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."'"

Comments

"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[BWJones]

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 ... I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport."'"

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".

[suso]

Hrmmmm.... looking at the "device" from the images on the link makes me think the police overreacted. Come on now.... holding her at gunpoint?

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.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[superpulpsicle]

You mean you didn't know? The only people not suspicious in Boston are those wearing sandals, jeans and holding a coffee cup.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[goombah99]

Hrmmmm.... looking at the "device" from the images on the link makes me think the police overreacted. I had exactly the opposite reaction. I think the response was totally appropriate. Look at it. Not only is it extremely provocative from the average persons TV-level awareness of bomb gadgetry, but personally with a EE background I'd be even more alarmed by it's context.

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".

[Starteck81]

Do you know what an IED looks like? Are you a bomb expert? I have a friend that is and that device does look similar to an IED. click here for an example and then decide if that doesn't look like a bomb.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[winkydink]

First, have you seen the picture of the circuit board?

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:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[MagusZeal]

Agree with you on all of that, and while alot of people will question the intelligence of the whole thing the one line that worries me more then anything else is this, "Thankfully because she followed our instructions, she ended up in our cell instead of a morgue." This whole shoot first and not even ask questions later bit is concerning. Besides I'm starting to think Boston rivals Florida on the sheer idiocy factor now. Depending on how this goes I almost see a bunch of MIT folks heading up to Logan wearing breadboards to make a point.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Poltras]

And even those are harder to find these days... jeez.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Elros]

The significance of airports is the heightened alert. Yes, there is no particular reason why Airports have such a jumpiness about them. As you pointed out, plenty of other locations could be just as big a targets. That said, it is a fact of life that airports are jumpy places. Knowing that bringing such a device is likely to cause a panic makes it a stupid idea. This gal (however smart she may be) honestly needs some common sense.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cayenne8]

"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."

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".

[Radon360]

Why is it that airports have special significance?

While you are most certainly correct that there are many other public places that have high concentrations of people in a small area (i.e. subway stations, sporting events) with much less security, perhaps one reason is that many larger airports are international corridors for public transportation. As such, they are perceived to have more vectors for security threats (foreign evil-doers usually don't swim over here). Then again, it might just be the apparent appeal for terrorists to hijack/blow-up/crash commercial airliners, too. Airplanes offer the most effective means of ensuring a higher casualty count. Do something miniscule that causes loss of control of an aircraft and usually everyone on board is killed as they can't flee from the problem very easily.

On a similar tangent, one should be really questioning the effectiveness of the security measures put into place at airports.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[GeckoX]

Oh come on, that is the stupidest thing anyone could possibly do at an airport and expecting anything short of what happened to her would be profoundly dumb to say the least.

What DOES a bomb look like btw? Or should we always wait until AFTER just so we don't stomp on someones rights?

And it's not like she did get shot or anything. They handled it exactly how it needed to be handled, very carefully.

And it's not like this wouldn't have prompted the same reaction anywhere other than an airport...or would you like to try walking up to the White House dressed like that? Go ahead...I'll wait...but I will suggest that there is a very real possibility that you will end up dead.

This girl is freaking stupid. Obviously has intelligence as she's at MIT, but nonetheless, about as stupid as they get.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[pipatron]

Of course if it HAD been a real bomb, and the Police wouldn't have been so extreme, and something happened, then you would be the first to attack the Police.

No, you see, you would have been, and you cleary show it with this post. Us weirdo-people here usually try to apply some logic before letting our knee-jerk kick reason in the balls. Logic and reasoning clearly leads us to the insight that there's nothing we can do to protect someone from blowing up a bomb in a crowd, unless we make it mandatory to walk around naked without carrying luggage, and x-rayed before getting closer than a certain distance from anybody else.

The only thing you can do to prevent suicide bombings is to create a society where most people don't feel so desperate as to blow themselves up would be the best thing to do.

Treating people like they treated this girl doesn't help.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[mytrip]

Electronic device and silly putty at an airport? They should have opened up on her and asked questions later. She's an idiot.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Borealis]

It looks like a breadboard to anybody involved with electronics. Explosives have electronics attached to something that goes boom. Unless they thought her boobs were filled with plastic explosives there's really not much there.

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.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ubrgeek]

You know, despite the fact that you're right and that just about any sane person will agree with you (myself included) you're bound to be moderated down and accused of being whomever the poster is that everyone says is a leftist bleeding heart (or whatever they call him. I frankly have no idea/care who posts what.) I'm actually amazed that the story wasn't filed under Your Rights Online. I'm as willing as anyone to admit that the loss of freedoms that have occurred over the past few years is angering, disgusting and frightening. But believe it or not, there are times when a quick response is needed. I haven't read all of the comments, but I'm sure a reference to Jean Charles de Menezes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes/ has either happened or is just a click away.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

that is merely the det. The actual charge is never that small, especially in IRAK where they are trying to take out vehicles....

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[TheGratefulNet]

Why is it that airports have special significance? Seriously, think about it.

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.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[GuyverDH]

I'd have to agree with your sentiments. I can also understand the individuals lack of response, as they would be like "what device?" would you think an earring is a device? just because it's a chunk of bread-board with some wires attached doesn't make it a device.

I've often been amazed at the kinds of things they let through airport security that shouldn't be because of the effect they could have, or due to what they could be used for.

Think about it for a minute or two, and I'm sure you'll come up with a few items that with very little effort could be made to ignite or blow up. And no, I'm not talking about liquids or other solids, just normal, everyday electronic devices allowed on a plane with rarely even a look at them.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ShanghaiBill]

Why is it that airports have special significance? Seriously, think about it.

There are many reasons that airports have special significance:

1. Terrorists have a track record of targeting them
2. A small bomb in a park can kill a few people. A small bomb on an airplane can kill a few hundred.
3. If you set off a bomb at a gas station or a grocery store, people will still buy gas and groceries. But most business travel and all tourism is discretionary. So one bomb can result in the loss of millions or even billions of dollars of economic actitivity.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[reboot246]

Want an adult opinion? Children shouldn't play at airports.

I don't know if a little jail time will force her to grow up, but it's worth a try.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[timholman]

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".

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".

[LWATCDR]

Yea it is pretty dumb but then I think wearing a breadboard is pretty dumb.
But to be honest if I was going to try and get a bomb into an airport...
1. I would breadboard it. I would solder it and make sure the connections where good. I have had more wires come out breadboards than I can shake a stick at.
2. I sure wouldn't wear it on my shirt.

I would be extremely well groomed and wearing a suit and tie, maybe carrying a teddy bear with a bow on it.
Just as if I was going to be a spy during the cold war I would join the republican party and the NRA.

Honestly I think she was trying to make a point. Pretty dumb over all.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[BiloxiGeek]

It's about as stupid as getting on a plane and waiting until after takeoff to loudly greet your friend in the seat next to you.

Hi Jack!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[CorSci81]

You know, reading both of TFAs, it seems like she really didn't think about what she was wearing. It's worth noting she wasn't actively trying to enter the airport, she was there to pick up a friend. From TFA:

FYI, friends at MIT say she wears the hoodie on a regular basis- it's just unfortunate that she had it on while trying to pick a friend up at the airport. MIT students don't really do mornings, or worry about what they're wearing, so I can't imagine she'd even think about her clothes before heading out to pick up a friend at the airport before 8am.

I know people want take sides and have meaningless arguments, but it seems like she really just didn't think. No stupid act of protest, despite everyone who wants to play this up as a stunt. Was it stupid? Yes. Was she trying to actually get into the terminal or on a plane? No. Did the police overreact? Maybe.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[plague3106]

Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is considered a possible bomb?

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".

[Perseid]

"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"

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:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[TomRC]

>>Pare said. "Again, this is a serious offense ... I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport."

>Why is it that airports have special significance?"

Maybe because of all those signs posted around the airport warning you not to even joke about having a bomb or weapon?

She may have been totally innocent - though the playdoh makes me suspicious that she was trying to tempt someone into thinking it was a bomb. Either way, it was pretty stupid of her to combine (a) electronics (b) hidden things inside her clothing (c) playdoh (d) airport security. Talk about an explosive mix...

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[MikeyTheK]

The Darwin Awards are crying right now. So close and yet so far.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Martin Blank]

Unless they thought her boobs were filled with plastic explosives there's really not much there.

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".

[CheeseTroll]

Unless they thought her boobs were filled with plastic explosives there's really not much there.

FTFA: "She was holding a lump of what looked like putty in her hands."

Putty, not boobs.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Beardo the Bearded]

I'm an EE too.

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:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Em Adespoton]

It is a criminal act to make bomb threats in an airport, just as it is a criminal act to shout "fire" in a movie theater. They obviously considered what she was doing to be a bomb threat, as she refused to tell them what it was she was wearing.

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.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[blhack]

from the MSNB article on the subject:

The battery-powered rectangular device had nine flashing lights, and Simpson had Play-Doh in her hands, Pare said. so this girl attached a breadboard covered in flashing lights to the OUTSIDE of her clothing, and walked around an airport (which is obviously a sensative area) with a bunch of play dough in her hands (something that is KNOWN to set off bomb detectors).

Yeah, it TOTALLY sounds like this girl was wearing her "art piece" to the airport to pick up her friend.

While I disagree with what happened to this girl in principal, she was still being a whack-tard.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[gstoddart]

Hrmmmm.... looking at the "device" from the images on the link makes me think the police overreacted. Come on now.... holding her at gunpoint?

It's a shirt with apparent circuitry attached. It has wires and a 9 volt battery. And some form of unidentified putty.

Who in the bloody hell would realistically think you could walk around in an airport with something like this and not get asked a few questions. In this context, if you get asked about it and just walk away, you can't really be surprised when some armed men show up demanding you hold very still.

It's one thing to look a little 'abnormal'. It's another thing to deliberately wear something you could reasonably expect to make people a little skittish. I don't think the police over-reacted in this case at all.

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.

Again, I don't know why you should realistically expect to do this. In the current climate (yes, it does go over the top) conspicuous and cobbled together electronics are just going to make people really nervous.

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.

It's also equally not hard to imagine that in many of those situations if you walk around with electronics on your chest and putty in your hands, someone is going to challenge you for the exact reason that what you have isn't readily explainable under normal circumstances.

This just seems like people expect to do something which is so obviously going to get flagged, and then wondering why they got noticed.

Wanna look a little odd? Hey, I got no problem with that. Dye your hair, get piercings or tattoos. Whatever floats your boat. But, really, random wiring in an airport?? What were you thinking?

Cheers

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Perseid]

Not only that but we, the slashdot readers, are able to make judgments from close up still pictures. A security guard is probably going to be further away, people are going to block his view and I'm sure the object came in and out of view as the girl wearing it turned and walked around. From our point of view, yes, it's easy to see this is no bomb. But it's close enough to look like one at a distance and if I'm a security guard I'm not going to take the 5 minutes to determine exactly what it is because lots of people could die in those 5 minutes.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"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.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[y86]

Its a breadboard with LED's on it. It's 1/8 inch thick and lights up with a logo. Any moron who graduated from high school and took shop or a basic electronics class could see this is about as dangerous as the sweatshirt it's attached to.

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".

[aembleton]

Or it could suggest to terrorists that they are currently successful in spreading terror across the US. If, as a result of 9/11 and other terror attacks around the world you can't walk into an airport with wires on your person then they've done their job of spreading fear and terror. Everyone is a suspect, and one worth putting to gun point.

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".

[Romancer]

"You ignore where and what other items were involved in this."

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".

[Applekid]

Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is considered a possible bomb? Another question might be:

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:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[MalleusEBHC]

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.

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.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[rpbird]

I'd have to agree, this was silly and dangerous of her, and not an over-reaction by the police. The charges she's facing may be over the top, but the initial reaction was appropriate. Let us not forget the collar bomb on the pizza driver, the retarded kid strapped with a bomb, the involuntary bombers of the recent mess in Northern Ireland, the cell phone bombs of the Middle East and Iraq, and a host of other incidents where someone obviously wearing a bomb approached police. The target in these instances was not the civilian population but the cops themselves. Lumping this incident in with the "I'm speaking Arabic so obviously I'm a threat" incident, or the "I'm wearing a costume so I must be a threat" fiasco is a mistake. Unlike us, most people haven't looked inside their computer cases. Also, it is unusual for someone to be carrying around a naked motherboard (Eeek!) or have one pinned to her shirt. We live in the age of the bomber, so FedEx that circuitry, don't try to carry it on a plane. And for God's sake, don't walk up to a cop with it in your hand. She is lucky to be alive.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[WormholeFiend]

Do you know what an IED looks like?

IEDs can look like pretty much anything, depending on the goal of the bomb maker.

Outside of Hollywood movies though, very few bomb makers have made IEDs with blinking LEDs that would draw attention, unless those IEDs are what's referred to as "hoax devices" meant to scare people.

Even then, hoax devices don't need blinkenlights to scare people. Whole buildings have been evacuated due to the discovery of a simple metal pipe.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[microbee]

Unless they thought her boobs were filled with plastic explosives there's really not much there.

It really depends on the surgery..

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[lymond01]

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.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Bob C. Cock]

One thing I find interesting that no one else has mentioned was what appears to be a stick figure person engulfed in flames on the shirt itself. Add a circuit board on top of that with a 9 volt attached and putty in her hands. I think the police reacted correctly in detaining her at gunpoint. I find it hard to believe that anyone, let alone a college student could be that stupid to not expect that kind of reaction. IMHO I think she did it intentionally just to see what would happen.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Kadin2048]

Hrmmmm.... looking at the "device" from the images on the link makes me think the police overreacted. Come on now.... holding her at gunpoint?

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. I disagree. I think that to people involved with electronics it would look like a prototyping board and a bunch of LEDs.

If you find that threatening, you either need therapy or you need to get out more.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[smaddox]

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".

And even more importantly--how is holding someone at gunpoint and yelling at them going to deter them from setting off a bomb strapped to their chest?

I think these Boston Police need to take some courses based in reality, and not fantasy terror land.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[pthor1231]

This was attached to a hoodie, which could have concealed explosives. So, while I think the police were correct in stopping her to verify that she did not have any explosives, I think they did go overboard about having a "hoax device" and getting sent to jail. This didn't actually disrupt any of the airports essential services, no planes were held up, just a few police officers were needed to verify that a situation wasn't dangerous. Isn't that part of their job anyways?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[b0bby]

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??
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".

[Cornflake917]

Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is considered a possible bomb? No anything that looks suspicious is considered a possible bomb. Regardless of it's beauty. Not only did she have suspicious electronics on her, but she acted suspiciously but not responding to inquiries about the device. This is one of those situations where it's best not to take any chances. No one got hurt, so I think the right move was made.

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. I don't think security works that way. I wouldn't want security personnel to think "Oh, there's no way that guy is a terrorist, all the wires and explosives surrounding his body is just way too obvious for them to be real!"

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".

[ackthpt]

First, have you seen the picture of the circuit board?

That's no 'circuit board', that's a Proto Board!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, I believe the difference is pretty clear. You can't crash a school into a skyscraper...

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Billosaur]

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.

Yes, but so far nothing has happened in any of those places in the United States. This is Boston, Logan airport, where part of the September 11th attack began, where lax security let men onto an airplane who crashed it into a building. It's the week after 9/11, the airport is busy, and here's someone with some unknown thing covered in wires with lights that could be a bomb or a video game and security doesn't have a lot of time to think about it. They did what they had to do and they'll take their lumps for "over-reacting." But I personally prefer them over-reacting that letting someone get on a plane with something that will potentially cut my life and the lives of my fellow passengers short. Do I think I'm likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack? No. I was in NYC on 9/11 and I think that's as close as I'll ever get. At least I hope so. In the meantime, I'd rather the security people at the airport were overcautious rather than lackadaisical.

Bottom line: she was an idiot.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Radon360]

NE555 or something similar

Doesn't appear that she was that ingenious to build her own oscillating circuit, as there's no DIP IC visible on the breadboard. I'm guessing LEDs with the flashing circuit cast into the plastic packaging of the LED. All I see is LEDs current limiting resistors and wire leads taped down.

I agree, it is rather tacky when she could have ripped the guts out of one of those flashing LED buttons or something similar, or at least take the time to solder the whole thing up on a pad per hole circuit board. Though, I suspect based on the message on her sweatshirt (something to the effect of "socket to me") that the breadboard may have been an integral part of her statement.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[scubamage]

You're not paranoid about getting blown up because terrorists are the "Charlie" and "Jerry" of the new millenium. There most likely are no terrorists. If you don't believe the whole US and Britain control thing, look up Mossadegue in Iran and the Pahlavi family. Or for Iraq, look at everything prior to the Ba'ath party. We took them over, made them colonies, manipulated their governments, and when they rose against them we declared them loose cannons. They turn to the UN, but, guess what? The UN can't do anything because the US can veto whatever it wants because of its seat at the security council. The terrorists were simply a means to rouse public support to start a war in the middle east, so the US and Britain could get back to the Iraqi and Iranian oil that they enjoyed throughout most of the 20th century - just like Pearl Harbor (as the Project for the New American Century so boldly proclaimed on their website). Funny thing is, most modern day historians accept that the US Government knew about Pearl Harbor, and chose to use it as a means to enter the war - which explains why all of our aircraft carriers were moved out of the harbor the days before.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ral315]

What needs to be understood is that she intended for it to look like a bomb - that was the intent of the "art". With the ATHF "bombs", that was a clear case where they didn't mean for it to be interpreted as a bomb; however, she went into an airport, with something resembling a bomb and that most people, outside bomb technicians, would not be able to tell was fake. She's damn lucky they didn't kill her, because given what it looks like, if I were a cop responding to this, in a split-second situation, I'm not sure I wouldn't have fired.

As it was, they held her at gunpoint for the same reason that someone holding an intruder hostage in their own household will get cuffed along with the intruder when the police arrive -- because they don't know everything. Their job is to ensure safety at the airport, and since they weren't sure it wasn't a bomb when first responding, they acted with force.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[mroberts47]

I would rather side with the police and have the girl arrested (or shot if needed) and avoid possible loss of life then err on the side of "oh, well maybe its not a bomb, well maybe it is, or maybe its not, or maybe....*BOOM*"

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[e!leen]

While I was attending MIT I flew out of Boston Logan (after 2001) with breadboards and other dev boards in my carry-on bag a couple times and nobody ever even asked what they were or inspected my bag by hand. Either the security folks were even more inept than even I can believe or a circuit board is only threatening when displayed in plain sight.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[kaytodaizzik]

Oh it's so pretty! It kinda looks like an LED star. Oh wait... her name is "STAR"--I get jokes! It's unfortunate that humor is dead in this country.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[pthor1231]

Because all police officers and TSA agents are people involved with electronics, right?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[PeeAitchPee]

Why is it that airports have special significance?

9/11. Plain and simple. It's common knowledge that that attack was the most successful terror attack in history, and extremists continue to target airports and aviation. Period.

This is NOT a violation of free speech, any more than it's a violation of free speech to disallow driving in front of thousands of Jena demonstrators with nooses tied to your pickup truck, or disallowing yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. This chick thought it would be "cute" to push airport workers' buttons and is damn lucky she didn't end up on the slab.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[AndyG314]

Even if you think that, if it's not a bomb, why can't she be released? Why does somebody have to be held for carrying something that we thought was a bomb but turned out not to be? The situation is normal so everybody can go home, or am I missing something?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

That's why the average joe shouldn't be assigned to airport security, they have all this expensive equipment to scan you and your stuff for fingernail clippers and shampoo but the training should be there as well to be able to distinguish between actual threats and innocuous tech.

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.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[mroberts47]

People should be smart enough to know not to go wandering around with that kinda stuff like that. She caused an incident that could have been avoided by leaving that crap at home. Anyone with half a brain should know that walking around with bombish looking stuff in an airport is gonna cause problems.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[mikiN]

How long will it be before someone gets his guts blown off for holding a cellphone to his ear while walking around an airport? You can pack quite a punch of C4 in one of those. Or will they demand that people strip naked and be cavity-searched then x-rayed before boarding a flight while their clothes are being run over by a remote-operated steamroller in a fortified bunker?
Brave new world, bro'.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[josephdrivein]

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.

I disagree with you. Why should you expect someone who is going to blow himself up in a airport to act rationally? Experience shows that violent criminals do not always act rationally. The others neither, by the way.

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".

[thegnu]

I would rather side with the police and have the girl arrested (or shot if needed)...

Stop right there, homie. If it were one of your family members wearing this thing, 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".

[cayenne8]

"It is a criminal act to make bomb threats in an airport, just as it is a criminal act to shout "fire" in a movie theater. They obviously considered what she was doing to be a bomb threat, as she refused to tell them what it was she was wearing."

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".

[bteeter]

I agree.

With society as paranoid as it is today you'd think she'd have considered her attire before entering the airport. Not to mention carrying around putty. Who carries around putty anyways?

It may be an overreaction by the cops, but it seems to me she brought it upon herself.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Keith_Beef]

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.

Because the point of the attack is not simply to kill lots of people.

Attacking an airport, even if the IED fails to explode and kills nobody, causes a great deal of disruption and can cost the airport and airlines millions of dollars.

Beef.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[quantum bit]

That's why the average joe shouldn't be assigned to airport security It's worse than that, though! The average joe doesn't do airport security, he has a much better job. Less-than-average joes who fail at everything else work airport security.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cayenne8]

"People should be smart enough to know not to go wandering around with that kinda stuff like that. She caused an incident that could have been avoided by leaving that crap at home. Anyone with half a brain should know that walking around with bombish looking stuff in an airport is gonna cause problems."

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".

[Greyfox]

The sheep, once alarmed, easily become alarmed again. There is no safety anywhere. Those of us who knew the world was like what it is like prior to the events which alarmed the sheep did not have our world changed by those events.

I was going to tell people "Welcome to my world. Your eyes are now open." Except that they are not, and those people are trying to return to the blissful ignorance of their prior existence. They do not understand that the sense of safety they had before was an illusion. They are as safe today as they were then. So perhaps I should welcome them to my world with "Welcome to my world. Your willful ignorance will not help you avoid your eventual fate, so open your eyes and stop living in fear."

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[couchslug]

"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"

Why must a bomber fit the profile of a "terrorist" instead of a mentally disordered person wearing IED components in the open? One may wish to blow up airliners without having the slightest "terrorist" motive.

"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?? "

I think that stepping on stupid people who think they are being cute is a reasonable way to deter such conduct in future. Should a person with a realistic simulated device be let go as well? If she is guilty of anything, a court or judge can decide. Waiting on that process will give her time to sweat, er, reflect.

If I were a passenger whose flight was delayed by this moron, I'd want her doing hard time to set an example for others.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[PeeAitchPee]

She did not try to get through a security checkpoint

So what? These guys didn't try to get through a checkpoint either. Like it or not, airports continue to be targeted by extremists, and therefore a certain level of personal responsibility and common sense is required from anyone who visits one (as well as special procedures for those who work there). This chick just plain acted stupidly and is damn lucky she wasn't shot on the spot.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[jythie]

To try _WHAT_ exactly?

Wearing home brew electronics into an airport?
The Boston police are being stupid here... not knowing what something is (esp given the average police officer does NOT have an EE degree and should, I don't know, ASK SOMEONE WHO DOES) is not an excuse to charge some poor girl with machine guns.

This level of incompetence and blame shifting by people who are supposed to be protecting us honestly scares me.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[rs79]

"Unless they thought her boobs were filled with plastic explosives there's really not much there."

I thought she had nice boobs.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Jhon]

This whole shoot first and not even ask questions later bit is concerning.

The part I find a bit concerning is that things changed when hijackers decided to use aircraft as ad-hoc smart-bombs and people pulled in to airports with little or no notice and attempt to blow themselves (and as many people around them) up.

Hind sight is 20/20. Had she been a bomber and managed to blow herself up (taking out who knows how many people with her) we'd be asking questions like "Look at the security video! Didn't people SEE she was wearing a bomb?" and throwing out all kinds of blame.

People acting fast have saved many lives. Remember the shoe-bomber? Or even at Glasgow, with a car on fire, people were running TOWARDS the flames trying to stop the guys ON FIRE from setting off anything else.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[SpooForBrains]

So, they thought you were going to steal a car and that would justify them shooting you? Call me old fashioned but surely training a gun on someone is something that should only happen when there is a risk that someone else is going to be killed or seriously injured?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[DesertBlade]

If police under reacted and it was a bomb she could have killed many people. It is better to err on the side of public safety.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[argStyopa]

Absolutely idiotic reply. I'm sure you're a decent bloke, but that reply just staggers me.

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".

[reedjjjr]

Airports are no place for children to play silly games. Thank goodness airport personnel "over reacted" when terrorists crashed a vehicle at the Glascow airport recently.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[tgibbs]

Even if you think that, if it's not a bomb, why can't she be released? Why does somebody have to be held for carrying something that we thought was a bomb but turned out not to be? The situation is normal so everybody can go home, or am I missing something?

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).

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[King Gabey]

On the morning of 9/11, one of my neighbors asked the superintendent if we should evacuate the building. Mind you, it's a 5 story building nestled between train tracks, where the closest business to it is a garbage way station.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Merk]

Perhaps it's a problem that a TSA screener is considered a layperson instead of a bomb expert?

You know... seeing as their one and only job is preventing bombs (and other dangerous things) from getting onto planes?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cayenne8]

"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"

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".

[Kazoo the Clown]

I dunno, am I the ONLY one that did not become overly paranoid about terrorists coming to blow me up?

No, but like me, you probably don't work for the government. There's been several stories of late that recount that Bush & Cheney were absolutely convinced that additional terrorist attacks were likely after 9/11. And of course, that places like Washington DC were high on the target list. And initially, much of the US Congress thought that too. So here we're talking significant institutional paranoia in the institutions that actually make and enforce laws, and are supposed to deal with defending against attacks. This paranoia has turned out to have been a significant overreaction. That the resultant actions were based on imagination and ignorance and fraught with significant bureaucratic incompetence should be no surprise, as that's simply business as usual...

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Em Adespoton]

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.

EVERYONE with a badge in an airport must be treated as airport staff. If she had worn this to the theater and been asked about it by the ticket person (when she was just asking about show times), I'd expect the same sort of response, even though that response probably wouldn't be forthcoming.

This isn't about actual threat, this is about public perception of threat, in a society where all the movies show bombs as having a bunch of wires and flashing lights.

That said, there didn't seem to be any mass panic resulting from her attire.

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.

When I visit the US, I'm much more afraid of being shot at by red blooded Americans or run over by an SUV than I am of getting blown up by terrorists. However, I find this security action just as reasonable as mass fingerprinting and strip searches in airports of people who are actually being cooperative.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[sheepofblue]

The world is 99% full of morons. Of the smart people many have intelligence in areas other than tech. No smart person would work for the TSA at the airport. Given that how smart was she to walk into an area controlled and run by morons with high powered guns while wearing a device that will confuse (and thus enrage) the idiots? sure they over reacted but that is their NORMAL BEHAVIOUR. She failed to anticipate her environment to any degree that is her fault. Good luck young lady sorting things out but grow up and realize the world does not revolve around you and your tech toys.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Borealis]

Again, the burden of common sense in this case falls to the officers. Do bombers typically carry the bombing material around in their hands? Understand that I am not saying that security was unjust in checking her to ensure that it was not a bomb, but rather that aspiring makers don't typically dress with concern as to whether they'll be mistaken for a suicide bomber. Pressing charges as a "hoax device" is also over the top, she clearly had no intent to deceive anybody into thinking she was a walking bomb.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[milamber3]

Before you go off on someone please RTFA! She had a lump of playdough in her hand and that is clearly stated by the officer quoted in the article.

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".

[Perseid]

"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?"

Normally I'd be the first to agree with you, but in this specific case what freedom is at risk? The freedom to wear lit breadboards in airport lobbies? Besides, I really think this is something she probably would have gotten in trouble for doing BEFORE the 9-11 attacks. On casual inspection it really does look like a bomb.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[MrSmileyJr]

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. You are right, the airport should not be different than any crowded place... the real question is, why isn't there security at these crowded places? If you've ever been to Israel, its a known thing that security will always be in place in crowded places.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Lurker2288]

I agree with you generally, but please, if they'd tased her, you know there'd be people posting on here right now about how the facist police state is just out to suppress free expression through art. You can't please all of the people all of the time, etc.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Em Adespoton]

One thing I forgot to mention: in this case, there shouldn't be any charge that has anything to do with terrorism or bombs; I would think the charge would be public mischief or something similar.

As I have often gone into an airport forgetting I had a knife in my pocket (it has always got past security, oddly enough), I can empathize with her and the fact that she wasn't thinking about how threatening what she was wearing could be to some people. What I can't figure out is the lack of response when questioned by someone in a position of authority (the ticket booth person).

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[SethJohnson]

If its strapped to your chest and has some putty on it (which looks like C4), then yes

Since it didn't have some putty on it, then no.

Seth

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[fishbowl]

Maybe you can convince the TSA to make the screener job pay better than the entry-level federal work that it is.
Then maybe people with qualifications beyond a GED or jail vocational rehab will apply.

