MIT Student Arrested For Wearing 'Tech Art' Shirt At Airport 1547
SuperBanana writes "According to a report by the Boston Globe, MIT Student Star Simpson was nearly shot by Logan Airport police who thought she was armed with a bomb. She approached an airline employee wearing a prototyping board with electronic components, crudely attached to the front of her sweatshirt and holding 'putty' in her hand. She asked about an incoming flight, and did not respond when asked about the device. Armed police responded. 'Simpson was charged with possessing a hoax device and was arraigned today East Boston Municipal Court. She was held on $750 cash bail and ordered to return to court Oct. 29. "Thankfully because she followed our instructions, she ended up in our cell instead of a morgue," Pare said. "Again, this is a serious offense ... I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport."'"
"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
Hrmmmm.... looking at the "device" from the images on the link makes me think the police overreacted. Come on now.... holding her at gunpoint? Granted, it was likely not the smartest move on her part not to respond about the "device" when asked, but once again, I am dismayed that people are getting owned by fears of terrorism and things and people that look "abnormal".
Reminds me of that guy who dressed up as the alien predator in the UK and got the British police all over him. Anyone have a link to the video of that?
Or how about the Muslim men that were asked to leave a flight because they spoke in Arabic?
Or how about the guy who was not allowed to fly with his breadboard that he was using for prototyping. They let him fly with one in its package though if *that* makes any sense.
Pare said. "Again, this is a serious offense
Why is it that airports have special significance? Seriously, think about it. There are many other places with large concentrations of people that we are not spending any money on for security that would be ideal terroristic locations. Would you say that "I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to a college campus"? or how about "I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an art show"? or how about "I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to a concert"? or "I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to a park"?. Is all this paranoia actually making us safer? I suspect what it is doing is making flying more inconvenient for the traveler, more expensive for the airlines, reducing businesses ability to function and more because let's be honest here.... It is not hard to imagine any number of amazingly effective scenarios that terrorists could use that would be far more effective than focusing on airports, so quit with all of the panic reactions already.
from MIT, but not very smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmmm, I think as an art project I'd like to create something that I definitively know is not a bomb but really could look like a bomb to the average person, and maybe even people whose job is security at the airports. As a matter of fact, I think I'll try this out for fun and go to the airport and see what their reactions are. Geez, this'll be fun.
This MIT genius almost became a SBC. I think security at airports is lousy, and it's mostly a joke, but this is hardly a prank I'd consider pulling, and while this "artist" is likely to get mileage out of the alleged overreactions of security, I have no admiration for what looks to be if not stupid, an incredibly mis-guided caper.
These are the idiots who goad people trying their best to do their jobs into making split-second decisions, but have magnitudes more time to create accusations about why the split-second decisions were wrong, or violated their civil rights, or something to make "bad people" look bad. Arrrrgggghhhh.
Notably about this student, she's 19, meaning she's certainly old enough to have understood the gravity of 9/11 being 13 at the time. She might think it's funny, she ought to apologize. </i> (from last post)
ok (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree, I think that even to people involved with electronics it could look like something threatening. I think the police did their job and this Star Simpson person was pretty stupid to try that. Talk about no common sense.
Apologize?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Insane (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey that's a great plan!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's suspicious (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean honestly, how many wear a bread board with led's, etc (and possibly hold putty or what appears to be in their hands) when they walk into an airport? Airports personal are going to look for suspicious activity and this definitely was.
WTF was this girl thinking? Was she trying to make a statement that a lot of people with no electronics experience think a bomb might look like something out of the show 24? She could have paid with a bullet to the head. Just stupid.
you just can't walk into an airport like this. You don't fuck around in those places.
We are defending this person? (Score:5, Insightful)
She clearly wanted to provoke a reaction. She was holding clay in her hand, she was wearing a circuit board that may have looked like a bomb and she WENT INTO AN AIRPORT.
Hello?
Do we automatically defend every artistic tech person or only the sane ones?
Unless some other information comes forward, this artist wanted to be arrested.
And she was.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
Hrmmmm.... looking at the "device" from the images on the link makes me think the police overreacted.
It's a tough call on when cops should draw their guns. If this was in the frozen food section at Safeway and the person seemed to be acting like a shopper then drawing guns would be an overreaction. In a crowded airport is a different venue and one rife with bomb-related contexts and plentiful warnings that stupid remarks will be taken at face value. The purpose of drawing guns is not to shoot but to immediately control a situation that could be deadly. Shut it down and sort it out in a safe place.
I've had guns drawn on me when I was drunk hiding in the bushes near the scene of what looked suspiciously top the cops like breaking into a car. (it wasn't but it was reasonably confused). I did not blame them for flushing me out that way, cause sometimes it owuld not have been a drunk collge student but someone with intent to escape. Cops just never know what the situation brings when they show up.
Normally, I presume over-reaction by the TSA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Her choice of "artistic expression" isn't immediately recognizable, and therefore has to be treated as a threat.
Re:ok (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe to your well-trained eyes it looks like a bomb. But shouldn't people with experience dealing with bombs and bomb making know that silly putty, a 9V battery and a circuit board with shiny lights do not a bomb make?
Not to mention, why are they allowed to show it to the cameras? Why are they retaining the shirt after it was determined not to be a bomb? Just to show off to the media?
What the hell does having a "hoax device" even mean, and how come people in Boston keep getting charged with it? That city is starting to become the punchline of the state of the nation's national security. I didn't know if was a crime to have a circuit board, a battery, shiny lights, silly putty and a hoodie in Boston, guess I better cancel my plans to visit there...EVER.
If it looks like a bomb... (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, while I agree that the US in general is very much over-reacting to threats, this person was a major doofus, and she should be treated as such. She's damned lucky she only ended up in a jail cell, and not with a sudden and terminal case of lead poisoning. I wonder if she, or her nearest surviving relatives, would have thought it was so funny if an innocent bystander were killed or injured had it gone down a different way.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, the person who reported it as suspicious was a person who worked at an Information booth, not the TSA or somebody else (marginally) trained as to what a potential explosive device looks like.
She was also reported as carrying a putty-like substance in her hands (which turned out to be Play-Doh.
The police, acting on a tip that somebody was wearing a Rube Goldeberg electronics device and carrying a putty-like substance, jacked her up.
Were this a real terrorist carrying plastics and wearing an electronic trigger, the average person would expect a full-on response from law enforcement. The police, not knowing whether it was real or not delivered a full-on response.
She's a dumbfvck and deserves whatever she gets.
What a sham and waste of taxpayer dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm amazed they didn't tazer the girl and turn a piece of artwork into a real exploding device!
Seriously this country needs to get a grip on itself. These types of incidents would not seem all that bad if there really WERE terrorists walking around every airport in the US. Trouble is, there just isn't. Even when London was being bombed semi-regularly by the IRA, anti-terror measures were not so intrusive or blatantly idiotic.
It has been shown (sorry no links) that these anti-terror measures have failed to reduce terrorism at all, and in fact, recent anti-terror triumphs were due to ordinary pre-9/11 police methodologies.
If it wasn't such a dire situation, I might want to laugh...
It's just damn funny. (Score:4, Insightful)
If more people did this, perhaps this country of cowards would get the fuck over themselves once they realized that knee-jerking is no way to keep a nation secure.
Re:Not sure this thing looks like a bomb, myself (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apologize?? (Score:3, Insightful)
She wasn't thinking when she decided that this type of fashion was something that wouldn't maybe turn some heads in an airport.
And frankly, I'm not sure of the legality of a piece of fashion like that in an airport.
She certainly sounds like she was trying to provoke something. Airports aren't the place to protest.
And as has been said, this could have been a situaion of "she was right, but she's dead".
Re:ok (Score:2, Insightful)
A president of yours said even said "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself".
Re:Academically bright but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed that for ya.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is considered a possible bomb?
