If the dude had a couple more brain cells, he’d still have it.
> Domingos said that he was initially asked by security if he knew what the device did. The technologist replied by stating that the Flipper Zero is capable of, among other things, scanning and copying badge cards such as those used by the airport’s security personnel.
a more mature response might be something along the lines of "I'm a cybersecurity researcher/hobbyist and the device is used to communicate with other electronics for the purposes of security research", although that argument doesn't exactly have a good track record with law enforcement in many countries...
Apparently the owner decided to make jokes in an airport:
> Domingos said that he was initially asked by security if he knew what the device did. The technologist replied by stating that the Flipper Zero is capable of, among other things, scanning and copying badge cards such as those used by the airport’s security personnel.
> “If I can copy your badges, then you might want to fix that before banning a legal device,” Domingo reportedly said.
> "[...]done at the discretion of airport security personnel and not part of an aiport-wide mandate."
Turbo get fucked. Yeah, I'll even take the downvotes for vulgarity on this one. This is a bald-faced statement: "We encourage selective enforcement by individuals instead of sticking to a defined policy."
Sure, if he hadn't mouthed off, this probably wouldn't have happened; play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Whatever.
The fact that the law is designed in such a way to allow someone's emotional state (Waaahh, he smart assed me about this thing!) to determine if they enforce it is unacceptable. The fact that they're confident enough to state that in public is abhorrent.
He didn't just mouth off, he claimed that he could use the device to circumvent their access badge control system through cloning.
It seems like there is a pretty legitimate case to confiscating a device from a person who says he could use said device to compromise security. Even in the case that there isn't an explicit policy against that specific device.
I sometimes travel with VHF/UHF ham radios. These, if used improperly, could interfere with airport and operations, as well as aircraft band radios. I occasionally get asked what the radio is for, and I explain what it is. If I mouthed off and said I can use it for all sorts of stuff, like jamming security frequencies, I would expect to lose cus
If I casually mention to the cabin crew that my mealtime knife could, technically, be used to stab them, should they also let that slide since I'm just stating the capabilities of the knife?
He could just shut up about it, instead of acting smart, because the device looks like a retro game. If he did that in a Russian airport ten years ago he'd probably be thrown in prison for at least six months.
> He didn't just mouth off, he claimed that he could use the device to circumvent their access badge control system through cloning.
It doesn't matter.
What is allowed inside and what is not allowed inside of an airport should not be a matter of personal discretion.
Either a thing is permitted or it is not permitted. There should be no room for interpretation. If the airport has a problem with these devices, they can damn well write a policy that is observable for anyone prior to visiting the airport.
You can try mental gymnastics to justify this all you want, but the fact remains the device not being permitted is not policy, and the decision to confiscate it was made at a personal level.
> If I casually mention to the cabin crew that my mealtime knife could, technically, be used to stab them, should they also let that slide since I'm just stating the capabilities of the knife?
See, like this sort of mental gymnastics. You wouldn't have the knife confiscated, you would have yourself detained and possibly arrested for demonstrating signs of mental instability. The knife would remain on the aircraft and undergo its normal lifecycle. This really wasn't a difficult situation to theorycraft out, so I'm not sure why you thought it'd support your position.
> If I mouthed off and said I can use it for all sorts of stuff, like jamming security frequencies, I would expect to lose cus
See, that's what's so dim about this logic; you've been so programmed to accept the dick that you think it's totally normal that discussing the capabilities of legal objects is valid grounds for intervention that you honestly think this shouldn't be allowed.
Some badge technology is more prone to cloning than others. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that airports aren't using the most up to date access control.
We all know people like this. Anyone that uses this as an example of security overreach or whatever, immediately loses my respect. I am completely happy with what happened here, because this is precisely the sort of childish attitude of someone that would do something risky and stupid “because he could”.
It's like open carrying in Walmart (when they allowed it). Sure, you could do it... but it's stupid for a couple of reasons: it scares people unnecessarily and it announces someone as a target of violence and/or theft of a weapon.
Hi. I’m the guy that is mentioned on the article. Also, this is the twitter thread I’ve been replying to the comments and giving the side of story that really happened, but I’m glad some many here jumped immediately to your own conclusions. https://x.com/vd/status/1707039573874823435?s=61&t=jpPSDpODa...