You do realize that the TSA screeners aren't drawn from the best-and-brightest experienced police, or from the top 1% of those graduating with a Masters in Criminal Justice, right?

Most TSA screeners are working their first job out of high school, and the only reason the "total rewards" are better than fast food, are the federal benefits and federal retirement eligibility. Raises and promotions in federal work aren't tied to performance, only time. So all you have to do to get promoted in a federal job is not get fired (which is pretty hard.)

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[_Sprocket_]

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. Yes - I'm sure the drawn weapons and "keep your hands where we can see them" yelling did wonders to ease the minds of the crowd. The security force there obviously handled the situation as the worse case scenario - they would assume she had the ability or intent to blow something up. They acted accordingly. Panicking the crowd was likely the least of their concern otherwise the situation would have been handled in a very different manner.

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".

[nahpets77]

A "real" bomber wouldn't have put the device on the outside of their clothes. I mean, it's almost as stupid as trying to hijack an airplane with box cutters...

For those of you who say the cops overreacted, just imagine what would have happened if she'd tried this stunt in Israel. Also, this could easily have been staged by a newspaper hoping to catch security napping. I say the cops did the right thing, and we should applaud them for it.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Killer Instinct]

It is partially because of dumbasses like this, that "rights" are taken away. We used to have the "right" to say bomb in a airport, and "fire" in a theatre. People want to make a scene, that want to act like idiots, and we all pay for it. By loss of rights, and by occaisionlly apolgizing to mates from other countrys who come here and get fingerprinted. As I once saw on here i think, "..take of all the warning labels, and let the problem take care of it self.." i fly often, and it has never occured to me to do anything remotely like this, just wtf did this dumbfuck think was gonna happen. Im sorry, but had they shot her...i for one would grieve for a second....then move on. (had they killed her, i would have grieved for a full minute..then moved on)

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Cpt_Kirks]

Go into ANY airport and just say the word "Bomb".

See what happens (if you live through it).

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[couchslug]

"She asked about an incoming flight, and did not respond when asked about the device."

"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".

[Merk]

[quote]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?[/quote] No, of course not, because anything mass-produced is known [i]a priori[/i] to be safe, of course. Anybody can tell at a glance if something is mass-produced, and since major corporations should be implicitly trusted, anything they produce is completely safe, especially if it has logos on it. What is obviously the sign of a terrorist is something that isn't yet mass produced. If you have a breadboard, you're a terrorist. If you have a messy product that's in the prototype stages, you're a terrorist. If you're a hobbyist playing with thru-hole resistors, capacitors and such, you're a terrorist. Only surface mount components are so safe you can't make bombs from them. But to be sure they're 100% safe, enclose them in professional-looking cases and plaster them with logos. Better safe than sorry.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ultranova]

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...

So, the masked guy loading a shotgun by the entrance to the bank can't be a bank robber, since a bank robber would want to get in without attracting attention ?

Much like the Boston stunt with the Aqua force whatever team signs....this is horrible overreaction.

You are working to provide security in a place where people have, in past, smuggled or tried to smuggle bombs into places they can kill lots of people. Some girl wearing some weird gizmo walks by. The gizmo has wires and something which looks like it could be plastic explosives on it. What will you do ? Let her be and risk getting hundreds killed, or detain her so that the matter can be investigated ?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Trailer Trash]

It looks like a breadboard to anybody involved with electronics. Explosives have electronics attached to something that goes boom. Unless they thought her boobs were filled with plastic explosives there's really not much there.

You didn't read closely. She was carrying playdoh in her hand. When I read this, I just can't take sides. Yeah, I think the cops overreacted. But it's just mind-numbingly stupid to carry a circuit board with wires attached to playdoh into an airport. She just can't be stupid, she's going to MIT, so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say she wasn't thinking that day. From what I've seen, I can certainly understand why a normal person would have thought it was a bomb.

Of course, here's the other problem they seem to have up in that area. After you determine that it's not a bomb, the show's over. Seriously. There's no need to make up some big offense for something like this. Everybody goes home and she hopefully will put a little more thought into her clothing before going to the airport again. This isn't a criminal offense.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Hoi Polloi]

I think she was being provacative on purpose and incredibly stupid and childish ("I'm an artist damnit! You ignorant Philistines just don't understand!"). I don't blame them for arresting her.

On the other hand I agree that airport security strikes me as irrational and impulsive. It frequently seems to be based on the mood and biases of the guards.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[thtrgremlin]

"Why is it that airports have special significance?"

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".

[couchslug]

"I thought she had nice boobs."

That's exactly why she is getting sympathy. If she were an ugly dude I doubt this would have made /.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Merk]

Why's that, because that's what bombs look like on TV?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[springbox]

Reading about these types of incidents makes me really upset. This is the reason I haven't been in an airport for many years. This whole security BS has already passed the point of idiocy.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[SethJohnson]

have the girl arrested (or shot if needed)

Better be a clean headshot because if the person is going to detonate something in a suicidal attack, anything less than a headshot will prompt them to ignite. Oh, and while you're lining up the headshot, pray that your prey doesn't have the sophistication to have built a dead man's switch on their device.

Seth

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[fishbowl]

This will probably scare you: It's legal to go into the airport in my city carrying a gun. Openly, in a holster on your hip, if you want, or, concealed if you have the state-issued permit to do that. It's not legal to go into a checkpoint with a firearm under any circumstances (even the law enforcement people have a process for getting a gun into the secure perimeter.)

Flying with a firearm is fairly easy; I've done it many times: In the check-in line when it's your turn, you say "I have a firearm." You open your bag,
take out your gun case, open it, take out your gun, open it/ rack the slide, whatever they want to see to show it's unloaded, they watch you lock the case up, and they confirm that ammunition is in a separate box, they hand you your ticket and send you on your way.

I love seeing the look on the faces of the people behind me when the ticket clerk asks me to show them my gun, out comes the gun, and then I get my ticket and "have a nice flight" or whatever.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[UbuntuDupe]

That shirt is fucking awesome.

But I can't shake the feeling it would make people nervous in some contexts :-(

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Merk]

Note "hidden in the bras".

In my opinion, something out in the open is less likely to be a bomb. Bombers try to stay hidden until they're ready to detonate their bombs. This poor girl didn't do that. The police and airport workers overreacted to a movie plot threat.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[dollar99]

When I consider that one of the September 11th planes came from Boston it doesn't bother me if the cops there are super cautious. I appreciate their effort to not have another tragedy originate in their city. Cops drawing weapons on a bomb suspect is proper protocol last time I checked. The woman was wearing art that looked like a weapon. Sorta like a toy gun looks like a real weapon. She should be happy they didn't taser her.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[vux984]

I think that stepping on stupid people who think they are being cute is a reasonable way to deter such conduct in future.

This incident made me think. My kids have shoes with blinking red LED's in them. I wouldn't normally think twice about letting them go anywhere with them, including an airport. I would be appalled, and outraged if some dimwit called security to 'take me down'. But, I'd forgive that, even laugh, if they dropped the issue once they understood the situation -- as I understand their situation too.

But 'stepping on me', slapping me with a criminal charge for a hoax bomb and trying to cause a panic, resulting in doing 'hard time'?? Because my kids spiderman shoes have useless red led? Don't be a fucktard.

If I were a passenger whose flight was delayed by this moron, I'd want her doing hard time to set an example for others.

And I'd like to see you do some "hard time" next time you cause someone else a delay, even if only incidently, for doing something that is at worst 'suspicious'. Maybe you'll change your idiotic tune.

You know; like driving slowly at night, making hesitant actions. Sure, maybe your just lost and trying to get your bearings. But hey, you stopped the car behind you from making the light, and you might be casing the area in preparation to blow it up.

Or maybe something truly deviant, like adjusting your hearing aide with a tiny screwdriver in a public place. God knows what you've got in your hands there -- nevermind that it not being in your ear meant that you couldn't hear the person behind some desk asking you what it was.

Or perhaps something downright malevalent, like carrying your kid's portable lite brite toy under your arm while listening to an ipod.

Clearly you'd deserve some hard time in any one of these scenarios.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Attila Dimedici]

Or how about the Muslim men that were asked to leave a flight because they spoke in Arabic?


If you are referring to the case I think you are, they did more than speak in Arabic. They were together in the airport. When they gt on the plane they sat separately..and not in their assigned seats. They asked for seatbelt extenders, even though none of them needed them. There were several other behaviors that were anomalous that I can't remember, but I do recall at the time it being noted that their behaviors resembled very closely the types of behavior that security experts were listing as warning signs.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Gordonjcp]

anything less than a headshot will prompt them to ignite

So what if the bomber holding a switch *in* is what stops the bomb going off? What if the detonator has a timer that needs to be reset within 15 seconds or it goes off? You shoot the bomber, 15 seconds, the watchdog barks and the bomb goes off. Before someone says "lol crude terrist weapons wouldn't be that sophisticated", bear in mind with at least a high-school physics class behind them could make such a thing.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[fishbowl]

>It is better to err on the side of public safety.

If they'd killed her, it might have opened up a dialogue that would have the eventual effect of diminishing airport security.

It's important that they be *right*, because we won't accept a status quo that involves innocent people getting killed in the name of airport security.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Jarjarthejedi]

Senator Kerry? Is that you?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[idontgno]

Funny thing is, most modern day historians accept that the US Government knew about Pearl Harbor, and chose to use it as a means to enter the war

I've heard this story, and while it has a nice credible ring, I'm still more inclined to attribute the tactical surprise in that battle to stupidity (disbelieving intelligence) rather than malice (waiting, Machiavelli-like, for a casus belli)

which explains why all of our aircraft carriers were moved out of the harbor the days before.

That's an interesting conclusion, but it's unconvincing for one critical reason. This assumption is predicated on the belief that the U.S. made a point of moving their most valuable Naval assets out of harm's way and let the hammer fall. But that's not what happened. The hammer fell on the Pacific Fleet's core: Battleship Row. At this point in history, the capital ship of any respectable fleet was the battleship, and the aircraft carrier was just a deep-strike and defense auxiliary. It was the necessity of conducting the Pacific War without battleships which proved the superiority of the aircraft carrier.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Hoi Polloi]

Just because she was at an information counter doesn't mean they didn't have to worry.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Lurker2288]

Was swarming the girl with MP5s overreaction? Yeah, probably. But airport security has always been on a hair trigger. Take, for example, the check in questions. No terrorist is going to admit, "Why, now that you mention it, I DO have a bomb in my luggage!", yet the screeners are required to ask, and if you respond with anything but a somber "no" you're likely to end up it trouble. So walking around an airport with something that the typical, ignorant layman mistakes for a bomb, and then refusing to say anything about it, is similarly likely to cause trouble.

Does it make anyone any safer? No, but this particular bit of institutional insanity should be well enough known by now that the girl could have responded in a more appropriate fashion.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[TheSync]

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.

Are we now going to shoot anyone who wears a bra to the airport?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[davidsyes]

Somewhat off-topic

Couldn't find the video link using Google, but I did stumble upon this:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/06/headmounted_pol.html

I recently read that some SF Muni buses will have cameras installed on them to video assist in the ticketing of vehicles that are in the bus/commuter street lanes impeding the buses from keeping schedule.
===

I wonder if she arrived to the airport with an outer jacket (say, on public transit or in a taxi), or if she drover herself in. Still, if she wore NO outer jacket, then how and why did it take HER OWN walking AWAY from the ticket agent before she was approached and surrounded?

It's lame if NOBODY in the airport (isn't Logan busy, with THOUSANDS eyeballs?) said anything despite seeing her, until the employee with direct contact of her "art" did the right thing and reported the encounter.

I know first-hand how X-Ray machine operators will lie to you to detain you without arousing your suspicion while airport/local police will approach and surround you, ready to fire at your first wrong move.

In about Dec 1984 (I was barely 19), on return from leave, I decided I was going to take back to my ship (for security alerts) a semi-metallic, mostly concrete-like .45 caliber-pistol-looking thing I'd been playing with since childhood. I stupidly didn't pack it in my check-in, and stuck it in the top of my duffel bag. I'd forgotten (stupidly) that X-RAY machines would pick it up and unnecessarily make a scene. (Hey, don't beat me up TOO badly, here. Experienced law enforcement officers before 9/11 would forget to declare weapons, handcuffs.... etc...)

The machine operator saw the silhouette, held up the conveyor, and after about 30 seconds when I asked if I were going to make my flight (I was arriving too close to departure time) she apologized and said, "There's something wrong with the machine." About 20 seconds after that, I happened to look around and lo and behold more than 13 or 15 HPD (Houston Police Department) or Houston Intercontinental (IIRC, I don't think I was flying out of Hobby that day) were poised, at the ready, (in head-shot firing position) WAITING for me to make a wrong move.

This shit's deadly serious, and that dumb-assed MIT girl is lucky she didn't wear more realistic stuff or get shot from behind if seen any earlier. That she kept her wits and DIDN'T get shot, and that she premeditated this, is an indication she was just as aware as I was that her plan and my forgetfulness/laziness/procrastination at getting to the airport is NOT something to screw around with.

I suppose recounting this fact means that I'll be further scrutinized the next time I book a flight. Of course, my incident was before mass databasing of things. Maybe my active duty military ID & duffel and uniforms and such, non-prior-contacts, etc, and my mom's presence saved my ass that day.

Interestingly tho, in Summer 2001 (read: MAY/JUNE) I was not allowed to take in my hand-carried luggage a pair of red, plastic, toy handcuffs I was taking (along with massage oil, candies, and a teddy bear) to a girl on the East Coast. The gate agents wouldn't even arrange to lock the toy cuffs away DURING flight, despite the fact they were so flimsy as to be symbolic for play in privacy, not securing or taking control of anyone on a plane.

BTW, anyone been thru those re-entry puffer-sniffer scanner machines? I recently was in one. I wonder what kind of (if any) isotopes they're throwing at us.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[legirons]

"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."

Expecting the staff at an american airport to know this _would_ be far-fetched...

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Gordonjcp]

Yup. I suspect the massive "overreaction" of the police was simply to scare the shit out of her for doing something as stupid as this. You can shout and rant about freedom all you want; the simple fact of the matter is that someone walking around an airport with wires dangling from them fiddling with some putty-like substance is going to shite people right up. Some of those people are going to have the authority to majorly fuck you over for at least a short while.

When is someone going to bring up yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[TheGratefulNet]

in reality, we all know that airports have BECOME 'demilitarized zones' of sorts.

but you cannot blame people like HER for creating this. I think you have it exactly backwards, my friend.

sure, she was not acting prudently doing what she did - but my point is that she still has a legal RIGHT to wear whatever style of clothes she wants as long as its acceptable in public. clearly, what she wore was ok for street use. why, then, have a different standard that the gov forces on us, in 'special places'?

this 'all scare zone' thing about airports is just nuts! blame the ones who created the fear not those that get caught up in its paranoia.

I wonder - perhaps if MORE people like her took this chance, we'd finally get rid of this zone-of-fear that airports have become. maybe it would help those 'in charge' learn what a real bomb looks like and stop wasting everyone else's time, checking nailclippers and toothpaste tubes!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cayenne8]

"What I can't figure out is the lack of response when questioned by someone in a position of authority (the ticket booth person)."

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".

[Romancer]

Again, you are taking the report completely one sided. Wait till you have seen the video surveilance if it was recorded like to many other incidents that turned out to be "mis-stated" by the officers on the scene. Or just wait till she has had her turn to recount the events. Don't jump to conclusions like a trained monkey, wait to condemn and mock and rant.

"...they have every right to be concerned. "

And we have the right to expect that situations are not handled incompetantly when they are touted to be so expected that we have to focus on them every time we fly. If they have to be so concerned about it, why is there no set proceedure that they can state they complied with and get on with life? If this was simply following acceptable proceedures, why do airports constantly fail to catch the investigative reporters that show how many things they got through security every couple months, that they are specifically looking for and have the proceedures in place to actually catch but don't because they didn't follow them?

I'm all for having a safe flight and being protected from the evil bad men, but if even I can see the giant flaws in the system and the obvious ways around them, what good are they? Can you think of no other plot that has been foiled by the airport security than the old shoe bomb that wasn't really caught, but instead, foiled by sheer luck that the man couldn't light it up? And now we all have to remove our shoes when going through security. Brilliant knee jerk reaction, don't we all feel safer?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[complexmath]

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.

A few years ago, during one of the times the handles of may bag were being swabbed by airport security, the person I was traveling with asked me what the trouble was. Without thinking, I replied "they're swabbing for bomb particles" just loud enough for security to hear me. Near as I can tell, they didn't know the actual purpose of the test and hearing the word "bomb" set them off. I had to do some pretty fast talking to avoid being taken to a back room.

In short, while the policies are completely ridiculous at times, there's no reason to push your luck. If you have to travel by plane (and I avoid it at all costs these days), don't give them any excuse to give you a hard time. Doing so won't change anything and it's liable to make your day much more difficult as well. If you intend to protest airport security policy, pick a different venue. That is, unless you have a *lot* of time on your hands.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[SethJohnson]

So what if the bomber holding a switch *in* is what stops the bomb going off?

Hence, my reference to a dead-man's switch. Check the wikipedia link in my original post where it talks about suicide bombers and the 'fail dead' effect. Down near the bottom.

Seth

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[nanowired]

That would be the definition of a "deadman's switch" which was described by the poster you replied to.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Lurker2288]

Are you kidding me? When I saw a picture of her, I almost wished the security folks had put her down as an act of mercy. Yee gods, I think I need to go find some alka seltzer...

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Wavicle]

the training should be there as well to be able to distinguish between actual threats and innocuous tech.

I am willing to bet I could make a timer and triggering device for a plastic explosive out of similar looking components: an experimenters breadboard, 9v battery, and some small circuitry including a cap to create the energy necessary for the explosive.

I would NOT qualify what she had on as "innocuous tech." It could easily have been a hastily fashioned detonator made by someone with the same mental issues as the Va Tech shooter who is mad at the world and wants to make a big statement. The police did EXACTLY what I think should have been done.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

And that's why I wrote the rest of my post. Casual inspection is so far from what now happens at these airports that it it a joke.

If anybody cared to look at the device and had any training about electronics and bomb detection, they would have told her it's not smart to be wearing it because the regular employees would think it was a bomb, that's where this should have gone, not to the status of arrest and hoax charges.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Gordonjcp]

We have airports patrolled by armed police;

Only airport I've seen armed police is Heathrow. Not Stansted, not Bristol, not Southampton, not Inverness and not Glasgow. Granted, Heathrow is probably the UK's biggest airport. Oh, and there were a couple of armed police at Glasgow a few months ago after some drunk Indian kids crashed a burning car into one of the doors. If that's the standard of terrorism we're dealing with, I don't think anyone needs to worry.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[mabhatter654]

NO people should not have to be afraid of scaring other people. So her head is stuck so far in the clouds solving tricky engineering problems she forgets what other people thing... that's what AMERICA is all about!!!! She made a mistake taking a toy to the airport that scared the little sheeple but it's clearly not wrongdoing by any sense. By all accounts she wore the device for several weeks all over the place. She sounds like a true geek, into everything from welding to advanced vision programming.
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".

[goofballs]

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 seems like more or less what happened- someone asked her about it, but she ignored them and walked away. this raised a LOT more suspicion, so they escalated their response to determine the threat level.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[2short]

"I seem to remember a man with explosives that looked like the heel of a shoe."

Which is why anyone wearing shoes to the airport is arrested at gunpoint and charged with a crime. Gee, you're right, it all makes sense now.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[SCHecklerX]

Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is considered a possible bomb?

I made a high capacity battery pack once. It wasn't in a pretty professional package. It also managed to short circuit and catch fire. Oops.

Probably not the safest sort of thing to allow on an airplane.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[GoChickenFat]

"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"

I recently flew into Gatwick from the US. When I saw the police patroling the airport with machine guns and body armor I said "hell yeah...that's what we need in the US." I didn't find myself in a state of fear...I'll save my fear for when I actually do something wrong...like wearing clothing that makes me look like I'm about to commit a crime.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Gordonjcp]

Oh come on, I R'ed TFA, you don't expect me to read the comments too?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[geekgirlandrea]

<sarcasm>Yeah, a breadboard with a bunch of LEDs and a 9V battery looks *so* deadly.</sarcasm>

In any case, she was probably being a bit stupid not expecting the sort of paranoid response she got, but that pales in comparison with the stupidity of arresting her and then charging her with 'possessing a hoax device' even after it was clear that the device was harmless and there was no malicious intent.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[adisakp]

Hmmm... she was wearing open circuit board with bare wires, a small circuit, some LEDs, battery, and carrying putty in her hand (which turns out it was playdough). It might be crude but that's enough to actually make a bomb if you have a detonation cap (easily concealed in the small doughball of putty) and some actual explosive material. All you need is for that small circuit to be a simple voltage ladder or other step-up circuit to have with a capacitor (again plausible) to prime the detonation cap and you could have a very lethal device if the playdough was a real explosive.

And she brought all this material to an AIRPORT where you're not even allowed to bring a bottle of WATER past security because it might be "explosive".

She's very lucky to be alive. If she didn't obey police instructions and made any move that looked like she was going to activate a bomb, they would have had a reasonable charge to use deadly force to stop her from activating, modifying, or simply playing around with her device.

As long as terrorists are potentially trying to blow up planes, can't we as nerds just agree it's bad to bring something that has all the visible components necessary to make a bomb into an airport? Come on, they already tear you a new whole if your hair gel and other products won't fit into a 1 qt plastic bag.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[davetd02]

Your link is broken (extra slash). Here perhaps?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Killer Instinct]

If more people used the word BOMB at an airport, would we get rid of the "zone-of-fear that airports have become" ? I think not.
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:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

In an airport, even things that are in a professional package are suspect. Two years ago, I was traveling with a brand new external dvd writer packed in a bag. I took it out and put it in the tray like they ask you to. They stopped the line for a good 20 minutes x-raying it swabbing it and running some tests. I complied with them fully trying to explain what it was and why I had it. I kept my cool and patiently waited, before they came to the conclusion that it wasn't a threat and let me take it.

I think if she had explained to them what it was, we wouldn't have even heard about it. If they don't ask here what the electronic thing is they aren't doing their job. If a terrorist were to put a bomb in a professional package, they would have been stopped at security like I was. I agree it wouldn't make sense for a real terrorist to put the bomb on the outside, but you can't not investigate something that looks problematic, just because it looks problematic. All they were doing in this case was investigating, trying to figure out what something was. In Boston, they had plenty of time to examine the devices to determine what they are and asses the threat ( or complete lack thereof) they posed.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

I bet you could have made all that inside a portable mp3 player and gotten it abord and tossed it inside the cockpit when you came abord and only then would have been cought if someone happened to see you toss it. You could have put the C4 in a battery shell and sealed it with epoxy and then boiled it in a weak acid to stop the sniffers from detecting it and the scanners would see it as a normal specialized battery like in all these new devices. If you wanted to get in the air you could have kept quiet and just set it off in your pocket and taken the plane down. How does the situation today, assuming that the police side is totally accurate, keep you from doing that tomorrow?

All these "It could easily have been..." arguements fail to address the actions results, does what they did make you safer? Have they used these techniques to actually stop someone from attempting that "easily been..." statement?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Archiviste]

I seem to remember a man with explosives that looked like the heel of a shoe.

I had to fly from Montreal, Canada to Indianapolis, USA last August (I hate to fly, but a 14-hours drive did not appeal to me either...), and, of course, had to remove my shoes before boarding the plane on the way there and on the way back.

Like I told another passenger: "Good thing the guy did not try to hide a bomb in his underpants..."

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[shotgunefx]

You can't expect everyone to know what electronics are supposed to look like. Not everyone has "breadboards" laying around the house.

Though it's harder to believe she was just being naive though given the putty.

I worry about stuff like this myself. For instance, I have a cell phone that's modded to start with my car for my carpc, but I made it so I could take it out for emergencies. I took care to make it pretty though as I didnt' want to get pulled over and have a cop or whatever see what they thought was an IED.

Almost every time I'm walking out to the lot to work on my car with something dangling wires, I get all kinds of suspicious looks. It's lame to have to worry about it. Then again, I wouldn't try and take something like that on a plane, it's just common sense.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

I hope the security people have enough sense to not taser a person that might be carrying a bomb with an electronic trigger but then again remember that off-duty cop who tasered that guy holding a newborn baby.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Beardo the Bearded]

That's exactly right. They should be highly-paid, highly-trained bomb and psychological experts, not minimum-wage dummies who can't tell the difference between a breadboard and a bomb.

Not my country, man. I just read a lot of your news.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Atzanteol]

This is a security failure known as a "false positive." This means the police failed at their job. The arrested somebody who wasn't doing anything illegal, and now they're going to make up something illegal to charge her with.

While not quite as bad as a false negative, it's still a security failure. The sooner we start to recognize it as such the better off we'll all be.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[xaxa]

It says it's imported from Europe, if it's from where I think it's from then it's from http://www.cyberdog.net/ -- their stuff is very expensive, but very nice. The shop is in underground tunnels, has a DJ and a dancer, UV lights throughout and is usually full of tourists. (or try eBay.)

(It also says the sizes run large. This is strange, since I usually find a USA medium to be equivalent to a UK large.)

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ChrisMaple]

The girl deliberately made something that looked like a bomb and took it to an airport. This is akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, where the likely result is panic. That there was no fire, or no bomb, does not mean there was no potential for damage. Among other possible classifications, this might be considered "reckless endangerment".

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".

[geekgirlandrea]

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:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[josephdrivein]

Admittedly, the gun example wasn't great. But I still think my point is valid.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[aembleton]

I guess I am too young to remember those hijackings, but I am aware that security at airports in the US have been ramped up following 9/11.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[masdog]

A small breadboard, with some flashing led's on a pretty girls shirt, certainly does not look like a bomb.
So are you saying that a bomb can't be made with a breadboard? Or that it shouldn't be treated as suspicious?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[nomadic]

The freedom to wear lit breadboards in airport lobbies?

Ahh, the seldom-cited 35th Amendment.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

Sounds like a cry for help to me.

If they really want to charge her for something, it should be attempted suicide.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[sentientbeing]

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.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - The did ask her what she was doing, without guns, and she walked away saying nothing.

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".

[linzeal]

Dead man's switches of some sorts can be overridden, I won't get into further details.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Beardo the Bearded]

I didn't say it was fine.

I said I agreed with the way they handled it. "Oh, shit. A bomb. Hands up, tango asshole!" They didn't shoot her, and they defused the situation. Nicely done.

One of the other respondents said something like, "hey, maybe the TSA screeners should, you know, know what a bomb looks like."

I didn't think it was a bomb. It's clearly a completely harmless blinking thing, and a cute shirt. She should learn how to package her products better - if the wiring was on the inside, then it wouldn't have even been noticed. Maybe that's a problem there.

The problem - the root of the problem - is that the TSA screeners got their bomb training from watching 24. They should be bomb experts. "Hey, kid, that shirt is kind of cool, but a layman's going to think 'bomb'. Put on a jacket or take it off."

Oh, by the way, breadboards work by friction fitting. You don't use glue to hold them together. If the pieces were falling out, then she could have transferred her circuit to a prototype board.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[aembleton]

I guess I've been suckered in by the media pictures of armed police at airports, when it was probably just Heathrow. I've only flown from Manchester and they definitely have them there.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[rubberglove]

and lucky for you that fellow passenger didn't turn out to be an 'air marshal'

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cthulu_mt]

Only airport I've seen armed police is Heathrow. Not Stansted, not Bristol, not Southampton, not Inverness and not Glasgow. Granted, Heathrow is probably the UK's biggest airport. Oh, and there were a couple of armed police at Glasgow a few months ago after some drunk Indian kids crashed a burning car into one of the doors. If that's the standard of terrorism we're dealing with, I don't think anyone needs to worry. You mean this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack actual terrorist attack on the Glasgow airport?

Yeah...no big deal I'm sure....

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[mabhatter654]

Public mischief is about intent, there was no intent there, and a good chunk of MIT and DOD contractors can vouch for that. That makes it "all or nothing" so they'll threaten her with "terrorism" to get her to plead. The best thing for the DA would be to walk away knowing she won't do it again.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Jherek Carnelian]

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. She told the information counter person that it was a piece of art as she was leaving the counter. Of course she didn't respond to any more questions, she had already turned around and was on her way to find her boyfriend at the arrivals gate. Logan's a loud, busy place, even if the counter person yelled, Star probably would not have heard it above the general din.

The only thing dumb about Star is how dumb she was not to realize just how stupid the rest of the country has become. I don't know about you, but I'm damn tired of pandering to the lowest common denominator. A briefcase could have carried 10x more explosive than she could have strapped on her body and no one would have given her a second look.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cthulu_mt]

You, sir, are making far too much sense. Please go home and take a cold shower.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[lhaeh]

The only lack of common sense is in people who think that a bomb is going to have wires hanging out of it or blinking lights on it. Bombs look like backpacks, garbage cans, and lunch bags, the last thing a bomb would look like is a bomb.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[adisakp]

With a simple oscilattor circuit, a small step up transformer (the ones in a camera flash can be smaller than the tip of your pinky), and some rectifying diodes (inlined with the LEDS) and capacitors, you can build a device that looks NEARLY EXACTLY like this one which will easy build up enough voltage to set off a small detonation cap.

