagine the Army relies, to a fair extent, on the tried and trusted
technique of using people as a detection system. Watchtowers and patrols and
the suchlike.

~~~
GFischer
As someone said, that method would be much cheaper for the airport and would
help solve the unemployment problem in the U.S.

However, I guess it doesn't sound so nice in the "tough stance against
terrorism" as a "state of the art" defense system.

~~~
kd0amg
Just have to market it as a "military-grade intrusion detection system" or
something.

~~~
sjg007
I have one, it is called a dog.

~~~
GFischer
They're pretty good for perimeter patrol, the Uruguayan military uses them,
it's not a bad suggestion at all.

------
dclowd9901
Probably the saddest part of this article:

> Meanwhile, they've beefed up water patrols around the airport and are
> policing the perimeter.

So the response to their non-response of the non-terrorist breach of security
is to respond with overwhelming security to no actual threat. Do they really
think they're fooling anyone with this security theater?

~~~
dredmorbius
I was just going to post the same line from the article.

There's no evidence presented in the article that there's an _actual_ security
threat.

There's _ample_ evidence posted in the article that Castillo presented _no_
threat.

There are undoubtedly plenty of other avenues by which airport security could
be breached. Most likely by securing access as a contractor through one of the
various service providers to the airport -- including potentially as a
security provider. By comparison, among the largest threats to NATO forces in
Afghanistan presently are "green on blue" attacks by Afgan police/army forces.

The emperor continues to have no clothes. This is no longer security theater,
it's a security pole dance.

~~~
corin_
If a user on your website accidentally finds an exploit that could let him
steal your user database but he didn't mean to and didn't do anything with
it... do you a.) Say "well he wasn't a real threat, back to the TV" or b.)
Prevent anyone else from getting in the same way?

I agree with the general hatred of security theatre, but given what it is they
obviously had to be seen to fix the hole rather than just leave it wide open
where any terrorist could get through it.

~~~
flyinRyan
>If a user on your website accidentally finds an exploit that could let him
steal your user database but he didn't mean to and didn't do anything with
it... do you a.) Say "well he wasn't a real threat, back to the TV" or b.)
Prevent anyone else from getting in the same way?

This line of logic is going the exact wrong way. In the case of a website,
there are known exploiters out there stealing data and money continuously. If
you have a hole it will be found and exploited with near 100% certainty.
Further, fixing your hole doesn't hurt anyone and usually doesn't even
inconvenience them.

Airport "security", on the other hand, is against a threat that never seems to
materialize [1] and is massively inconvenient to everyone who uses the system.
This sort of thing is just shadow chasing. "Oh noes! If terrorists could
somehow weaponize rats, they would be able to utilize the sewer system! We
better spend billions to lock down the sewers, ASAP!". This hole has been open
for how long? And yet, no terrorist attacks. It's not worth investing the
resources it would take to fill the hole because statistically there's no
reason to believe it will ever be exploited by a terrorist.

[1] Relative to internet attacks, which are constant, terrorist attacks
against the US are statistically non-existent. There are probably more cyber
attacks on US websites in a single day than terrorist attacks committed on US
soil in its entire history.

~~~
corin_
> _This hole has been open for how long? And yet, no terrorist attacks._

Typically when a website is hacked it isn't because they opened up a
vulnerability the day before, it too has been around a while before anyone
malicious found it.

The rest of your argument is all about the general security theatre situation,
where yes, I agree they are going over the top against very little threat. My
point was that, given this policy, they had two choices here - either close
the security hole ASAP, or say "to be honest, this whole security thing's a
bit of a joke, let's all go home".

~~~
dclowd9901
Or option 3: "we know we should've known a guy had made it onto the Tarmac
before he made it all the way to the terminals. There's obviously something
wrong there. But there's no need to worry about ze terrorists storming airport
beach fronts, so heavily armed response is probably overkill. It'd be a little
difficult to miss something like _that_."

------
notatoad
I like that the port authority police union rep is complaining about the
quality of the security system. Does he think that the port authority police
can just sit on their asses because the security system is going to do their
jobs for them? The man was wearing gear _designed specifically for high
visibility_ , and nobody saw him.

Also, are there really no exemptions to trespassing laws to account for
emergency situations like this? It seems that if you're stranded at sea you
shouldn't have to find a public beach to get out of the water.