Aside from the fact, that I think someone wearing a bomb, wanting to get in as far as possible, would NOT be wearing the mechanism on the outside of their clothing, advertising it for a guard to see....I think we've just with this incident, given the 'terrorists' a good clue how to sneak stuff by. If it doesn't have wires and components hanging out of it...if it doesn't look like a hand fabbed piece of electronic equipment, they probably aren't gonna get stopped at gunpoint for wearing a bomb.
Much like the Boston stunt with the Aqua force whatever team signs....this is horrible overreaction.
I dunno, am I the ONLY one that did not become overly paranoid about terrorists coming to blow me up? This is ridiculous. Even if they did overreact at first....after the situation was ascertained, why in hell did they charge this girl with a crime and set bail? Can police no longer find they made a mistake, and just LET YOU GO without penalty??
Re:from MIT, but not very smart (Score:5, Insightful)
- Security people are paid to have NO sense of humor.
- Bad guys are known to probe security with plausibly-deniable bogus threats, in order to identify weaknesses, before perpetrating the real action. To counter this, when security detects such a probe they must react in a way that takes the bad guy out of circulation, rather than letting him continue to probe until he finds and exploits a weakness. If that means such "artists" as this one who deliberately probe security become "collateral damage", too bad. They knew the rules when they performed their "art". (But it's still up to security to distinguish between deliberate probes and accidental appearances, to avoid penalizing true innocents.)
Talk about dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
As to the girl herself - how dumb do you have to be? What would convince someone to question the arrival time of a flight while wearing electronics and handling putty? How about some common sense? I hesitate to say "she's lucky she's not dead", since that implies that deadly force would have been justified in this case, but at a certain point it's hard to have pity.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to paint a squirt gun black and walk into a kindergarten, then complain when the teachers can't distinguish my toy from the real deal.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
Lack of common sense should not, in a sane society, involve worrying about whether your LED shirt looks like a bomb. She was also at the airport to pick somebody up. She did not try to get through a security checkpoint, nor was she attempting to conceal the LEDs. Both of these things should have made a sensible security person think twice as to her possible danger level. Simply verifying that she did not have the breadboard attached to explosives should have been sufficient to confirm her lack of explosive potential.
Mind you, I itch from bad embroidery, I hate to think what a shirt with a breadboard in it feels like.
OK, let's put it this way... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is either a bomb, or it is not.
I can either choose to take action, or not to.
If I choose not to take action, and it does happen to be a bomb, then innocent people will die, the world will be in chaos all over again, and I'll probably go to prison for dereliction of duty. If it is not a bomb, then at best nothing will happen, but much more likely I'll get at least a reprimand for negligence and at worst will lose my job for the same reason.
If I choose to take action, then at best I will prevent a major catastrophe, become famous for quickly and bravely acting, and in general be the hero of the day. And if it is not a bomb? Well then probably I'll be able to justify my actions anyways, on grounds of reasonable assumption and the surrounding situation where time can be critical. At the worst, all I'll get is some trolls flaming me on Slashdot.
I'll go with the second option, thank you.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
you are right, of course.
there is NOTHING special about airports vs bus stations or concerts or schools or large corp buildings or WHATEVER!
its our society-of-fear that instills this "oooh, scary place!" stuff in our heads when we think 'airport'.
but you are right - inherently, its just a place where people go to travel from, as a travel nodepoint. the false conditioning that the gov is placing in us is VERY suspect, to me. it seems that people are now accustomed to giving up ALL rights once they enter one of these 'sacred places'. you can now be fingerprinted even though you commit NO CRIME (!) just because you dared enter an airport in the US from another country. (my GF who lives in europe is fingerprinted each time she flies to visit me in the US. this is freaking INSULTING and I have to appologize to her, on behalf of my screwed up country, each time this happens. and I'm pretty damned sick of appologizing to the world for the dumb mistakes the US is making.)
our kids are going to grow up assuming that airports are somehow 'holy places' for the gov to do ANYTHING it wants to you, for any reason, all in the name of 'its for your own good'.
please, people. don't let them brainwash you like that.
All of this misses problem #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, are we honestly so stupid to believe that terrorists are going to go walking around with wires all over their clothes? They're going to put the fucking bomb UNDER their clothes. It's not going to tick, it's not going to beep, and there's not going to be an obvious bright LED countdown clock.
This isn't 24, it's real life.
There's nothing wrong with questioning the kid or examining the device - that's just common sense. But there is exactly zero reason to arrest the kid once it's clear that it's nothing but a blinking T-Shirt. It's not a "hoax device", it's a blinking T-shirt.
Re:It's official. The terrorists have won. (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell me this: Impossible for a bomb to look like that is it? What DOES a bomb look like? How do you KNOW? Who's lives are you willing to risk to [not] find out for sure?
It would be different if the police had shot first and asked questions later...but they didn't did they?
Thanks for trying to stir the pot though, really, it's appreciated.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that airports have special significance? Seriously, think about it.
There are many reasons that airports have special significance:
Re:Apologize?? (Score:3, Insightful)
#2,3,5 can be explained by another idiotic response by the already embarrassing law enforcement actions of the Boston area.
Perhaps if they had held off on the thugs with MP-5s, and tried a direct question, then they wouldn't have had panic, a needless arrest, and mocked-up charges to punish some kid and ruin her life before she's even out of college. Perhaps these antics by law enforcement are disgusting and against the public interest?
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:1, Insightful)
If its strapped to your chest and has some putty on it (which looks like C4), then yes, it should be considered a possible bomb. You ignore where and what other items were involved in this.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
It's stupid to assume that everyone who has electronics on them is a terrorist, yes, but it equally stupid to assume that just because they're not hiding it they don't have a bomb. How do you know? Crazy people do crazy things.
Re:Apologize?? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I know that Slashdot loves their anarchist sentiments so much, let's consider common sense here. If you wear something that looks like a bomb into a public place, airport or otherwise, it's not "clothes" or "fashion", it's just dangerously stupid. I suppose I can walk around carrying a gigantic bloody butcher knife and call it "fashion accessory" when I'm arrested also?
I'm all for free expression, but people like her give us freedom-loving people a bad name. The freedom to express ourselves comes with self-policing responsibilities.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to agree with you on this one. To a layperson (e.g. TSA screener), that looks a hell of a lot like a TV bomb, what with all the blinking lights and whatnot. Add in the silly putty (which looks a LOT like plastique) and you're just itching for trouble.
The screeners acted appropriately by drawing their weapons, removing the device, and sorting it out in a safe place. She's lucky she's not dead. There are parts of the world where she would have been killed for this. I don't know what I would have done. Maybe I'd have [Internet Tough Guy]. Hopefully, I'd have run away and not just stand there.
Yes, the airline rules are stupid and pointless. That doesn't mean you strap on a fake bomb and walk into an airport for a lark. Yes, we all know that there's no bogeyman, but not everyone reads
Next on the MIT agenda:
Get a bunch of old railroad flares, tape them to an alarm clock, and mail them to various white house staffers. Should be a laugh.
Airport security don't understand electronics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't about her being an actual threat (I doubt security was worried she might blow something up) -- this is about the possibility of causing panic in a crowded public area. There are rules about such things for a reason.
Seriously, I was smart enough not to wear such stuff to the airport 20 years ago; 15 years ago I was asked not to use the "b" word by airport security. I think I had said in too loud a loud voice that some show I had been to had bombed.
Stupid to try what? (Score:3, Insightful)
She was "pretty stupid to try it"? Try what?
I'm not crazy; I accept that human expression and behaviour has to be limited for public safety. But I fail to understand what reasonable threat to public safety is assumed here. Simply being unusual is NOT sufficient ground for detainment - go down that path and we'll all have to wear identical orange jumpsuits to board the plane.
Basically, this is saying that that having something out that looks 'electric-y' is tantamount to terrorism. One can only assume that if the same shirt had the same breadboard but if it were wrapped in a matte plastic case, no such suspicion would have been brought. So, message to terrorists: don't put LEDs on your bombs, and don't show exposed wiring. Put it in a backpack, and you'll be fine.