So to address some of doubts;
- I was stopped by security because of other elements I had with me, a cork screwer (that was the flag), lock picking tools and watch opening tools. All electronic devices were ok, the laptop, phone, tablet, flipper zero and wifi module.
- During the search, the security officer took everything out of my bag and inside there was the white/orange flipper zero, in its original case, turned off. He put that on the table whilst searched the backpack.
- So the flipper zero was on the table, and along comes the security supervisor and what she said was “oh look at what we have here”
- She asked me if I knew what that was; I said yes
- She asked me if I knew what that thing does; I said yes. I’m a security researcher, I use it for my work and will be using it abroad.
- Now for those that don’t know, I do work in security and the flipper zero is legal in the UK (I was travelling from London Gatwick)
- She took them my boarding pass details and passport, as she told me she had to have a chat with the head of security.
- After that both came to talk to me and asked the same questions; do I know what that is (I said again yes and only yes). do I know what that does (I said yes, and again only yes and then told them I use that for work).
- They replied that because it can read and copy their ID badges, I cannot have in on my hand luggage (I was just carrying my backpack).
- I replied; “but I need that for my work, it’s not illegal and yes, can read your badges, but not only that and that’s not illegal”
- They argued that because it’s a threat to the airport systems, it’s not permitted in hand luggage, but I can have it on the holt.
- I then told them “I don’t have other baggage and I only carry the backpack with my equipment with me”
- Then that was the moment I decided to step back and tell them “ok, so you can it and can I have it back on my return?”
- The answer was “no. you cannot and we’ll seize the equipment”
- I asked if I can remove the sdcard, which I did
- Then I replied that “if this device can read your cards, then you really must update your security systems, because it’s a legal device and the problem isn’t the device but your security”
ps: just to add, this wasn’t the first time the flipper zero travelled with me. but it was the first time it was outside of my backpack (because of the security flag of the cork screwer). I’ve been travelling with the flipper zero across Europe without any issues, just now someone ‘saw’ it (the security supervisor, the guy searching the backpack was clueless about the device) and flag it against the threat for the airport (id badge scanning).
Hope that helps better understand the situation and hopefully addresses the comments and speculation about me, what I said, did and what they replied.
Readit News
> Domingos said that he was initially asked by security if he knew what the device did. The technologist replied by stating that the Flipper Zero is capable of, among other things, scanning and copying badge cards such as those used by the airport’s security personnel.
It's vague, nontechnical and invites follow-up questions, and implies you're the type who'll tamper with the aircraft in flight.
It's also repetitive enough to come across as improvised. "As a private investigator, I use this tool to...investigate privates." I'd flag you.
Sibling comment nails it-- "it's a wireless signal analyzer." Gets right to the point, sounds legit and implies safety through read-only operation.
> Domingos said that he was initially asked by security if he knew what the device did. The technologist replied by stating that the Flipper Zero is capable of, among other things, scanning and copying badge cards such as those used by the airport’s security personnel.
> “If I can copy your badges, then you might want to fix that before banning a legal device,” Domingo reportedly said.
Person subject to security: it's a device I can use to compromise your security
Of course they'll confiscate it then. This would probably apply to any device they choose to describe to security this way.
Security: <pointing to pen> What's this?
Person subject to security: I can stab you with it. You really should all wear bulletproof vests to stop that happening!
What do you think will happen? It seems reasonable under these circumstances to take your pen if they're going to allow you on board at all.
Turbo get fucked. Yeah, I'll even take the downvotes for vulgarity on this one. This is a bald-faced statement: "We encourage selective enforcement by individuals instead of sticking to a defined policy."
Sure, if he hadn't mouthed off, this probably wouldn't have happened; play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Whatever.
The fact that the law is designed in such a way to allow someone's emotional state (Waaahh, he smart assed me about this thing!) to determine if they enforce it is unacceptable. The fact that they're confident enough to state that in public is abhorrent.
It seems like there is a pretty legitimate case to confiscating a device from a person who says he could use said device to compromise security. Even in the case that there isn't an explicit policy against that specific device.