~~~
dclowd9901
> Also, are there really no exemptions to trespassing laws to account for
> emergency situations like this? It seems that if you're stranded at sea you
> shouldn't have to find a public beach to get out of the water.

In a perfect world, he would've been detected, units would've been dispatched
to receive him, and he would've cleared port authority by explaining himself.

In actuality, security was notified far past the point when he actually
could've caused some real trouble, and in a move of double reverse CYA,
security took the hardest line possible on the guy, as though it would somehow
undo some of their complete incompetence.

~~~
dfc
In a perfect world I think he would have been _prevented_ from breaching the
perimeter and they would have detected the failed attempt to breach the
perimeter.

~~~
vacri
In a perfect world, there'd be no need for security services.

~~~
dredmorbius
Or airports.

------
drucken
Slightly off-topic but as an international, this seems very heavy handed to be
charged with criminal tresspass just for seeking help, which for anyone other
than this athletic and fit swimmer could have been life-threatening.

Is this a "felony" charge in the US and would it stick?

Anyway, I imagine this will make it to Schneier's list as the latest piece on
security theater...

~~~
jlarocco
Even if it's technically illegal, no jury in the country would actually
convict him, so probably no charges will be pressed and he'll be released.

As somebody else said, having him arrested at all was probably an over
reaction for him making them look stupid.

------
subway
_"Immediately there should have been an armed response. Heavy weapons, armored
cars to the area that the perimeter was breached. The airport should have been
locked down."_

Even if this were a legitimate attack, isn't this sort of response a bit
overkill? I have trouble thinking of a threat to a large airport on US soil
requiring "heavy weapons" and "armored cars" as a response.

~~~
dfc
I think heavy weapons is a relative term, I think he probably meant assault
rifles not M240 Bravos.

Any and all passenger screening would be worthless if you could just walk on
the tarmac and have access to the planes fuselage and or fuel tankers.

~~~
flyinRyan
It's already worthless. People who handle baggage sometimes _steal_ luggage.
This implies the screening is lax enough that they can get good out. How
likely is it that there's no way for them to get something in if they wanted
to?

~~~
ceejayoz
That hardly follows. They don't care all that much about what you take out, as
it has theoretically already been screened and generally isn't a security
threat if you're _removing_ it from at-risk facility.

------
grandalf
The word "security" is starting to sound like newspeak.

Ironically few people oppose reasonable measures, yet even in a post-911 world
of extreme paranoia, we find that many of the overwrought systems so urgently
put in place are worthless.

Most notably the TSA has been proven to be worthless, in spite of having
wasted billions of dollars worth of productive time and on track to waste
billions more.

It's unfortunate that these things are run by the government. We're getting
the prison food version of security and it's horrible.

~~~
wazoox
> _It's unfortunate that these things are run by the government. We're getting
> the prison food version of security and it's horrible._

Amusing that you're mentioning prisons, that precisely come as a nice example
of things going awry after government handed back management to private
contractors. The same thing applies to disasters such as Blackwater military
activities in Iraq, etc.

~~~
grandalf
I think you are attempting to argue that in fact my complaint is against so-
called "privatization".

My complaint here is about the corruption of government. And yes, corrupt
officials arrange deals with "private" firms that exist only to get such deals
and which hire retired officials as lobbyists, etc.

In the prison example, corruption exists across the arbitrary public/private
line that you are drawing. In California, the prison guards union is a
lobbying group that supports criminalizing nearly anything, in hopes that
stricter laws will lead to more inmates and more job security for guards.

------
whatusername
So something seems off to me. Where were/are the friends.

I don't go Jet-skiing with friends, but I would imagine that thing to do isn't
to abandon-ski, swim to shore, climb a fence, walk a couple of miles. Surely
his friends should have noticed at some point that he was missing.