Boy, I feel so much safer.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a HOAX device? Give me a break. A cellphone is a far more significant risk than this thing or a laptop for that matter--high voltage L-ION battery pack and internal storage space. What should of happened is that she should of been brought to a security room with the TSA and slapped on the back of the head and kicked out on the street for being a meathead. Not a media circus about bombs.
She's just some stupid geek who plays with playdoh and likes metal bands. Hardly a threat to your or anyone elses life.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans are now holding guns to fellow citizens because of a terrorist attack that occurred over six years ago. It would seem that Al-Qaeda only has to carry out an attack on US soil once every 10 years or maybe even less than that to keep American citizens in a state of fear and panic.
I don't think my country, the UK is any better. We have airports patrolled by armed police; yet they're rarely seen at railway stations and never at bus stations. I guess armed police help to keep the populace in a state of fear which may very well be what our two governments want.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:4, Insightful)
You ignore what actually was involved in this. The police called the paint on her sweatshirt "putty" and the simple breadboard attached to the outside of that sweatshirt a bomb.
You're really taking one side of the facts and acting like they are from the mouth of god.
Wait until you actually get some verified facts about what you are talking about before jumping to conclusions like the police did.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is excluded from being considered a possible bomb?
Imagine if you were plunked down in a universe where all bombs were concealed to the point where if it's suspicious, but out in the open, it is not a bomb. Suppose in this universe you decide you need to kill people with a bomb. How better a way to conceal it, then, than in plain sight?
For how prevalent the Not-My-Problem invisibility field is for government workers, I'm glad the TSA won't automatically disqualify plain-sight suspiciousness.
Maybe in the future perfect bomb and weapon detection technology would be a reality. Where the security checkpoint is nothing more than walking casually though an archway. It ain't here yet, though, so, why not? It's not like breadboards are quickly becoming the latest in fashion.
Good grief!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Did you miss the part where she was also holding putty? And it's a thick sweatshirt, easily able to hold enough material BEHIND THE BREADBOARD to do quite of bit of damage to the area. Yes, even possibly concealed in a bra. It's easy to say it looks harmless looking at pictures from the web!
I've done a fair amount of electronics and if I had seen her wandering into the airport I would have thrown my carryon at her head and dived to the floor from a distance. She's an idiot.
Re:All of this misses problem #1 (Score:3, Insightful)
I am old enough to remember the '70's when the airports all had signs saying that even joking about having a bomb or hijacking a plane could get you arrested. If it had been a real bomb and gone off, everyone saying it is stupid to assume it is a bomb would be saying it was stupid to take a chance that the bomb was a fake. Corollary to Problem #1: The best way to hide a bomb is out in the open where no one would really believe you would be stupid enough to hide a bomb.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what I don't understand - sure, if the person at the desk alerts them to a suspicious device, the police need to respond. Once they have responded, and found the suspicion unwarranted, they should let the kid go about her business. From reports, she was just in the entry hall to pick someone up, she wasn't trying to get on a plane or anything. (Not that that should matter; the screeners would have doubtless removed the blinky thing before letting her proceed.) It's just a gross over-reaction.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
I do agree that the ATHF incident highlighted the fact that our paranoia has been taken to extreme levels. But I think the difference of this incident is that the dumb MIT girl didn't respond to questions about the device, making her suspicious. The device she was wearing didn't really seem to serve a purpose, which made it more strange in the first place. The ATHF signs were obviously homemade "light-brites" that were signs and nothing else, IMO.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:1, Insightful)
"Hoax device" (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's a hoax worth prosecuting over the person involved had damned well better state or firmly imply that one object is, in fact, another. In this case as before in the Mooninite issue it was a third-party who made a mistake about an object that was never intended to be misinterpreted. This makes it a misunderstanding. You tell the person why you made the mistake, probably suggest that in light of this mistake they avoid doing it in the future (although that's entirely up to them, of course), apologize explaining that you were only trying to do the right thing, and send them on their way.
In other words: "Oh, we're very sorry, but from our laymen's point of view it looked like it might be a bomb of some sort. I'm sure you can understand where we're coming from with this and, in light of this fact, why we reacted the way we did."
The lack of an intent to deceive is really the issue here. The Piltdown Man was a hoax, this is just a misunderstanding.
Re:Talk about dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Get it? It's a light-up star on her nametag, and her name is "Star".
It sounds like a ticket person outside asked her what it was and she ignored/didn't notice them. Don't know what the silly putty was about. The ticket person did exactly what they were supposed to do when something is suspicious and called the police. The police responded exactly to protocol.
It sounds like the police is running on a little too much testosterone when he said "she's lucky she is in a cell, not a morgue"; that's the sort of thing which exacerbates a media situation. He should have shut up an let a PR person handle it. I'm sure they would have shot her if she started running or something, but she had no reason to.
The police responded according to protocol. The girl did a thoughtless thing (should have answered the ticket lady's question about what it was). In the name of good security, you sometimes have false positives. If there was a mistake made and it so obviously wasn't intentional, the police should search you, question you, and send you away with the crap thoroughly scared out of you.
My frustration here is when the police take a simple, thoughtless mistake (she was just on her way to career day!) on some poor college student's part and blow it up into an international media incident, make it sound scary ("We almost shot her! blah blah blah"), and charge her with a crime (hoax bomb device) that obviously is false.
The definition of hoax is "humorous or malicious deception" according to my dictionary. Unless the bit about the Play-Doh ends up being a significant part of the story, you *really* have to stretch things to make her actions sound malicious.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case the first person she talked to should have looked at the device and seen that it was A: in their opinion a threat, or B: in their opinion a possible min understanding waiting to happen. If the former, alert security and have an officer take a closer look. That officer responding to a possible bomb threat better be able to distinguish between a bomb and a light bright. If not then why the hell have someone respond to a possible bomb situation. Any person able to make a bomb that looks like the one they think they were seeing could have rigged up a dead mans switch to go off if they were shot so what sense does it make to shoot a person that could have been carrying a bomb? Why risk it without knowing if by shooting it, it would go off? That's just knee jerk reaction taking hold over reason. That's why places like this need a policy that's thought out and followed in these situations. That would make us safer. Not arresting a person as a deterrent attempt to scare the rest of us into quiet submission. All of you "Oh my god the terrorists are going to get us, we better obey anybody!" are letting this go too far in too many areas where it doesn't do any real good and errodes at the very thing we pride ourselves in having: Freedom. Otherwise what are we fighting for?
And for all you out there: "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real."
To perpetrate a hoax therefore would necessitate that the intention was there to make others believe that it was a bomb. The INTENT is what matters in a hoax, not the reaction.
Ignorance and idiocy. (Score:2, Insightful)
To me, the problem is less of a matter that the police reacted (I suppose an idiot could be excused for mistaking it for a bomb) than that they now know it's not a bomb, apparently she never claimed that it was a bomb, and they continued to press charges of "hoax device" and so on. Granted, this is Boston, which went batshit crazy over Mooninites, but I was just as annoyed by the "fake bomb"/"bomb hoax" news reports then. I suppose they want some sort of satisfaction for the time/expense of reacting, in a vengeful way now.
Look, people. Something CANNOT BE A HOAX device if it was not INTENDED to be perceived as a device. The entire point of the word "hoax" is that it is "An act intended to deceive or trick." If there is no INTENT, then there is no hoax. Evidence of intent is a concept built into criminal law itself as a necessary condition to make things stick (IANAL, but I'm pretty confident on this point). There is no hoax here.
There are, however, a bunch of misunderstandings and some poor judgment on the part of the student*. That said, cut your losses, shake hands, tell her not to do it again, and move on. Personally I'm sick of the rampant stupidity that seems to have infected the world "post 9-11" and this is a prime example of it.
*While I think it's poor judgment, I also think it's a shame that tech art can't be worn in public without eliciting a full-blown law enforcement response. I've seen this sorta stuff on the runway in some fashion shows and always thought it was pretty cool.
Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are people who want you to be afraid, who want you to be willing to accept any level of brutality in the name of "protecting you". Are you sure those people haven't curdled your brain with their scare talk?