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".

[Romancer]

I haven't read the "overreaction" statement in anybodys posts so far. I just stated that they could have been more intelligent in this and actually addressed the issue.

Here, I'll use your example:

If someone yells fire in a crowded theatre there are a couple specific things to note.

A: They could really think there is a fire and are trying to save other peoples lives. If it turns out that what they saw was a flickering light through a curtain that is reasonable confused as fire, all is OK and they are not arrested.

B: If they are not confused and are just making an attempt to get poeple trampled as a panic reaction to hearing someone yell "fire" then they were completely guilty of a hoax and should be prosecuted.

In both these situations there is intent, if you would change the consequences for the forst one to be the same as the second, ie: arrest for making an honest mistake others could have made, you are supressing the reaction that could actually save people in the future from this exact situation. If the person happens to see what looks like fire to them but has coincidently heard or read about the last person arrested for making a claim that turned out to be false, they might, just might, hesitate yelling "Fire" for fear of being later accused of a hoax.

This is all anecdotal evidence on the effects of news coverage and statistical speculation, so don't jump over me for the situation itself. Just remember that we are already talking about a possible different situation where things would have to have been different to include an actual bomb and speculative history to make it that obvious.

The point is that there has to be a ballance between the threat that something poses and the actual threat that each situation poses. There must be people in those places that can make a decision that's based on facts and knowledge when evaluating them. Otherwise it's just a fear state.

"You can shout and rant about freedom all you want; the simple fact of the matter is that someone walking around an airport with wires dangling from them fiddling with some putty-like substance is going to shite people right up."

So another analogy, you are going to the airport and you are wearing an mp3 player with the headphones comming out of your pants pocket and as you walk, you take the headphones out of your ears and place them in your collar to not tange them up in your pocket. You happen to be a little stressed because of recent terrorist activity halfway around the globe and you buy, at the airport shop, a stress ball that looks like a ball of jelly. You are now arrested and charged with attempting a hoax at the airport.

Remember it's just a possibility, and any arguements on how you are so much smarter than that are going to only apply to about 10 percent of the people who fly at airports, since these are the people that can't get the idea that their carryon cannot be larger than the overhead compartment, and all the other similar jokes that are constantly made because these people are actually dumb and also the majority out there.

So what do we do about actually increasing security at the airport? Do we address the stupidity of the masses and make the system better able to detect real threats and not waste the time and effort on fakes? All it would have taken at this point would have been an actual bomb expert to look at the device for a couple seconds and then advise that she take it off or leave. If they son't have a bomb expert at the airport reporting to the scene of possible bomb alerts, what the hell good does all the other security at an airport to detect possible bombs do? So you think it's a bomb, now what? Shoot it?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[couchslug]

You know that NONE of your examples are remotely comparable to wearing a device (occupying standard "worn IED position" pointing outward) with an open, dangling battery to the sort of place that has been a popular bombing target for DECADES. Wear something similar to an El AL terminal and post their response!

Why do you use examples of very standard, innocuous actions for comparison to bizarre, deliberately provocative behavior?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[DanielMarkham]

Is it impossible for you to realize there might be a situation in which she did not have a bomb, yet the use of deadly force was necessary? I can certainly see such a circumstance arising. Or perhaps you feel that with the appropriate training, no bombless person ever gets hurt?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Jherek Carnelian]

I disagree with you. Why should you expect someone who is going to blow himself up in a airport to act rationally? Experience shows that violent criminals do not always act rationally. What experience are you talking about? Can you name one case of a suicide bomber who acted contrary to their goal of suicide bombing? I doubt it. I expect the best you could do would be to cite a case or two of "cold feet" or perhaps simple incompetence like the recent london car bombers - but nothing like the the out and out irrationality of advertising their intent in so obvious a fashion.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Mathness]

Some other words best not used in an airport or on a plane:

- Hi Jack

- I'm a theologist

- Belgium

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[davidsyes]

Correction: The red, plastic, toy handcuffs day somewhen in Feb 2001, not May/June. And, no, they were not tie-tie restraints. They were they type of toy stuff sold in kids' section of drug stores.

(Captcha: intimacy)

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Gordonjcp]

Yeah...no big deal I'm sure....

Yeah. A handful of people very sligtly hurt (well, except one of the "bombers", who died of his injuries - petrol burns are not nice), and the airport closed for about six hours. It's about two miles from my house. I must admit, I was a little bit pissed off getting caught up in the heavy traffic on the motorway, but I suppose it's understandable.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Rakarra]

You know, that's sortof a cool shirt. However I would also hope that none of my family members would be STUPID enough to wear that to an airport. Worse still was the boneheaded decision of the MIT "performance artist."

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[westlake]

It looks like a breadboard to anybody involved with electronics.

You prof gives you twenty seconds to look at a breadboard circuit at distance of six feet.

Now describe to your EE class what the circuit does. Bonus points if you can demonstate that the LED flashers are simply a distraction.

Explosives have electronics attached to something that goes boom.

Your argument being that a wireless detonation is impossible?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[2short]

On casual inspection, your suitcase looks like a really *big* bomb.

And what freedom is at risk? She was arrested and charged with a crime because someone stupidly thought her nametag "might be a bomb". Is anything now a crime if any other person thinks something you have could be a bomb? It is clear to me that anything might be a bomb, so please surrender yourself at the nearest police station and bring all your posessions for confiscation as "hoax devices".

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[GooberToo]

disagree

I couldn't agree more. It's obvious she intended the device to be perceived as an explosive device. The facts we have:

Odd shirt with improvised electronics on it - detonator anyone?
Putty (play-doh) like substance in hand - explosives anyone? She couldn't explain why she had it.
Unresponsive to initial questions about her device by airport authorities
We ARE at war
Thousands have been murdered by people wearing this category of attire in the last year alone

So we have a stupid girl carrying what appears to be an explosive device while ignoring authority. She should have been shot to make sure this type of stupidity can't bread. She's lucky. IMO, any officer would have been justified in emptying a mag into her had she done anything other than fully comply with the given instructions.

This is a story of everyone doing the right thing, other than this idiotic girl. She's oh so lucky to be alive. Sad, she probably doesn't even realize just how stupid or lucky she has been. I can only guess someone this dumb got into MIT because they are good at exercising on their back.

She needs a month in jail, or more, to remind her the seriousness of the situation; and to remind others how stupid this idea was. It would be nice if MIT kicks her out of school too.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

Or perhaps the freedom to have a spiffy new looking mp3 player that has a lit up screen. Keep in mind that unless there are set standards and appropriate limits, it's up for interpretation. That's a slippery slope when it comes to tech. In a luddites eyes an mp3 player with an external battery pack could very well look like a bomb, just because you can make the distinction doesn't mean that everybody else can come up with the same one. In this case I tend to think she warranted closer inspection, just like they do when something looks suspicious in your luggage. If it turns out to be ok, you go on with your day, not go directly to jail. In this case I also think that she should have been told to take it off, leave it in her car, or toss it like they make people do with liquids at my locak airport still. They don't arrest you for trying to bring a bottle of Jolt into the airport.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[xtracto]

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??

Well, she should be grateful that she was not tasered as the guy who tried to ask a question...

Yay for freedom :)

btw, anyone realized yet that the USA dollar exchange rate is equal to the Canadian dollar... that is a record low isn't it?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Sj0]

We're THIS afraid.

The terroists have already won.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[adisakp]

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

A circuit with an oscillator (i.e. NE555), mini step-up transformer (about the size of a pea), rectifying diodes (i.e. LEDs), and capacitors that looked nearly exactly like hers can make a voltage ladder that can accumulate a sizeable high voltage spark to set off an explosive material -- for example the putty she was carrying around.

For an example of the circuit, look at Fig 1 on this page. Now imaging the bottom part of the circuit (oscillator) replaced with the simple integrated 555 oscillator and using the blinking LED's inlined with the rectifying LEDs in the high-voltage ladder. Now tell me you couldn't make the device look very much like what she was wearing.

If you Google "555 voltage ladder" you will see a huge array of high-voltage circuits you can make with the simple 555 IC.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[DeadDecoy]

Even taking in all of these facts, it's hard for me to conclude that the officials overreacted in this case. Consider for a second that not everyone is technically inclined, and that maybe the girl should have explained the device when asked. Maybe it is trendy and cool for you to know more about electrical engineering than the average police officer, but I guarantee you that unless someone takes the time out to explain what a suspicious device looks (and doesn't look like) crazy shit like this will continue to happen due to people's current (Hollywood-like) knowledge of explosives and terrorists.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

Again, take all your facts from the police side of an event and you will always come away with a completely unbias account of an interaction. Very reasonable of you.

I can't help but expect the video footage of this event and her testimony to be slightly different though. Can you reassure me some more that people who wear uniforms are always right and accurate and unprejudiced and that the masses are paradoxes with unexplainable lapses in consistency?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[mxs]

There are many reasons that airports have special significance:

One by one, eh ?

Terrorists have a track record of targeting them

Also, Skyscrapers, Pizza places, night clubs, crowded areas, buses, cars, subways, college campuses, palaces, houses of the wealthy, and no end of other things. You see, "terrorists" are like snowflakes. None are alike. Some batshit crazy terrorist will find something you'd find to be without any special significance significant enough to blow up. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Come on, that doesn't even come close to justification or counterpoint.

A small bomb in a park can kill a few people. A small bomb on an airplane can kill a few hundred.

A small bomb in a space station can kill a few less people. A bomb in a park while there's a music festival there can kill more people than there are in many planes. A bomb in my backyard can kill a squirrel. A bomb in a bus can kill slightly less people than in a plane, slightly more than in an empty park.

What, exactly, is your point ? What makes the airport special ? Bombs can kill people. We established that. How is killing people at point A somehow more significant at point B ?
(and note that you can probably detonate a minivan full of explosives in a park, while you'll probably have less thereof on a plane. If you really want to optimize your terrorist attack for the variable X, where X is number of people killed, and X is to be equal to some set number, you can probably figure out a plan to do just that, use just the right kind and amount of explosives, etc.

If you set off a bomb at a gas station or a grocery store, people will still buy gas and groceries. But most business travel and all tourism is discretionary. So one bomb can result in the loss of millions or even billions of dollars of economic actitivity.

You are elevating fearmongering to an art.

Let's go into a hypthetical. Let's say we set off a bomb at a walmart located close to the White house, and then another 5 minutes later at a gas station on the other side of the white house. Mix in some napalm so that it really burns for a long time and is nicely visible. What kind of impact, do you think, would such a thing have if there happened to be a couple of news networks at the scene within seconds, without much other information ? PANIC ! PANIC ! Washington is under attack ! Let's dig in and only come out when the president says it's OK !

Well placed bombs in locations other than airports can easily disrupt the economy. Hell, meaningful terrorism of any kind can do that. Planes are not special in that respect. What if you blow up a train ? (make it contain some radioactive waste, just for kicks ...) What if there's just a regular accident, no terrorism involved ? The same things can happen. It doesn't really make the airport special and holy. The terrorists may have to find a different target, but a target they will find. Those batshit crazy buggers aren't always without intelligence.

None of your arguments actually show why an airport is more significant than a busy bus or train station w.r.t. the amount of force, searches, and general suspicion. Heck, my laptop bag contains some scaaaaaary electronics (i.e. home-built and not necessarily encased). I'm looking forward to explaining how it all works to the hopefully friendly guy pointing a gun at my face, one day.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[couchslug]

"Thankfully because she followed our instructions, she ended up in our cell instead of a morgue."

Simple enough. FTFI (Follow The Fine Instructions) or stay out of popular target areas (bombing airports has been popular sport since before Star Simpson was even born) while wearing deliberately provocative ornaments whose purpose is ambiguous. "Putty" looks like plastique, and a breadboard with a battery can certainly be an initiator!

I've flown many times, through many airports, and passed through many military and civilian security checkpoints.
I've never had the slightest problem. Guess what I don't carry or wear?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[FleaPlus]

> Or how about the Muslim men that were asked to leave a flight because they spoke in Arabic?

Are you referring to the "Flying Imams controversy"? Even though it was reported in the media that they were arrested just for speaking Arabic, there was rather more to it than that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Imams_controversy

According to some passengers and flight staff, a number of whom didn't identify themselves, the suspicious behavior of the imams included the following: [4][5] [6][7][8].

        * The imams refused to sit in their assigned seats. Instead, it is claimed that they fanned out in the cabin, sitting in pairs close to the front, middle and rear exit rows.

        * Shahin and the two imams seated in Coach Row 9 requested seatbelt extensions (a strap with large metal buckles normally used by obese individuals to lengthen their seatbelts) even though flight staff say none seemed to need it. They then placed the extensions on the cabin floor in front of them instead of attaching them to their seatbelt.

        * Three of the imams travelled with no checked baggage and one-way tickets.

        * According to a nearby passenger who spoke Arabic, the two imams sitting in the back of the plane, while speaking to each other in Arabic, mentioned Osama bin Laden and condemned America for "killing Saddam". That said, I think the fury at Star Simpson is uncalled for. As a student at another nerd school, it's perfectly normal for people to go around wearing circuitry as fashion accessories. It was perhaps a slight lapse of common sense on her part, but she definitely shouldn't serve jail time for it.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Sj0]

So common sense is thinking that a terrorist would try to nonchalantly walk onto a plane with a bomb plainly exposed to his or her shirt, with plastique in his or her hand?

I consider myself a conservative, so let's look at what's happened in the past. Has any hijacker or terrorist in the history of the world done anything like that?

No. Use your common sense, for christ's sake.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Wavicle]

Okay, let's put it this way...

Suppose she was intending to do damage with a hastily constructed bomb trigger. Someone saw it and thought "aw, it's just some innocuous tech." When the dust settled, what would the official response be to the fact that someone saw it and did not do anything about it?

The fact that it could have been better hidden doesn't mean things that are not hidden should not be seen as a threat. If you were something vaguely looking like a triggering device in the airport, you damned well had better be ready to answer questions about it.

Now let's suppose she was intending to do damage with a hastily constructed bomb trigger, someone saw it, and reported it. Instead of surrounding her by police, one just walks up and says "hey that looks like it could be a bomb trigger" at which point it goes off and kills the officer. What would be the official response to that?

All these "It could easily have been..." arguements fail to address the actions results, does what they did make you safer? Have they used these techniques to actually stop someone from attempting that "easily been..." statement?

If you're implying someone could have concocted a sophisticated bomb that would have made it through, that's a red herring. The question here is: are you safer from nutcases with unsophisticated bombs looking for a grim public display to right some wrong they feel society in general has done to them. In this case, I believe I am safer with the police taking a very swift and calculated response to reasonable suspicion.

For 40 years airplanes and airports have been an excellent way to use violence to bring attention to your cause.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[deadmantyping]

I have a feeling that its kinda like yelling out "FIRE!" in a crowded theater causing a panic, which is a punishable offense.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

Again, and again the point is missed.

Who do you call to a possible bomb situation? A bomb expert perhaps? At that point the event should have gotten under control, she should have been educated on the effects her device was creating and given the choice to leave with it or hand it over, like we all have to do with our bottled water and other liquids that pose such possible threats. This is a response to determine the threat level and act accordingly not determine the threat level and arrest if there is none.

Somehow I suspect that "someone asked her about it, but she ignored them and walked away." Doesn't really capture her side of the event. As I'm sure you know since you're probably human, there are usually two perspectives in an interaction and they can be wildly different. someone could have asked her: "Is that a bomb?" or they could have asked her "hey, that looks cool dude, can I have your number?" Since we have yet to hear what actually happened from the two people whe actually were there and we have not seen a video of the event this is all speculation. Thanks for playing.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Sj0]

So....

Do I leave my shoes at home?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[timmarhy]

"She made no threats and followed all the directions"

incorrect numbnuts.

the tard ignored questions about her odd looking shirt, if she had of just said "oh it's just a geeky shirt i made, if there's a problem with it i can change?" they probably would have at worst asked her to nip into the ladies and change her shirt. By simply ignoring questions about the object taped to her chest she raised the alarm. she's lucky to be alive.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[timmarhy]

Right because you could blow up a bomb anywhere, it's all totally hopless and we should just give up? that's what you are proposing after all.

this girl is an idiot for simply ignoring questions about the shirt. a simple "it's just a t-shirt" would have probably satisfied most people.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[goofballs]

Who do you call to a possible bomb situation? A bomb expert perhaps? not in a situation where there's potentially an IMMINENT threat!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[RedWizzard]

When an employee asked about the device, she "walked away without responding" according to the article. She may have been already walking away when the employee asked and simply not heard. The employee may have asked in an insulting manner. The article does provide enough information to judge what happened at this point. In any case failure to answer a question from someone working at an airport information desk isn't particularly suspicious (would be different had she failed to answer an inquiry from security personnel).

but they arrested her without incident and later released her on bail once they verified that there was no real threat. They charged her with possessing a hoax device. That was an over reaction in my opinion. They should have simply let her go with a warning.

Since when has any random collection of electronic components qualified as hoax bomb? Post Sept 11 we've had real bombs in shoes and concern about liquid explosives - does that mean you risk receiving the same charge anytime you're in an airport with shoes or carrying a drink?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[vux984]

You know that NONE of your examples are remotely comparable

It sounds like my examples aren't "identical". What would you suggest as being comparable, without being pretty much exactly the same thing? .. to wearing a device (occupying standard "worn IED position" pointing outward) with an open, dangling battery to the sort of place that has been a popular bombing target for DECADES.

Besides, how many airports in the US have been bombed (or even attempted to be bombed) by a someone blantantly 'wearing a device (occupying standard "worn IED position" pointing outward) with an open, dangling battery' in, say, the history of flight?

Not saying it can't or won't happen, nor that we shouldn't take it seriously when it -might- be happening, but its hardly near the scale of problem you suggest it is.

The bottom line is security wants to save face, by making it out like this person was deliberately looking to create a bomb scare, when at worst it was a honest/thoughtless mistake. Making tech-art like this is something she does, and she had this particular garment for a quite a while, so it clearly wasn't a case of doing it to stir shit up.

FTFA:
"FYI, friends at MIT say she wears the hoodie on a regular basis- it's just unfortunate that she had it on while trying to pick a friend up at the airport. MIT students don't really do mornings, or worry about what they're wearing, so I can't imagine she'd even think about her clothes before heading out to pick up a friend at the airport before 8am."

Do I think security acted appropriate when they confronted her? Yes. Its their job to be careful. Should she should be charged with something criminal? Hell no. It was a harmless fucking shirt. You can bet your ass we're going to see more and more tech-art like this as time goes on. Its only a matter of time before a Versace sticks a breadboard/LED package onto their fall lineup and calls it fashion art, and it goes mainstream.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[RedWizzard]

Not only is it extremely provocative from the average persons TV-level awareness of bomb gadgetry, but personally with a EE background I'd be even more alarmed by it's context. I disagree. Not only does it not look anything like the sort of stuff you see on TV (and therefore should not be "extremely provocative from the average persons TV-level awareness of bomb gadgetry"), but if you have a EE background you should instantly recognize it for what it is - a collection of simple electronic components on a breadboard, none of which are threatening.

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 have no problem with how security reacted prior to determining the nature of the device. But once they did find out what the device was they still arrested her and charged her. That was unwarranted IMO.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Rakarra]

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. Are we now going to shoot anyone who wears a bra to the airport?

Shoot? Hopefully not. It might be a good idea to confiscate all bras at the airport though.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[meringuoid]

I didn't think it was a bomb. It's clearly a completely harmless blinking thing, and a cute shirt. She should learn how to package her products better - if the wiring was on the inside, then it wouldn't have even been noticed. Maybe that's a problem there.

Brothers! Again the infidels foolishly give away their secrets! Our martyrdom agents are being foiled because their holy martyrdom devices are improperly packaged; if we make certain all the wiring is on the inside, then insh'allah the evil kuffar guards will never suspect that the wrath of Allah awaits them! Allahu akbar!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[realthing02]

You're right, if they were wearing that thing I'd want to do it myself.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[petermgreen]

Oh, by the way, breadboards work by friction fitting. You don't use glue to hold them together. If the pieces were falling out, then she could have transferred her circuit to a prototype board.
You don't normally use glue but I could see myself doing it if I wanted to make a breadboard up for display reasons and I wanted it to last, breadboarded circuits are kind of delicate. (a bit like the way lego display models are usually glued together).

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[daenris]

I don't think the poster was referring to a quote. It IS illegal to shout fire in a movie theater, unless there's actually a fire.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[waferthinmint]

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.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ishpeck]

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.

You don't know much about LEO's do you? They're immune to consequences.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Dr.Altaica]

Ya.
Just like when Steve Mann was nearrly shot and charged with bomb hoax
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/14/2051228

of with Benjamin J Heckendorn was nearrly shot and charged with bomb hoax
http://benheck.com/Games/Sony_projects/PSp/PSp%20page%202.htm

I don't posabily see how the secerty could of acted diffrant.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[realthing02]

I trust the police more than I trust someone stupid enough to wear that shirt to the airport.

Also, aren't you equally as sheepish for believing that the police are covering something up, without knowing the entire story? Even if you don't read the words, the picture alone, of her shirt is damning enough, to me. So why can't i say she's lucky? or that she's an idiot? unless the photos have been doctored, because everyone is out to get technologically savvy Hawaiians...

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[kencurry]

Why is it that airports have special significance? ... If you really need this spelled out to you, she was in LOGAN airport, the location where suicide bombers boarded planes back on 9/11/2001; it was an incident here in the US that we take quite seriously.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Alchemist253]

To a layperson (e.g. TSA screener), that looks a hell of a lot like a TV bomb

This is really going out on a limb, but maybe we should expect "security professionals" (as they would like to be called) to have a tad more knowledge about explosives than what someone would see in a typical season of 24?

Do these people also think that terrorists are going to beam into the restricted area because it happened on Star Trek?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ishpeck]

The freedom to wear lit breadboards in airport lobbies?

Ahh, the seldom-cited 35th Amendment.

How about the 9th?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ToasterMonkey]

Because she didn't explain what it was when asked? That might be a good reason. Maybe they think it WAS a hoax, and in that case she DOES need some time to think about it? The bail requirement wasn't exactly out of this world either...

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

1: "Suppose she was intending to do damage with a hastily constructed bomb trigger. Someone saw it and thought "aw, it's just some innocuous tech." When the dust settled, what would the official response be to the fact that someone saw it and did not do anything about it?"

Lets suppose that you have read my actual post and I never said any such thing. In no way should there be the complete opposite reaction in the other extreme. Total passivity is a ridiculous argument and you should be ashamed to have posted it. They should have looked closer at the device like they do at your luggage when they suspect something. Your statement: "The fact that it could have been better hidden doesn't mean things that are not hidden should not be seen as a threat." is completely without basis in this argument since I never stated this in the first place. That's what we call a straw man tactic. State some ridiculous argument that the other person never said and then proceed to beat that down instead of arguing the actual points that were made.

2: "Now let's suppose she was intending to do damage with a hastily constructed bomb trigger, someone saw it, and reported it. Instead of surrounding her by police, one just walks up and says "hey that looks like it could be a bomb trigger" at which point it goes off and kills the officer. What would be the official response to that?"

Gee, there seems to be no keeping you in check does there? In your own statement the other option was: "Instead of surrounding her by police..." And if she had the reaction of blowing herself up over being asked if that was a bomb, what do you think her reaction would have been if she was surrounded by police? She would have blown them all up and no one would have been safer in either of your two scenarios but in your stated alternative way of handling it more people would have died. Congrats.

3:
"If you're implying someone could have concocted a sophisticated bomb that would have made it through, that's a red herring. The question here is: are you safer from nutcases with unsophisticated bombs looking for a grim public display to right some wrong they feel society in general has done to them. In this case, I believe I am safer with the police taking a very swift and calculated response to reasonable suspicion."

A red herring is a distraction that draws attention away from the real issue. I'm pretty sure the real issue is the event that she had no real bomb and was charged with purporting a hoax. The basis of the hoax charge is that it was intended to make people think that it was a real bomb, that's the definition of a hoax. The intent to make people think something fake is real. The goal of getting a bomb into the airport is totally different, it is to make people think that something real is either something else or not to draw attention to it at all. So stating that if her end goal was to successfully get a bomb into the airport it would only have been successful if done in a different matter is not a red herring it is explaining the basis of my argument, intent. If she was trying to get a bomb inside the airport she could have easily explained the device with some fabrication to the questioner and avoided the escalation at that point at least. She still would have been asked to put it away or leave it outside.

The "calculated response to reasonable suspicion" is a very humorous statement since the calculated response part is exactly what you call a red herring. It depends completely on what the further investigation into a possible threat reveals. In this case it revealed a homemade light bright. Now intent is brought into question. If it turns out that she intended to pull a hoax it will only be revealed in her testimony and any video surveillance of the events. But I'll wait to hear them before I condemn her.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Brickwall]

If I were a passenger whose flight was delayed by this moron, I'd want her doing hard time to set an example for others.

Why would your flight be delayed? If you had RTFA, she wasn't flying, and so would not be admitted to the secure area. She was just waiting for her boyfriend.

I doubt that any flights were affected. There was no mention in the article of any shutdown. This girl was completely innocent of any crime. The only morons were the ticket agent (and since when does this clerical person count as an authority figure?), and the police for charging her with having "a hoax device" (and how does one define that anyway?).

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

Even if you think that, if it's not a bomb, why can't she be released?

She was released, on $715 bail, which, as far as bail goes, is a pittance!

Why does somebody have to be held for carrying something that we thought was a bomb but turned out not to be? The situation is normal so everybody can go home, or am I missing something?

OK, so if I go to the airport, or post office, or bank or wherever with flares strapped to my chest ala Tommy Boy and start screaming Allahu Akbar, causing all kinds of injuries from panicked civilians and bringing whatever business is going on there to a halt, once I'm captured, assuming I'm not shot, should the police just let me go when I say, "I was just joking! See? Road flares. No harm. No foul."?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Aadomm]

Idiot knew what she was doing and wanted the attention in my opinion. Its the troll equivalent of LARPing and merits the same amount of respect.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[DigiShaman]

What if it was real and she blew herself up? What then?

I'll tell you what would happen. There would be an outrage of how incompetent they were for not protecting the public. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Let's be honest here ok? If someone walks around with what looks to be an IED, there ass is going down. What she did was basically scream "fire" in a theater. Fuck her!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[roto3]

You could also make the circuit you describe look like a MP3 player or any other commercial product. Any circuit that you can build on a breadboard can also be constructed on a professional-looking PCB in a plastic enclosure. If you're going to argue that there could have been something malicious on a breadboard, by the same logic you'll need to ban nearly everything electronic.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Sj0]

So maybe we should have someone who actually knows something about bombs watching for bombs? You'd end up with far far fewer people looking, but at least the people doing the looking might have a snowballs chance in hell of noticing something that could be a bomb?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

"I trust the police more than I trust someone stupid enough to wear that shirt to the airport.

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".

[PeeAitchPee]

(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".

[Romancer]

What the hell difference would that make?

You wouldn't want someone able to disable the bomb?
You wouldn't want someone able to tell your officers where not to shoot to avoid setting it off?
You wouldn't want to save those lives in imminent danger?

That's just retarded. To have an admittedly imminent threat and not want the people ther who have the ability to handle it.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[rujholla]

The police called the paint on her sweatshirt "putty" and the simple breadboard attached to the outside of that sweatshirt a bomb.

RTFA -- the putty turned out to be playdough!! Come on how can you not think this looks suspicious as hell. If they didn't ask her about it and it turned out to be a bomb everyone would be going on about how worthless our security is. If she had answered and told them something, I still don't know that I'd believe her. How can this not look like a bomb??

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

Stop right there, homie. If it were one of your family members wearing this thing, I suspect you'd feel differently.

Sorry, but that "equalizer shirt" looks nothing like a home made bomb. It looks like an equalizer.

By all means, tackle her to the floor, contain her, even freaking *tase* her if she resists.

Oh, GOD!!!! Don't taze her! Then she'd be all over youtube with protesters at the jail and her own army of slashdot supporters! Besides, I don't think tazing someone with a bomb that is set off by electric charge is really the best of ideas. Why not just pull the pin out of a grenade, count to three (out of five) and throw it to her!

As for tackling her... Yeah, that's brilliant also. Not only are you blown to pieces, but what you thought would make you a hero has suddenly made you the "Worst Person on Earth" on tonight's Keith Obermann show for not trying to "defuse" the situation in a way that ends up with her NOT blowing up the airport.

