Slashdot Mirror
MIT Student Arrested For Wearing 'Tech Art' Shirt At Airport
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."'"
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.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
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)
She is very lucky she didn't get shot. You'd have to be insane or a moron to wear something like that to an airport. She got in to MIT though so I vote "insane".
This person is insane and has a death wish. I almost got shot for trying to smuggle toothpaste in my carry-on bag and I think I may be on a terrorist list for a nail clipper. Attaching shit to your T-Shirt that looks like a bomb sounds like a great way to end your life. MIT pumping out the best and brightest I see.
From I've heard, this is not like the Aqua Teen Hunger Force situation at all.
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.
...but what the hell was she thinking with a shirt like this?
Her choice of "artistic expression" isn't immediately recognizable, and therefore has to be treated as a threat.
Information wants to be Free. Useful Information will cost you.
I like watching douchebags over-react and inconvenience everyone around them. I hope more and more people pull stunts like this.
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.
Blar.
I actually WANT the police to overreact in cases like this in order to make me feel safer.
Fixed that for ya.
Random and weird software I've written.
I'm surprised at the posts defending this girl - suggesting that airport security should be able to identify electrical components and distinguish art putty from plastic explosives at a glance. If they were trained to do that, they'd be the ones at MIT, not this girl! It sounds like they handled the situation correctly - asked her what the device was, and then detained her without needing to use violence when she didn't respond.
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.
Let's say I work as a police officer at the airport. I see some girl coming forward with this device with chips and wires which bears reasonable resemblance to a bomb.
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.
Problem #1 with arresting someone for wearing a "suspicious" breadboard: Terrorists wouldn't do that.
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.
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.
I brought a GP2X handheld gamesystem and a scientific calculator to the airport once. I almost died laughing as two airport security agents mulled over the two for almost ten minutes. I heard whispers like "maybe one is a remote detonation device for the other?" and "Do you think it could be used to hijack the planes control system?". The people supposedly keeping us safe are morons and can't tell the difference between a breadboard full of LED's and a real threat. And that's what is disturbing. We are giving up all these rights, and we aren't actually in any way, shape, or form safer. If these people have such little understanding of electronics, someone could easily gut a PSP and fool these clowns. It's a dog and pony show at best, and at worst we've given up basic civil liberties.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Ok, enough with the constant claims of something being a "hoax device" and prosecuting someone for it.
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.
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? Talk about no common sense. Yes, common sense says that the only people qualified to call foul on a supposed bomb are bomb experts. Not "people involved with electronics" and not airline ticket agents. Even so, the most brain-dead drop-out from cop school (giving the average undertrained TSA agent a break here) can tell that a light-up shirt is not something that calls for even the threat of lethal force. At most, the wearer should be politely asked to submit to a check for explosive materials or for other contraband. You can't have a bomb without explosives or at least a detonator and supposedly the TSA is capable of detecting those.
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. No, you are a coward. And a violent one, at that. A reasonable person might have approached her and asked her why her shirt was lighting up. A timid person might have hurried away or gotten behind a thick pillar (look at the girl, if you totally hollowed her out and filled her with C4 a couple feet of concrete would shield you). Only a violent coward would throw his suitcase at a harmless person's head in a paroxysm of terror.
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?
If you are the expert you would like to project being, and you are disgusted by the situation, may I suggest helping. Go apply for a job as a security agent at an airport. Go do the job and do it right. Help teach your coworkers how.
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.
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!?!
The article specifically states that she ignored questions about the shirt and putty then walked away. The TSA must account for the fact that some people are fucking nuts. This woman lives in a very rarified world where electronics tinkering is both commonplace and expected.
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.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
And newspaper articles are always accurate. And people who overreact to apparent security threats never misreport the facts in order to justify their overreactions.
step 3: god dammit, it doesn't work
And since your biased against the press you disregard anything written. The fact she isn't dead tells me someone showed good judgment. She certainly didn't. Over reacting would have been her lying dead on the ground while the police continue to shoot at the bloody corpse.
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.
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.
It is the threat of shooting innocent people that is wrong.
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.
If she had wanted to blow anything or anyone up, she:
...And guess what? After they made a huge deal of it, guns pointed, etc, it turns out... get ready for this shocker... she actually did not have a bomb.
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?