I sometimes travel with VHF/UHF ham radios. These, if used improperly, could interfere with airport and operations, as well as aircraft band radios. I occasionally get asked what the radio is for, and I explain what it is. If I mouthed off and said I can use it for all sorts of stuff, like jamming security frequencies, I would expect to lose cus
If I casually mention to the cabin crew that my mealtime knife could, technically, be used to stab them, should they also let that slide since I'm just stating the capabilities of the knife?
He probably couldn't have done that. Lost a Flipper (and some time) on a nerd flex. I would've done the same, tho :D.
It doesn't matter.
What is allowed inside and what is not allowed inside of an airport should not be a matter of personal discretion.
Either a thing is permitted or it is not permitted. There should be no room for interpretation. If the airport has a problem with these devices, they can damn well write a policy that is observable for anyone prior to visiting the airport.
You can try mental gymnastics to justify this all you want, but the fact remains the device not being permitted is not policy, and the decision to confiscate it was made at a personal level.
> If I casually mention to the cabin crew that my mealtime knife could, technically, be used to stab them, should they also let that slide since I'm just stating the capabilities of the knife?
See, like this sort of mental gymnastics. You wouldn't have the knife confiscated, you would have yourself detained and possibly arrested for demonstrating signs of mental instability. The knife would remain on the aircraft and undergo its normal lifecycle. This really wasn't a difficult situation to theorycraft out, so I'm not sure why you thought it'd support your position.
> If I mouthed off and said I can use it for all sorts of stuff, like jamming security frequencies, I would expect to lose cus
See, that's what's so dim about this logic; you've been so programmed to accept the dick that you think it's totally normal that discussing the capabilities of legal objects is valid grounds for intervention that you honestly think this shouldn't be allowed.
You are part of the problem.
- They brought something with easily-identified branding through an aiport.
- They bragged about its capabilities.
- They made a political statement.
- The threw shade on this item because of their behavior.
Anyone with social sense would remove the branding and say it's a test tool for electronics.
But serious question: does it actually allow someone to copy airport security badges?
Some badge technology is more prone to cloning than others. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that airports aren't using the most up to date access control.
Deleted Comment
So to address some of doubts;
- I was stopped by security because of other elements I had with me, a cork screwer (that was the flag), lock picking tools and watch opening tools. All electronic devices were ok, the laptop, phone, tablet, flipper zero and wifi module.
- During the search, the security officer took everything out of my bag and inside there was the white/orange flipper zero, in its original case, turned off. He put that on the table whilst searched the backpack.
- So the flipper zero was on the table, and along comes the security supervisor and what she said was “oh look at what we have here”
- She asked me if I knew what that was; I said yes
- She asked me if I knew what that thing does; I said yes. I’m a security researcher, I use it for my work and will be using it abroad.
- Now for those that don’t know, I do work in security and the flipper zero is legal in the UK (I was travelling from London Gatwick)
- She took them my boarding pass details and passport, as she told me she had to have a chat with the head of security.
- After that both came to talk to me and asked the same questions; do I know what that is (I said again yes and only yes). do I know what that does (I said yes, and again only yes and then told them I use that for work).
- They replied that because it can read and copy their ID badges, I cannot have in on my hand luggage (I was just carrying my backpack).
- I replied; “but I need that for my work, it’s not illegal and yes, can read your badges, but not only that and that’s not illegal”
- They argued that because it’s a threat to the airport systems, it’s not permitted in hand luggage, but I can have it on the holt.
- I then told them “I don’t have other baggage and I only carry the backpack with my equipment with me”
- Then that was the moment I decided to step back and tell them “ok, so you can it and can I have it back on my return?”
- The answer was “no. you cannot and we’ll seize the equipment”
- I asked if I can remove the sdcard, which I did
- Then I replied that “if this device can read your cards, then you really must update your security systems, because it’s a legal device and the problem isn’t the device but your security”
ps: just to add, this wasn’t the first time the flipper zero travelled with me. but it was the first time it was outside of my backpack (because of the security flag of the cork screwer). I’ve been travelling with the flipper zero across Europe without any issues, just now someone ‘saw’ it (the security supervisor, the guy searching the backpack was clueless about the device) and flag it against the threat for the airport (id badge scanning).
Hope that helps better understand the situation and hopefully addresses the comments and speculation about me, what I said, did and what they replied.