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.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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: (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.
Re: (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 se
Re: (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:"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:5, Funny)
Re: (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
Re: (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 -
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:"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: (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 an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Funny)
Ahh, the seldom-cited 35th Amendment.
Re: (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 wea
Re: (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
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: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:"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: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:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (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
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Brave new world, bro'.
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:"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.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, 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:"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)
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:"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)
bullshit? That's fucking stupid.
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: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: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.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:4, Insightful)
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:"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:4, Insightful)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics" (Score:4, Informative)
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:"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....
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, Informative)
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: (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 th
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Informative)
While this incident may have been an overreaction, two Russian airliners were brought down on the same day in 2004 with explosives suspected to have been hidden in the bras of two female passengers. It's not that far-fetched.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". (Score:5, Informative)
When an employee asked about the device, she "walked away without responding" according to the article. At that point, it would negligent for them to ignore her as a potential threat. It would be one thing if she was assaulted, tazed, shot, etc., but they arrested her without incident and later released her on bail once they verified that there was no real threat.
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: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!?!
Airport security don't understand electronics (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: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.
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
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Apologize?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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 certai
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, we're outlawing clothes now?
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: (Score:3)
1. Doing something insanely stupid.
2. Causing a major disruption to the operations of an airport (assuredly causing travel delays for others)
3. Scaring the living shit out of people
4. Not responding to questions about her shirt/putty in her hand.
5. Wasting the time/resources of police officers.
6. Soiling the good name of Duracell for involving it in her "device"
Do we really need to keep going?
Re: (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 charge
Re: (Score:3)
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
From TFA
Sounds like they tried exactly what you recommend, and she decided not to comply (perhaps with the smarmy "moving on, no longer paying attention" attitude as well) which would be more than enough reason to raise suspicion.
Perhaps these antics by law enforcement are disgusting and against the public interest?
As a member of the public, I can say that their actions were in my interests. I would much rather have airport security that is willing to investigate s
Re:from MIT, but not very smart (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
What the hell's wrong with Boston? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston? (Score:4, Funny)
Insane (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Insane (Score:5, Funny)
You're right. I'm flying (out of Logan FWIW) next week and plan to show up at the airport wearing nothing but a sign reading, "this is not a bomb."
And I'm not eating any beans between now and then, just to be on the safe side.
(If I wanted to be a troll I could make some comment about how fast the police respond to a 9-volt battery and some wires at the uptown airport, but they never seem to catch the folks with the real guns at the downtown bus stops.)
Hey that's a great plan!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
No you didn't (Score:4, Funny)
Boston (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Boston (Score:5, Funny)
cue the slashbots (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Academically bright but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Academically bright but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed that for ya.
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.
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.
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.
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...
The editors substantially modified my story... (Score:5, Informative)
Key facts:
I am rabidly for freedom, privacy, and personal rights. I'm quite set against abusive use of police force. This was not even remotely an unreasonable action by the airport police, and it has NOTHING in common with the whole "mooninite" incident, save similarities in the type of device.
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: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.
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.
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: (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 o
"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.
Also, manyMIT people are dumb in that specific way (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (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 came
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:reality check (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not saying she shouldn't have been more cooperative, but perhaps having guns pointed at her for probably the first time in her life might have made her a bit tongue-tied.