Do consider (Score:2, Insightful)
Except:
1. The average security guard/police officer is not involved in electronics. If they were, they would more likely seek jobs that have better pay in these fields.
2. In a situation with a possible suicide bomber fractions of a second count. It is reasonable that even a person with reasonable training in electronics would make a quick call on this.
3. She had a play dough/putty like substance in her hand. To the unlearned or to those without time to analyze the situation - all involved in this case - she was certainly suspicious.
4. The grave threat of allowing someone on an aircraft with a bomb or exploding a bomb in a densely packed area provides additional reason for quick, decisive action on the part of security.
She did something very, very stupid and is lucky to have walked away alive. The police acted with great restraint and should be commended for it.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
Brave new world, bro'.
Re:I think it was total police over reaction (Score:2, Insightful)
The police did not kill this person. The police do have a duty to investigate suspicious activity.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is considered a possible bomb?
Aside from the fact, that I think someone wearing a bomb, wanting to get in as far as possible, would NOT be wearing the mechanism on the outside of their clothing, advertising it for a guard to see....I think we've just with this incident, given the 'terrorists' a good clue how to sneak stuff by. If it doesn't have wires and components hanging out of it...if it doesn't look like a hand fabbed piece of electronic equipment, they probably aren't gonna get stopped at gunpoint for wearing a bomb.
Following your statement, if I enter in a airport with a gun and I show it to a policeman - when I spot one - the policeman should be reassured, if I wanted to commit a crime I would have kept it hidden. Obviously the answer is: a man with a gun in a airport is suspicious, if they know that someone is trying to snake in something that looks like a gun they _have_ to stop him.
Home-made looking electric circuits that you wear on yourself are suspicious too in a airport. This is common sense and the policemen did the right thing.
If something looks like a bomb, they should check. It's not that they check only things that look like bombs, but those too.
I have to add that I welcome penalties for those who intentionally waste the police's time. It's more serious than trolling on
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop right there, homie. If it were one of your family members wearing this thing [thinkgeek.com], I suspect you'd feel differently. We don't need our government to feel they have MORE license to shoot people because they're nervous. If you are given a gun, you need to be trained. If you work in security, you need to be trained. By all means, tackle her to the floor, contain her, even freaking *tase* her if she resists.
Overreaction is OK in certain situations, but to shoot her? Don't be a tool, please.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
But, she did NOT make any kind of bomb threat. She didn't do anything to provoke a bomb threat alert. And since when is ANY citizen obligated to talk to anyone they don't wish to? She ignored some ticket counter person....maybe not the most polite thing to do, but, certainly not unlawful.
She walked in, asked about flight information...and was leaving. Even wearing a shirt with flasing led's does not entitle people to point machine guns at her with itchy trigger fingers and possibly kill her.
Even with all this...if they found out THEY (airport security) made a HUGE mistake, she should have gotten an apology and be let go rather than charged with some fscked up excuse for a crime.
So, if Tommy Hilfiger or Polo or whatever, come out with the latest in breadboard tech clothing...we're all gonna get threatened with a machine gun? Sounds silly, doesn't it?
I dunno, like I said, I guess I'm not that scared of getting blown up by a terrorists. Certainly not one looking and dressing like this girl.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess the fact is...I'd not have given a second thought to wearing something like that myself?!? I mean, it isn't my fashion style, but, I'd certainly not thought that something I innocently wore (associated with my school) would end up getting me on the wrong end of a machine gun.
I guess I don't get automatically paranoid that anything moderately unusual, even at an airport, is life threatening.
Re:I think it was total police over reaction (Score:3, Insightful)
You're saying that if the police see someone walk into an airport wearing something that may or may not be a bomb, they should wait until after it explodes to take action?
Re:OK, let's put it this way... (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, you can also choose what action to take.
Given that she was wearing the thing in plain view, that she made no threats and that she walked back out of the airport, the only situation in which the thing could have been a bomb was if she was extraordinarily mentally ill with no coherent intentions. In that case, a major confrontation might very well cause her to set off the bomb. If it was a bomb, she would have to be so mentally ill that the concept of dying would not have the normal deterrent effect (she probably would even grasp the concept).
As they say, when all you've got is a hammer then everything looks like a nail. Violent confrontation is the one (and only) thing airport security knows so that's what they did here. The thing is, a better (safer for everyone) approach would be to have a single non-threatening person approach the girl and talk quietly with her about it.
And, as an added bonus, if it turns out she's actually harmless then you've avoided almost killing an innocent person.
Now they say there was no putty. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've done a fair amount of electronics and if I had seen her wandering into the airport I would have thrown my carryon at her head and dived to the floor from a distance. She's an idiot.
My young son has grown up around computers and electronics. He's generally not been exposed to TV or government-sponsored fear-mongering. It would not occur to him that he needs to protect himself from people like you, who would violently attack him if you saw him wandering about with silly putty in his hands and a breadboard hanging off his belt.
But I guess there is no "Land of the Brave" any more. I'm going to have to go home and explain to my son how your terror is restricting his totally harmless lifestyle. How's it feel to be working for Usama?
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupid to try what? (Score:2, Insightful)
The police were completely justified in arresting her. I'm fairly sure she wasn't aware of the problem she was getting herself into, and I feel bad for her but hopefully the prosecutors will be lenient and not run her life, but she's probably gonna have to accept some punishment.
Dumber than dirt (Score:1, Insightful)
The TSA morons who decided to arrest her did so because she did what???? Clearly the "device" isn't a bomb, it lights up the paint - not putty - on her shirt, so it isn't even a "hoax device" as asserted by the Terminally Stupid [donkeys] that conducted the bust. AND, to cap it all, jackasses charged with airport safety pointed firearms at something they thought was an EXPLOSIVE!! Pointing guns at a - lets see here, "bomb" on shirt - suspected suicide bomber. This would be someone who has decided to die violently so lets all threaten her with death so she won't blow herself up. Oh yeah, I can see that working some place they have real suicide bombers. Let's all point weapons at her so that we will insure she blows up, even if she doesn't push the button herself. Reasoning like that will undoubtedly get either a Nobel nomination or a Darwin award. The responses were not appropriate, they weren't rational, they were dumber than dirt.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a 40 year history that, even barring 9/11, one would have to be a staggering incompetent to not understand that anything that suggests "explosives" + "airport" is a bad idea.
The police are supposed to tell at a glance that it's fake? And let me ask, if they were wrong, treated it (and her) as simply a moronic college student and she DID blow up, killing herself, a few cops, and injuring dozens of bystanders - what would have been your response..."oops"?
This is NOT a paranoid fear of terrorism that prompted this police response - there are dozens of instances every day where THAT happens - but an attention-whore who should be dealt with severely for inducing and inviting this response with her calculated choices. Frankly, the only reason they DIDN'T shoot her was probably fear of a deadman switch.
Oh, and your "muslim men who were asked to leave the plane because they spoke arabic"? If you're talking about the Minneapolis flight, I was *on* that flight, and they were not merely 'speaking arabic'. My own observations: they were praying loudly and disturbingly in the waiting area before the plane (and yes, I would also have complained had it been a Christian evangelist shouting his "praises to the Lord"). Once on the plane they moved directly to the exit rows and sat in them, despite the fact that their tickets were NOT for those seats. They each demanded 2 extra seat belt straps, despite none of them being overweight at all. During the entire ordeal, the stewardii were exceedingly patient far longer than I would have been, until finally the (chief stewardess?) called the cockpit and they had security & police come take them off the plane.
Again, in my opinion, a case of people deliberately provoking the system with all sorts of behaviors that they KNOW will set off alarms and frighten people.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
She will be held, and charged with something, because releasing her would be tantamount to admitting, "We made a mistake and overreacted." People could be demoted or lose their jobs. Clearly, saving the jobs of the incompetents who are in charge of protecting us against terrorism is far more important than justice toward an innocent student whose only crime seems to be underestimating the stupidity of the police (as an MIT student, she probably doesn't have a lot of day-to-day contact with morons).
