Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears | Hacker News Reader

Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears

bbc.com

69 pointsvinni286 comments

"Based upon the need for airports to be absolutely secure so that people feel safe to travel, I do find those alleged actions do make him a danger to the community."

That is such an obvious non-sequitur, shoot-the-messenger attitude to security. The "danger to the community" stems from the officials at the airport who failed to make the airport safe and prevent this sort of situation from developing.

Yes, I had to read that a second time, at first I thought the judge was talking about the airport officials not doing their job, apparently being too afraid to take a flight back home because of a global pandemic makes you a "danger to the community" now?

Slightly related to this, who's judging the judges? I know about the whole theoretical discussion of the judiciary being independent and only from time to time being check-and-balanced by some mythical creature (the executive/the legislative/the press), my question is who's actually checking-and-balancing this county judge who obviously is blaming the victim?

> apparently being too afraid to take a flight back home because of a global pandemic

I'm not a doctor or a lawyer but the fact that this has ended up in court rather help and support from medical professionals makes me think the whole system has failed this person.

I'm left wondering why this is being treated as a felony rather than a mental health issue. I'm wondering what else hasn't been reported in this case (or can't be reported).

Perhaps there's a conflict of interest in concluding that a largely sensationalist media may be a contributing factor.

Do you mean that reporting is influencing the prosecutor's decisions? i.e. the media is suggesting that mental health issues are over blown? or that the prosecutor feels that media reports on mental health are over blown? I ask because I have seen different media sources report diametrically opposed views on this.

I know this is somewhat naive, but I would have thought that evidence would be the primary reason in decisions of whether to prosecute. I also realise that there are cases where the public good is also considered.

The prosecutors are throwing the book in order to have more bargaining leverage in order to cover for the incompetence of the people running security. You don't wind up being a prosecutor in a big city by being unwilling to do that.

Couldn't agree more. If he was caught after a few hours, that's on him and security are doing their job.

3 months is a damning amount of time for the officials.

It is an another interesting example of social engineering and the ability for people to believe anyone with a badge.

After a couple weeks, he's just a familiar face - that one guy that's always the first to show up for work each day.

And oddly enough, the last one to leave.

Not odd, he's just a workaholic with no family :)

I think its relevant that his name is "Mr Aditya Singh". This might give a clue to his ethnicity and therefore how dangerous the judge (stupidly) perceives him to be.

I hope you are wrong that his ethnicity has anything to do with his treatment. Not least because Singh is a traditionally Sikh name making the implication doubly stupid.

I find it weird that this statement came from the judge, while the representative(s) of the airport disagreed:

"While this incident remains under investigation, we have been able to determine that this gentleman did not pose a security risk to the airport or to the travelling public."

But maybe this is just the airport trying to cover itself from litigation, not so much trying to make an honest statement.

I guess the point here is that the judge needs to argue that the person was a (potential) danger in order to persecute or indict the airport in court?

Came here to say the exact same thing. If anything him living for 3 month in a highly secure area without doing anything nefarious is proof that he is not a danger to the community.

What is wrong with that judge, if it was the prosecute saying this ok, but the judge?!

They often reason backwards. They want to order bail, but danger-to-community is a required condition for bail (as pointed out in another comment), so they proclaim that he is indeed a danger.

So is it ok for the judge to lie?

It's called "arguing in the alternative".

This is why abolishing cash bail has been popular lately, although I don't know how it's working.

If he's not a danger, then why require bail?

> If he's not a danger, then why require bail?

To ensure the defendant has intensives to come back for trial

It seems like this was a bail hearing, where “danger to the community” is a condition—-and not a particularly rigorous one—-required to set bail[0].

Since his bail was set at $1000 according to the article, it seems like the judge also didn’t believe this guy was really all that dangerous either.

It’s important not to confuse this finding purely for bail purposes from a preliminary exam with any actual finding of guilt or innocence.

[0] https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1966&C...

Is it fine for the judge to say false things in the court if it's a part of the protocol?

If 'danger to the community' is a term of art that sets a standard for imprisonment/bail, then it's not so cut and dried as to say that the guy seems harmless so the judge is lying.

Clearly this guy exploited a security problem that endangers the community, and clearly he didn't physically harm anyone during his time in the airport.

> exploited a security problem that endangers the community

Well, it's not his fault the security problem endangers the community.

The US felony system is quite absurd. This guy is now marked for life for trespassing into a public space, based on the subjective opinion of a judge that despite him not harming anybody for 3 months, he is a danger to the community.