Tackle the person with the bomb. You go ahead! If she doesn't blow both of you to pieces along with everyone else and she happens to get away from you, I'll be back here behind this concrete with my gun drawn ready to shoot her!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Brickwall]

1 - The did ask her what she was doing, without guns, and she walked away saying nothing

Did you RTFA? It was a ticket clerk - a f***ing clerk - not someone in what I would call a position of authority, who made the complaint to police. Simpson asked about the arrival of her boyfriend's flight, got her answer, and then the clerk asked her what she wearing. I would have ignored her too. When the cops showed up, Simpson answered all their questions. Of course, having a loaded gun pointed at you tends to get your attention.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Firehed]

I have to ask - are you genuine here, or are you trying to make a point to the Slashdot crowd (or is your dress sense really that awful)?

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".

[ScrewMaster]

Or perhaps you feel that with the appropriate training, no bombless person ever gets hurt?

Other way around. With inappropriate or inadequate training, security is ultimately guaranteed to hurt people, bombless or otherwise. It's the nature of the beast when dealing with deadly force, because the result of any application of such force is permanent. Why do you think police have to go through so much schooling before we allow them on the streets with firearms? Because when something goes down we want them to instantly recognize what's happening and know how to handle it. Even then they screw up, but less frequently than if we just handed people guns and uniforms and said, "Here. You're a cop." So, why are the security personnel at airports held to such a comparatively low standard? Proper training allows resolution to occur with minimum application of force, ideally none at all. If you're not trained you are much more likely to make a serious mistake by, you know ... overreacting.

The problem is, you cannot expect people who've never experienced dangerous situations (either real or simulated) to intrinsically know how to react. What they require is the awareness imparted by a solid training program, as well as the physical and social skills to deal with a wide variety of possible scenarios. That learning process should be ongoing and yes, there should be tests. What absolutely torques me off about this whole TSA farce is that they'll spend literally billions of dollars on fancy-schmancy, untested and untrustworthy detection gear of one sort or another, but won't invest any significant funding for training and salary of their security personnel. It's embarrassing all around, it really is. Worse, this is potentially tragic because innocent people are going to get hurt by these policies, either because a real terrorist gets through ... or because an innocent passenger is mistakenly shot dead.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

NO people should not have to be afraid of scaring other people. So her head is stuck so far in the clouds solving tricky engineering problems she forgets what other people thing... that's what AMERICA is all about!!!! She made a mistake taking a toy to the airport that scared the little sheeple but it's clearly not wrongdoing by any sense. By all accounts she wore the device for several weeks all over the place. She sounds like a true geek, into everything from welding to advanced vision programming.
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".

[stuntpope]

The cops certainly are NOT supposed to draw their weapons down on you for your lack of speaking to them, or cooperating with them. Unless you appear to be a deadly threat. Try walking down the street with a shotgun, and not speaking to or cooperating with the police officer who asks you to identify yourself. Oh, she didn't have an actual weapon? Ok, try walking up to the White House gates and hanging around with a guitar in a gig bag, or a pool cue in a bag, slung over your shoulder, and then ignore any inquiries about what you've got there.

Yelling "don't tase me, bro" isn't going to help lessen the response.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Wesley Everest]

Here's the problem:

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".

[owlstead]

Sheesh, this was outside the boarding area. You could easily wheel in three complete baggage trolleys loaded with explosives. But, no, the police responds to the movie threat: a big box of electronics with a lot of flashy lights. It amazes me that they did not try to defuse it by choosing between the red and green wires. Keeping her on bail and trying to press charges is just an infantile reaction because they feel they have been had.

Whats more, you are so entrenched in this whole terrorist business that you forget to listen between the lines. Note that since 9-11, there have been exactly zero terrorist attacks within the USA - largely because you don't have a large populace consisting of disgruntled Muslim extremists, probably. It's time to normalize the situation and leave the security to the specialists again, and monitor them enough to be sure that they don't screw up *again*.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[stuntpope]

State of fear? Hardly. In the late 1990s I visited Italy and was surprised to see police (perhaps Carabinieri) in Genoa holding submachine guns. The only state of fear put into me wasn't of them (or the Italian state), it was wondering if I'd wandered into a bad neighborhood.

Back then you didn't see that kind on weaponry on police in the USA, so it had a "whoa" factor for me, but now you sometimes do see it, especially at airports. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. They aren't suppressing me. "State of fear" describes standing in sight of the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11, and hearing reports that another plane was on its way.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[zacronos]

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

Aha! So clearly, it should be policy to let anyone through who looks like they have a bomb, and respond with appropriate force against those who appear to be no threat at all.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ackthpt]

Even if you think that, if it's not a bomb, why can't she be released? Why does somebody have to be held for carrying something that we thought was a bomb but turned out not to be? The situation is normal so everybody can go home, or am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something. If they let you go they'd be admitting to a mistake. Apparently cops in Boston don't make mistakes, YOU DO

And when you have made the mistake of making them look like dumbasses they take it very personally indeed. Even the courts back them up.

If I were a leader who wanted to inspire fear and vigilance in the country, I would be very happy with the way things worked out in Boston.

and they british best not try anything if they know what's what

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Thirdsin]

Look, if that dumb kid had anysense she would have worn something else INSIDE AN AIRPORT. The next time someone walks in wearing something like it might not be "harmless". I'd want police to shoot first and ask questions later if you want my opinion.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[saik0max0r]

So it wasn't a real bomb, that doesn't mean the authoritays overreacted. Kids have been killed for carrying a "realistic looking" but fake firearm. I don't think the situation would be any different if she carried one of those semi concealed at an airport ;-)

Granted, it's a big misunderstanding, and the "hoax device" crap is a little thin, but it wasn't the brightest thing someone could do.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[fredclown]

It wasn't handled incompetently ... she's still alive. If it was handled incompetently they would have shot her without first trying to disarm what they believed could be explosives. If it were real explosives handling it incompetently would have been letting her just walk around and eventually blow herself and others up. The police did the right thins and nobody was hurt. How is that incompetence?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[psykocrime]

People should be smart enough to know not to go wandering around with that kinda stuff like that.

No, people should be free enought to go walking around with "that kinda stuff" without being arrested for it by some fucking
idiot cop with an IQ approximately equal to his shoe size

She caused an incident that could have been avoided by leaving that crap at home.

She didn't cause a damn thing. The "incident" was caused by the incompetent security personnel at the
airport. They have explosives sniffing machines or dogs at the airport, no? If so, it would have taken
5 minutes to check her to make sure she wasn't carrying any explosives, after which she should have been
sent on her way with a hearty apology for wasting her time.

Anyone with half a brain should know that walking around with bombish looking stuff in an airport is gonna cause problems.

Nothing she was carrying looked a damn thing like a bomb to anybody except a total moron.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[rajkiran_g]

People should be smart enough to know not to go wandering around with that kinda stuff like that. She caused an incident that could have been avoided by leaving that crap at home. Anyone with half a brain should know that walking around with bombish looking stuff in an airport is gonna cause problems. I think we can be fairly certain that the girl in question is not one with "half a brain". This is simply a case of overreaction by the police. They should have let her go when it was clear that she posed no threat.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Damarkus13]

Overridden in the second between when the bomber is shot and when they let go of the switch? Maybe you should go into some detail.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[psykocrime]

Reacting is one thing, overreacting is another. Even if you believe the "device" looked like a bomb (which it most certainly didn't if the posted pictures are accurate), it should have been easy enough for them to have her walk through one of the explosives sniffers, or be sniffed by a bomb dog. If she was clean, they could have let her go, apologized for wasting her time, and let her go. But arresting her and charging her with some
bullshit? That's fucking stupid.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[MisterMook]

It makes you wonder how long it will be before airport security goes nuts and shoots someone accidentally, doesn't it? They're armed, they've got a shitty job and no one likes them, and they're paid to be paranoid. I'm thinking that eventually the postal service will be completely off the hook for hiring psychopaths.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Scrameustache]

you can build a device that looks NEARLY EXACTLY like this one which will easy build up enough voltage to set off a small detonation cap.[...]
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. And you could put that device in a stuffed animal.

Why not point guns at people with stuffed animals, since they too COULD be bombs?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Scrameustache]

When is someone going to bring up yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre? She called in a bomb threat?

Because THAT would be the equivalent limit on free speech as yelling fire in a crowded theater: Yelling "I have a bomb" in an airport. That's not what she did. She wore a home-made light up shirt while playing with a child's toy.

If a girl with a geeky shirt and a child's toy scares you, YOU are at fault, not her.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Oktober Sunset]

what are you smoking? If you detonate wirelessly, you still need some electronics attached to the explosives. The explosives don't just spontaneously explode because you flashed an LED at it.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[DrLang21]

"I disagree, I think that even to people involved with electronics it could look like something threatening."

What is it about LEDs that scare people so much? No one in their right mind that's even remotely involved with electronics would think LEDs, resistors, and a battery would make for a dangerous highly explosive device. It wasn't smart for her to not comment on it when she was asked about it, but neither I nor anyone that I work with would even off handedly think that LEDs resistors and batteries would look threatening to anyone.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Trogre]

Yes, those stupid Boston cops. I mean, who wouldn't see the humour in littering the streets with a whole lot of boards with flashing lights depicting characters from an obscure television series that no one over 25 watches, involving talking milkshakes.

Next time let's tape a bunch of red candles together and tie them to a clock.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Jesus_666]

Exactly. Note that terrorism is not about killing a couplem thousand civilians. America has millions of them and the terrorists would run out of suicide bombers before they would've exhausted the American supply of civilians.

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".

[Obfuscant]

So her head is stuck so far in the clouds solving tricky engineering problems she forgets what other people thing...

Did you read any of the articles? She is a sophomore. It's not like she's trying to figure out what DNA looks like or cure cancer or anything.

People shouldn't have to be attacked with guns for being "eclectic" and not worrying about what other people think.

She wasn't attacked with guns for being eclectic and not worrying about what other people think.

1. She wasn't attacked with guns. The officers who stopped her were carrying guns, but that is not "attacking" in any sense of the word.
2. She wasn't stopped for being eclectic, she was stopped for having an electronic device strapped to her body, carrying "putty", and refusing a reasonable request to explain what the stuff was.

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.

1. She was not reported to have stopped at any counter, she was reported as having stopped an airport employee to ask about an arrival time.
2. Right. All that a security checkpoint would do is ask her to remove the shirt. An electronic device of homebrew manufacture with blinking lights and some putty-like substance in her hands. Sure.

You know that ASKING somebody what they're doing without pointing an ACTUAL deadly weapon at them.

1. That's what the airport employee did, and her question was ignored.
2. There is no report that the airport employee who asked her about her shirt was carrying a deadly weapon, much less pointing one at anyone.

Now these narrow minded cops are going to deprive the troops of somebody brilliant that can HELP them in their missions!!

There is no indication that this moron has ever had any intention of helping any troops.

So who's the terrorist here?

That's a simple question. The moron college student who was too stupid to answer a simple question about what she was wearing and scared people into thinking she was doing something dangerous.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Trogre]

Sorry but your post is just too sensible. Please apologise and get back to irrational badmouthing The Man, like the rest of us.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[geoskd]

Key words "did not respond". Looking at the "device", it is not obvious that it is benign.
The "did not respond" part is what bothers me. In my own experience, people will go to great lengths to hide their own ignorance. I find that this become more true, with the increasing ignorance of the person. Given that experience, and the reported "facts" in this case, I find it most likely that the young woman in question did in fact try to explain what the electronic device was for, and the officers in question, failing to understand, decided to play safe, and detain the young woman. I believe that they, probably later, decided to pretend she did not answer at all in an effort to justify their reaction, without having to admit their own ignorance. Granted this is only a hypothesis, but my inclination is to believe that a person, who goes to the trouble of wearing something like this, wants to be asked about the object, and would have a definite answer (probably bolstered with long words), to explain its purpose and design.

On the other hand, if they asked her what it was and she answered: "It's a circuit board", they would probably have described her as unresponsive as well, so she was pretty much damned either way.

Any way you slice it, I would love to see a precise transcript of what was said, so that I could make my own opinions of the facts; Failing that I will definitely have to side with her on this one.

-=Geoskd

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ShawnH]

And if the bomb expert wasn't right across the hall or somewhere very nearby, you could just let her keep walking until she gets right in the security line before she triggers it.

There is no good answer once a bomb, strapped to a nutcase determined to kill, gets into a crowded area. There will be deaths, there will be an explosion, the only opportunity is to make every attempt to minimize the number of dead. That might mean blocking access to a more crowded area and letting her blow them all up, or blocking her access to a more crowded area and blowing her fucking head off in hopes that there is no dead-mans switch. Lose, lose situation, but I will take that over waiting around until the "bomb" expert can get there and ask for permission to look at the bomb.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Wavicle]

Lets suppose that you have read my actual post and I never said any such thing.

You really need to read the thread better.

The "calculated response to reasonable suspicion" is a very humorous statement since the calculated response part is exactly what you call a red herring.

The red herring was your mention of hiding the device in an mp3 player and further mention of getting past security. 80% of your post focused on that situation.

But I'll wait to hear them before I condemn her.

Nobody is on trial here. Regardless of intent or trial, I think her judgment is very, very poor. However, we are discussing whether or not the response was reasonable given the device.

I'm arguing that a non-concealed, non-disguised, hastily constructed detonating device would look sufficiently similar. Furthermore the response, by all parties, was appropriate. The gate agent should have asked. The agent should have reported it when she did not respond (for whatever reason, including not hearing the question). The police should have used overwhelming force to take her into custody.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Wavicle]

If you were sane then you'd hide the whole business in a backpack or a small suitcase.

And if you weren't, your whole argument falls apart.

Now, how do the police protect themselves and others in the airport while determining whether or not this is a sane person with tech gadget or an insane person with a persecution complex?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[slugstone]

I see today the /. crowd is in a flame mood. I do not see any flaming here.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Hemogoblin]

I agree totally. I think the Economist can explain it better than I could:

When liberals put the case for civil liberties, they sometimes claim that obnoxious measures do not help the fight against terrorism anyway. The Economist is liberal but disagrees. We accept that letting secret policemen spy on citizens, detain them without trial and use torture to extract information makes it easier to foil terrorist plots. To eschew such tools is to fight terrorism with one hand tied behind your back. But thatwith one hand tied behind their backis precisely how democracies ought to fight terrorism. - The Economist

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[wbean]

Now, if I was a terrorist would I do my best to conceal a bomb or would I put the the trigger mechanism on the outside of a sweatshirt? Hmmm. And just what makes trained anti-terrorist personel so sure that bombs require blinking lights? Too many James bond movies? I say this was just plain silly.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Obfuscant]

Those "f***ing" ticket clerks are the first line of defense in detecting something like this. They see the people who are checking in, they interact with them. If there is something odd about the way someone acts (and what someone is wearing), those ticket clerks are about the first people to see it, and they have every right and responsibility to raise an alarm. In this case, an apparently highly-distracted but seemingly intelligent person was wearing an unusual electronic device on her chest, carrying a putty-like substance in her hands, and REFUSED to answer any questions about the device. I say "apparently highly-distracted", because any simpleton could have gotten the arrival information from any of the arrival monitors spread thoughout the terminal, but she was unable to do so on her own.

You might have ignored her, but the question should have been enough to trigger some kind of thought about "what am I wearing and where am I?", and then you, if you have any brains at all, will start explaining what you are wearing because you know the next people to ask you aren't going to be friendly ticket clerks trying to be helpful, they will be humorless security carrying guns.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Hemogoblin]

My link failed. Let me try again: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9833041

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Anonymous Coward]

After having spent multiple deployments in Iraq and Africa guarding against the same types of situation, I would consider her lucky to be alive. The training we get teaches to to tell the difference between something that appears suspicious and something that just appears wrong. Who knows how to spot a homicidal or suicidal maniac? Can you honestly tell me you know or can spot when someone is going to spontaneously explode? All you can do is use your best judgment and hope your not wrong. I always tell my boys to err in on the side of self preservation. If you neutralize them, one person is lost. If you miscalculate, many people will die. I'm all about originality and all, but use some common sense please!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Speed Pour]

Why on earth do you want those to be the criterion for TSA to drop the issue. This is the first time I've heard of TSA doing something right.

First off, let me just say that I spent a good deal of time working on electronics in college, and even I would at least be concerned about somebody wearing a breadboard. Even though you don't see explosive (noting of course the dumb broad carried putty in her hand), doesn't mean that it's not somewhere...btw, maybe she has no boobs and they ARE made of explosive ;)

Further, just because a terrorist doesn't hop onto a plane, doesn't mean they couldn't kill thousands just by walking up to the check-in line at an airport. In fact, they would kill more that way (if body count was their goal)

Finally, disregard the police/TSA for a minute (even if they were trained properly, though we know better), the fact is that average people aren't going to recognize a breadboard and the fact it's not connected to explosive. That alone makes this a close equivalent to yelling 'FIRE!!!!' in a crowded movie theater.

Just because the girl wasn't an immediate danger, she could have a) caused a stampede, and b) distracted security from a legitimate threat. Any intelligent person knows that if you spread resources thin enough, they cease to be useful...and that's made even more serious when the resources are already nearly useless like TSA

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Surt]

Let me support this argument with a data point.
I went and looked at the picture of the shirt. I thought, wow, that really does look like a bomb.
I mean, it pretty much looks exactly like what you see on tv when someone builds a bomb in a crime show. Having never had the opportunity to see an actual bomb, I can well imagine that many people would look at that thing and come to the bomb conclusion.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[PachmanP]

I would rather side with the police and have the girl arrested (or shot if needed) and avoid possible loss of life then err on the side of "oh, well maybe its not a bomb...

What the F*** are you smoking?! You'd rather an innocent, if a little eccentric, person get shot, on the off chance that maybe she was a retarded terrorist that was trying to attract attention and talk with the police that would kill a few other people?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[DreamingReal]

That picture makes me think that Verizon guy better stay the hell away from Logan Airport -

Verizon Guy: Can you hear me now? Good.
Cops (whachagonnado...): FACE DOWN ON THE GROUND!!!
Verizon Guy: Can you hear me now? Good.
Cops: LAST CHANCE AHMED!! FUCKING ON THE GROUND!!!!
Verizon Guy: Can you hear me now? Good.

*BLAM*

Verizon Guy: Can you... hear.. me now...? Tell.. my.. wife... I love... her...

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[GPL Apostate]

It would have been a fully legal to simply shoot her with a fully automatic weapon at the first hint of non-compliance.

Well, uh, yeah. People need to realize this isn't the America of 7 years ago. I'm actually surprised we're allowed to even cross the street at a busy intersection without showing our credentials.

I hate to say it, but you seem to be completely out of touch with reality.

Priceless.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[kcelery]

You want to *tase* her if you suspected that the girl is wearing a suicide bomb? You must be kidding.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[LynnwoodRooster]

From TFA: 2) She walked inside to an information counter and then walked out again ... she was nowhere near "security".

Yeah, because we all know that blowing up a bomb at the load/unload zone of an airport and killing dozens is so much less of a bad thing than blowing it up at the security gate and killing dozens...

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[GPL Apostate]

How can this not look like a bomb??

If it was concealed in a case of some sort, and on opening the case there it was, blinking and a digit counting down, it would have looked like a bomb. How does a circuit board, openly displayed by being glued on an article of clothing, 'look like a bomb' ??

I mean, jeebus cripes. Is it going to be illegal to have an electric circuit board in public that is uncased? Is it conspiracy by PacTec and the other fancy (and rather expensive) plastic electronic project box sellers to get us geeks to always, with frantic diligence, stick our projects in a fancy box before we get shot as terraists by the authoritahs?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[PachmanP]

You forget the terrorists are foreigners, so they must be stupid and backwards! We're trying to stop the retarded terrorists not the ones that use forethought. Those you have to at least use intelligent people working hard to stop, not rent-a-cops.

ps I love you TSA. Please don't cavity search me next time I have to fly.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cicatrix1]

Don't tase her, bro!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Simian Road]

"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"

I agree. When you are responsible for the safety of an entire airport, "next to nothing" isn't good enough to just let people through. Suspicious things should always be investigated, otherwise you get to be the poor guy who says "we thought it was just some art student" after the bomb has gone off.

I doubt anyone would deny that this was above average on any scale of suspiciousness.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[DavidShor]

"Odd shirt with improvised electronics on it - detonator anyone?"

Show me a single suicide bomber who was sighted with external electronics. A single one.

"Unresponsive to initial questions about her device by airport authorities"

Define unresponsive, they didn't.

"We ARE at war"

With whom? Last I checked, we have no declaration of war against anyone.

"Thousands have been murdered by people wearing this category of attire in the last year alone"

see line 2

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[pasamio]

Until someone gets her side of the story we don't know that she didn't just say that and they were still paranoid. "What is that shirt ma'am?" "Oh its just a thing I did for school". Now take that response in paranoid mode, and use the silly justifications that people use (because I think you're a terrorists, you must be lying to me) to overlay the fact that the answer above is a legitimate response but it doesn't actually tell you anything. There is also the strange effect that people sometimes miss that expects people to have perfect hearing all the time as well...but we don't know enough about the actual events to make those suspicions.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[sskinnider]

For those of you who don't know what a bomb looks like, congratulations. For those of you who think you know what a bomb looks like, you are all idiots. A bomb can look like absolutely anything. Now, put yourself in the shows of a law enforcement officer who knows that a bomb may look like anything. If you think they over-reacted, you are delusional, she can count herself lucky that she is in the good old US of A where she was not shot on sight.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[symbolic]

People could be demoted or lose their jobs.

We're talking about government here.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[terrymr]

According to the news reports she said it was some "art" she'd made - she didn't walk away saying nothing.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[terrymr]

Believe me if you point a submachine gun at a cop - he's going to say he was attacked with it. Just because it's the other way around doesn't change the nature of it - remember your gun training, don't point it at somebody you don't intend to kill.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[sholden]

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.

Depends how you define "terrorist attack". Is mailing anthrax to people a terrorist attack? Blowing up mailboxes (and injuring half a dozen people)? A bomb in a park during the Olympic Games? Shooting up the El Al counter at LAX? Shooting tourists at the Empire State Building? Three weeks of random sniping?

Depending on which you classify as "terrorist attacks" determines if there have been more or less on US soil in the 6 years pre and 6 years post 9-11. And do you count the ones that didn't succeed, either because the people were incompetent, or because they were arrested before hand?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[h2_plus_O]

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

When you go to the airport, you have to be cognizant of the fact that it's full of people who, rightly or wrongly, are thinking about security. Yes, other places aren't as secured and would make equally juicy targets, but airports are where armed security guards are paid to be. It may be understandable that she didn't consider that someone else might have questions about her breadboard, but it's also understandable that the authorities would want to prevent situations like this from arising in the future.
Based on the information I've seen, I can't really bring myself to fault anyone involved but the student in this case. She wore something clearly designed to attract attention, and when directly asked about it, said nothing and walked away. WTF? This is wierd behavior and that's what you look for when you're concerned about security: wierdness, behavior that raises questions or doesn't compute.

Now put yourself in the shoes of someone thinking about airport security. You don't know much about electronics. You know for sure that airport security is pretty flimsy. You know that you have questions about the girl's shirt, so you ask- and you didn't get a satisfactory answer. You know that you don't know her motives or capacity. You know that airport security sucks, that if you say nothing something bad might happen. You call security, no question.

Now put yourself in the shoes of the officer that was called. You are trained to look for danger and operate as though the threat, if not explicit, is actually there. You know that if this is a real threat, your role is to confront this person and if they're packing a powerful explosive, there's no course of action you can take guaranteed to prevent your death. Now let's raise the stakes and say you have a wife and child, and you're new at this.
OK, shit. We now have an armed security guy under stress. Under significant stress, your ability to parse another's expression, intention, to read nuanced communication is radically reduced as your system spools up into fight_or_flight mode, and the mechanism is physiological, not psychological. Above a certain stress level, the parts of your brain that allow you to make nuanced judgments on the order of "this is just a nerdy girl who didn't consider that this might alarm someone", or to differentiate the natural alarm an innocent girl might show from the alarm a foiled attacker would, actually shut down. The only thing that keeps the responding security guy's stress levels within manageable tolerances is training, practice, and experience.

Now ask yourself: what are the odds of getting an experienced, well-trained TSA gaurd as the first responder?
This is why the authorities don't want you to have something ambiguously scary on you: it's to discourage circumstances like this one from arising, where some poor under-trained TSA officer has to parse the difference, quickly and decisively, between a real threat and the imaginary one he's trained to look for, in a context where pretty much any action might be threatening, or not. Basically, she's lucky she got an officer that exhibited the capacity to function normally given the circumstances.

This is a scary law, to be certain. It's incredibly open for abuse- basically, it's illegal to have something that some random idiot could reasonably interpret as dangerous. ...but at the same time, it isn't that hard to know that when in 'secure' areas, you are responsible for managing the perceptions of said idiots.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[sjames]

According to TFA, she was arrested by police at the terminal (presumably beyond the security checkpoint).

Actually, screeners should probably NEVER challenge someone who seems to have a bomb. The screening area is typically jam packed with people. It's the last place you want to convince a suicide bomber that it's now or never and have them let go of a deadman switch or otherwise trigger a bomb.

Asfor the "hoax device", it may not have been the best judgement to wear that in the airport, but there's a lot of perception involved there.

For example, to me and many others, it looks nothing like a bomb, but rather a perfectly ordinary and common prototype board. As much as I can understand that police might see it as a potential bomb, I can equally well understand how she might only see that in retrospect.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

Breutiful black and white thinking with that wonderful closed mind of yours.

"If it was handled incompetently they would have shot her without first trying to disarm what they believed could be explosives"

Nice world you live in where there are only two choices and outcomes. Now go outside and play with the other children.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[GPL Apostate]

What is 'bombish looking' about it???

I mean, really? Is a 'terraist' gonna glue the 'bomb' to the front of a shirt and wear it around like a fashion item?

Seriously, I didn't think there was this level of ignorance on Slashdot. With this level of ignorance here, it makes me worry that next time I go into Rat Shack to buy a bit of perfboard for a project, I'll be gunned down on the sidewalk in front of the store.

(IOW: if it's this bad here on Slashdot, I can IMAGINE the ignorant kneejerk reaction out on 'the street.')

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[terrymr]

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.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[eh2o]

America has done a pretty decent job at encourage people to hate us, so to some extent the crazy security is actually justified. And attacks on airplanes and other transit systems are one of the most effective ways to cause infrastructure damage and inspire fear. The fact is, our foreign policy makes air travel less safe. I have no love for the current political trends, but I actually don't find airport security to be overbearing, but maybe that is just because I'm white... nonetheless, some of my friends who are just as white love to complain about it. I just don't see what the big deal is... its not like having to take my shoes off is some huge infraction of my rights.

By the way I have recently taken experimental/prototype electronic devices in carry-on and its not a problem as long as it is well packaged, does not look like a bomb on the x-ray and you are willing to answer a few questions. Refusing to answer a question is just about the worst thing you can do. The exception is US customs, they are extremely paranoid so expect some delays if you are connecting from an international flight to a domestic one.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cayenne8]

"Those "f***ing" ticket clerks are the first line of defense in detecting something like this. They see the people who are checking in, they interact with them. If there is something odd about the way someone acts (and what someone is wearing), those ticket clerks are about the first people to see it, and they have every right and responsibility to raise an alarm."

Ok, lets give you that...ticket clerk was first line of defense. Do you think the next level of escalation was to surround her with locked and loaded machine guns?

A person, as far as I know..is not required by any law to answer another civilian about anything....and actually, unless under investigation by a real law enforcment agent, who has probable cause to think you are involved in a crime...not required to ask anything. But, if the ticket agent told security and then someone in security, maybe first followed her and observed the shirt...maybe even came up to her and asked her questions...that sounds more reasonable as second line of defense. I think anyone looking at her, hopefully a TRAINED law enforcement pro, would tell that this was nothing...but, even if concerned...could have checked thingsout first before surrounding her with machineguns one trigger pull away from ripping her apart.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[SillyNickName]

Get real. This could only look like a bomb to an idiot with an overactive imagination after watching too many movies. The scary thing is that such idiots are running with guns and badges. Now THAT'S a danger at the airport. Yeah, talk about no common sense.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Mr. Slippery]

I think that even to people involved with electronics it could look like something threatening.

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.

I think the police did their job and this Star Simpson person was pretty stupid to try that. Talk about no common sense.

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".

[hcmtnbiker]

But you also forgot the little known 36th amendment, amended very shortly after the 35th, that states that you can also "carry suspicious substances(putty) while wearing at lit breadboard in an airport lobby."

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Malekin]

What are you going on about? Most detonators are simply small bits of wire that heat up when you pass current through, covered in something like phosphorus. Building an inverter or a boost converter is ridiculously unnecessary. Connecting the detonator straight across the 9V battery is more than sufficient for most detonators. I'd expect far better from the geeks of slashdot.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Kingrames]

Well, perhaps you didn't hear the recent story of the failed suicide bombing.

It turns out that the "suicide bomber" was in fact TRICKED into getting into a truck laden with explosives and sent in to "die for the cause" so it may in fact be the case that those kinds of suicide bombers are rarer than we think. Many suicide bombers are using cars and trucks as their method of delivery. That means that your homemade bomb that might kill a person or two is not thte kind of bomb they use, not anymore.

