6 ms·

"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 commun

by Rygian 6y ago

"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.

raziel2p 6y ago
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?
paganel 6y ago
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?
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  > 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.
tankenmate 6y ago
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).
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Perhaps there's a conflict of interest in concluding that a largely sensationalist media may be a contributing factor.
  - tankenmate 6y ago
    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.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  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.
shrewdcomputer 6y ago
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.
- m12k 6y ago
  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.
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    And oddly enough, the last one to leave.
    - TonyTrapp 6y ago
      Not odd, he's just a workaholic with no family :)
polymatter 6y ago
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.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  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.
cycomanic 6y ago
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?!
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  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.
  - scotty79 6y ago
    So is it ok for the judge to lie?
    - astrange 6y ago
      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.
  - snarfy 6y ago
    If he's not a danger, then why require bail?
    - notyourday 6y ago
      > If he's not a danger, then why require bail? To ensure the defendant has intensives to come back for trial
_n_b_ 6y ago
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&ChapterID=54&SeqStart=15600000&SeqEnd=18000000 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1966&C...
- scotty79 6y ago
  Is it fine for the judge to say false things in the court if it's a part of the protocol?
  - totalZero 6y ago
    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.
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      > 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.
      - _n_b_ 6y ago
        > 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.
Dma54rhs 6y ago
The judge was a woman and defendant a man - men always get tougher punishments and are incarnated at higher alarmingly higher levels. This is the way society is.
rkachowski 6y ago
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.
- howlgarnish 6y ago
  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.
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    He could have fashioned any old popsicle into a shiv!
  - rkachowski 6y ago
    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.
helsinkiandrew 6y ago
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.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bjoli 6y ago
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".

by Rygian 6y ago

raziel2p 6y ago

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?

paganel 6y ago

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?

VBprogrammer 6y ago
> 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.

tankenmate 6y ago

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).

aww_dang 6y ago
Perhaps there's a conflict of interest in concluding that a largely sensationalist media may be a contributing factor.
- tankenmate 6y ago
  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.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
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.

shrewdcomputer 6y ago

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.

m12k 6y ago
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.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  And oddly enough, the last one to leave.
  - TonyTrapp 6y ago
    Not odd, he's just a workaholic with no family :)

polymatter 6y ago

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.

VBprogrammer 6y ago
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.

cycomanic 6y ago

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?!

bonoboTP 6y ago
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.
- scotty79 6y ago
  So is it ok for the judge to lie?
  - astrange 6y ago
    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.
- snarfy 6y ago
  If he's not a danger, then why require bail?
  - notyourday 6y ago
    > If he's not a danger, then why require bail? To ensure the defendant has intensives to come back for trial

_n_b_ 6y ago

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&ChapterID=54&SeqStart=15600000&SeqEnd=18000000 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1966&C...

scotty79 6y ago
Is it fine for the judge to say false things in the court if it's a part of the protocol?
- totalZero 6y ago
  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.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > 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.
    - _n_b_ 6y ago
      > 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.

Dma54rhs 6y ago

The judge was a woman and defendant a man - men always get tougher punishments and are incarnated at higher alarmingly higher levels. This is the way society is.

rkachowski 6y ago

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.

howlgarnish 6y ago
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.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  He could have fashioned any old popsicle into a shiv!
- rkachowski 6y ago
  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.

helsinkiandrew 6y ago

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.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bjoli 6y ago

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".