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."'"
Academically bright but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Apologize?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, we're outlawing clothes now?
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it does look innocuous enough to someone who knows something about electronics. It looks like a solderable protoboard with some LEDs and a battery. She was probably using an NE555 or something similar to flash the LEDs. Harmless enough, although it looks tacky as hell. Someone needs to teach her good construction technique.
However, to a layman that circuit board would be completely incomprehensible. I know from personal experience that airport screeners are also paranoid about 9 V batteries, as I was questioned about a bunch that I was carrying in a bag with some video equipment. Add to that the fact that she was carrying modeling clay, which just so happens to look like plastic explosive (or at least what a layman would think plastic explosive looks like).
Assuming this was a truly harmless mistake on her part, and not some misguided prank, then she has just learned a valuable lesson that all techie types should take to heart: laymen do NOT understand what we do, or what we perceive as "harmless". In their minds, "I do not know what that is" equates to "it may be dangerous". You simply cannot walk into a government facility or an airport with a homemade electronic device in plain view and not expect to be challenged about it!
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a no-win situation. If they don't stop her, and if she went kablooey, there'd be all sorts of people demanding to know why they didn't. It's human nature, really. When something tragic happens, we try to figure out how to prevent it. Sometimes that goes to silly extremes.
"Granted, it was likely not the smartest move on her part..."
It was't a smart move at all. Realistically speaking, with all this paranoia flying around, she had no reasonable reason to think she'd get through without legal trouble.
"Why is it that airports have special significance?"
a. It's happened before.
b. They've threatened to do it again.
c. Airplanes can be made into nasty instruments of destruction.
"Would you say that "I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to a college campus"?"
Since there isn't paranoia flying around about colleges getting bombed, this isn't a fair question. You have to understand that lots of people were spooked rather bad, and they're still trying to cope with what to do about it. There is a constant barrage of threats for similar attacks down the road. What are they supposed to do, not take them seriously? Nobody has an answer as to what to do about it.
"Is all this paranoia actually making us safer?"
That depends on your school of thought. There hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. Either the US has succeeded in thwarting them or they haven't tried again. I couldn't tell you. The reality, though, is that it has happened and there is desire for it to happen again. For that reason, they cannot in good concscience not to something. As I said before, there's no good answer presenting itself.
"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."
Obviously the terrorists thought an airplane would be the best way to do it before, so they're forced now to pursue a less ideal way to cause trouble. I think that's the goal and it's working.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Interesting)
What if it was a replica gun instead of a bomb? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theatre to the tenth power.
I can't believe people are defending this. Think for a moment if instead she decided to create a piece of "art" that happened to look just like an AK47 instead of an IED? Would you be defending her then too? Because the situation is the same, even worse.
If she walked into a airport with piece of art that looked like an AK47, held at ready, you can be sure that if she had even flinched, she would have been shot dead, and she would have had it coming.
Having what looks unambiguously like an IED in a crowded airport is even worse.
This is Darwin award territory.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:4, Interesting)
I worked at a UK airport a few years ago installing telecom cabling. One of the engineers had been working in the airport police shooting range and a drill bit had picked up some cordite from the air after he had been drilling through one of the walls.
Passing through security later in the day to go airside, his installation tools were swabbed and the spectrometer flipped out like a fruit machine jackpot. Even though he had a full airport pass and had been background checked, He was taken to one side and had some explaining to do.
Re:Hey that's a great plan!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I think she made her point. This form of art is prohibited in airports, fine. Now everyone will judge if this is acceptable or not. It would have been more interesting if it looked more like art, like with only the leds visible through the sweater. To get arrested just for carrying blinking leds, now that would have been interesting. In fact I suspect this was the case when I see the disposition of leds and the drawing on the sweater beneath the board.
Re:Now they say there was no putty. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Interesting)
Some airport security just shot a kid with an ill conceived art project. Yes, I can see how that is an avoidance of possible loss of life. Do you believe police should summarily execute anyone they suspect of having unknown devices? or only in airports?
The US was at one time a great country as opposed to a superpower. What made it great was not an ill conceived idea of security, but rather its civil liberties put in place at its founding to prevent tyranny of the state against its citizens.
I can't think of many examples where restrictive nanny states have lead to more safety. Restrictive governments tend to encourage bomb throwing.
Also, manyMIT people are dumb in that specific way (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:2, Interesting)
Not in a million years.
Anyone who's played with electronics is going to look at that [boingboing.net] and assume it to be a blinkenlights toy.
Apparently, though, we've reached the level of paranoia where anything electronic that dodn' come from Best Buy must be presumed a bomb.
Simpson wasn't "trying" anything. She was picking up a friend at the airport, wearing what was to her (an MIT geek) a fairly normal bit of clothing. The lack of common sense was once again on the part of the cops.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics" (Score:4, Interesting)
Now you are mixing-and-matching my points. I said that if it was a real bomb, it would have been bigger. And here you go talking about a "wheelbarrow" full of C-4. Of course anything THAT size would be (and should be) suspicious. But not a circuit board on a tee shirt (or are you claiming her rack was 'wheelbarrow sized', and should have drawn suspicion??)
Further, such a person could be providing a diversion so that another person could make it through security
Then it's a really bad idea to send the guys with guns to take her down, no? If they're leaving the gates wide open so someone else could just walk thru. (And if they're not, then what's you point?)
a handful of plastique could kill a few people
So can a steak knife. So can a cane. So can a pillow. So can a razor blade. So can my bare hands. So can...
Like it or not, it's her fault for being a fucking idiot and not considering the climate of an airport after 9-11.
So, you are seriously saying that we all have to be extremely careful not to do or say ANYTHING that, if properly mis-interperated by those in charge, could be the least little bit suspicious, otherwise we deserve what we get??
If that's true, then you ought to be expecting feds bursting thru your door at any time, with all your talk about "wheelbarrow[s] full of C-4." and "plastique could kill a few people" and "fucking nuclear bomb[s]". I mean, that kinda talk could be mis-interperated....