While you may be impressed with the way you were able to justify the paranoia of these security guys, you are NOT helping the situation by increasing the terror alert level AFTER she has been proven innocent.

And she has been proven innocent.
Any further attempt to humiliate or insult or harass or attack her is only a violation of her civil rights.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

Again with the closed minded view of the world. There are more than your limited number of options.

The bomb expert shouldn't be the only one in the airport and they don't have to be brilliant geniuses in their field, just educated about the main threat that airports seem to be concerned with. Kinda like security in every other field being educated to do their jobs effectivly in each field. It would be a very good idea to have the local security force en mass educated in this area anyway, but to have certain people trained a bit more wouldn't cost them that much and would save them a lot of trouble in cases like this. The police responded from somewhere anyway and if they are the people responding to a bomb threat then they should be able to handle it, otherwise why the hell are they reporting to the area at all if not to just shoot on site like so many of you people are referencing they held back on. How nice of them not blowing up the airport by shooting at a likely bomb in their eyes.

All I'm asking for is a little responsibility for a situation that seems to be the entire focus of the airport every time I go there. Everybody's concerned with bombs but not doing all that much to actually handle one effectifly if they find one.

Saying that the only other option would be to let here walk around freely ignores the whole of my argument. They can check it out and determine if it is a threat and act accordingly. If there was intent to pull a hoax then arrest her, if it was a stupid monkey mistake, admonish her for being stupid and let her pay a fine, don't confuse the issue with other charges if they aren't valid.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[SillyNickName]

You can also build a detonator that looks NEARLY EXACTLY like a cell phone. So, should we be giving people badges and guns to run around killing people with cell phones? How about ink pens? You can make a detonator look like one of those too. You can make a detonator look like a wallet too. Maybe we should kill people for showing up at the airport with a wallet (The NYC police seem to have gotten a jump on this). In fact, you can make such a device look like almost anything. Some people just seem to go around looking for an excuse to go off, so to speak.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Kingrames]

"...just as it is a criminal act to shout "fire" in a movie theater..."

A freedom of speech you will regret losing when you die in a fire in a theater because nobody spoke up.

The reason it's illegal?
Because of politicians. Specifically, the politicians who decided that the persons responsible for actually murdering someone in a blind panic should not be prosecuted. They sided with the panicky mob, and not with the sensible folks who just used the other exit.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[jafiwam]

She should be thrown in jail for the crime of messing with what is already a horrific experience (simply flying).

I predict one of these "performance artists" gets killed doing some stupid shit within the next couple of years.

It will serve them right too. I can't imagine the short-circuit of sensible reasoning that has to occur for that stupid wench to think that's a good idea. I don't care if it's her RIGHT or not. It was goddamn dumb.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[terrymr]

Given that this is outside the secure area of the airport you can even carry a gun with you .... why not a homemade electronic device ?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[el americano]

I think your problem is that you think you're safe in an airport lobby. You're not. Anyone can be dropped off at the curb and wheel a suit case of explosives up to the huge line at the ticket counter and blow up dozens of people. Please recognize and accept this fact. After the security checkpoint, you have some security, but if you think you need to panic and use deadly force in the lobby, you're wrong. It wouldn't help if you did anyway. So lighten up.

OK, the airline employee panicked, so I guess the police have to follow up, but it's a false alarm. There's no bomb, nor anything that looks like a bomb on closer inspection. This is where the police want to justify their actions. Looks like they've been trained that the only successful conclusion to a police action is to take someone into custody.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ta bu shi da yu]

Oh come on! that's totally stupid. Sure, she was dumb for wearing the board, but banned for good from airports? Total overreaction. Unless you're implying she is a terrorist, which seems mighty unlikely.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[DutchUncle]

Yes, they overreacted. In hindsight. Unfortunately, security personnel (police, MPs, special forces) have to react in real time with incomplete information. And while they have to be reasonably smart, they're not necessarily the most intellectual crowd. They sometimes have no choice but to jump to conclusions because too late would be . . . too late. Plus: The student handled this *very* badly. The first time someone asked "What is that thing" she could have said "I'm an MIT student and this is a gadget for a competition" etc. and gotten nothing but advice on being more discreet.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[philco911]

Or maybe it's to stop stupid people from doing this again. And I'm not talking about the cops here. She's a moron.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Propaganda13]

or you could do the same thing and put it inside a gutted laptop, a large purse, or backpack and no one would expect anything. I hear cell phones are also used in IEDs. Oh look, there's someone on their cell phone in an airport, get 'em.

It's a complicated business. I understand the detainment, but as for charges I don't know since there's not enough details in the article about the whys. Why did she not answer? Why did she have playdough? etc.

Sidenote: Mythbusters had a similar incident. They were using a BB gun to shoot down balloons in a hangar. Someone called security and they rolled up with guns drawn. The guy with the BB gun kept walking towards security with the BB gun in his hand saying "It's just a BB gun." Luckily, no one was shot.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ozmanjusri]

People should be smart enough to know not to go wandering around with that kinda stuff like that.

Yes, everybody should look like everybody else.

In fact, it would be a good idea to issue everybody with a standard close-fitting tunic and pants, in a standard colour that shows shadows and bulges well - mid grey, for example. That would make it much simpler to protect the American people, and reduce stress for security people forced to use sense and judgement.

Anybody not wearing grey could be shot with impunity. You know it makes sense.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[pilsner.urquell]

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??

No more than if she had yelled FIRE in a theater. It is illegal to yell fire in a theater because of the panic and possible harm this panic could produce. This action of wearing a fake bomb is NOT a form of free speech and has been upheld in the Supreme Court of the United States.

This girl is in big trouble and I would would not be surprised if she gets 20 years.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[SvnLyrBrto]

Way to fail to RTFA.

It says right there in both articles that the sweatshirt also had Course VI written clearly on it!!! If you're especially dim, it even reminds you what that means.

Meanwhile, here in the world of sanity, when *I* see someone with a Course VI shirt, I don't assume that said person is a terrorist. I assume that said person is a MIT CS/EE student or alumnus, is proud of the fact (and well they should be), and is trying to draw attention to the fact. Likewise, knowing the goofiness that it occasionally the wont of MIT types, I cease to be surprised or shocked if they have random bets of technology flotsam and jetsam on their person or in their vicinity.

But then, we're talking about boston, where the locals think that brightly lit flashing Mooninites flipping the bird to passersby is ALSO a terrorist threat.

cya,
john

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Howzer]

The purpose of drawing guns is not to shoot but to immediately control a situation that could be deadly.

Which is why it was the wrong thing to do. Let's do a little thought experiment, shall we? Imagine you're a terrorist.

Further imagine that you've strapped on a bomb OUTSIDE YOUR CLOTHING and you intend to walk into an airport wearing that sh**.

Now imagine when the maximum point of "terror" would be for you to let the bomb off...

Yep. Bingo. Well done.

You'd let the bomb off EXACTLY at the time all the police pointed their weapons at you, and the crowd started to scream.

So, well handled to the police! They went all the way from a slight suspicion, to an ABSOLUTE GUARANTEE that the "suspect" would explode the device in about 10 seconds.

Lucky we have "trained professionals" on the job. Give them a few more years and I am sure they'll get that time way, way down...

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Right. "Excuse me, Miss Person-Who-May-Have-A-Bomb, could you please come with us and walk through this detector?" Does that really seem like an appropriate response to you?

It's very easy to judge after we know what she was wearing. But the fact is, most bombs are detonated electronically, and this young lady had an electronic gadget strapped to her chest in an area that maintains an extremely high security posture. Right or wrong, her unusual electronic device raised suspicion, and after that there is ONLY ONE WAY TO RESPOND...with armed force to freeze her in place and prevent her from making the next move. There is absolutely no way you can let a suspected bomber move around at will. If you disagree, then what in the world is your threshold for decisive armed response? Do they have to state that they have a bomb ("Stupid police! No bomber is going to come right out and say they have a bomb!") Do they have to have wires and visible C4 sticking out of a canvas backpack ("Stupid police! No competent bomber is going to have wires and explosives sticking out of his bag!") Honestly, what is your threshold for response? An explosion?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[SvnLyrBrto]

> I don't know what I would have done.

Maybe you (and your stick-up-the-ass compatriots in boston) should use the skills taught in those classes they made you take that aren't specific to EE. You know, the ones where you take these little squiggley symbols called "letters" and string them together. Chain those "letters" together, and you get these things called "words". "Words" have meanings. As a corollary, the romans used some "letters": I, V, X, and some others, to make these things called "numbers". "Numbers" also have specific meanings. When you chain "words" and "numbers" together in special ways, those meanings get even more specific,

To wit... when someone has the word and number:

"Course VI" ... written on their clothing, it means they are a CS/EE major at MIT. No MIT CS/EE would make their bomb so shoddily as if that shirt were a bomb. They also have an institutional history of being incorrigible screwballs who like to draw attention to themselves in annoyingly clever ways.

An ounce of literacy and a dash common sense would have acquitted those gun-toting knuckle-draggers a whole lot more than the whole Rambo self-image they've got going on. Looks like you could use a dose of both as well.

cya,
john

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Brandybuck]

I agree as well. I think the TSA are a bunch of goons, and our current paranoia about terrorism ridiculously overblown. But if this student didn't think she was going to create an incident with this device, she's an idiot. And those of you sticking up for her are idiots as well. Look at that device. Really look at it. In addition, she was holding a lump of playdoh in her hands. Do you really expect TSA agents to be determine the purpose of that circuitry? To know that she was holding plasticine instead of plastique?

The Mooninites "scare" was overblown, but this incident was not. She's lucky her clever MIT hack didn't get her killed.

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.

If someone does this, and gets shot, there will be the obligatory Slashdorks whining that the TSA should have been able to tell the difference between railroad flares an dynamite.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ShawnH]

And what should they have done differently? What did they do incorrectly?

They took control of her until the situation could be fully understood. They did respond and handle the situation, they didn't shoot on site, they held their ground and she complied. What is being said, is that if she had not complied, they would have probably shot her. If the situation is unknown, and the officer and public are in apparent danger, the officer is required to do what he thinks is necessary according to his training. They don't get to call a time out and wait for an "expert" to evaluate the situation. In this case, they contained her, arrested her stupid ass, and are going to let a judge/jury decide if she was just stupid, or did she do this on purpose.

Maybe the officers at the scene had a suspicion that this was not a real bomb, but they controlled the situation, because they couldn't afford to be wrong. Their job is first and foremost to gain control of the situation, they did, she lived.

How do you expect them to "check it out and determine if it is a threat and act accordingly" by any other means than stopping her with the threat of force?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[X]

> 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"

Umm.. did you look at the picture of it? That doesn't look like a bomb. It's a bread board with some wires in it. You know what looks more like a bomb? A cell phone. Fortnately they didn't arrest everyone who had one of those!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[TheLink]

Legally change your name to Bomb and then go places. You don't usually have to say your own name - so just let other people do the fun bits :).

Given how hair trigger people are, doesn't even have to be "Mr Bomb D. Plane".

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[jabster]

OK. I can not let this ignorance stand, lest others read this and believe it:
Or how about the Muslim men that were asked to leave a flight because they spoke in Arabic?

I can only assume you are talking about the "Flying Imams" case at the Minneapolis airport here, because I know of NO ONE who has been thrown off a plane merely for speaking Arabic. So from here on out, I am talking about said "Flying Imams."

No one was tossed from a plane for speaking Arabic.

The six Imams were removed from the plane because:
1. They were speaking loudly, praising Osama Bin Laden
2. They were speaking loudly, praising Saddam Hussein and saying they would do anything to avenge him. This bit comes from another passenger on the plane who spoke Arabic, unrelated to the six imams, who was one of numerous passengers to alert the flight crew about said Imams suspicious behavior.
3. Two took seats in first class, for which they did not have tickets. Two took seats at the midplane exit doors, and two took seats at the rear of the plane. This seating arrangement--first class, mid-plane, and rear of the plane--fits a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks.
4. Three of these Imams asked for seat belt extenders, even tho they were not overweight. Then, instead of putting them on, they placed them under their seats.

There are other details that fully justify these six Imams being removed from an airplane, but these are probably the most significant.

In short, the Flying Imams case had nothing to do with bigotry against Arabic speakers, or overreactions of passengers or authorities. It was a manufactured event so that Rep Ellison and CAIR could get some press time and show how "bigoted and racist" all those non-Muslim Americans are.

Best still-active link I can find at the moment:
Wall Street Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009348

-john

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[swv3752]

I went to a highly technical school that had students like this. My dad works for a major airline and I have flown more times than a commercial pilot just starting out. I believe greatly in standing up for our rights.

I saw what the girl was wearing. She was holding onto playdough. Evyone was justified in detaining her.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cecil_turtle]

She deliberately set out to provoke a response and got one No, she didn't. She had been wearing it for weeks, not specifically to the airport while picking up her boyfriend.

Why else wouldn't she respond when questioned about what was on her chest? She was questioned by a ticket clerk at a counter. 1) Who the fuck is the ticket clerk to question her? A ticket clerk has no authority. She did answer the police's questions. 2) Airport lobbies are noisy, maybe she simply didn't hear. 3) Maybe the ticket clerk was lying and never actually questioned her but said she did after the fact. 4) If you really had a bomb why on earth would you display it on your shirt? We take our shoes off and surrender liquids at security checkpoints because of people who tried hide bomb materials / devices. People need to use some common sense.

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".

[cecil_turtle]

Can police no longer find they made a mistake, and just LET YOU GO without penalty?? I would like to think that this happens every day; but of course that sort of thing would never make the news so nobody ever hears about it. This type of event should be the uncommon type, which is why it does make news. But I agree with you that this sort of thing does seem to be happening more and more, and it never does get resolved by a simple "Sorry, our bad. You're free to go."

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[jabster]

Actually, wearing that shirt to the airport while holding a chunk of Play-doh pretty much confirms her status as a moron.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[jabster]

"narrow minded cops"

Way to show your appreciation for all those people who daily put their lives on the line for your sorry ass.

They were doing their jobs, and doing them correctly.

-john

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Raenex]

I see dead people.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[pfunes]

> Look at it. Not only is it extremely provocative from the average
> persons TV-level awareness of bomb gadgetry, but personally with a EE
> background I'd be even more alarmed by it's context.

Not the person behind the airline counter nor the airport police are average TV-level persons: all are airport personnel who have been trained in security, specialy after 9/11.

For me the funny thing here is that it wasn't anybody in the general public who got alarmed or scared. There was nothing scary about a girl wearing a shirt with some homemade blinking LEDS. Instead, those who overreacted are the ones with the supposed training plus the experience of working in an airport every day.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cyphercell]

You've been flying for at least 20 years, me I've never flown once, just something I've never done. Fact is, I'm inclined to walk in to the airport as if it was *any* other business I've been in. That's me.

This girl is either like me and unfamiliar with flying or she just doesn't identify her pet project as being portrayed as something negative. Maybe she didn't want to tell people about the shirt because they wouldn't really understand it anyways. Either way she doesn't belong in jail for any length of time greater than enough to explain herself and change her shirt, she's done nothing wrong.

This is from a city that just F*CKING made this same mistake. These are law enforcement people that must think bombs look EXACTLY like they do on TV.

Boston - here's your sign:

Welcome to Boston:
LEDs lit on breadboards powered by batteries, shall not be worn, placed nor carried in any public area where civilians might feel at risk.

I hope I never have to buy electronics from Boston, I mean we know how dangerous the mail is, surely I wouldn't want to scare a postal worker. Hmmm, maybe MIT should quit teaching Electrical Engineering, they are after all, training accidental terrorists.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

Reacting is one thing, overreacting is another. Even if you believe the "device" looked like a bomb (which it most certainly didn't if the posted pictures are accurate), it should have been easy enough for them to have her walk through one of the explosives sniffers, or be sniffed by a bomb dog. If she was clean, they could have let her go, apologized for wasting her time, and let her go. But arresting her and charging her with some
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".

[jabster]

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that it was mentioned in everyone's morning briefing.

Now, it would definately surprise me if this MIT chick knew about it.

It is quite possible the security staff were on heightened alert.

-john

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[krotkruton]

Much like the Boston stunt with the Aqua force whatever team signs....this is horrible overreaction.

I will completely agree with you that the Aqua Teen Hunger Force incident was an over reaction, but I don't think this is the same thing.

She was wearing something with wires, lights, and a battery (although it was just a duracell, lol) on it. I think the police acted appropriately by stopping her. There are some things that could be bombs, and it's best to know for sure that they're not, even if most of the time they are harmless. However, I do think submachine guns were a little unnecessary. I'm not sure how the actual events went, but if she said its art, they should have run it through an x-ray or whatever they have to do to determine if its real or not. Then tell her not to wear it until she leaves the airport on the other side.

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.

Terrorists aren't the only ones to use bombs. She could have been depressed and wanted to commit suicide while taking as many people with her as possible, or could be trying to prove a point that airport security isn't very good by blowing up an airport, or could have been a mentally unstable person who thinks airports are where aliens come from. It doesn't have to be a terrorist act to be dangerous.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cyphercell]

If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.

Your math is bad, or you're trying to prove a point. I have one brain, I don't have around six-billion human brains.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

I think your problem is that you think you're safe in an airport lobby. You're not. Anyone can be dropped off at the curb and wheel a suit case of explosives up to the huge line at the ticket counter and blow up dozens of people. Please recognize and accept this fact. After the security checkpoint, you have some security, but if you think you need to panic and use deadly force in the lobby, you're wrong. It wouldn't help if you did anyway. So lighten up.

Well, I'm not save on the roads either, but I still expect the police to pull on a car that is swerving at 2:00am. Just because something is not 100% secure doesn't mean that you don't at least TRY to secure it. Sure, there are more effective methods of blowing up people than walking into an airport lobby with a bomb strapped to your chest. Then again, there are more effective ways than setting yourself on fire and driving your jeep packed with a propane tank into the lobby either. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can neither over nor underestimate these people.


OK, the airline employee panicked, so I guess the police have to follow up, but it's a false alarm. There's no bomb, nor anything that looks like a bomb on closer inspection. This is where the police want to justify their actions. Looks like they've been trained that the only successful conclusion to a police action is to take someone into custody.

Well, she is out on just over $700 bond. As to whether she is charged or not, I guess that depends on how well she cooperates. If she truly didn't realize that her shirt looked like a bomb, and she apologizes, then OK. Maybe she could do some sort of "Don't be a dumb-ass" or "That was my brain on drugs" public service message as community service. I really hope she wouldn't intentionally try to pull a stunt like that while there to pick up her boyfriend. Then again, she did wear a shirt that looked like a bomb to the airport that 2 of the 19 9-11 hijackers passed through.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[acidrain69]

And anyone half-trained in looking for explosives would realize it was just a breadboard with some LEDs on it and a 9v battery for power. It sucks that the smart people around us should have to think, "Hmm, will I get shot today if some dumbass underpaid goon thinks I'm wearing a bomb?".

Land of the free indeed. Home of the brave. More like home of the paranoid.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[PhoenixK7]

While I might not choose to wear something like that, mainly because I'd chose not to have something like that hanging from a shirt because it'd be uncomfortable, it frankly makes me more inclined to consider wearing something like that in public in protest. This is absurd and ridiculous. A prior commenter said something to the effect that even those who know something about electronics might find such a device questionable.. I beg to differ. The damn thing is breadboard/proto-board with a few LEDs on it. The only thing that's a part of that with much mass is the breadboard, and that, by itself is a manufactured, self-contained product.

We're silently slipping into more and more paranoid waters, and allowing fascist tendencies to rise. What this amounts to is a legitimization of conform or you must be a criminal. The signs put in public places these days are almost comical. Especially the, "all it takes is one person to stop terrorism, you. report anything suspicious to the nearest authority." You know, if something really were suspicious, I don't think people really need encouragement. All this propaganda does is encourage people to be more paranoid and freak out at the slightest variation from "normal." It's sickening, and it will destroy us in the US if we keep sliding further down this road. Really... consider your chances of dying in a terrorist attack, its basically near the bottom compared with many other ways of dying you would have thought unlikely, see here: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/09/71743

The best thing you can do to fight terrorism is to live your life as you would otherwise, and fight for the civil liberties we're having taken away. An astronomically larger number of people are adversely affected by the fear attached to "terror" than are actually subject to attacks.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

It's a tough call on when cops should draw their guns.
Well, it may be a tough call sometimes, but other times, it's clearly not. For example, if it really WAS a bomb, she wasn't planning on SURVIVING the attempt. The "PUT DOWN THE SUICIDE BOMB OR I WILL KILL YOU" threat rings slightly hollow to me. Drawing a weapon as deterrent is 100% idiotic in this situation. Here are the scenarios:

1. It is not a bomb. You've now put innocent lives at risk and incited panic needlessly.
2. It is a bomb, but she doesn't actually plan on killing anyone with it. You've now put her in fear of her life. There's no better way to convince someone to take the most desperate measure possible than to threaten his or her life.
3. It is a bomb, and she intends on killing people with it. You've now informed her that she's found out, and her time to detonate is limited. This likely prompts her detonation of the device.

The only use of a gun that is appropriate in a scenario like this is when you are convinced enough that it is a bomb to use lethal force, and you think you have gotten the "drop" on the bomber. At that point, you should probably start shooting as quickly as possible, and don't stop until you're 100% certain they aren't breathing/no longer pose a threat.

You're 100% better off just subduing the person by numbers/physical force/negotiation. In situation 1, everybody walks away with no risk to anyone's life. In situation 2, you're much more likely to succeed in negotiations, and also in your ability to clear civilians and neutralize the subject. In situation 3, you're much more likely to get accurate information that allows you to surprise, disable, or kill the subject.

Or am I missing something? Long story short: in scenarios where the only option is kill or be killed, there's absolutely no point in drawing a weapon unless you plan on doing the killing. Anything else is just waiting for them to kill you.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[PhoenixK7]

I'd just like the add to all of this that, democracy isn't handed to you on a silver platter. Democracy is both a process and a constant struggle.

To make this slightly tacky, I'll come back to the previous post with a quote Yoda here:

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Think about that before simply dismissing it as a stupid movie quote.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

Umm.. did you look at the picture of it? That doesn't look like a bomb. It's a bread board with some wires in it. You know what looks more like a bomb? A cell phone. Fortnately they didn't arrest everyone who had one of those!

Take a look at these pictures. What she was wearing looks like a mini version of one of THESE. None of which, looks anything like a cell phone, btw, but look strikingly similar to what she had on.

Other pictures.
HERE
and HERE (this actually looks more like what was on her shirt, minus the wires)

Of course, she could have easily ended up like THIS guy who was only wearing a vest with a bunch of pockets! (warning, graphic)

Ah, screw it... use google images and search for "suicide bomb vest". You won't find any cell phones there, but you might find a few that look very similar to her shirt!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

Bombs do not have flashing LEDs, regardless of what you see in the movies.

True. But if you ever become security, let me know where so I can sneak anything I want in, as long as I include some blue LED's. 'Cause we all know that if it has blue LED's, it can't be a bomb, right?

Actually, if I were a bomb maker, I might include a LED just to test the battery. I'd hate to think that whoever was wearing the vest might not realize that they have a dead or disconnected battery!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[th3rmite]

"Number of terrorist bombs that have blinky LEDs: ~0"

Dude, obviously you haven't been to the middle east or southeast asia. I've seen quite a few IED's that contained "blinky LEDS". Just because the real complicated stuff hasn't made it to America yet, doesn't mean it won't.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[retzkek]

After having spent multiple deployments in Iraq and Africa guarding against the same types of situation... I always tell my boys to err in on the side of self preservation. If you neutralize them, one person is lost.

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".

[Antiocheian]

Well, then do.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[firebee]

"I saw what she was wearing and trust me, it looked like a bomb."

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".

[PeeAitchPee]

Number of real, no bullshit attacks on Western airports by terrorists in the last 90 days: 1

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[bXTr]

You're not exactly avoiding the possible loss of life if you shoot her, are you? Or do only other people's lives count in your statement?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[hnile_jablko]

Do you know the story of Jean Charles de Menezes? He was the Brazilian guy who was shot in a London tube station after the bombings in London. He was tackled when he walked onto the train and shot 7 times in the head while face down.
I was working in London at the time and the initial claims all over the news by the police where that Menezes walked out of a building where suspected terrorists were living. They said he was carrying a back pack which they thought contained explosives. They said he refused to stop when they asked him to stop. They said he then ran down the escalator towards a train. The police said this is how they got things wrong and cunfused a Brazilian national as a terrorist. Turns out a few days later, the story was completely different. It is true, he lived in the same building as some terror suspects being monitored, but he never had a back pack, he was never asked to stop and based on the video footage from the security cameras shown all over the UK, he never ran once. This is an extreme case, but outlines the abuse of power and loss of control police in any country can experience. Incidentally, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Since when did shooting first (even if the person is innocent) become accepted? Is this the former soviet union?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[PeeAitchPee]

Dude, can you lay off the dope, please?? Unicorns? Second Life? I'm trying to understand but none of what you posted makes any fucking sense.

Can you pass the Cheetos? Thanks . . .

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[bockelboy]

I have no problem with security reacting - that's what they are trained to do. Someone reported something suspicious, and police followed protocol to a T.

The problem I have is afterwards, when it is found that it was a harmless oversight (a dumb oversight, yes - but harmless), they charge her with something. A hoax bomb device implies malicious intent, and I have a hard time believing it's there.

Look, she was headed to career day. Her name is "Star" and she is an EE. She had LEDs on her shirt which light up in the pattern of a star. Get it? It's a name tag. She wasn't out looking for trouble.

She needed a stern talking to, but she doesn't need to get charged. The police also didn't need to over-sensationalize the stupid thing. Who the hell decided a security incident needed to go to the international press? They must know that someone is going to report it from the "look at the dumbass police" angle.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[PeeAitchPee]

Dude, after awhile you've gotta stop making excuses for someone because you just look silly. There's no law that says you have a right to do whatever you want in an airport. If you don't like it, don't go there. I fly every week and if you want to go there and make trouble for people just trying to fly and earn a living, fuck you too. She's just a slightly naive whitebread chick who tried to make an "artistic statement" and shit her pants when surrounded by automatic weapons. Period. Her 15 minutes of fame are up and you'll see a nice post on /. in 25 years commemorating her event. That's it.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Angst Badger]

The scary thing is that the authorities really think they've improved security when they've really just created new vulnerabilities. If you're a terrorist looking to kill a bunch of people, can you think of a better place to set off a bomb than the backlog of people waiting to pass through the metal detectors on a busy day?

Of course, in this case, we are talking about Boston, a city where the authorities flipped out over the terrible menace of Lite-Brites with cartoon characters on them.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

This is hilarious. Why in the world should I trust you?

So let me get this straight. You don't trust me, and I'm just some guy typing on slashdot, probably thousands of miles away from you. You would however trust a Asian looking girl with over-died blonde hair in an airport with some sort of device attached to her shirt. I'm sorry, but are you a fucking moron? I don't see any other explanation as to how anyone could be so fucking backwards. BTW, you shouldn't trust me, although I do have some training with explosives, buy you sure as shit shouldn't trust someone with a device strapped to their chest. Trusting that person could cause you end up as nothing more than a cloud of red mist, wet hair and bone fragments.

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.

Right. So you've seen what she was wearing. Now, look at my comment HERE for some pictures of real live suicide vests that look very similar to what this girl had on her shirt, minus the blinking lights, of course. And as to the lights: Who says you can't put blinky lights on a bomb. If I were a bomb maker and had the time, I would include an LED to test the circuit and battery, although I'd have to make sure that whoever wore the bomb knew which button was the detonator and which was the tester, of course.

Are bombs that look like Hollywood props any less deadly than those that DON'T? I've linked to pictures of suicide vests that also looked like Hollywood props. If you were working at the airport that day, would you take the chance?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

"...let a judge/jury decide if she was just stupid, or did she do this on purpose."

That's the only problem I have with your entire statement. Everything now has to go to court instead of someone determining this at the scene. In no circumstance should they have opted to shoot a person carrying a bomb and risk setting it off IF THERE WERE ANOTHER WAY. Which there was and they did so, good job. The first person to examine the "bomb" should have been qualified to do so or should have stayed away from it. Once it was taken from her and couldn't be activated there should have been a procedure to address a possible bomb. That procedure should in my opinion be for a person knowledgable enough to examine the possible bomb and determine if it is a threat. If not, questions should be asked. I see no statements to the effect that her explinations were malicious or revealed intent to pull a hoax. That is the basis for the charges she was arrested for. Stupidity is not the same thing as perpetrating a Hoax. It doesn't matter the situation, place, or intelligence. That's the definition of a hoax.

So I'll repeat the part of my post you obviously didn't read or forgot while typing your reply to it:
"If there was intent to pull a hoax then arrest her, if it was a stupid monkey mistake, admonish her for being stupid and let her pay a fine, don't confuse the issue with other charges if they aren't valid."