Well then please go help fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh what's that? It doesn't pay much and the work is pretty boring? Ahh, well then perhaps you see the problem. We are not paying the kind of money nor offering the kind of environment to get top level professionals. If that's what you want, fair enough, but then figure out where the money will come from. Nothing is free. You want good people, you have to pay good money.
Ok, maybe... But... (Score:3, Insightful)
But prosecuting her? They checked her out. She didn't have a bomb. So tell her she's an idiot and send her on her way, right?
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
No...a gun is pretty recognizable as a gun. That's pretty plain and straightforward.
A small breadboard, with some flashing led's on a pretty girls shirt, certainly does not look like a bomb. If suspicious, investigate it I guess...I'd think undercover observation for a few minutes could have effectively deflated this situation rather easily, instead of pointing a machine gun, and admitting if she'd flinched, they'd have mowed her down with bullets.
"I have to add that I welcome penalties for those who intentionally waste the police's time. "
She did nothing to waste the police's time. They wasted their own time....she did nothing but innocently wear a shirt she had for a project for school. Unless someone can prove her INTENT to be otherwise...there was no crime here. No, you are not obligated to speak to anyone at an airport, unless that is a new secret law we don't know about yet.
She did nothing wrong, unless you can prove malicious intent....yet she still has to face charges and court expenses and time for all that due to this...so aside from probably a near heart attack from looking down the barrel of a few locked and loaded guns...she still has an ordeal to go through.
No charges should have been issued, and an apology should have been given. I hope she has enough money to sue the hell out of them for putting her through this.
I want officials to be cautions, but, c'mon, what happened to common sense?
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the quote: "She said it was a piece of art and she wanted to stand out on career day," Pare said. "She was holding what was later found to be playdough."
Aside from you missing the info in the article, your argument doesn't hold water as is. Even if they thought the putty was paint on her shirt, they have every right to be concerned. I seem to remember a man with explosives that looked like the heel of a shoe.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
There are indeed rules against causing a panic. They're best applied to individuals who have shown such intent. It is unclear whether this is the case. It certainly could have been. But the only information we have so far is that of an official from the security force involved. And even then, we're not seeing anything that gives a clear indication to incite panic. Considering how aggressive physcial security professionals can be.. and the history of this particular security force specifically... I would say there is more than enough to warrant the question whether these rules apply in this case.
Re:Good grief!! (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone is going to take a bomb to the airport, would it look like her sweatshirt or your carry-on? If she should be apprehended, anyone with a briefcase should be shot. I mean, OMG, who knows what could be in there! You're just carrying stuff around *concealed* at the *airport*, what are you thinking!?!
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
"and the simple breadboard attached to the outside of that sweatshirt a bomb."
Key words "did not respond". Looking at the "device", it is not obvious that it is benign. Look at the photo of the "breadboard". There is no reason it could not have been a small IED. It would be reasonable to question someone wearing it, and it would be equally reasonable for the person wearing it to thoroughly explain what it was.
The purpose of wearing it was to attract _attention_, so why not explain when it DOES attract attention?
She is intelligent enough to attend MIT, yet stupid or vain enough to wear that sh1t.
What I want to know... (Score:2, Insightful)
I suppose it could be more unusual... she could be on slashdot!
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
Because one beautiful autumn morning September 11, 2001 the government received the greatest opportunity they could ever wish for to justify themselves and their bloated budget. I don't believe in the conspiracy that our government was involved, but I understand. Look how much money has been justified for "homeland security". Airports are special because the government and the natural stupidity of the average (particularly fearful) person was able to justify it. It never matters how much money is spent on something, the more money that gets filtered through government bureaucracy, the more power the government has.
It is the same reason "marijuana" will never be legalized, think of all those poor corrections officers: Not only would 75% of them get laid off, the rest would be left guarding actual criminals! We could never be so crewel. The police, the DEA, the entire department of justice would loose billions of dollars!
How can you really be so worried about bullshit laws that criminalize innocent civilians (some with neat shirts), we're talking about peoples jobs here!
Even through the 60's, it was no issue to carry shotguns or riffles on an airplane, as long as you kept them unloaded. It was absolute common sense, you're not going to let some luggage monkey handle your valuable weapons. That's crazy!
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
Why's that, because that's what bombs look like on TV?
Terrorist kills 11 at airport (Score:2, Insightful)
Angry Slashdotters called the airport security "imbecilic" and staffed by "morons" for not arresting the woman and inspecting the bomb. Ironically, these are the same Slashdotters who stated that airport security overreacted not too long ago when MIT Student Star Simpson wore a similar device at Logan Airport, causing a minor uproar that led to her arrest and eventual release. Logan Airport issued a statement vowing to continue their efforts to keep Slashdotters who want everything both ways happy.
Here's the problem with making assumptions (Score:3, Insightful)
While I admit that it is unlikely that someone would try that, you don't start making assumptions.
In this case there are some additional important facts:
1) The person that was alarmed wasn't a security agent, just an info booth employee. Expecting everyone to be an expert in everything is retarded. Most people know jack and shit about electronics.
2) Part of the reason for the alarm was the girl refused to answer questions about it. She was asked what it was, she just turned around and left. THAT is very suspicious. Most people, if you ask them about their clothes, are happy to respond, especially if said clothes are unique/geeky. I love my Think Geek "Resistance is futile (if 1 ohm)," shirt and will happily explain it. It is real suspicious for someone to not say anything, not even "none of your business," and just walk off.
Nobody is that stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
For those people who said it doesn't look like a bomb... what does a bomb look like? Does every bomb look the same?
right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
When is someone going to bring up yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?
Re:Hey that's a great plan!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are also, with high probability, among the most insulated, sheltered, and introverted young people that you are likely to find living anywhere in the United States today. This seems to be a common flaw among the highly intelligent individuals who are attracted to institutions of higher learning. I should know because I used to be among them before I graduated and began living in a world populated by my street smart peers from highschool with less formal education, but a five year head start in the street smarts department. Fortunately, I quickly developed some good sense before anything terrible happened, but as this incident at the airport proves it is sometimes better to be lucky than smart...book smart that is.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:4, Insightful)
I take it from your posts, that you are not from the US. It may be different where you come from, but, in the US, you are NEVER obligated to show a person of 'authority' anything or even speak to them. The only people you are obligated to give you identity to, is a bonafide police officer, and only then if you are the subject of a criminal investigation, and they have probable cause to think you are involved. While it is usually best to cooperate, and just polite....you are not obligated by law in the US to cooperate or speak to an officer.
The cops certainly are NOT supposed to draw their weapons down on you for your lack of speaking to them, or cooperating with them.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics" (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason it is and should be a crime is because you simply cannot have a policy where people toting things that look like bombs can board aircraft. Should it really be the TSA's responibility to determine that something is a fake? Is it reasonable to expect security personnel to accurately analyze suspicious items on the fly in a check-in line?
She's very lucky they didn't shoot her through the head. With the crowds of people around the main concern is the safety of the bystanders. The guards responded with amazing self restraint: Remember, they are just people with families, lives etc.. If she HAD been fucking nuts, she could have killed them all in a picosecond.
Re:Do consider (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the whole problem with the attitude people like you have to 'security': thinking it's okay to kill innocent people over a false positive just because the consequences of a false negative are scary. At least the TSA don't seem to have gotten quite *that* bad yet, unlike you.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
People shouldn't have to be attacked with guns for being "eclectic" and not worrying about what other people think. She made no threats and followed all the directions... which probably did NOT involve asking her to simply turn the shirt over to security at the first counter she stopped at. You know that ASKING somebody what they're doing without pointing an ACTUAL deadly weapon at them. Now these narrow minded cops are going to deprive the troops of somebody brilliant that can HELP them in their missions!! So who's the terrorist here?
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
If someone was wearing this on a street, perhaps it would not cause as quick of response, but on the other hand, the mates in the UK during the days of the IRA, might disagree.