> This guy is now marked for life [...] based on the subjective option of a judge

That is not quite what this is. He hasn’t been convicted of anything; the judge is determining the conditions on which he can be released before the trial happens and making that determination requires the judge to weigh the available evidence and apply a legal standard—albeit one where ‘danger’ doesn’t align with its everyday definition-to determine if some level of monetary bail is required.

I do agree that he may well be marked for life and in the sense that Google will remember this event forever, even if he is acquitted at trial.

This term if built out of actual words that have actual meaning. Why call it danger-to-community if he's is not a danger to community?

If you want arbitrary label you want to assign arbitrarily why not call it ooglaboogla instead? At least you wouldn't be lying while using it.

Well, if "danger to the community" is a requirement to set bail, and this guy was not a danger to the community, then the judge could have simply... not required bail?

The raw amount of the bail is not, and should not be relevant, as to a person with no money $1 bail is unattainable.

This is why the Cash Bail system is regarded as punishment for the poor, and in part what makes the Legal system different for the "rich" vs the poor

I'm curious if you would still say the amount of bail is irrelevant if it were a well-off person getting a $1,000 bail. For what it's worth, bail is supposed to set to an amount based in part on the person's wealth. So for two people ~~convicted~~ accused of identical crimes, where one has 10x the means of the other, the bails should be 10x different. It doesn't always happen that way of course, but it is part of the guidelines.

Also, please keep in mind that bail is not punishment, it's just means of ensuring that the defendant will attend their trial. That's why it's refundable at the trial's end. Good bail should be low enough that defendant can afford to pay it, but not afford to lose it.

> So for two people convicted of identical crimes, where one has 10x the means of the other, the bails should be 10x different.

Accused, not convicted.

You're right, I misspoke (mistyped?). Fixed :)

You forget that bail is refunded upon appearing to the court. A rich person will post bail, gain their freedom, and get the bail refunded to them when they go to court. A poor person can not afford to post bail, so they will lose their freedom. No-one will "refund" this lost freedom to them in any form.

Only if the person puts up the bail directly

If you use a Bail Bonds Company you only put up normally 10%, to the bail company who keeps that as a service fee.

So if you had a $1,000 Bail, you can pay $1,000 to courts and be refunded when you show up, or $100 to a bail bonds company who will keep the $100.

If you are a poor person most of the time you will end up paying the $100 and never see that money again

Predatory lending is the biggest example of how "it's expensive to be poor in America." There's a few ongoing efforts to improve this situation, such as https://bailproject.org/ and https://www.vonzella.com/

Clearly you misunderstood my comment, I was making the case that if Cash bail is to exist it should be based on income,

The person i was replying to stated that the court did not take the danger seriously because they only applied and $1,000 bail, my point is to a Poor person that $1,000 may as well be $1,000,000. Where as to a billionaire than $1,000 is literally nothing

That is with out getting into the fact that if the person is a danger they should be denied bail outright, as slapping down some money to the state does not eliminate danger.

Bail as it was conceived was suppose to ensure the person showed up in court for face their crimes and a jury of their peers, it was not suppose to be about profit, or public safety, or punishment however cash bail system today is used for all 3 of those things and very little for its intended purpose

I feel this quote hits on a nerve - what's more important than the actual safety is the perceived feeling of safety.

For all the TSA shoe removal and bottled water prohibition, they couldn't prevent someone living undetected in a restricted area of an airport for 3 months. It's almost 20 years since 9/11 and there is still this ineffective security theatre.

But what's the risk to having someone live for three months in an airport? He's gone through the same TSA security as everybody else.

He could have fashioned any old popsicle into a shiv!

Aside from the fact that screening methods have shown to be woefully ineffective at removing restricted items and weapons, I understood "secure area" as within the protected internal airport employee / admin part of the airport. The guy himself just chilling there isn't a risk, but the fact that an arbitrary person was able to do that in such a high security environment is the real problem.

This does sound like 'al-capone' charge - not being able to charge him for living in the airport for 3 months or finding a lost ID card, finding something else that might stick.

I showed an airline clerk that one of their systems were insecure (VIP lounge thingy). I got access by playing around with a QR code generator, and the way I showed that it was insecure was to talk him through the process of getting in.

I almost ended up in a cell. Until the boss came. I could see directly that he was my tribe. The hacker kind. I talked him through it, after which he gave the others a stern talking to, shook my hand and bought me lunch.

He said they were a bit shaky because apparently people were getting into the checked in area with the same technique. Up until very recently you got in to "secure places" by presenting any qr code that was in the valid format.

"Does this look valid? Well, yes. Let's not bother actually validating it".

Airport security theatre apparently completely collapsed into a bizzaro world where wet streets cause rain and actors behave like they are on strong drugs.