So far I have seen zero facts stated by the police or otherwise that would lead to an arrest charge for attempting a hoax.
I think that if they chose to have the press release already and didn't show any sustaining proof even in passing, the charge itself is not reasonable. Until I see something that actually merits the charge there's nothing more to say.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[MrCopilot]

Right only react when it looks like this

*i
(_)

I mean everybody knows thats what a bomb looks like.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[WilliamX]

"Later reports" were not what she said at the time of the first inquiry, they were what she said AFTER her arrest when she finally began to cooperate.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[JPribe]

I would rather side with the police and have the girl arrested (or shot if needed) and avoid possible loss of life then err on the side of "oh, well maybe its not a bomb, well maybe it is, or maybe its not, or maybe....*BOOM*"

And what, there wasn't a cop with the presence of mind to ask WTF was on her shirt. I still have some shirts around (somewhere) that have LEDs in them. Would a blinking shirt or one of those blinking buttons get me shot at an airport???

If so, the procedures need to be re-evaluated with a quickness.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[arth1]

She told the information counter person that it was a piece of art as she was leaving the counter. Of course she didn't respond to any more questions, she had already turned around and was on her way to find her boyfriend at the arrivals gate.

Plus, I'm quite convinced that answering the repeat question with "it's a homemade device", wouldn't have gone over well either...

Can't airport personnel get a six hour training class where they look at things, and someone points out "this is a bomb", "this is NOT a bomb", "this is a weapon", "this is NOT a weapon", and unlearn some of the Hollywood crap and superstitions?

I've had airport security go ballistic over a set of soft-tip darts. Even after they were pulled out of the bag, and they could see the flights and shafts, they still apparently had never seen tungsten darts before.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

I think anyone looking at her, hopefully a TRAINED law enforcement pro, would tell that this was nothing

Like box-cutters. Those were nothing also. Even so, google-image "suicide vest" and compare those pictures to what this chick was wearing. Of course, you won't find an exact match, but I think they are close enough for a trained law enforcement pro to not take any chances. ...but, even if concerned...could have checked thingsout first before surrounding her with machineguns one trigger pull away from ripping her apart.

Your kidding, right:

"Um, excuse me, Miss. Yes you with the bomb looking device on your chest. Would you mind stepping over here with me, please and place you C4 in the bin as I move this wand over you. Please place your arms to the side." A person, as far as I know..is not required by any law to answer another civilian about anything

Ticket agents do have some authority here. Remember, first of all that two of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers passed through Logan airport. Also, keep in mind that a few ticket agents said, "that guy was acting strange" on 9-11 but didn't tell anyone. Imagine how that must have felt, knowing that you gave a boarding pass to a 9-11 hijacker and all you asked was, "did you pack your bags yourself?". Then, compound that feeling with everyone... and I mean EVERYONE asking you, "why didn't you say anything? You could have diverted this whole thing!" Now, back the present, someone comes past this same ticket counter with a friggin bomb looking device strapped to her chest in plain sight and you question the ticket agent for not ignoring it?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ceoyoyo]

Your original examples were all stupid overreactions but this one wasn't, at least as described. She wasn't jumped when she walked into the airport, she had to not answer a question about the device first. Yeah, if you're carrying some random electronic device that's not identifiable as something harmless and someone asks you about it and you don't answer you deserve some suspicion. Which is, I expect, exactly what she was going for.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[blincoln]

What she was wearing looks like a mini version of one of THESE

Yes, I can see how you'd think that an exposed breadboard with some LEDs on it is pretty much a dead ringer for a vest with a bunch of pipes stuffed in it. I had to look at the pictures five or six times to make sure you hadn't simply linked to another copy of the picture from TFA.

The CG rendering of a pouch was also very convincing. I often worry that TEH TERRORISTS!!! have replaced my belt pouches with C4+nail bombs because they look exactly the same. In fact, I bought one of those thick green bomb squad suits to wear when making sure that what I think are my belt pouches are in fact my belt pouches and not going to blow me into tiny bits.

Overly paranoid people like you are the reason that everything that makes the US a great country is being destroyed. I would be fine with being blown up by TEH TERRORISTS!!! tomorrow if it meant people could display LED artwork publicly in Boston or see the real deal Hoover Dam tour again instead of the castrated "look, in the distance, you can sort of see one of the generators, beneath the giant American flag!" version they have now.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ceoyoyo]

Okay, you call into question the accuracy of the news article. Then jump to the conclusion that the cops jumped to conclusions....

Bit of a bias?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[RealGrouchy]

Any jokes about bombs are taken seriously at airports (much to the dismay of compulsive asshats like myself).

I don't see why devices that may resemble bombs should be treated any differently.

Sure it's legal to carry a tangled mess of wires in your carryon, as you can easily open it up and show that there are only wires, no explosives in there. But do you really reasonably expect to get it through security without at least some hassles?

- RG>

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[zenkonami]

My Kingdom for a mod point!

+1 more...Insightful.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Bo'Bob'O]

Police are not supposed to be lay-people, especially the ones working at an airport?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Soporific]

Why else wouldn't she respond when questioned about what was on her chest?

I dunno, I'm pretty good at identifying things on womens chests and usually get slapped when I ask what's on them... ;)

~S

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[houghi]

There are parts of the world where she would have been killed for this.

There are only two countries I can think of where you would be killed for this. USofA and the UK. In all other places, people will tazer you, hit you over the head or do whatever it takes.

This BS about 'lucky not to have been shot' is just trying to cover their asses. I was once arrested and even while I did everything they said and not posing any thread, they told me I was lucky not to have been shot.

The fact that they were looking for somebody else does not bother me. The fact that they tell me I was "lucky" bothers me. Luck should have nothing to do with it. I know of one Brazilian in the UK who was not that "lucky".

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[rok3]

If it looks suspicious at first glance it probably isn't a bomb. This isn't Hollywood. If you want to kill people you hide your bombs... not make them light up, blink, beep, and tap people on the shoulder shouting "Ima Bomb!"!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[murdocj]

When someone walks thru an airport wearing something that looks like a bomb, you probably want to do a little checking as to whether the person is doing a dry run or perhaps has a few screws loose. Certainly this person is at least slightly out of touch with today's reality.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

Overly paranoid people like you are the reason that everything that makes the US a great country is being destroyed. I would be fine with being blown up by TEH TERRORISTS!!! tomorrow if it meant people could display LED artwork publicly in Boston or see the real deal Hoover Dam tour again instead of the castrated "look, in the distance, you can sort of see one of the generators, beneath the giant American flag!" version they have now.

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".

[zenkonami]

I haven't been blown up by a terrorist ("yet", the current administration attempts to remind me.)

40,000 Auto related fatalities a year
40,000 Gun related accidents a year
That's just in the U.S.

Average total casualties of terrorism (currently) worldwide is roughly 10,000(and was significantly less prior to 2004, in spite of the attack on the World Trade Center.)

Terrorism Statistics: GTD

Terrorists want people to live in fear that today could be their last. Now who is for letting the terrorists win?

I for one welcome our MIT overlords.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Zarluk]

Yeah! Sure, she's a freak and she must be benned!

Probably, she's a witch too! Burn! Burn! Burn!

Anyway, americans have never been famous for their sense of humour ;-)

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[zenkonami]

+1 Exactly.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Bo'Bob'O]

She wasn't traveling. She was picking someone up.

Maybe she was trying to make a scene, in which, indeed, she should have all those charges brought against her. Or maybe she really did just make a mistake.. a dumb, careless mistake, but a mistake no less. Maybe charges are still necessary, but I sure as hell don't think you should be able to charge someone with crimes having to do with intent if she had no intent.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[AaronLawrence]

If someone is dangerously unstable, then are they always going to methodically setup a concealed device? It seems perfectly reasonable that someone who has gone off the deepend WOULD run in with an obvious bomb. Just because it is obvious, does not mean it isn't real! Not every dangerous person is a fanatic with a reasoned goal.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[joto]

Hrmmmm.... looking at the "device" from the images on the link makes me think the police overreacted. Come on now.... holding her at gunpoint?

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.

I disagree. No matter how insane, lunatic, post-911 trigger-happy, gun-touting, soldier of fortune-reading, shoe-size iq, moron of an airport security guard you are, you should be able to recognize the following facts:

1. Circuit boards are not bombs
2. Even normal devices such as a cell-phone or playstation contains circuit boards.
3. Batteries are not bombs
4. Many devices contain batteries. Putting the battery on the outside does not make the device more dangerous.
5. Putty is not a bomb
6. Sure, a bomb can look like putty, but a bomb can also easily be made to look like something else, such as fruit, or a camera
7. A bomb can also be hidden inside something, such as a jacket or a bag
8. That's why we have bomb detectors
9. And it's also why it's usually better looking for people acting suspicious, than people carrying unusual items
10. Even if you see someone with a device you believe is suspicious, unless the person also acts very suspiciously (such as by running away when questioned) it is better to remain calm and investigate, rather than immediately put the person at gunpoint
11. Just because you have proven yourself to be an idiot, doesn't mean that you should be able to put just about anyone with IQ above their shoe-size in jail, for having a "hoax explosive device".

...unfortunately, I'm obviously wrong about all the above!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, who the hell WEARS electronics (excepting a digital watch) anyways?

Not a lot of people, unless they happen to wear on their person:

• Digital Watch (as you said)
  
• PDA
  
• Cell phone
  
• iPod (check out those arm straps)
  
• Pager (actually I don't suppose anyone wears these anymore)
  
• Shoes or other clothes with built in electronics
  
• A laptop in a backpack
  
• GPS
  
• FirstAlert button
  
• Digital Blood Sugar meter (diabetics)
  

...

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Knos]

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?

The key point here before going in hyperventilation mode is to notice that:

She was arrested about 8 a.m. outside Terminal C, home to United Airlines, Jet Blue and other carriers.

A Massachusetts Port Authority staffer manning an information booth in the terminal became suspicious when Simpson - wearing the device - approached to ask about an incoming flight, Pare said.

-guardian

Basically picking up some friend arriving via plane.. She was *not* about to board a plane, and outside the confine of the terminal.

Security did not even initiate the incident, it's another staffer at an information booth, in a less security sensitive area.

What I mean to say here is that if you consider it normal, then it would be normal to arrest her anywhere in the USA. Which is kind of the point that Bruce Schneier makes about not letting yourself being terrorized.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[MooUK]

She should have been stopped and questioned. She should NOT have been charged.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArAgost]

...not to mention that she was nearly gunned down. What would have happened then?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[butlerdi]

Might just be that she is part of the MIT wearable computing project. http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/. I am really fed up with all of the people that think that our daily lives should be ruled by the fear of terrorists.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[kevinbr]

My fellow Americans are a race of insane scared pussies

".......ou need to go pick up a news paper and read what has been going on in the world for the last couple of years. Once you're up to speed with the rest of the adults, you'll understand why she is oh so lucky to be alive to talk about her stupidity......"

How many Americans have died from a drunk driving incident since 9/11? Car crash? Maybe the newspapers are stupid and you are also stupid to not have the context to understand what the word hype means.

I fly all the the time every week, for the last 12 years.........and trust me airport security has nothing to do with security. It is all a PR effort, but sadly all the little dweeb power hungry fuckers with uniforms love it because it allows them to become the true fascists that they have always dreamed of becoming.

You sir are the one out of touch with reality.

If these terrorists really wanted to blow up shit, you would know a lot about it.

This incident is all about a nation that is no longer free because fuckers like you let Osama win.

I used to travel all the time in the Middle East, and going to Saudi Arabia was always a bit tense, because they were lawless fuckers who could do what they wanted.

Now? It struck me that the west is no different. Who the fuck know the rules anymore? So. Osama has won. He has taken away our freedoms and made all Western airports the same as Saudi Arabia.

Now we have men with guns at airports who can arrest you for pretty much anything thay want, and they have minds slaves nodding their heads, while meanwhile 300 bodies a week of innocent Americans are buried after the demon booze put them there.

The reality is that most people hre including you have no idea about risk. But you force people like me to live in your slave reality.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[tonyr60]

It they released her immediately it would look like a mistake by Police/Security staff. Police and Security staff NEVER make a mistake, but sometimes after due consideration, which likely involves overnight in a cell, legal deprivation etc. a decision is made to pass the problem over to the courts or to be nice and let the person off with a warning that they should never do that again or the book will be thrown. Note that in neither case is the person found to be innocent.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[AMindLost]

Agreed, check out this (BBC) story about a guy who walked into a shop with a knife and slit his own throat. Crazy people who want to kill themselves do sometimes do it as publicly as possible.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[titzandkunt]

"...It is a criminal act to make bomb threats in an airport, just as it is a criminal act to shout "fire" in a movie theater...."

What if the theatre is actually on fire, though? Perhaps we should criminalise fire alarms! ;-)

Seriously, the "yelling 'fire!' in a movie theatre" example is often trotted out during discussions regarding free speech as an illustration to show how completely unrestricted free speech cannot be tolerated.

Usually, however, the theatre quote is a magician's act of dishonest distraction. A fire in a large, enclosed public space demands immediate and direct action to prevent loss of life and injury. The hot free-speech issues of the day, be it inflamatory speech, "hate" speech, speech which applauds terrorists or whatever, bear no resemblance to a life-or-death situation. Listeners must digest and reflect on what they hear and if any of them choose to act on that basis, then the consequences are, individually, theirs to bear.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Fjandr]

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.

Unless the article has changed since you read it, the writing on her sweatshirt was not the "putty" in question. It was the lump of playdough that she was holding.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[kevinbr]

".....In short, while the policies are completely ridiculous at times, there's no reason to push your luck. If you have to travel by plane (and I avoid it at all costs these days), don't give them any excuse to give you a hard time. Doing so won't change anything and it's liable to make your day much more difficult as well. If you intend to protest airport security policy, pick a different venue. That is, unless you have a *lot* of time on your hands...."

You are so wrong. Traveling should not be a function of luck. We are a nation of laws. Speaking words is not suppsed to be a crime. Some of us have no choice bacuse of our job - we have to travel. I do not recall any amendment to the constitution that said I am giving up my rights because I am flying and the staff are idiots and the process is ineffective.

As I posted above, travelling now via western airports is no different than travelling via Saudi Arabia.

Freedom does not disapear in one day, it starts with lack of attention to the fact that a lot of what we fear has no real basis in law. I recently had a guitar swabbed in a German airport, while I waited ten minutes for the result. The stupid lady then told me there were no problems with my guitar - Itold her she was a fucking idiot because if I had packed explosives, I would have know about it regardless of her swab, thus there was no point in announcing to me that the guitar was safe. Should I be arrested? In Saudi Arabia - why not? In the west?

Sure I am rude. I am rude to idiots who carry out pointless processes. But in a free society I should be free to be rude.

Ask me the ways I have figured out to avoid security and get a bomb on plane. The whole exercise is pointless. Always has been.

Are we different? Are we free? People die every day by the thousands doing things risky. Who decided a drunk driver can kill me, yet a terrorist is not supposed to kill me on an airplane, but he can kill me on a train, in a bus station, at a rock concert, pretty much where he wants - IF he wants.

Freedom. Use it or lose it.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[lekikui]

Please. The police are claiming that she refused to answer questions, etc. The police claim a lot of things, many of which prove false.

I thought that one of the fundamental principles of American justice was 'innocent until proven guilty'. Bearing that in mind, why don't you listen to what the person is saying - it was a piece of artwork which she had forgotten to take off, iirc.

And if the solution to terrorism, aiming to scare us, is to leave us so terrified of anything slightly out of the ordinary that police are saying that people were lucky not to get shot, it seems to me that we don't have much of a country left worth fighting for. Freedoms are crucial, and removing them to protect against those who want to remove them is self-defeating.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[kevinbr]

well said. Anyone with the slightest logic can see that the Airport bullshit has no logic. it is just some obtuse PR effort. And anyone with half a brain can think of many ways to beat the security system.

The reality is the threat is way overstated.

I spent some time in Afghanistan. Our driver was a former soldier ( started killing at 16, stopped at 21). If this guy wanted to kill someone - he would. They are thousands and thousands of smart people who have proved they are capable of killing and killing with expertese. if these guys want you dead, you would be.

The reality is there is a tiny group of people who want to blow up an airport, and when they try we might have a 50 / 50 chance of stopping them. Or a million to one chance. It all depends on the method they adopt.

Grow up everybody. Assess the threat. You are NOT going to die in a US airport. That sugar and fat and booze you suck in will kil you for sure.

Sure Ahmed and Mohamed and others hate you as much as you hate them. But they want to live. Just like you do.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[kevinbr]

"......It's common knowledge that that attack was the most successful terror attack in history...."

You have a very poor grasp of history. You also have a poor grasp of the defintion of the word terror.

".........After 2 hours of bombardment, Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. The fires were so hot they would ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. Many women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads, and the heat would ignite those turbans like a wick on a candle. This was the worst disaster for Tokyo since the 1923 earthquake. The death toll was at least 80,000, and perhaps exceeded 100,000.[4] This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and the firebombing of Dresden......."

Curtis LeMay later said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."

Tokyo marks a world record at that point in time - the most people died in the shortest amount of time from an act of terror in the history of mankind.

Don't bother with your tired crap about war. Osama believes he is in a war. People here believe we are at war. Me? I belive war has rules. I believe if you kill 100K women, children and babies you are a terrorist.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Gordonjcp]

If a girl with a geeky shirt and a child's toy scares you, YOU are at fault, not her.

It doesn't scare *me*, I'm British. Unlike the US, my country has actually had to deal with terrorism quite extensively in the past (btw. thanks for all those Nor-Aid dollars!)

It just strikes me as being a bit stupid to go to a place where you've got frightened trigger-happy people and walk around with wires sticking out of your shirt holding some unidentifiable squashy material.

This is just one more reason not to go to the US, until they sort themselves out.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[u38cg]

And have you actually applied this theory to any police officers who may have, for whatever reason, formed the initial suspicion that you may be a source of danger? If you are waving around electronics and blinking lights in an airport, that is reasonable grounds for taking a closer look. If that person then behaves in such a way as to deepen your suspicions, you had better choose between exercising your rights and carrying on breathing. A little proportion is called for in these circumstances.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[The Cydonian]

Did you look at her vest closely? It has been taken inside out by the authorities; the circuit board was inside. You wouldn't have seen anything outside, just blinking lights. Note that the article also says the jacket had the words 'Course VI' on it, something you don't see in the pictures at BB or boston.com

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[mysidia]

If the security folks thought the person was wearing a bomb, then letting the people panic and get out of there safely would be the right thing to do.

There can be little doubt that it is better to have panic'ed and escaped the scene, than to be blown up. "Easing the crowd's mind" is not necessarily a good thing, when it comes to explosives.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[fanatic]

Why is it that airports have special significance?

Maybe because it's the common public place most likely to be overstocked with people who are paid to be paranoid and have guns?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[doshell]

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!"

That's exactly the point. Yes, you would be overreacting. The price you pay for your freedom to carry box cutters around with you is that they may be used in wrong ways. That is precisely what freedom is -- a two-way road. You reap the benefits and take the risks.

I would rather take the risks of living in a free society than living in a police state where carrying anything even remotely suspicious with me is going to paint me as a terrorist. Would you?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[the_bard17]

Who gets to determine what looks like an IED? 'Cause last I knew, you can make them look like a lot of things.

I'd prefer not to get "taken down" the next time I step inside a mall with my backpack, thank you very much.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[doshell]

And before you read my reply the wrong way, notice that I'm not saying that carrying bomb-like stuff around is acceptable. I'm just saying specifically that box cutters are a good example of something people should be allowed to carry. So are a lot of items that nowadays airport security refuses you to carry aboard (and if they did let you, 99.9999% of the times no bad use would be put to them).

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[LuSiDe]

Why does nobody seem to understand that the TSA do know this kind of story achieves the news? The way you act then is to educate (or 'educate') the people. It is now quite clear to anyone reading the newspapers that wearing electronics like this is a big no-no. For one, you get arrested. For second, chances are high you get shot. Nobody in their right mind now does this anymore although the numbers of those who would are minor.

"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."

Guess why they didn't shoot her? Because they knew damn well it was NOT a bomb. Thats why. If they thought it was a bomb she'd have been shot on sight, and the airport would have been evacuated. This clearly did not happen (and you can bet a lot of other things behind the screens at the TSA DID happen like background check etc). But, she might have caused fears among other visitors, or confusion to TSA folks, or both. TSA doesn't want this on their airpot, so they used this situation to their advantage knowing full well it'd get in the news.

Everything is staged these days, but not always for 'bad reason'.

Years ago, in 'skater ages' I used a 6-pin keyboard cord around my trousers as belt, because it was functional to hang my wallet on (not losing it), and because it looked funny. Also an 'art'. I wanted to wear it the other day, going on airport to see my girlfriend, but I chose not to (nor did I chose to bring it w/me as I was going on the airplane to her). Why? well, because I didn't want a situation like this woman got herself into. You simply need to think about how other people would perceive you w/their paranoia. Ironically, a smart terrorist would do the same. And, guess what? A smart terrorist wouldn't walk with bomb wires on his back (the girl in this subject would not be a 'smart terrorist' if she actually had a bomb).

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[LuSiDe]

She is intelligent enough to attend MIT, yet stupid or vain enough to wear that sh1t.

Its called Asperger's / being autistic / being an artist / fill in other excuse.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[The Cydonian]

If you set off a bomb at a gas station or a grocery store, people will still buy gas and groceries.

Spoken like someone who lives in a city or twon that didn't have any terrorist incidents at all. Trust me on this one. I've seen communities going down and not being able to recover because of blasts in eateries and such. Yes, there's the old cliché about countries and communities being resilent and such shit, but that is not entirely true.

Fact is this. It is very easy to give the impression of securing airports. You can't do that to your local delis; there are waaaay too many of those. But in terms of overall impact, I'd say a blast in a mall or some public space is far greater than in an airport.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Happy Monkey]

Ah, screw it... use google images and search for "suicide bomb vest". You won't find any cell phones there, but you might find a few that look very similar to her shirt!

I guarantee that you won't. They will all have explosives, and none of them will have blinky lights.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[asuffield]

Justify, using diagrams where necessary, the designs and colouring of every item of clothing you own. Remove any and all items that I and all the other people nearby decide to be unacceptable.

Not answering and complying? Then, according to your post, we are fully justified in arresting and/or shooting at you, and you'll be lucky to be alive.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[igny]

this Star Simpson person was pretty stupid to try that.

D'oh!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[asuffield]

I agree with you and this is just classic psychology at work here. If she had nothing to hide she just would of stated what it was she was wearing, but the fact she didn't suggest she doesn't want you to know and possibly for nefarious reasons. We all know now it wasn't for bad intentions but at the time the employee(s) doesn't know.

How many times have you tried asking a woman to explain the clothes they are wearing? How many of them have just ignored you?

Nothing unusual at all about that kind of behaviour.

And *sigh* when will we stop thinking of terrorists of guys only in the middle east. Timothy Mcveigh ring a bell? I can easily see a disgruntled citizen who doesn't know shit about bombs trying to make one, showing up somewhere with wires hanging out trying to blow the place up. You laugh but there are alot of stupid criminals out in this world....

In a free society, you assume everybody is innocent until proven otherwise. Sure, this means more crimes are going to be committed. That's the price of freedom. If you don't like it, China welcomes rich immigrants.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Mr. Shiny And New]

Obviously it's the guys with the guns who are paid to secure the premises who get to determine what looks like an IED. That is what they're paid to do, after all.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[asuffield]

Guess why they didn't shoot her? Because they knew damn well it was NOT a bomb. Thats why. If they thought it was a bomb she'd have been shot on sight, and the airport would have been evacuated. This clearly did not happen (and you can bet a lot of other things behind the screens at the TSA DID happen like background check etc). But, she might have caused fears among other visitors, or confusion to TSA folks, or both. TSA doesn't want this on their airpot, so they used this situation to their advantage knowing full well it'd get in the news.

Can you prove that? Because you have just alleged that several members of the TSA have committed a serious felony, which has a mandatory prison sentence attached. If true, this needs to be publicised and prosecuted now.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[vertinox]

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?

No.

One of my bands on my label has to take their gear on the plane via carry on ($1,000 mini sound board and you would too rather than have it thrown around in luggage)

The have gotten funny looks by security but they always let us through.

In reality, most bombs aren't like their Hollywood counterparts and have minimum of wires and mostly explosives.

Here is a crude one made in Afghanistan (At 9 seconds into the film):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pek5xISalL8

No circuit boards. No rats nest of wires. No count down timer. In the more advanced bombs you'll have a cell phone involved, but its far from anything like what that person was wearing. I can't seem to find pictures of the Palestinian bombs, but they are quite clean and neatly packed.

In reality, if a terrorist was attempting to attack an airport with a bomb (it is highly unlikely going to be targeted again since of all the attention airports receive now) they will have a valid identification and paper, look very clean cut, have no evidence of wires or irritation, have a fail deadly (shoot them and the bomb goes off anyways) and would simply blow themselves up after they realized it was too late.

Speaking of which... If terrorism was that big of a threat (as opposed to heart disease and car wrecks which kill more Americans a year than a hundred 9/11s) they would target the airport security checkpoints like they do in Iraq where everyone is waiting in line to get through.

In Israel, their checkpoints consist of concrete bunkers, video cameras, and loud speakers due to the fact that suicide bombs were attacking the soldiers there.

So no... I don't think this argument is valid because there will not be an attack unless its just by a crackpot who gets lucky. Even then you shouldn't be afraid because your more likely to die in your shower by a slip and fall accident than ever dying of a terrorist attack. (And no... I don't have a college degree but I feel like we've gone to hell in a hand basket with paranoia that is ruining this nation)

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[asuffield]

Way to show your appreciation for all those people who daily put their lives on the line for your sorry ass.

I'm sorry, are you claiming that anybody who risks their life should be permitted to commit crimes with no consequences? That any government employee whose job carries any degree of risk should be exempt from responsibility for their actions? That the people responsible for enforcing the law should be less accountable than others?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[bobcote]

Forgive me if this is redundant, but besides the circuit board and LEDs there were two other factors.
1. She was politely asked about the device and ignored the question, walking away. Fortunately, in New England, being rude is in itself not a crime.
2. She was holding a putty like substance in her hands. Again, not a crime.

But factor in these two issue with the "art project" and the location (an airport where two of the 9/11 hijacked flights originated) and you get suspicious behavior and reasonable cause.

The automatic weapons may have been a bit much, weapons like that are great for a firefight, but not in an arrest of one person.

You can argue freedom of expression, but I can't go to the airport and greet my friend Jack and tell him the movie I saw last night was a bomb while my competition is gunning for me.

Paranoia may one day save Wall Street from a nuclear suitcase from terrorists.

I'm sure she will be found innocent.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[sgarringer]

How many times have you tried asking a woman to explain the clothes they are wearing? How many of them have just ignored you? Nothing unusual at all about that kind of behaviour.

Um, yeah. I know lots of women who go around wearing breadboards tied to their shirts with silly putty in my hands at a freaking airport. Come on... I agree she should not have been arrested, but the cops WERE right to detain her. If she honestly didn't put two and two together (I'm in an airport which have extremely high amounts of fear in the security agents, plus, and I'm wearing something with wires and putty in my hands that could be mistaken to be a bomb) then she probably shouldn't be attending MIT... That is common sense... If she was walking around on campus, or in the lab, of course it would be different. But you have to know that in 2007 fears in the airport are extremely high and going in with wires, LEDs, and putty to (probably) intentionally cause a stir is idiotic, and borderline retarded.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[KDR_11k]

I would rather side with the police and have the girl arrested (or shot if needed) and avoid possible loss of life

That does not make sense. Shoot people on a hunch to prevent deaths? With that security policy, who needs terrorists?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Kythe]

I guess the fact is...I'd not have given a second thought to wearing something like that myself?!?

Yeah, but to an airport???

I saw a picture of that shirt, and in context, it caught my breath. There are lots of examples of the police over-reacting (Boston, etc.); this isn't one of them. I'm an electronics engineer and hobbyist, I'm very familiar with prototyping boards and had I seen that in an airport, I would have thought it was a functional, improvised electronic device designed to do something (besides look interesting). And why would someone wear a functional, improvised electronic device to an airport?

It's almost like shouting "thyre!" in a crowded theater and wondering why everyone's upset. The shirt's cool, but you'd have to ignore the whole reason airport security exists to think wearing it to one is a good idea.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[MoneyT]

NO people should not have to be afraid of scaring other people.

Just a small nitpick, but almost every state in the US has a law in the vien of "Going armed to the terror of the people" which basicaly states that exercising your constitutional rights can be a crime if your intent appears to be to scare people (or if you scare enough old ladies). Remember that part of the job of the police is to keep the peace. Scarring people (especially large numbers of people) is not keeping the peace.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[buck-yar]

I aggree. How can anyone defend this? Clearly her intent was to "Cry wolf"

In the future this will only place doubt into the minds of police officers trying to prevent mass carnage. "Is that person with a bomb on their waist just a student making a political statement?"

A second of hesitation may kill hundreds.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Kythe]

Umm.. did you look at the picture of it?

Heh. I did. I'm an electronics engineer and have been an electronics and computer hobbyist for more than 25 years. I own prototyping boards and have used them many times.