I also do not see the harm in the charges she was arrested on, from TFA the bond was $750. She is a student at MIT, someone she knows can afford the bond, even if she or her family couldnt, andlater she can stand in front of a american judge, who will probably tell her she used bad judgement, stay out of trouble, pay a fine, etc. Its not like the Police/DA office charged her with terrorism, then we would be having a different conversation.
Re:Talk about dumb (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
As to why she couldn't be released, it's because bail was required to make sure she'd not flee from the local court's jurisdiction, which is entirely reasonable for a college student who is unlikely to have strong ties to the community. That the bail was not enormous is recognition of the fact that not much actual damage occurred.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
I dunno, am I the ONLY one that did not become overly paranoid about terrorists coming to blow me up? This is ridiculous. Even if they did overreact at first....after the situation was ascertained, why in hell did they charge this girl with a crime and set bail? Can police no longer find they made a mistake, and just LET YOU GO without penalty??
The prevailing attitude these days seems to be "better that one hundred innocent persons should suffer than one cop look stupid."
Re:Ignorance and idiocy. (Score:2, Insightful)
I've seen this sorta stuff on the runway in some fashion shows and always thought it was pretty cool.
Dude, are you on crack? Airport != South Beach runway with anorexic supermodels. Not even the same as a public park or sidewalk. Just like you don't have a right to wear a shirt that says "I HAVE A BOMB!!!" in a airport or even mention bombs or guns around airport personnel, you're not allowed to wear anything that looks like a bomb. It's never been allowed -- not even in the 1970s. Period. If you don't get this, maybe you need to take Common Sense 101 along with all your Course VI EE at MIT. What's next, some "art student" strapping on a bunch of wires and toilet papers tubes and running around Logan screaming, "I'm Al Qaida! AL QAIDA!!!!"? I guess you'd defend their fashion sense too and participate in protesting the gross violation of their right to political free speech after their brains got splattered all over the terminal.
There may come a time to fight for freedom of speech and self-expression -- but let's reserve that fight for causes that really matter, not for some dumbass trying to make it on the 6 o'clock news.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics" (Score:5, Insightful)
And newspaper articles are always accurate. And people who overreact to apparent security threats never misreport the facts in order to justify their overreactions.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
2 - "Sheeple" here? Dismissive much? You're not that much better than the rest of the world. Some people don't have EE degrees or PhDs. That doesn't make you some kind of superior creature with moral grounds to deride everyone else. Heck, they might even have principled reasons to disagree.
3 - Are you honestly telling me that if you saw somebody with wires sticking out of a briefcase at the airport who was ignoring the police you wouldn't be even the slightest bit nervous? And when the bomb did finally blow up you'd think the cops did the right thing, since no terrorist would be stupid enough to let the wires hang out?
Re:Well then please go help fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the real problem.
The reason we don't pay enough to get really good people is because the job isn't important. The real problem is that we shouldn't be wasting our time and money. Since it doesn't matter if it's done right or not, we might as well not pay too much for it.
The real answer is to cut TSA staff by 80% and go back to airline security as it was pre-9/11. It makes sense to do some basic screening to attempt to make it difficult for passengers to carry firearms and bombs on planes, just to stop stupid terrorists doing the obvious stuff, because you can't stop the smart, clever ones. Smart terrorists aren't going to bother with passenger planes anyway. The most you can do is blow up a plane, now. Hijacking them to use as weapons was an idea that will not work again, and hijacking a plane for transportation or hostages is just suicide, because the passengers will beat you to death.
Re:Do consider (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:4, Insightful)
As a bonus, while the "bomb" circuit is priming, your LED's will blink in a pretty way just like hers were doing.
All you need is a fistfull of explosive putty with small detonation cap embedded in it and to ground the high voltage lead through the detonation cap onece the charge has built up. Oh, and by the way, she was carrying a fistful of (albeit non-explosive) putty around as well.
In the case of a suicide bomber, the act of not complying with police orders may be sufficient cause for police to use lethal force. She's very lucky she listened carefully to the police when they arrested her and remained alive.
A joke (Score:1, Insightful)
A: The way they dress.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics" (Score:4, Insightful)
jesus christ people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
Do these people also think that terrorists are going to beam into the restricted area because it happened on Star Trek?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, aren't you equally as sheepish for believing that the police are covering something up, without knowing the entire story?"
Not once did I say that the police were covering something up and not once did I say I believe they are.
I believe that until both sides of an argument are looked at there is no point in condemning one side. Too many times has heavy handed condemnation been looked upon with remorse when the full facts, whichever side they may come from, finally come out.
I simply don't trust people to consistently tell the whole unbiased truth when they have a direct motive to do otherwise and have been shown to have done so in the past.
These beliefs aside, my posts are about getting a better handle on security in this case. By handling it in the way they have stated, I feel no safer. I feel like the people who were involved in this event are less able to make me safe by their own admissions of how they handled this event. I'm not addressing the lunacy of this girl as the issue, I'm addressing the facts that are admitted by the people who say they did them, that's all we have to go off of right now and by saying that they did these actions they are either lying and making themselves look bad or they actually did these things and that itself makes them look bad to me. There has to be a responsible reaction to these things or they will get worse and IMHO this was by their own admission not a reasonable reaction to the actual evidence that they found when they investigated the suspected bomb.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
(as an MIT student, she probably doesn't have a lot of day-to-day contact with morons)
So she's so elite that she shouldn't be burdened with understanding how the unwashed commoners live their pathetic lives? Or perhaps she thought it would be delightfully witty to tweak a few of the retarded serfs at the airport with some highbrow MIT humor? Please. She deliberately set out to provoke a response and got one. Why else wouldn't she respond when questioned about what was on her chest?
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics" (Score:5, Insightful)
She wasn't boarding an aircraft. She wasn't trying to board an aircraft. She wasn't even trying to pass through the security checkpoint to get to the boarding areas for the aircraft.
But I heard the police stopped a straw man in the airport who was trying to do all of the above.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it doesn't look anything remotely like a bomb to someone with even a day's worth of electronics experience - or at least, not the visible part. But given the state of things, and not knowing what could be hooked up to that, I understand why there was this kind of reaction. There's a sort of mental threat that people perceive when they see or are asked to deal with something unfamiliar to them - go stick a newbie in front of a terminal and follow your exact instructions and see what happens. Combine that with the general assumption that if anyone has malicious intent, there's a good chance they'd execute their plans at an airport.
Basically, the person in question should have known better. Sure, had you or I been one of the cops in the situation, we would have recognized that the chance of that being an explosive is next to nothing, but not many cops that aren't on the bomb squad are going to have a lot of electronics knowledge. Hell, had the person simply said it's a breadboard, they still wouldn't have had a clue, as the rest of the world would think "cutting board".
And, of course, hindsight is 20/20.
So yeah, I'm going to have to side with the police here. The student should have known better, and MIT students are supposed to be pretty damn smart. To cops that are trained to be on the lookout for suspicious activity, that DOES look like it could be a bomb. Even pre-9/11, wearing that kind of device in an airport would have been suspicious. I mean, who the hell WEARS electronics (excepting a digital watch) anyways?
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
People shouldn't have to be attacked with guns for being "eclectic" and not worrying about what other people think. She made no threats and followed all the directions... which probably did NOT involve asking her to simply turn the shirt over to security at the first counter she stopped at. You know that ASKING somebody what they're doing without pointing an ACTUAL deadly weapon at them. Now these narrow minded cops are going to deprive the troops of somebody brilliant that can HELP them in their missions!! So who's the terrorist here?
You've got to be fucking kidding me. I saw what she was wearing and trust me, it looked like a bomb. Now you may feel safe traveling with people strapping bomb looking stuff to themselves, but fortunately, you are in the extreme minority on that one!
This dumb-ass girl took a shirt with a bomb-looking device attached to it to a place where you are not allowed to say the word "Bomb" and was surprised when security reacted!???! What is even more shocking is that dumb-ass anarchists on slashdot don't understand why security reacted. Um... maybe it's because the dumb-ass girl had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to their chest? JH Christ! If security doesn't react to that, WTF are they supposed to react to? WTF do you think these guys should do all day, only arrest the bombers AFTER the bombs go off?
