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."'"
I think this is a classic case of someone who is obviously very bright academically, but who doesn't have an ounce of common sense. Yes, upon close inspection, the device might not look like a bomb, but the police don't have time for close inspection when it's the real thing. I actually WANT the police to overreact in cases like this in order to keep me safer.
Wow, we're outlawing clothes now?
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!
"Hrmmmm.... looking at the "device" from the images on the link makes me think the police overreacted. Come on now.... holding her at gunpoint?"
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.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Well said. The incident should not be downplayed. The police, in my opinion, did the right thing. She walked into a crowded facility not carrying but wearing a circuit board. I mentioned this story to a friend and he simply said, "So she's dead?" assuming the police had shot her. He figured she was trying to commit suicide.
This is ridiculous. I'm as opposed to the overreaching police state activities we've been seeing as anyone, but wearing a device that looks like an IED, that you designed specifically to look like an IED, that serves no other purpose, and then wearing it to an airport knowing full well the reaction it would produce, is not remotely constitutionally protected speech.
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.
The chemical sensors in most airports are super-sensitve and can pick up minute amount of explosives or accelerants in the air, or from luggage.
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.
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
Isn't it the role of a good artist to explore the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not about our society ?
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.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Maybe we should all wear uniform clothing so security forces will immediately know if something is out of place. They could be silver jumpsuits like you might find in a sci-fi story, or orange like prison clothing.
Wow, innocent until proven gui*BANG!
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.
This is one of the reasons I hated going to MIT. There were so many people who came from these high school backgrounds where they were ostracized and ignored for being nerds, and suddenly they're at MIT! Such an enlightened place! People understand me! So for some reason, people decide to act in ways that get attention from everyone around them. And when they're off campus, it's so exciting to make all the "normal" people think they're so weird! I absolutely agree with the police in this case; she was not using common sense; she just wanted to impress people with her brainyness and weirdness. I was kind of like that (although not quite that stupid!). I feel sort of bad for her; she'll never live it down, but that's what happens.
Later reports are saying that she did in fact respond by saying it was a piece of art she had made. Earlier reports probably just speculated that she didn't respond.
Not in a million years.
Anyone who's played with electronics is going to look at that 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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"Oh, well, that CAN'T be a bomb, I can SEE it," while they walk in with a wheelbarrow full of C-4.
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....