And if I'd seen that in an airport, I would have called security.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[LuSiDe]

Hmmm if I was into this, and I could prove this, I would have either posted as AC and put all the facts out, or I'd have shut up. Its just my theory, and I doubt anyone can be sued over this (its quite childish anyway but typically American/British). The point was that if they assumed it was truelly someone with a bomb the situation would have gone different. Thats what I base my theory on.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Kythe]

Who the fuck is the ticket clerk to question her?

The first line of defense in airport security.

There are a lot of comments here crossing the line from "the police have to be reasonable" to "fight the power!" Airport security exists for a reason, and while some of the steps they've taken are less "necessity" than "ridiculous", questioning the authority and need for airport personnel to implement security in the first place is pretty nuts.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[firebee]

"So let me get this straight. You don't trust me, and I'm just some guy typing on slashdot, probably thousands of miles away from you."

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".

[cecil_turtle]

You don't need a law that gives you a right do to something, anywhere, even in an airport. Laws remove rights, they don't give them to you. By default you have all rights.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[MoneyT]

Because of course, every person in the world knows that Course VI refers to an MIT course right? And of course everything printed on T-Shirts is true, which is how you can tell that the guy next to me really is stupid, that my penis is legendary, and that I'm a member of SWAT.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cecil_turtle]

The point being that ticket clerks are not trained to identify suspicious devices or suspicious behavior. If a clerk was having a bad day and a customer was rude to them they could arbitrarily pick anything and say it looks suspicious and call the police just to get revenge. If the police then freak out and overreact every time it's just a waste of everybody's time. What if there was somebody else who was trying to hide a real bomb while all of this was going on? Once a person or device is identified as safe, we need to go back to business as usual. Making the situation into a bigger deal than it was, making national news, was a mistake on the police's part. Period.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[1110110001]

Ok so you think it was right what they did in London to Jean Charles de Menezes because he looked strange and ran to the platform to catch the train?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[oconnorcjo]

Even if you think that, if it's not a bomb, why can't she be released? Why does somebody have to be held for carrying something that we thought was a bomb but turned out not to be? The situation is normal so everybody can go home, or am I missing something?


because the police don't want copy-cats or people looking to try to make/use alarming "art" in "sensitive areas". If you make the police come "huffing and puffing" and it turns out to be "just kidding", they charge you with things like "alarming the public" and legalese that mean alarming the public. i think the police are right and justified on this one- when you can't even carry a bottle of water onto a plane these days, the idea that you will be able to walk on with an electronics-arts sweater is rediculous. I would (and the police do) assume she knew that it would be alarming and did it to get a rise out of security. Common sense is you wear "sensible" cloths to the airport and leave your artistic cloths in baggage or at home.

i am a chess player and my chess bag with my chess clock got flagged as a bomb on various occasions because my chess clock looks like a bomb (when my chess bag goes through security). I would never think to hold my chess clock in my hand going through security or ignore a question regarding my chess clock. Security would hold me up for a minute while I explained what it was and why I had it (flying to a chess tournament). I find it fishy that someone going to MIT would not understand that what she was wearing might raise alarms at an airport.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[nwbvt]

"That's why the average joe shouldn't be assigned to airport security, they have all this expensive equipment to scan you and your stuff for fingernail clippers and shampoo but the training should be there as well to be able to distinguish between actual threats and innocuous tech."

Ok, lets assume we have replaced all the 'average joe' security guards with trained professionals who can instantly identify whether or not something is really a bomb by eye without closely examining the device or getting an explanation from the person carrying it (remember, when she was asked about the device, she just walked away). Now that our airport security is packed with clairvoyants, this type of thing wouldn't happen, right?

Wrong. There would still be plenty of 'average joe' type people in the airport, unless you require similar skills for passengers on an airplane. Even if the security guards can somehow tell that its a fake, what about everyone else in the terminal. This type of thing could cause a panic, in which someone really could be killed. The fact is, the only reason why this girl or someone else wasn't killed was because the trained security guards did not shoot her and were able to subdue the situation without incident.

"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."

Again, how? She walked away from them when asked about it, which in my mind qualifies as suspicious behavior.

"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?"

Ok, I think you have officially seen too many action movies and 24 episodes. There are several things wrong with that statement.

• First, I don't know why you are assuming they would have thought this carefully through, most violent people are not highly trained religious zealots. Most people (at least in this country) who make bomb threats or commit violent acts are actually just random crazy and/or violent people. I don't care how many terrorists Jack Bower (thats probably not how you spell his name, but I'm too lazy to look it up) has killed, they actually make up a minority of all criminals in our country and really are not the primary concern for law enforcement personnel.
• Second, there are severe logistical issues with walking around all day carrying a dead man's switch. In fact, I doubt its even physically possible to keep it armed for a long length of time; assuming you use the standard Hollywood switch in which you hold down a lever which activates the bomb when it is let go, thats going to take some strength to keep it down for an extended period of time.
• And third, a bomber detonating the bomb when shot by the security guard is probably a better option than her detonating it once she got in the crowded space that was their target.
• And finally, your point is irrelevant to begin with because she was not shot. There was no knee jerk reaction. She was arrested without anyone getting hurt, which is a credit to the security guards at Logan International.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[nwbvt]

No, you would want someone to stop her without anyone getting hurt so she could be detained until the figured out what exactly was going on. Which is exactly what happened.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[sdkee]

Terrorists have killed people in the US this year. Last year it was . The year before it was . The year before that it was . In the entire history of civilization, terrorists have killed less people than the US killed in the bombing of Hiroshima. Can somebody please tell me why we have to turn our society upsidedown to deal with this issue? If our governments just leave the rest of the world the fuck alone... Or is that too Washingtonian/Jeffersonian for you fucks in Congress? Scott

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Marcos Eliziario]

For added effect, grow a beard and use a large camping backpack with some suspicious wires running to your jacket's right pocket where you keep your hand

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[oconnorcjo]

If it were one of your family members wearing this thing, I suspect you'd feel differently.

My family would know to leave that shirt in baggage because they would have enough sense to know that shirt would not make it through the metal detectors (batteries and wires) let alone the concern it might raise with security. I would be more concerned with security telling me that I had to throw away the shirt (if I was wearing it) than I would of being shot.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[jrob323]

"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" I'm just thinking off the top of my head here.. maybe show police and security people what bombs really look like? Hint: they typically don't need a lot of circuits and wires like in the movies (no counting LED display etc). Usually a mix of 99% high explosives and 1% mechanical components including detonators.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[oconnorcjo]

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

Actually the fact that the shirt was battery powered and the clay looks like C4, I would not know if it was a bomb.

A terrorist might think to hide ones intent in electric art - "see my shirt is just to light up cute words and this is clay in my hands because I like to play with clay".

Terrorist then plugs battery into C4 and blows up plane.

of course the scariest part of all this is that a real terrorist would probably disguise their bomb as a laptop which has a legitimate reason to have a battery in it.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[E 99]

In a free society, you assume everybody is innocent until proven otherwise. Sure, this means more crimes are going to be committed. That's the price of freedom.

No. If you point a gun at a police officer, they do not need to "prove" that it is a real gun before shooting you. Same with a bomb. Anyone walking into an airport with a circuit board and putty attached to their shirt, and refusing to answer questions about it is giving every indication of being wired with a bomb. And they're either do so intentionally, or else they are highly mentally deficient.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[eli pabst]

yeah sure. "Miss, we're going to need you to step into this line and take your bomb off so that we can put it through the x-ray machine. Oh and if you have any nail clippers or small amounts of liquids on you, we're going to need you to put them in the bin *NEXT TO YOUR FREAKING BOMB*"

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[jabster]

None of the cops were committing a crime here. Pay attention.

It's assenine to insult those who put themselves between you and a bullet, and who run into burning buildings to save you, even when you denigrate them and insult them.

Do you even pay attention? No one committed a crime here (except for potentially the moronic MIT broad).

So WHAT are you talking about? Did you read the story? Did you read the post I replied to? Hell, did you even read my post? Some ass makes a blanket statement that essentially all cops are stupid putzes, and you have your own moronic reply that I'm somehow all for letting cops commit crimes with no consequences? What complete and utter lack of logic are you using to come up with that conclusion?

JHFC. I have GOT to stop posting on this stupid site. I keep saying that, but then some crackpot posts something really stupid, and I can't help myself. Because it always leads to MORE inane posts by people that don't pay any attention to what's being written.

-john

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[iapetus]

Are you even reading what you're posting? None of those pictures looks remotely like the breadboard circuit worn by the arrested girl. "None of which, looks anything like a cell phone, btw," you say. Except, of course, while none of them contains anything remotely like the girl's T-shirt, one of them does contain a fricking cell phone. Which looks, for your reference, like a cell phone. What with it being a cell phone and all.

Idiot.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[iapetus]

There were common characteristics to look for. Wires are a pretty good giveaway.

No, wires weren't a good giveaway, given that on almost all of the bombs on those pages the wires were concealed while being worn. What was a pretty good giveaway was how bulky the devices were. Because a small amount of putty that you can play with in your hands isn't enough explosive to carry out a suicide bombing - the reason these bombs are constructed as hefty vests is so that you can actually have enough explosives there to have a real effect.

Keep trying, though.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[E 99]

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.

I know as much about electronics as the next guy, and if I saw the aforementioned glued to someone's sweatshirt, given the possibilities 1) it's wired to explosives under the sweatshirt, or 2) it's art, I think I'd have to go with #1 as being more plausible.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

Are you even reading what you're posting? None of those pictures looks remotely like the breadboard circuit worn by the arrested girl.

So any device with a breadboard circuit can not be a bomb? What else can a bomb NOT contain. I'm sure our guys at TSA would like to know. I doubt the lady behind the counter knows that a breadboard circuit is. All she saw was a home made device (read: Improvised Device) attached to the chest of this girl with wires. Sorry, but that sounds like a bomb to me.

Except, of course, while none of them contains anything remotely like the girl's T-shirt

So if it looks like a bomb, it's not a bomb because no one would make a bomb that LOOKS like a bomb. If it doesn't look like a bomb, then it can't be a bomb. Which one is it? Besides, none of those devices looked like any of the others. So tell me, what does a bomb vest look like?

one of them does contain a fricking cell phone. Which looks, for your reference, like a cell phone. What with it being a cell phone and all.

No, it HAD a cell phone attached to, much like you do when you talk on it. Does that make you a cell phone when you are on the talking on one?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[E 99]

Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is considered a possible bomb?

Uh, no, electronics don't necessarily have to be in a pretty package. However you're missing the point that this particular circuitry WAS GLUED TO THE FRONT OF HER FRICKIN SWEATSHIRT!!! What is someone supposed to presume when they see that? That she's on her way to fly to a science fair where she is an entry? No, that she's picking someone up, and then she's going back to the science fair where she's an entry. The problem with either of those assumptions, is that anyone smart enough to be associated with a science fair should be smart enough not to walk into an airport wearing something that looks like the interface to a wearable bomb.

Now, one could argue that no one would put THAT many LED's on the interface to a wearable bomb. But anyone making that argument has apparently not seen her hairstyle.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ostiguy]

There is a societal cost in having law enforcement officials arresting/interrogating people and inspecting devices. If we let people pretend they are artists at airports, then we need to budget 20% overhead in airport policing to maintain the previously desired policing level (pre-pretend artists). I tend to think society is not willing to pay that cost.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[iapetus]

So any device with a breadboard circuit can not be a bomb? What else can a bomb NOT contain. I'm sure our guys at TSA would like to know.

Don't be so obtuse. You claimed that what she was wearing 'looked like a miniature version' of one of those bombs. It's evident to anyone with a working pair of eyes that this claim is garbage - it looks nothing like any of those devices. None of the suicide bomb devices contains anything recognisable as electronics - and with good reason, because they don't need anything like that.

Of course it's not the case that 'any device with a breadboard circuit can not be a bomb', and I didn't make that claim. But your argument was that the device looked like one of these bombs, and that isn't borne out by reality, unfortunately. There were other recognisable things in many of those designs, though. A briefcase. A cellphone. By your logic it's reasonable enough to gun down anyone carrying a briefcase or a cellphone because it looks like one of these suicide bombs.

So if it looks like a bomb, it's not a bomb because no one would make a bomb that LOOKS like a bomb. If it doesn't look like a bomb, then it can't be a bomb. Which one is it?

Neither. Again, you're off in your own little fantasy world, responding to things you imagined people might be saying. You claimed that it looked like a bomb. It didn't. End of story.

All of the bombs you showed had one very obvious common point, though - they were designed not to look like bombs, because they're intended to be smuggled into areas where they can cause damage without drawing attention to the person carrying them. Of course that doesn't mean that something that looks like a bomb can't be a bomb, if you believe in some bizarre terorist relying on a cunning double-bluff to sneak a bomb into an airport by making it look just like the ones in James Bond movies and saying "Oh, this? It's a bomb!" to any security guards who question him. Common sense suggests that anyone even approaching insanity is going to try to conceal their bomb, though.

Besides, none of those devices looked like any of the others. So tell me, what does a bomb vest look like?

Ah, so you're going for the argument that her T-shirt looked like these devices because it didn't look like them and that was what they had in common so therefore a thing that doesn't look like a bomb looks like a bomb? Wait, weren't you arguing against that just a second ago? Try to get some consistency in your drivelling, please.

As for what a bomb vest looks like, from those examples:

Bulky. You need a lot of explosives to do serious damage, so the device has to contain a lot of explosives.
Contained explosives. The explosives themselves are in pipes or metal tubes, not loose.
No flashing lights. Obviously the devices are intended not to draw attention to themselves.
As simple as possible. There's a bare minimum of electronics - easier to make, less to go wrong.

No, it HAD a cell phone attached to, much like you do when you talk on it. Does that make you a cell phone when you are on the talking on one?

Funny. Symptomatic of an inability to parse sentences, but funny anyway. Let's try again with annotations.

One of them contained a cell phone. Which (the cell phone) looked like a cell phone. What with it (the cell phone) being a cell phone and all.

Following it this time? Or are you still trying to draw attention away from your stunning gaffe in presenting a page including pictures of a cell phone with the phrase "None of which, looks anything like a cell phone"?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Jeian]

It's been illegal to make jokes about bombs, let alone wear strange-looking electronical contraptions, for as long as I can remember, and certainly since before 9/11.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[iapetus]

None of the suicide bomb devices contains anything recognisable as electronics

I don't normally make a habit of replying to my own comments (I prefer to mutter to myself in the real world rather the virtual one) but since I can already feel the poster I was responding to attempting to jump down my throat on this one, I'd better clarify: none of the devices contain any visible electronics, and those that contain any contain a bare minimum, and nothing along the lines of a breadboard circuit. The triggering device is a simple switch, because if you've got someone who's willing to blow themselves up as part of the process, a human being is a much better trigger device than some homebrew electronics kit.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ClubStew]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. http://boingboing.net/images/cfa4827569_20070921device3.jpg does look like a bomb, and on a uni-bomber-style hoodie no less. I think the police did their jobs this time.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cs02rm0]

No, I wouldn't be worried about wires sticking out, honestly. If you were going to take a bomb in a briefcase through airport security... would you leave wires sticking out?

It just needs a bit of common sense. Sadly lacking here, yet again.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Beardo the Bearded]

Safety Tip:

It's not a good idea to taser someone who is wearing explosives.

Now you know.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[terrymr]

No - Go read. There are a ton of news reports that said when asked by the airport staff what it was she replied it was some art she made and walked away.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Beardo the Bearded]

Superglue is conductive.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[tgibbs]

What if it was real and she blew herself up? What then?

What if? What if the suitcase carried by the guy next to her contained a bomb and it blew up (a suitcase can carry a lot more explosives than a little circuit board stuck to somebody's chest). Or the backpack on the guy behind her in line? Or the purse carried by the woman behind him?

Face it. Any reasonably large suitcase, purse, or backpack can carry enough high explosives to do serious damage. The one person in the room who is least likely to be a terrorist bomber is the girl with the little, attention grabbing lightup doohickey on her chest, because bombs usually are not designed to call attention to themselves. So if you are serious about protecting the public from hidden bombs, then move security to the entrance and check every suitcase, purse, and backpack. But if you aren't willing to inconvenience people with real security, don't think that you can make up for it by pulling a gun on anybody with flashing lights on them. And the fact that they are doing something so stupid means that they have no clue where a real threat is likely to come from.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[terrymr]

Here's one to start with : http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1033288

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[WilliamX]

Try again....

"It was an art project, meant to entertain career-day visitors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an M.I.T. sophomore assured security officials after she had been arrested at Boston's airport yesterday."

She did not say that it was an art project until AFTER she was taken into custody. And I've not seen any news report that contradicts that. I've seen some that didn't specify, and I can see how someone could mistakenly come to that conclusion, but any report that started specifics on it has stated she didn't say it until she was in custody. In fact, she did not answer at all when asked before she was arrested.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/us/22airport.html?ref=us

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[petermgreen]

are you sure? I'm sure i've used superglue to stick SMT passives to the top of chips before and it hasn't shorted them out.

for making up a display breadboard I would probablly use something like silicone sealent anyway.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[zestyping]

Even if you think that, if it's not a bomb, why can't she be released?

People should be smart enough to know not to go wandering around with that kinda stuff like that.

We don't point guns at people, arrest them, and charge them just for not being "smart enough". Being "not smart enough" is not a crime. She was no threat to anyone. The fault is with the security personnel for the ludicrous misidentification of blinking lights as a bomb and for choosing to respond to this by surrounding her with machine guns.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Espinas217]

I just can't believe your are living like this. I can't believe that, not only you are so afraid of everything that are willing to kill somebody just because it could be wearing some dangerous device; do you see that word "could" there, it means you could be wrong also and kill an innocent girl, now think about it, what are the odds that she is wearing something so dangerous that you need to kill her to avoid something worse? And now I can't believe there are some of you that says thigns like that. I mean, I can understand some police officer react like that, their brains are dumbed down to act like that. But some common people seeing this and saying it's ok. I want to see where are you gonna end up with your new panic way of life. You like being tasered for staying late at night at the library, for asking questions too much, being arrested for wearing strange clothing, halting a city 'cause some creative made an strange looking marketing... I really want to see how much your society can hold and what comes when it breaks apart

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

Don't be so obtuse. You claimed that what she was wearing 'looked like a miniature version' of one of those bombs. It's evident to anyone with a working pair of eyes that this claim is garbage - it looks nothing like any of those devices. None of the suicide bomb devices contains anything recognisable as electronics - and with good reason, because they don't need anything like that.

Um, the ones on the first link had plainly visible wires. From the pictures I saw, the girl's shirt had wires.
Most suicide vests are worn as a vest, shirt or jacket. This girl's device was worn on her shirt... or hoodie.
Most of the suicide vests that I've seen are "devices". This girl was wearing a device.

I don't know how much more you need. You may be so superior that you can recognize that this was not a bomb within a split second. The rest of us mere mortals are not able to keep a mental categorization of every conceivable suicide vest. For that matter, I still don't see how you can say that there is no possible way for this to be a suicide vest. As for the security at the airport, they received the same description as above. "A girl went up to the counter at the airport wearing a device on her chest with visible wires. When asked about it, ignored the question and left." WTF did you expect these guys to do? Please tell me, what does someone have to do to justify security drawing their weapons. (I've asked that question several times. So far, no one has answered it). If it's not wearing a device on your chest that looks like a bomb to mere mortals, then I don't know what is!

Also:
Today, it was 75 degrees Fahrenheit at Logan airport. A little warm for a "hoodie", don't you think?
This girl had a device attached to her shirt. There are not a whole lot of devices that attach to shirts. Of the few, a bomb is one of them. Of the few places where people are on the lookout for bombs, specifically suicide bombers, the airport is one of them.

Neither. Again, you're off in your own little fantasy world, responding to things you imagined people might be saying. You claimed that it looked like a bomb. It didn't. End of story.

I claimed it looked like a bomb. The lady at the counter claimed it looked like a bomb. The security at the airport claimed it looked like a bomb. My special services friends from my Army days claimed it looked like a bomb. I'm afraid you are in the extreme minority in saying that this looks nothing like a bomb. I'm sorry, but any device attached to someone's chest that is not recognizable as something else (like a iPod or something), with wires looks like if for no other reason than where it's located. It has all the components need to make a bomb; a battery, wires, a board to connect those wires and explosives (the putty in her hands). Yeah, I think it could have been a bomb.

Ah, so you're going for the argument that her T-shirt looked like these devices because it didn't look like them and that was what they had in common so therefore a thing that doesn't look like a bomb looks like a bomb? Wait, weren't you arguing against that just a second ago? Try to get some consistency in your drivelling, please.

They all have the same components. 1) a power source. 2) wires. 3) explosive 4) usually worn around the torso. So far, she has met 100% of the requirements for this to be a suicide vest. Sure they don't all look the same. A Ford Excursion looks nothing like a Toyota Prius, but they both have 4 tires, a driver's seat, a wind sheild and so on. Yet, they are both vehicles. This girl's shirt did not look exactly like any of the suicide vests in the links I provided, but it had all the same components. Besides, no two vests that I linked to looked exactly alike either, even when made by the same bomb maker.

Bulky. You need a lot of explosives to do serious damage, so the device has to contain a lot of explosives.
Who said she wanted to do serious damage. Maybe she just wanted to kill five-fifty peo

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[terrymr]

So the assistant district attorney is a liar ? :

She "said it was a piece of art," Margolis said, and "refused to answer any more questions." Jake Wark, spokesperson for the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, said that Simpson only described the LED lights after she was "repeatedly questioned by the MassPort employee." Simpson then "roamed briefly around the terminal," Wark said. Margolis said this caused several Logan employees to flee the building. As Simpson left the building, she disconnected the battery powering the device, according to a press release provided by Wark.
(http://www-tech.mit.edu/V127/N40/simpson.html)

I seriously doubt she roamed around the terminal after she was arrested.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[drerwk]

I saw the picture and it looked nothing like any real bomb that I have seen (pictures of only!). Aside from "24", where have you seen bombs that looked like that? What that looked like to me was a breadboard with LEDs and a battery. Like I've seen in a dozen EE lab classes, and I think you can still buy that stuff at Radio Shack. I suppose the common element is a battery, which even my razor and disposable toothbrush come equipped. In all sincerity I would ask, are you an expert, and can expound on why you think that looks like a real bomb?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ksheff]

The news reports that I saw said that she walked away from the information booth w/o answering the person's questions about what was on her shirt. IMHO, that's what probably made people suspicious.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Isotopian]

Looks like the "improvised electronic device" consisted of a circuit board and a common battery that caused her sweatshirt, which had painted writing on it, to light up. Authorities referred to the paint as "putty."

Except this "putty" which is supposed to sound all mysterious and scary was either, depending on who you asked:

• C4
• Electroluminescent Tape

I for one believe that boston is just being more than a little ridiculous. From a comment in TFA:

In case anyone missed it, the reason [someone] said "again with the hoax devices" is that Boston has a long dishonorable history of overreacting to unfamiliar objects, then claiming they were "hoax devices," which are illegal under Massachusetts law. This is nonsense. A hoax bomb is something that a reasonable person could believe was a bomb, and which its owner claims is a real bomb in order to scare or coerce people in its vicinity.

Boston police pulled this same stunt with Joe Previtera, a nonviolent protester, in 2006. He was doing a silent imitation of the famous photo of the hooded guy standing on a box from Abu Ghraib. The police arrested him -- as far as anyone can tell, because they disliked his politics -- and claimed that the speaker wires hanging from his wrists constituted a "hoax device."

They did it again in January and February of this year after their maxed-out overreaction to lite-brite Mooninite images left the rest of the country snickering at them. The best quote on that one was from Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, on the obviously suspicious nature of the Mooninites: "[The device] had a very sinister appearance. It had a battery behind it, and wires."

(Just a month after the Great Mooninite Scare, the Boston Bomb Squad managed to come up with an encore: they blew up a traffic measuring device that had been put in place by the Boston Transportation Department.)

Judging from their record, charging someone with possession of a hoax device is Boston's way of announcing that they've once again mistaken some harmless bit of electronic gear for a bomb.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[iapetus]

Um, the ones on the first link had plainly visible wires. From the pictures I saw, the girl's shirt had wires.
Most suicide vests are worn as a vest, shirt or jacket. This girl's device was worn on her shirt... or hoodie.
Most of the suicide vests that I've seen are "devices". This girl was wearing a device.

You're joking, yes? Anything that has wires might be a bomb? Anything that is worn as a vest, shirt or jacket might be a bomb? Anything that's a 'device' might be a bomb? I hope for your sake that you're Amish and like showing off your abs, because otherwise you must look like a suicide bomber everywhere you go.

I don't know how much more you need.

For it to look like a bomb. For which I'd need to see some explosives or any signs of some explosives being concealed somewhere (no, a small amount of putty in the hands of a person doesn't count - again, compare to the amount of explosive material in the pictures you so kindly showed us). The T-shirt shown in the article doesn't come close.

For that matter, I still don't see how you can say that there is no possible way for this to be a suicide vest.

I don't know, maybe it's the complete lack of explosives that does it for me. It's going to a very lonely suicide if it does turn out to be a suicide vest.

As for the security at the airport, they received the same description as above. "A girl went up to the counter at the airport wearing a device on her chest with visible wires. When asked about it, ignored the question and left."

Except, of course, we've already heard that she didn't ignore the question. And I'd expect them to be worried from that description, and then relieved to see the reality - which is no bomb.

Also:
Today, it was 75 degrees Fahrenheit at Logan airport. A little warm for a "hoodie", don't you think?What does that have to do with anything? You think that just because it's a little on the warm side the average suicide-bomber in the streets decides that instead of wearing a large and heavy device with plenty of space for explosives they'll just leave the explosives out of their suicide bomb so that they don't have to sweat quite so much on their way to... well, to not blow everyone up, given that they left the actual bomb in their other jacket. Still, it's a lovely day to walk the detonator, isn't it?

It has all the components need to make a bomb; a battery, wires, a board to connect those wires and explosives (the putty in her hands). Yeah, I think it could have been a bomb.

Except, as you've already shown - and as I already knew - suicide bombs don't generally have such a board, they certainly don't tend to have blinking lights, they require far more explosives than a bit of putty in someone's hand, and they require the explosives to be connected to the device. If it's C4 you're worried about, then it also needs a substantial detonator.

Yet, they are both vehicles. This girl's shirt did not look exactly like any of the suicide vests in the links I provided, but it had all the same components.

Except, as you keep ignoring, room for sufficient explosives to do any real damage, or any form of detonator. Your specification also suggests that anyone wearing an MP3 player and carrying, say, a jar of jelly, is also a good target for shoot first, ask questions later.

Incidentally, anyone carrying a briefcase has something that looks far more like one of the bombs in your pictures than this. Better start shooting briefcase-carriers first and asking questions later, right?

Who said she wanted to do serious damage. Maybe she just wanted to kill five-fifty people. A few hand fulls of C4 would do the trick. Also, a hoodie is fairly bulky for 75.0 F with over 60% humidity.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[flooffy]

i disagree that is the point of terrorism. the point of terrorism is to create unrest and provoke reprisals against your people.
oppressive laws is just gravy; you think your average terrorist, who'd like to see the world run by taliban-like governments, is thinking, "oh yes, now they'll have a lot of oppressive laws! that'll teach them."? if he thinks oppressive laws are such a punishment, why isn't he fighting the libertarian fight in his country of origin? when was the last time you saw a hamas fighter with a "gov't out of my womb" sign?

i also disagree that nobody wants to enter the US. and even if it were true, are you really suggesting america is losing the travel industry because it's disallowing locked luggage and pointy objects onto planes? how many families out there looking for travel destination are going, "well, new york ought to be nice this time of year... i'll just take my lucky steak knife onto the plane- oh, wait. i cant' do that? well, that's okay. i'll just lock into my luggage- you're kidding. i can't lock my luggage?! fuck it, new place: let's go kiev."

(also, no fair using the sins of the german politicians as evidence of america's problems.)

and, lastly, she didn't get arrested because she "thinks breadboards are kewl." what are you expecting the police to do when they see a shirt like that? recognize the 555 timer on it? i bet you after someone explained to them what the hoodie was, they were still lost as to what it is.

maybe the terrorists have won; but don't mistake this incident with support for your foregone conclusion. she would've been in a lot of trouble on september 10th of 2001, too. here's a little experiment: without telling them the story, or even giving them a setting, show that device to someone non-technical (bonus points if they're in law enforcement), and ask them what they think it probably is.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

You're joking, yes?

No.

Anything that has wires might be a bomb?

Sure, I guess it could be. But that was not my point.

Anything that is worn as a vest, shirt or jacket might be a bomb?

Getting closer

Anything that's a 'device' might be a bomb?

OK, you have all the components in place. Now, add them all together and you have something. Is everything with tires a car? Is everything with seats a car? Is everything with an engine a car? No. But if has four tires, seats, and an engine, odds are that it is a car. Yes, it could be something else, but with all of these components, it's more than likely a car.