Seriously, what does someone have to do for security to react that some slashdotters would find appropriate?
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:4, Insightful)
Number of terrorist bombs that have blinky LEDs: ~0
Number of terrorist bombs that are in nondescript packages or backpacks: ~1000
Number of fictional terrorist bombs in movies that have blinky LEDs: ~1000
Number of fictional terrorist bombs in movies that are in nondescript packages or backpacks: ~10
Number of terrorist bombs your average security official has seen: ~0
Number of fictional terrorist bombs your average security official has seen in movies: ~1000
Re:Well then please go help fix it (Score:2, Insightful)
Why exactly is that again? Sounds like a contradiction.
Oh I see... You say it's because it was done once before it can't be done again?
Yeah... I'm sure that's it.
Re:America is over... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well then please go help fix it (Score:4, Insightful)
The 9/11 attacks were facilitated by airline policy regarding hijackings. ie: out of concern for passenger safety or fear of wrongful death lawsuits, airlines trained people to acquiesce to hijacker demands. After all, they just wanted to fly to Beirut and negotiate a prisoner swap. After 9/11, no pilot will allow a hijacker to take direct control of the plane, because they now recognize the risk to life is not restricted to people physically on board the plane.
Re:ok (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, a veteran. Let me ask you, seriously (not being a libertarian commie prick or whatever you want to call me): do you agree with all the wars the US has fought? Iraq, the gulf, vietnam... wars that weren't yours to fight, but that the US jumped in because of other motives (oil, usually). Oh and do you feel sorry for all the japanese civilians killed in hiroshima and nagasaki, in WWII?
A job in the military, like a job in many large organizations, does require a fair amount of rationalization/cognitive dissonance. For example, say you were an accountant at a huge firm and did the math that resulted in hundreds of techs being laid off. Would this bother you? Is profit a more noble pursuit than sovereignty/defense/stability (not that I'm claiming that our wars are those things)?
Some would reply that killing someone is very different from firing someone, and of course they're right. I'm just trying to illustrate an example in the civilian world where emotional distancing is also necessary. I processed insurance claims for a while in a past job, and I felt like shi* knowing that a lot of the claims that I worked with would be denied. Many of those claims would really improve our clients' quality of life. I know I'm not the only person at that place who felt that way.
Do I agree with U.S. wars/foreign policy? That would be like asking, "Do you agree with religion?" There are so many aspects to the subject. And to be honest, I'm not sure that I can say exactly how I feel, at least not in words. I kept a blog of my first deployment, so if you want to know how I felt about actually being in a war zone, you can read it: http://hylic.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
You probably want a pithy, candid answer to your questions, and I understand. However, I'm not going to pass judgment on events that happened outside of my lifetime. I can comment on the lessons that history has taught us, but those lessons are available to anyone; I can't say anything new. In addition, there is just so much that history doesn't tell us, or that we have just come around to discovering/admitting to ourselves, that I would be talking about a made-up, abstract idea.
The current actions in the middle east are an area that I can comment on, and I will. The entire situation is fu**ed, SNAFU, FUBAR, unrecoverable, wasteful, horrific, etc, etc. Remember that emotional distancing that I mentioned? Well, after being deployed a couple of times and growing up a fair amount, the only emotion I feel about Iraq is anger. Not at the Iraqis, but at the whole situation. I'm angry that our president drove us into this (for whatever reason, well-intentioned or not). I'm angry that our congress wasn't able to separate the lies from the truth, that people in power treated this 'war' the same way that they'd treat a highway bill or a re-election campaign, complete with lying and posturing. I'm angry that my job, which used to be about national defense and community stewardship, has turned me into a mercenary. I'm angry that KBR and Halliburton are making so fu*king much money on this affair. I'm angry that good men and women have to tell themselves that their missions are good and worthwhile just to keep themselves from collapsing in the face of the horrible things they have to see every day. I'm angry that the lives of our sacrificed soldiers are treated like a fu*king cancer awareness ribbon or some shi* that you can just wear on your lapel in order to be patriotic.
I could go on for days. I am very angry.
Most of all, I'm angry that I got shot at, that I had to see terrible things, that I am a fundamentally different person now, that I am kind of messed up, that I lost that time in my life... all so that the Mary Disney Puffpaint Sweatshirt McDonalds of the U.S. can sit on their fat asses and cheer for 'their team' or whatever the fu*k makes people support this war. It's so fu*ked up that people would want us to continu
It wasn't a TSA person (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as real bombs go, I used to help my dad set explosives to take out stumps and boulders. It takes two wires, a cap, and ONE battery, and, if you want to get real fancy, a switch. We just touched the wires to the battery poles. If you are going for a remote detonation because you want to stay alive with all your limbs, you use a larger battery to overcome the drop in voltage.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:4, Insightful)
bullshit? That's fucking stupid.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of terrorism is inducing enough fear in the target country that they start making oppressive laws for the sake of perceived security. You turn the target country's leaders into something not wanted by the people, thus creating unrest, thus making it easier to overthrow the country, pressure it into meeting your demands or reduce it to irrelevance.
I mean, look at what 9/11 has caused: Nobody wants to enter the USA anymore if they don't have to, because all foreigners are treated as suspects. People get arrested because they think breadboards are cool. People worldwide aren't allowed to take any kind of pointy object with them when they fly, let alone locked luggage (not to mention that searched luggage sometimes arrives in less-than-pristine condition). The German air force is officially declaring that they will disobey orders because certain politicians want them to shoot down passenger aircraft whenever it is suspected to have been hijacked.
Now compare that to the actual damage terrorist attacks have caused in the meanwhile. The main damage they have caused is turning half of the western world into a bunch of paranoid shitmongers who would gladly take over the killing of civilians if that meant that the terrorists don't get to do it.
No ifs; the terrorists have already won. We can do some damage control, but life will never be like back in those innocent days when you could actually take a bottle of coke with you on a plane.
Re:ok (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, you need to be able to avoid the law if you want to. It'd be nice if you never got pushed around by security or kicked off planes based on what your inner intentions, but avoiding these things is at least achievable.
In an ideal world, a situation like this wouldn't end up with guns pointed in your face. But in an ideal world you wouldn't need laws at all.
In this world, carrying an unidentified piece of home built electronics into the airport, then refusing to respond to security's questions about it ends up with you being identified as a potential threat. This in turn results in your having a gun shoved in your face.
It's unfortunate, but perfectly predictable for perfectly understandable reasons.
If you want to improve this situation, you need to propose an alternative policy that is equally predictable, but better. Solutions that depend on security guards being able to reliably distinguish between blinking light breadboards and homebuilt detonators are not real world solutions. They're in the ideal world where economics doesn't pose any constraints. In the real world, the most you can hope is that the median TSA guy is going to be taken from the middle of the deck when it comes to tech savvy.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics" (Score:3, Insightful)
If your idea of presence of mind and restraint is not shooting a teenaged girl with a few blinking lights on her shirt in broad daylight I'd hate to see the kind of world you want to live in. This isn't like a kid jumping out in a dark alley with a realistic toy gun in his hand.
The police arrested her simply to show that they could. What she was wearing doesn't look like a bomb to anyone with an ounce of brains. It was worthwhile to check her out because someone unfamiliar with bombs and electronics thought what she was wearing was unusual but there was no crime committed. Boston police overreacted and wasted a lot of money and a lot of peoples time on the Aqua Teen Hunger Force devices and they overreacted here.
Re:Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. The only way the device in the first picture "in no way appears threatening to you" is because you're not familiar with what improvised explosives and detonators can actually look like.
This is her device:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/btrosko/fakeboom.jpg [photobucket.com]
This is the detonator for an IED:
http://fusion94.org/images/missed_call.jpg [fusion94.org]
I'm an EE, so I know from being able to look at that picture of her device for a bit on a computer monitor that it appears to be a 9 volt battery driving some LEDs with current-limiting resistors in series with them.