So, we are talking about the area you are in after a flight, yes? Remind me, BBC, why is that a "secure" area? In case people smuggle bombs/weapons on a flight, just do nothing on the flight and than harm people afterwards?! I get that you want the are to be a one-lane-road to the outside, so nobody boards a plane that way. But how is a random passenger who is supposed to be there a danger? Do passengers spoil, like idk, milk, and become dangerous after a certain date? Why and how would anyone detect a passenger overstaying in the post-flight area? Who cares? That is the world most dumb threat model? Why is this a felony? This is the most victimless "crime" I have ever seen. Did the private prison called with a need for more slave labour, or why is this guy in court and not therapy?

"Based upon the need for airports to be absolutely secure so that people feel safe to travel [...]" - you mean the need to implement wide-net surveillance and a massive military under the veil of an imaginary terrorist threat?

Also, why the fuck is the full name and age of this obviously unwell guy printed? So that I can imagine that he is brown based on the last name? This disgusting practice adds zero journalistic value and ensures that this three-month mental health episode will now harm him for the rest of his life.

This is disgusting journalism, disgusting framing and disgusting behaviour from all officials mentioned. It reads like someone badly satirizing Reagan-propaganda. Disgusting.

> So, we are talking about the area you are in after a flight, yes?

Since he had an employee badge, I have to assume he also entered other areas.

> So, we are talking about the area you are in after a flight, yes? Remind me, BBC, why is that a "secure" area?

Firstly, if passengers with connecting flights can get off one flight and onto another without going through security again, then the arrivals area must be connected to the departures area, and hence as secure as the departures area.

Indeed, if I wanted to sleep in an airport I'd go to the connections/departures area - as someone sleeping while awaiting a connection wouldn't seem out of the ordinary. Whereas sleeping in arrivals would be unusual, as an arriving passenger would go to their hotel or house and sleep there instead.

Secondly, if international arrivals have not yet passed through customs/immigration, the area should be secure enough that they have to do so. Although in the case of O'Hare, I believe international arrivals have a separate terminal, and this passenger was on a domestic flight.

> > lived undetected in a secure area of Chicago's international airport for three months, US prosecutors say.

> Remind me, BBC, why is that a "secure" area?

Isn't this a question for the US prosecutors?

Failing that, if you want to blame the press, the Chicago Tribune? They felt the need to also include a photo.

m tm t g yyyy. Cc t Trrt

Poor guy must be living a life riddled with anxiety. Also, an airport is about the last place I'd want to be in the middle of a pandemic

True normally but the airports and planes I've seen lately were deserted so it is probably pretty safe. I was on a B737 this summer with scarcely 20 people on it. The closest one was 4 rows away.

But yeah poor guy.

Planes are safe because they have excellent air cleaning systems. Airports, being inside without great air circulation, are totally unsafe. Just one encounter is enough to get sick - you can't stay distanced forever.

But they have huge open spaces with really high ceilings in many cases.. There's lots of air for it to dissipate in. And they're made to handle so many passengers, only a fraction of whom are there now. When I flew around in summer you could hear a pin drop :)

I feel a lot less safe from covid in the metro or bus here even though it's not as busy as it was before, than in an airport, plane or office. Even a taxi.

Still, I'm not going to live in one though :) My house is even better.

a defense of temporary insanity seems reasonable to me. Otherwise they're going to have to establish another motive. And I bet any other motive will still have a reasonable doubt.

Sounds familiar [1]:

> The Terminal is a 2004 American comedy-drama film... about an Eastern European man who becomes stuck in New York's John F. Kennedy Airport terminal when he is denied entry into the United States and at the same time is unable to return to his native country because of a military coup.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal

The way they framed it is such BS. If he’s a danger to passengers, so are any passengers passing through such “secure area.” It’s not like he snuck in.

Depends if it was just the arrival lounge area or the behind the scenes employee-only zone of course. He's not supposed to be there.

I assume this is where he was as otherwise he wouldn't have ended up in count IMO. After all he had a legal right to be there as an arriving passenger. I don't think the law specifies how long.

I love these quirky stories like these. In an alternate universe where people would think a bit more kindly of strangers, they might have given him a low level job instead and a place to stay. And <ding> I just woke up.

It doesn't seem from the article like the man was in need of a job but rather some encouragement about that the fears are overblown, maybe even some mental health check, who knows.

I'm not sure I understand the story. A guy flew from US to US (but is he a US citizen?). When it came time to leave the airport he showed a stollen ID. The airport staff didn't let him leave (but didn't arrest him?). He was then given the option to return (?) but refused since his place of origin has more Covid than the US (is there such a country?). Then people kind of let him be and he was able to eat simply base on the kindness of the few people using the airport for the passed 3 months.