~~~
guynamedloren
Wondering the same thing. I read the article 3 times trying to figure out
where the friends where during this fiasco.

~~~
GFischer
I know of some people that like to go canoeing / on a kayak alone. One of my
brothers has gone windsurfing alone.

I guess this guy went Jet-Skiing alone? I wouldn't do it, but as mentioned,
several people like water sports enough to do them on their own.

~~~
guynamedloren
I believe the article specifically states that he was jet skiing with
friends...

~~~
GFischer
You're right:

" he was out jet skiing with friends on an inlet near the airport and had a
mishap"

"Casillo’s adventure began at a Rosedale watering hole, where he was hanging
out with friends when they decided to go out racing their watercraft.

But Casillo’s ride broke down in the dark waters of Jamaica Bay at around 7:45
p.m. — and his pals didn’t notice they had left Casillo behind.

With his craft taking on water, he called Cowan in a panic. “He said, ‘I’m
stuck!’ and told me to call his friend Albert to come out and tow him in,”
Cowan, 28, recalled. But help didn’t come, and the stranded Casillo swam three
miles toward the only thing he could see — the lights of Runway 4-Left, which
sticks out into the bay.

Read more:
[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/beach_of_security_...](http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/beach_of_security_oLGkvicnaDyzVXCUQZGi5H#ixzz2490ndbxa)
"

------
dfc
I hated crimlaw and I dropped out of law school. But isn't there an
affirmative defense for emergency/neccessity? I think there was in NY but I
have no recollection for federal criminal proceedings. Can anyone that passed
the bar comment?

~~~
david_shaw

      > isn't there an affirmative defense for emergency/neccessity?
    

I can't imagine that _any_ jury, no matter how conservative or FUD-driven they
may be would ever convict this guy.

Put him in a court room, have any half decent lawyer explain the situation,
and the prosecutor would say... that he should have just drowned?

There's definitely no real case here--I would imagine that the charges are
standing only because the "security" team is dumbfounded by its own failure.

~~~
dfc
Are you a lawyer?

Respectfully, my question was not really about the emotional response of the
jury. I'm curious if there is an affirmative defense for
neccessity/duress/emergency/whatever in federal criminal court.

~~~
david_shaw
I'm not a lawyer, and no disrespect was inferred :)

I did, however, take several criminal justice courses. Although I have no
particular familiarity with New York law, the affirmative defense of
"necessity" does indeed appear to be supported in that state (according to a
brief Google search).

My original response was not meant to derail the conversation, only to point
out that I highly doubt any prosecutor would let the case get anywhere near a
court room in the first place.

~~~
dfc
I agree NY has the affirmative defense. I am curious about federal court.

------
ChuckMcM
All too often I don't think the security contractors ever believe anyone will
try to break into these places.

~~~
LammyL
Isn't the normal attitude with contracts like this is do as little work as
possible to satisfy the requirements checklist and get paid as soon as
possible? And then charge even more to come back and fix it later when it
doesn't work as originally envisioned?

------
aresant
Hey contrarians - the guy walked accross two runways and had to shoulder-tap a
baggage loader to make his presence known.

I don't think NPR is unreasonable to be shocked at the lapse in security
despite their colorful language.

~~~
rplnt
I thought the important part was: "wearing his bright yellow life vest". What
kind of clothing does (JFK) airport personnel wear?

------
Tichy
Perhaps the time is past that airport stories are Hacker News material? Is it
because somebody "hacks" themselves into an airport? Otherwise I strongly
suspect the "Liars & Outliers" book by Bruce Schneier covers all relevant
aspects of airport security.

~~~
sophacles
Security being broken in theory is all well and good, but theory and practice,
while theoretically the same, are practically, extremely dissimilar.

At this point most "bad security" articles regarding airports have been of the
"TSA fails to..." variety, not "Perimeter security doesn't actually exist"
variety. Point being: most people seem to assume that perimeter security is
sufficient.

Further, by analogy: It is like saying "guys, we have this input checking
thing covered, read 'smashing the stack', while discussing XSS.