I don't know that's what it is, I just know that's what it looks like. To verify that that's what it is, I'd need to be able to inspect it with my hands on it.
Now, what criteria would you suggest that non-EEs use to tell the difference between the harmless LED display in the first picture, and the deadly explosive detonator in the second picture? Oooh, the first one has an exposed breadboard. Well, so does the second one. Exposed wiring on both. Exposed circuit components on both. Both have a battery and glowy lights (There's a cellphone there, so it's going to have at least one LED on it, and it even has a nice fancy LCD display).
So what criteria would you suggest airport and security personnel use to evaluate such things that would allow them to accurately, at a glance, tell the difference between a hacked-together LED display, and a hacked-together IED? Especially when it's sitting there on the chest of someone who's walking into a crowded terminal.
Re:Boston (Score:3, Insightful)
but back to the point; i live in new york, and my biggest nightmare is a terrorist team with a nuke on a hatteras 42, or on a hijacked blimp, and they set it off right over, or next to, wall street, because thats their target. i can see wall street out my window, its no more than 2 miles line-of-sight. and if i have to live in new york there's no place else i'd rather live. i nevertheless feel like i'm playing russian roulette.
these are barbarians; they destroyed 1200 year old religious monuments because they felt offended. but after having taken war to them (afghanistan), you can't ever go back to a state of peace in this struggle. that said, do you really think some 20-something chick asking about an arrival is a terrorist? was there anyone *big* on the plane she asked about? no? then whats the deal? i myself have taken artworks overseas that could have been mistaken for bombs. the first time i took it through security it was no big deal. after my flight was delayed for two hours and i went to have a cigarette i had a problem coming back in. the object was swabbed, etc. and after five minutes, if that, i was allowed to proceed.
hi tech won't win this war, satellites won't this war, only human intelligence will. its time we put the emphasis on human intelligence.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
So in your world who gets to decide what is a "suspicious" device? Anybody can call anything suspicious without question? I think your non-sensical post is really suspicious. I think it's an attempt at providing terrorists information using steganography. I think you should be arrested.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Insightful)
bullshit? That's fucking stupid.
People like you are why Libertarians will never win. It's a real shame too because if it weren't for this type of stupidity, I'd be a Libertarian.
It's sad that 90% of the people will bitch to high heaven if this were a bomb and allowed to detonate. "My GOD! Security saw the bomb right there on her chest and they did NOTHING!" Actually, I remember something similar. It was something like, "My GOD! George Bush saw a Presidential Daily Brief that said 'Bin Laden determined to attack America' and he did NOTHING!!" Of course, then they get known as Truthers and fall under the category of Bush Allowed 9-11 to happen.
The other sad part is that if I could go back to 9-11 and warn security to arrest those 19 men with friggin box-cutters, you'd be screaming the loudest. "My GOD! All these men did was have box cutters! WTF could these guys do with just friggin BOX CUTTERS!!??! They were seriously overreacting!"
Next, security is not going to go to the girl with the bomb-looking-device strapped to her chest in a manner reminiscent of a Palestinian visiting a Jewish pizza parlor and ask her to kindly step over the bomb detecting equipment. "Pardon me, Miss? Would you mind if we borrowed that device strapped to your chest so we can test it for explosives? Oh, and if we could borrow that plastique looking stuff too, that would be great."
Finally, overreacting would have been closing down the airport... all airports for that matter immediately after putting a 7.62mm round through this stupid girl's skull from a distance. I have to hand it to the security team at this airport. It took some balls to be well within the blast radius of this girl when they told her to show her hands and hit the ground. They could of very easily been the first casualties of a major, multi-pronged attack. They didn't overreact. They underreacted! They saved this girls life and risked their own. They did not have to do that.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
And that is why the military should not be used as a police force, nor should the police turn into a paramilitary operation.
Military: shock and awe
Police: protect and serve
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
This is hilarious. Why in the world should I trust you? And why are you talking as if you have some special knowledge of what she was wearing or what bombs look like? There's pictures of the thing all over the news. It looks like a pedestrian blinky-light circuit on a protoboard. Perhaps, if one wants to stretch, it looks like a prototype for the sort of circuit that one might use on a movie prop of a bomb. And one might be advised to remember that movies aren't actually real.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you looked at my links. Notice any two vests that looked alike? I'm not just talking about the training ones, but the rest, like where the guy's head was blown off. How about the police vest that was actually a suicide vest? Sure, none looked exactly like the on this chick had on, but then again, none of them looked like any of the others. There were common characteristics to look for. Wires are a pretty good giveaway. Strapped to a chest is another good giveaway. The puddy in the hands... well that was just gravy!
Think you know what a bomb looks like. How about I make nine bombs and one fake one. You pick the fake one and lie down on it while I set off the rest of 'em. You should be safe, Oh, ye that knows so much about bombs. Your obvious expertise will keep you safe.
I agree with most of your statement here, but friggin come on! This girl walks into an airport with a device strapped to her chest and you call it paranoia to stop her? My GOD, if wearing a device that could very easily be mistaken for a bomb with putty in her hands (that looks EXACTLY like C4, btw If you say you can tell the difference between play-dough and colored C4, you are a liar) to the airport where two of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers doesn't warrant a response, then why do you even bother with security at all? If they are not supposed to stop this dumb-ass girl, then WTF are they there for? And before you say they should have just asked her, remember that the lady at the ticket counter DID!!!
Seriously, what in your mind has to happen before airport security is justified in drawing their weapons? If it's not someone with a device and plastique, then I don't know what is!
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics" (Score:4, Insightful)
The "security" at American (and now European) airports is phony. It is only there to make people feel safe, it has no real effect. This is why these events piss off people. We know they are not going to catch any serious threat, but instead they arrest or harass everybody else.
You are not going to see Iraqi or Israel style suicide bombings in the US. They require weaponsgrade explosives, and still makes the suicide bomber looks bulging like he is carring a lot of heavy stuff tied to body (not something you can carry under a t-shirt!). The kind of explosives you can acquire and produce in a western country will only create events like that at Glasgow, which was a joke.
Re:Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed? (Score:1, Insightful)
Let me guess: you've never been involved in security. If your life and the lives of all the innocents around you depended on you checking out everything then yeah I expect the security guards to get jumpy about someone showing up at an airport with wires coming out of their shirt and not being responsive.
But I suppose your 30 years of electronics experience makes you superior to anyone doing a menial job like security.
What the kid did was asshattery. Think of the stress going through the TSA agent when seeing her do these sorts of actions.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Insightful)
Couldn't have put it better myself. And actually, you're not "just some guy typing on slashdot", you're just some guy typing on slashdot with very little exhibited knowledge and lots of hysteria. I wouldn't trust you to make me a cheese sandwich absent convincing proof that you actually can. Heck, for all I know you look like an Asian also. As opposed, that is, to a crew cut white dude driving a perfectly ordinary rental truck.
As to whether I would trust the lady in question...? Far too little data to tell, and I wasn't there. From the people who were actually there, I'm inclined to forgive what has turned out to be a relatively harmless error. But I have to wonder about people who sit at home with no protoboard-wielding Asians in front of them (and no knowledge of electronics in their heads, evidently) and wax dramatic about how wires are scary.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics" (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Would not have worn the bomb visibly.
2) Would have had a much bigger one (like in a backpack or purse)
3) Would not have approached an airport employee (who she could reasonably assume would be on the lookout for bombs) like she did.
Therefore, she did not have a bomb.
Who would have thought?
Re:ok (Score:2, Insightful)
They wanted to negoiate for the safety of the Emperor and for the continuation of the Imperial system. And there were differences within the highest ranks of command - even leading to an abortive coup attempt. [wikipedia.org]
(One of the great ironies of the whole thing being, that the restoration of the Emperor to power nearly a century before had been a direct result of demands of the U.S. that Japan open relationships [wikipedia.org]. What, stupid and exploitive foreign policy coming back to bite us in the ass? Unheard of...)
What, a nation unconditionally surrendering its sovereignty is "not that hard"?