I feel like I am missing a lot

If someone has been living there for 3 months without issue. I think we can conclude he’s not a danger to the public :/

Given the circumstances over the past year and the impact on mental health, maybe this is too harsh a punishment for this guy. I mean he didn't destroy anything or do anything wrong besides stay in what was probably an empty secure area.

Help the guy get home and then provide psychiatric care. Have we all lost any sense of compassion?

Reminds me of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal

Which was itself (very loosely) based on the real-life story of the guy who lived in Charles de Gaulle airport for many years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehran_Karimi_Nasseri

I saw him there once in 2005.

he lived there almost 18 years - incredible

What about this 18 stay in an airport is incredible? Incredibly sad perhaps.

From reading the Wikipedia he seemed to be quite stubborn as both Belgium and France offered residency, but for whatever reason he wanted to go to Britain?

as in "too extraordinary and improbable to be believed". Incredible that he was allowed to go along like this so long

More than that, he refused to acknowledge his legal name when he was granted access. It's quite a strange story.

Great movie! "Medicine for goat" is one of my favorite movie quotes (seems I have a thing for goats hm). To the extent that I eventually booked a stay at the Ramada Inn that has a central role in the film. The hotel was fine, and the movie reference gilded the stay. </Personal anecdotes>

I think the court should offer the man a free antibody test to see whether he managed to avoid the COVID.

Lol, does the airport ToS say that you need to exit within?

Maybe he got into trouble for stealing^W misapproprating the employee ID card. I wonder if this particular airport has opening hours and therefore have times where no one is allowed to be in. Airports like Dubai operate 24 hours, I guess it would be possible to "live" there, especially the transit lounge. They even have shower facilities...

It makes me want to try it, lounge around there for a week, for yucks. Although, hanging around globetrotters during these days would not be clever...

It sounds like he used a stolen badge to get into areas not open to the public

The article does not make such claims.

Depends on interpretation of

> an unauthorised, non-employee individual was allegedly living within a secure part of the O'Hare airport terminal

Overall not many details in article, mostly signals one shouldn't be making "lol tos" remarks without knowing more

> Depends on interpretation of >> an unauthorised, non-employee individual was allegedly living within a secure part of the O'Hare airport terminal

No, it doesn't depend on intepretation. There is absolutely no way you could interpret that sentence as meaning "he used a stolen badge to get into areas not open to the public". He may or may not have accessed additional areas, but the article certainly does not claim he did. We know he accessed the "secure" arrivals area, and the article strongly hints that that's where he lived. Whether he also accessed other areas is possible, but it's not claimed in the article.

Apparently it does depend on interpretation since we're having this disagreement. There can't be absolutely no way to interpret in that way, since that's how I interpreted it. Perhaps you're right, & there's absolutely no way I exist

Funny :D In all seriousness though, if we detach these two claims:

Claim A: The man used the stolen ID to access additional areas besides the arrival area.

Claim B: The article claims that claim A is true.

Do you genuinely believe that claim B is true? If you say "yes", I will concede and accept that the article can be interpreted that way. Otherwise I will assume that there was some confusion between claim A and claim B.

The issue is I considered "secured area" to be non public areas as opposed to "place people wait to board flights after security". Presumably he went through security so I wouldn't consider that penetrating a secured area unless he had items on him which shouldn't get through security. Part of this is due to me being over zealous in attempting to piece together why he'd steal a badge

Overall just affirms that I'd need to see case details to know anything. Hence I started out saying "sounds like" to signal my uncertainty

My comment might be pedantic nitpicking, but what the heck, we've come this far...

> Hence I started out saying "sounds like" to signal my uncertainty

Yes, your original comment "sounds like X happened" was fine. I replied to that comment with "The article does not make such claims", to clarify that -- although X may have happened -- the article does not claim it did. At this point you said "Depends on interpretation", as if the article could be interpreted to claim that X happened. You explained that one might interpret "secured area" to mean area accessible only to staff. That's a plausible interpretation, I guess.

> I considered "secured area" to be non public areas as opposed to "place people wait to board flights after security"

Nitpicks:

The place where people wait to board flights after security is a non public area (it is restricted from the public; you can not enter that area unless you have a special permission to be in that area).

The area where this man lived was apparently the arrivals area (not the departure area that you're talking about). The arrivals area is also a non public area.

Mr. Navorski?

:))

For anyone missing this reference, see https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362227/

Good movie, check it out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com