Are all devices bombs? Of course not. However, devices, in airports, with wires, strapped to a chest, certainly could be a bomb. If you say otherwise, you are either extremely stupid, completely unable to draw a conclusion based on given facts, or are just too damn stubborn to admit that maybe regular every day folks could very possibly mistake this device for a bomb. Well, I hate to say it, but it is a fact that normal, everyday people mistook this for a bomb, even though you can't fit that into your head.

I hope for your sake that you're Amish and like showing off your abs, because otherwise you must look like a suicide bomber everywhere you go.
Again, do the math. Add all the components together. Each of them are harmless, but combined and it looks like a bomb. Why is that so hard to understand. You suffer from CO poisoning as kid or something?

For it to look like a bomb. For which I'd need to see some explosives or any signs of some explosives being concealed somewhere (no, a small amount of putty in the hands of a person doesn't count - again, compare to the amount of explosive material in the pictures you so kindly showed us). The T-shirt shown in the article doesn't come close.

Have you ever seen C4 explode? If you had, you wouldn't have said something so stupid. Richard Reid's heel full of C4 could have taken the wing off of a 737. This girl was thought to be carrying at least two handfuls of the stuff. In a crowded area, two handfuls of C4 will kill a lot of people. Detonate it near a support column and you could collapse a terminal. Besides, does the yield really matter? How much of a bomb do you need for this thing to be called a bomb? Do you think security is supposed to say, "Well, we can only see two handfuls of C4. I'm sure she has no more stuffed in her bra/pants/hood. And besides, with that much C4, the best she could do is kill 10 people and bring our nation's travel to a halt. We should let her go. Stand down everyone! She's only going to kill 10 or so." Get real!

I don't know, maybe it's the complete lack of explosives that does it for me. It's going to a very lonely suicide if it does turn out to be a suicide vest.
See above.

Except, of course, we've already heard that she didn't ignore the question. And I'd expect them to be worried from that description, and then relieved to see the reality - which is no bomb.
She did at first. Here is a quote from wbztv.com.

She did not respond when the employee asked her about the device she was wearing, so the employee repeated the question, police said.

Simpson then said the device was artwork and left the counter and walked around the terminal area, causing some employees to leave the building in fear, police said. It seems like there were several people who thought this was a bomb. I guess that average, every day people really did think this was a bomb. So stop Monday morning quarterbacking and STFU. It looked like a bomb to the ticket counter lady, several other employees and the troopers that arrested her. What more do you need? If you think you are so much smarter than everyone in this situation, then you should move out of your mother's basement and go serve you country. DHS could use someone with your supposed omnipotent intellect.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Open_The_Box]

Hmmn. Let me just be clear here - I'm not one of those libertarian, freedom-at-all-costs types. In fact, having read TFA, the associated comments and checking out the pictures, I'd have to agree that calling in a security team is the sensible thing to do for anyone who doesn't know about electronics. It really does look like the sort of bomb you would see in movies - not what a bomb would actually look like, but it's what the public have been programmed to think a bomb looks like. And I regularly build electronics and realise that an actual bomb would be significantly better designed and concealed - but if you're Joe or Jane Bloggs behind the check-in desk, and someone comes up to you wearing something with wires sticking out of it on their chest, then the most sensible thing is to find out what it is or call in a bit of back-up from your friendly neighborhood security guys.

However. A couple of minor facts from TFA that seem to have been overlooked. First, she was apparently not trying to board a plane - she was there to pick someone else up and seems to have been asking about the plane's arrival time. Second, the putty doesn't appear to have been a convenient, bomb-like block of the 'stick in some detonators' type you'd see in film, but rather some kind of paint residue (if I'm interpreting the between the lines stuff correctly). Third, and this is directed more at the general crowd than in direct response to the above discussion, she had apparently been wearing it around for weeks - not as a specific attempt to lampoon airport security.

And just a personal foible but - "stupid girl"? "dumb-ass girl"? Now, I'm as likely to exaggerate as the next 70 million people, but I think it's already been established that she's rather intelligent. I'd give you 'absent minded' or even 'head in the clouds academic' but stupid? Nah.

Finally, while I agree that security should have been called in the first place, I don't agree that she should have been charged when they discovered it was not a bomb. And the fact that it's a 'hoax device' charge when to all appearances she didn't try to claim it was a bomb seems a bit erroneous. My point is - the initial reaction wasn't an over-reaction but the follow-up is definitely going too far.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

Ok so you think it was right what they did in London to Jean Charles de Menezes because he looked strange and ran to the platform to catch the train?

No, not at all. What they did to him was unforgivable. However, if he had a device strapped to his chest with wires and putty in his hands, then it would have been 100% justified.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Jesus_666]

Oppressive laws aren't just gravy, they're part of how the whole plan works. If nothing happened, apart from people getting slightly nervous about planes, that wouldn't significantly impact the target country. Making the government paranoid enough that it enacts unpopular laws against a perceived threat, creating unrest and distrust on their own does much more towards destabilizing the country. Things like the "no nail clippers on the plane" rule are good examples for laws that make the government look more paranoid than competent.

That's also what the whole "people don't like entering the USA" thing is about: Your fingerprinting of foreigners has worsened your reputation with people from different countries. Sure, it alone didn't do much, but together with your warmongering, demanding boarding lists from other countries and other war-on-terrorism actions it does make you look like paranoid control freaks with too big guns. Your country's reputation and goodwill among the rest of the world going down the drain is pretty desirable to terrorists plotting your downfall.

As for not using German politics in this discussion: What do you think, who gave our brillant* leaders the idea of shooting down passenger planes? We still have plenty of politicians with an attitude of "America does it so it has to be sensible".

As for the Hamas thing: Okay, I concede. Not all terrorists operate in the same way; Hamas wants to drive the Israelis out of the country, so obviously they're more focused on making the general population as uncomfortable in the country as possible. The terrorists working against the USA are usually regarded as having the downfall of the USA in mind, making their modus operandi a different one.


As for the thought experiment: Most people over here would come to the conclusion that it's a weird T-Shirt. Even when in doubt they might have confiscated the shirt and/or detained her for further investiagation into what it is, but they wouldn't have arrested her at gunpoint** and locked her up for "possession of a hoax device". We don't exactly have a history of lethal breadboards and personal-area IEDs like, say, the city of Boston.


* Note to grammar nazis: That's not a typo but a Worse Than Failure reference meaning the exact opposite.
** Provided she didn't do something really suspicious like violently resisting the interrogation.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Jonathan]

I think my post made as exactly as much sense as the one I was responding to...

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[mcsuper5]

Which sounds perfectly reasonable for a war zone.

I don't believe we're under martial law yet. If we were, someone at MIT would have alerted the students to confine their kits to the campus.

If you served, I imagine it was part of your training to be paranoid, and may have saved lives. But that is why we have a military, so the whole country doesn't need to be paranoid.

If you treat civilians in the US the same way as in a war zone, then we are both less free and less secure.

I haven't seen a quote as to how the clerk asked about her shirt yet, so assuming she heard and understood her, ignoring her might have been appropriate. Since she cooperated with security, never threated anyone, they should have let her go. At the time, she probably didn't have legal recourse against a temporary detainment due to a legitimate misunderstanding, I imagine I'd be looking into false charges and libel suits at this point. A judge will probably admonish her for her lack of common sense (and fashion sense), but it seems pretty clear that this was a matter of someone who was too embarrassed to apologize over an honest mistake.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[amRadioHed]

And her change of clothes would have come from where?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[amRadioHed]

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? Where did you read that she was ignoring the police and where did you get the part about wires sticking out of a briefcase?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[amRadioHed]

Funny that you posted all those links but you forgot to post a link to show what she was actually wearing. I guess I can understand though, since then people would realize that her sweatshirt actually looked nothing like a bomb vest.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[amRadioHed]

look at my comment HERE for some pictures of real live suicide vests that look very similar to what this girl had on her shirt, minus the blinking lights, of course. Yeah, minus the blinking lights... and plus the fucking explosives. That's a pretty big difference in my book.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[amRadioHed]

Interesting. Do you have pictures of what it actually looks like? If you're right than it seems I underestimated the stupidity of their reaction, if that's even possible.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[amRadioHed]

So any device with a breadboard circuit can not be a bomb? What else can a bomb NOT contain. I'm sure our guys at TSA would like to know. I doubt the lady behind the counter knows that a breadboard circuit is. All she saw was a home made device (read: Improvised Device) attached to the chest of this girl with wires. Sorry, but that sounds like a bomb to me. Your painful attempt at logic has done more harm than Star's hoodie could ever have done.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[amRadioHed]

Today, it was 75 degrees Fahrenheit at Logan airport. A little warm for a "hoodie", don't you think? The high for the day was 75 degrees. How often is the high temperature for the day reached before 9am? And even if she was overdressed that's pretty normal at airports since 1, airplanes are cooler than some people like, 2, people wear bulky clothing so they don't need to pack it, and 3, sometimes people fly to cooler climates.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Tacvek]

Actually, She answered that it was art. She did not just say nothing. The police thought that she said nothing. A very big difference.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Neuticle]

A small breadboard, with some flashing led's on a pretty girls shirt, certainly does not look like a bomb.

How many actual home-made "terrorist-style" bombs have you seen? I knew a bomb squad cop back in High School, and I saw some of the dummy bombs he trained with: loose wires and a 9v? Check. Without specific bomb squad training, it's not reasonable to expect Joe Blow cop can make the call that it's harmless. FURTHERMORE, you couldn't see what was on the opposite side of the board.

Also, how could the cops have known there wasn't explosive wired up elsewhere on her body: under her baggy shirt, in shoes, etc? it even says she was carrying modeling clay or play-doh! Is that not suspicious?

If suspicious, investigate it I guess...I'd think undercover observation for a few minutes could have effectively deflated this situation rather easily

They did investigate- appropriately. Are you saying that when airport security spot a potential bomber, they should just wait and watch?. That is plain crazy.

Now charging her with a crime... I don't know. I don't think there was malicious intent. She either did this as a stunt, or she got an F in "Common Sense 101". (Honestly, who expected this kind of dumb from an MIT student?) I would think a stern warning and a few hours in custody for questioning would be enough of a punishment.

Then again, I have a friend who was arrested for having pyridex (which was purchased legally, for a film project) in his own room. Granted, it was assembled into "bombs" for special effects, but they were about as strong as what you buy at a fireworks stand, and constructed specifically to cause as little damage as possible- they were made to be strapped to the body with minimal padding to simulate exit-wounds.

Police do not fuck around with explosives, real or suspected.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

The high for the day was 75 degrees. How often is the high temperature for the day reached before 9am? And even if she was overdressed that's pretty normal at airports since 1, airplanes are cooler than some people like, 2, people wear bulky clothing so they don't need to pack it, and 3, sometimes people fly to cooler climates.

She wasn't traveling. She was there to pick someone up.

And yes, her dress was not a clue since she had no intent to do anything wrong. But it is something I would have picked up on if I were in charge of security. She wasn't dressed for the weather. She was dressed for career day.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

Your painful attempt at logic has done more harm than Star's hoodie could ever have done.

And your painful attempt at refutation was... well, just painful to watch. Did you have a point? The GP said it couldn't be a bomb because it had a breadboard circuit. Do breadboard circuits disable bombs or something?

Also, the lady behind the counter was probably neither an electrical engineer nor an explosives expert. To her, it looked like a bomb.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[amRadioHed]

iapetus did a fine job dismantling your reasoning, I saw no point in repeating the points he made. And no, the GP didn't say it couldn't be a bomb because it had a breadboard circuit on it. He was only stating what is painfully obvious to everyone else--nothing in any of those pictures you linked to looked anything remotely like what the girl wore to the airport.

My point is that you should quite using misdirection and obfuscation to make it look like you have a valid argument.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[kalirion]

They did not make a mistake and they did not overreact. Any more than they would have at a person pointing a bright green gun at people. Sure it's probably a toy, but why take a chance?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[The Cydonian]

Do you have pictures of what it actually looks like?

Nope, and yes, without actual photos, I admit my point is now looking like a bit of conjecture. Not for lacking of trying though, been trying to google stuff up for some time. Looks like the net and airwaves have been saturated with info coming in only from the police. Really wish the girl would come up with some sort of a statement, preferably a blog post or something; that's the only way she'd ever reach parity with the police's carpet-bombing of the news-waves (and all those silly comments saying that she was attention-mongering; she was, but not at the airport).

But yeah. The photos at boston.com and CNN don't entirely add up to what they're saying. Things are not as clear-cut as some of the comments here seem to be presuming.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Woeful Countenance]

> "After having spent multiple deployments in Iraq and Africa guarding against the same types of situation, I would consider her lucky to be alive." First, there are obvious differences between Iraq and Boston. > "Can you honestly tell me you know or can spot when someone is going to spontaneously explode?" No, I can't, and obviously neither can TSA. They've been given an impossible job. That doesn't mean they have license to engage in reckless behavior in pursuit of an impossible goal. > "If you neutralize them, one person is lost. If you miscalculate, many people will die." So, hypothetically, if you kill a hundred people because they looked suspicious, but none was actually a threat, how many lives have you saved? There are other problems as well. As others have pointed out, even after Star Simpson was determined not to be a threat, she was arrested and charged with a felony: "possession of a hoax device". When and how did possession of a hoax device become a crime? Doesn't that strike anyone as intolerable?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[cayenne8]

"Try walking down the street with a shotgun, and not speaking to or cooperating with the police officer who asks you to identify yourself."

Actually...in many states....walking down the street with a shotgun or rifle is NOT a crime, usually it is only concealed weapons that are a crime.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Em Adespoton]

Figure I might as well reply here... look at the context of what I wrote; the "fire" example was assuming that those reading what I wrote would assume shouting "fire" when there was none, just as the subject at hand didn't actually have any explosives.

The point being made isn't about freedom of speech/expression, or about limiting people's actions, it is that causing mass panic/riots is a crime, even if it isn't intentional.

Listeners must digest and reflect on what they hear and if any of them choose to act on that basis, then the consequences are, individually, theirs to bear.

Tell that to the person trampled to death because they took a bit longer to reflect on what they heard than the mass of people who blindly panicked and fled for the nearest exit. THIS is what the police are trying to prevent. Figures of authority pulling firearms in a public place tends to reassure the majority of people and keep almost everyone on good behaviour in most places.

That said, this subthread has got way out of hand; the real situation is probably that the girl just threw on her hoodie to go to the airport, couldn't find the airplane she was looking for on the posting board, so asked someone, and figured the question they asked was to someone other than her, as she wasn't hiding anything; just wearing her regular clothes and holding some playdoh in her hands. The overly alarmed ticket person then called the police, telling them there was someone wearing some explosive-looking device wandering around the airport. The police responded appropriately to this call, only to find out it was just some girl in a blinking hoodie. They then took her in for questioning for wasting their time, and pressed charges because the situation had already got so far out of hand with so much publicity by this point that they felt they had to do something to make an example and prevent similar things from happening in the future other than just letting her go with a warning.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[asuffield]

None of the cops were committing a crime here. Pay attention.

That has not been established. The facts of record are that some cops pointed guns at a girl who was no threat to anyone. If they did not have a damned good reason - if they were just being jackasses - then that would be sufficient to get them fired, and may have been a crime.

It's assenine to insult those who put themselves between you and a bullet, and who run into burning buildings to save you, even when you denigrate them and insult them.

Not one of those cops has saved anybody. They damn near did the opposite. Nobody but the girl was in danger here. The only dangerous people were those idiots with uniforms, guns, and a testosterone problem.

Next time, they just might kill somebody.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Grizzlysmit]

Even if you think that, if it's not a bomb, why can't she be released? Why does somebody have to be held for carrying something that we thought was a bomb but turned out not to be? The situation is normal so everybody can go home, or am I missing something?

yes your missing one small but important fact, the police can't stand it when they make fools of themselves, look at the joke motorcade thing here in Sydney, during the APEC meetings, police make fools of themselves == someone must pay, It's really petty and sad.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Alsee]

... or at least to give those bras a thorough frisking.

-

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[neomunk]

The first article I clicked on to read about this story (wish I could remember what paper it was, Google News is pretty thorough) actually equated this with the ATHF sign incident with something like this:

(relatively accurate paraphrase)
'... comparisons to an incident in Boston where bomb-like devices were used to promote...'

So yes, your average Joe/Jane on the street probably DOES think that anything with dangling wires and God FORBID a couple 7-segment displays is at least MAYBE a bomb, and with something so TV-Dramatic as a BOMB, even a little maybe is justification to shut down the state for an hour and strip search a busload of elderly nuns.

I know I'm being over-dramatic, but due to the obvious satire what I said is orders of magnitude more reasonable than calling an LED moonanite(sp?) a bomb-like device, but that's called 'journalism'. Someone got PAID to write that, I do this for your amusement.

Yes, people ARE both ignorant and fearful of things they don't understand. It's a pretty obnoxious feedback loop.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ArcherB]

iapetus did a fine job dismantling your reasoning, I saw no point in repeating the points he made. And no, the GP didn't say it couldn't be a bomb because it had a breadboard circuit on it. He was only stating what is painfully obvious to everyone else--nothing in any of those pictures you linked to looked anything remotely like what the girl wore to the airport.


Although, I already explained all this to iapetus. Rather than just reading his ignorant refutations, you should read further. Don't be the dumbass kid who sits behind someone and says, "Yeah, he told you." Not only was iapetus an idiot for trying to say that he knew more than the people who's job it is to recognize bombs and have been trained as such, but you're twice the idiot for making a "he told you" post.

And as I said in response, no two of those devices looked exactly alike. Every single one was unique. However, they all shared certain characteristics:
1) Worn on torso
2) Had electronics (may or may not be visible)
3) Had explosives (may or may not be visible)
4) Had a power source (may or may not be visible)

This girl's shirt along with the putty in her hand met all four of these criteria. Just like I said that a Ford Excursion looks nothing like a Toyota Prius, they are both cars, they both serve the same basic functions and they both share enough of same characteristics to make them essentially the same thing, even though they are so radically different. So true, it did not look exactly like any of the devices shown, it did share enough characteristics to be considered a bomb (all of 'em). Actually, it looked more like a bomb than several of the well disguised vests in the links. Richard Reid had C4 in his shoe. Did it look anything like any of the images I linked to? No. Was his shoe a bomb? Yes. By using your standards of "it didn't look like any of those, so it couldn't have been a bomb", Richard Reid's shoe could not have been a bomb... and yet, it was. So don't tell me it didn't look like a bomb until you can show me a picture of what all bombs look like.

So while my training on IED's is limited, I have had some training and I know enough to know that there really is no blueprint that all bombs must follow. Since each is home made, they all tend to be unique and come in infinite different designs. To say that this couldn't be bomb because it looks like no other bombs is extraordinarily ignorant, as no to bombs look alike. So please, stop telling the professionals that they don't know what they are talking about. National security is really nothing to armchair quarterback and really, it just makes you look stupid.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[complexmath]

You are so wrong. Traveling should not be a function of luck. We are a nation of laws. Speaking words is not suppsed to be a crime. Some of us have no choice bacuse of our job - we have to travel. I do not recall any amendment to the constitution that said I am giving up my rights because I am flying and the staff are idiots and the process is ineffective.

I agree with you, but I don't know what this has to do with what I said. The sad truth is that regardless of the actual laws in place, airport security is free to act basically however they want and any attempt to protest is liable to waste hours of your time at best and solve absolutely nothing in exchange. I suggested picking a different venue if the goal was to change things. Contact politicians, Homeland Security, airlines, etc.

That said, I suspect that if this girl had been shot in the airport, things may well have changed for the better. The press coverage would have been tremendous, and it's that kind of attention that seems to make things happen in this country. The Rodney King incident certainly brought attention to the problem of police brutality... at least for a while. Not that I'm suggesting it would have been better if something had happened to this girl. But it will likely take some similarly ridiculous and horrible occurrence to have an effect on the status quo. Walking into an airport right now is like volunteering for the Milgram experiment.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[PingPongBoy]

Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is considered a possible bomb?



In the third world, the bomb looks like an ugly hack but homeland security had better look for the packaged bombs. What better disguise? The operative phrase is don't bark up the wrong tree.

Airplanes are known to be great terrorist weapons. Targeting funky obvious looking people doesn't catch terrorists though. Sneaky people caused 9/11. This airport incident shows just how smart or demented the security is. Fly at your own risk and don't visit tall buildings for a hobby.

The stigma on flying and on passengers is one of the lingering victims of 9/11. Flight security is actually really lax. If they had a clue about preventing terrorists from getting on board, they should spy for a couple of weeks on anyone who will get on a plane, train, or bus. There are only 7 billion people to watch, and that may be tractable in the years to come. What fun!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[sasdrtx]

Then you are a fucking idiot. Just because you and a whole lot of other brainless twits wet their pants at the sight of exposed electronics or god forbid, play-doh, doesn't mean the law and the government should cater to your ridiculous craven fears.

Why don't you buy some land, and build a giant fortress where all you ninnies can enjoy life wearing nothing but paper gowns, everyone can submit to rectal probing twice a day, and nothing is allowed that isn't prescribed by the authorities.

I have to wonder what is wrong with Boston. They seem to have taken freaking out over the most silly things to unbelievable extremes.

I really hate myself for using profanity in public, but I've just had way too much of this "we have to err on the side of caution" bullshit. Caution is itself overrated, but this isn't caution, it's pure imbecility.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Lurker2288]

What are you, stupid? If you don't like the way airport security works, then do something productive about it: write letters, vote for candidates who have good security track records, maybe get a job in the TSA yourself to influence it positively. This might actually change things, as opposed to ranting in the face of some minimum-wage TSA screener like a maniac. Not that your way doesn't make for amusing headlines, it's just, you know, pointless.

So yeah, if I want change, I'll do something intelligent to make it happen, and in the meantime, I'll adhere to the well-defined and nigh-universally understood patterns of behavior that get me onto the plane without being strip searched, tasered, or held at gunpoint.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

And without using the circular logic and trying to avoid my point: After they had ascertained what she was wearing, they charge her with perpetrating a hoax? Without any of the legal obligations included in any of their statements to back that charge up one iota?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[el americano]

Small correction: She had to post bond, because she was already charged.

I don't buy your analogy. The guy driving at 2:00am is probably doing something illegal. A girl with wires on her shirt asking about an arriving flight is probably not.

Just because something is not 100% secure doesn't mean that you don't at least TRY to secure it.

Assuming every officer is too jumpy to simply stop her and ask her to explain it (no, a rude counter employee doesn't count), then maybe they do stop her at gunpoint. OK, better safe than sorry, leave that in your car, have a nice day. How does charging her with a hoax device, when it was your own goddamn mistake, make anybody more safe and secure?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[plague3106]

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.

Right, because they couldn't possibly have made a mistake seeing the shirt from a distance. Its entirely possible the paint DID look like putty.

Even without the paint / putty, a circuit board + battery strapped to someones chest can reasonable be construed to be a bomb. There was no overreaction here, and believe me I rarely side with police in any matter. The student was stupid, plain and simple. She might as well waive a toy gun around in a bank after painting the tip black again.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[nwbvt]

Yes, she was charged with perpetrating a hoax, as she should have (and no, they do not have to prove intent to charge someone it). She wore a device on her shirt which if she had any brains she would have known looked at the very least suspicious. When asked about it, she just walked away without explaining what it was she was wearing. There is no circular logic, she was lucky neither she nor anyone else was hurt. The security personal acted exactly as they should have; had they not we would not be talking about an arrest here, we would be talking about a fatal shooting. And despite the fact that you think you are lawyer because you hang out on /. arguing what you read off someone's blog, I can assure you they have a legal basis for the charges.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

"And despite the fact that you think you are lawyer because you hang out on /. arguing what you read off someone's blog, I can assure you they have a legal basis for the charges."
Very nice to know that you can assure me on that after just explaining to me that I am not an expert. Kinda sets a low bar for the response: Since it's obvious that you like to be hypocritical, lets see where else in your post you create arguments.

"(and no, they do not have to prove intent to charge someone it)."
Never said they did. Just that it's nice to be able to see how a charge might be justly applied, since if it wasn't, it would be one of the thousands of documented cases of the police charging someone with a crime that later turned out not to be a valid use of the applied charge. For a quick example that even a non lawyer like me can point out, read the recent slashdot article about the man who was arrested for not showing the police his drivers license after he called them from a Circuit City parking lot. There was even precedent set that it was an unlawful request in that situation by the officer in the first place. The charge was made, but not within the actual law.

"She wore a device on her shirt which if she had any brains she would have known looked at the very least suspicious."
Convenient that you bring up that point again as so many have. Her intelligence comes into play here because as the definition of what you wrote: "...she was charged with perpetrating a hoax" her state of mind and intent are the central issue in this charge being valid or not. What else do you think that the jury will be debating if this goes to trial?

Or if you want to go the other route, do you think that people who don't know what the majority are thinking about them and how they'd react to what they're doing, need to be charged with crimes that specifically take that into account. Either she "had any brains" and did it on purpose or it was identical to any number of serious outcomes that result in accidents because of the general populaces ignorant trudging about every day. What do you think causes the hundreds of accidents every day in most states if not that people don't have any brains at all if they think they can eat and talk on their cell phones and put on makeup while driving and tuning the stereo. They get charged with specific crimes that take into account their state of mind and leave the issue at that. That's why there's a difference between manslaughter, justified homicide and homicide, the intent is paramount. But I'm not a lawyer, just someone who can read.

"When asked about it, she just walked away without explaining what it was she was wearing"
Again, with only one side of the event being known you are assuming a pretty biased viewpoint that you know everything that happened. All I am pointing out here is that unless a person is no longer being given the opportunity to be "innocent until proven guilty" you are correct and she gets no say in what happened and what her punishment will be for doing what others said she did. God bless this great nation and the freedoms we fight to protect. Now you can have your opinion that the police are infallible and should never be accused of being as human and emotional as the rest of us lower creatures, that's a right that you have. The right to disregard her due process in the interest of ego. Snap judgements based on half informed opinions are so much more certain and forceful than thought out weighed and factually based decisions.

"had they not we would not be talking about an arrest here, we would be talking about a fatal shooting."
Perfect black and white worlds are wonderful argument boosters but unfortunately I've repeatedly addressed this exact thought innumerable times with the simple fact that I have no issue with that part of the story you people keep trying to bring up. That no one was hurt is a good thing and that they inspected her suspicious looking device is a benefit to us all. (no kidding, seriously) The fact that

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Thuktun]

Refuse to be terrorized, people.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[PastaLover]

In Iraq, bombs go off every day. In the US the last terrorist attack was what, a year ago? (and it was unsuccessful) One must adapt to the threat level of the situation. If you'd use iraq style rules to defend against bombers in the US you'd probably be killing more people than the terrorists would be capable of.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[tgibbs]

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.

I'd be surprised if it so much as occurred to her that anybody could be stupid enough to mistake her electronic jewelry for a bomb.

Why else wouldn't she respond when questioned about what was on her chest?

Haven't you ever been in crowded, noisy airport with lots of people talking at once? Perhaps she was simply walking away and didn't hear the question or didn't realize that it was directed at her.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[adisakp]

What are you going on about? Most detonators are simply small bits of wire that heat up when you pass current through, covered in something like phosphorus. Building an inverter or a boost converter is ridiculously unnecessary. Connecting the detonator straight across the 9V battery is more than sufficient for most detonators. I'd expect far better from the geeks of slashdot.

And here is where you're completely wrong about plastic explosives. Plastic explosives require both heat *AND* pressure to detonate. You can take a block of C4 and repeated shoot it with a gun. You can also try burning it but that won't cause detonation. A simple wire coated in phosphorous hooked up to a 9V battery will do little other than burn the wire next to the explosive since the burning phosporus provides neither enough heat or pressure. You could wrap a brick of C4 in an entire bale of your proposed wire and it'd be only dangerous because of the burning bale of wire. The C4 would remain as inert as play-doh.

The stability of most plastic explosives are one of the reasons they're attractive as an explosive -- the other two reasons are that 1) it's very malleable and easily shaped and 2) the ratio of energy released to starting material is higher than many conventional explosives. Typically a specialized detonation device (blasting cap) called an exploding bridgewire is used. This device REQUIRES building a high voltage charge. The rapid release of the high voltage charge results in the electrical vaporization of metal in a wire and the resulting shaped shockwave powers these specialized detonators.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[AK Marc]

I think the police did their job and this Star Simpson person was pretty stupid to try that. Talk about no common sense.

I've seen hats that are just like the shirt she had that are 20+ years old. Whether she should have been detained as a bomber to assess the threat isn't an issue. What is an issue to me is that everyone that annoys the authorities is being prosecuted. Leave some Lite-Brites around, get sued. Wear a tech shirt that, while not common, has been around in some way or another for 20+ years, and get prosecuted. They appear to be trying to send a message. But what I hear and what they are probably trying to say are probably different. I only hear "do something we don't like (and we won't define it for you before hand) and we'll ruin the rest of your life." That doesn't make me feel safer.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Obfuscant]

Do you think the next level of escalation was to surround her with locked and loaded machine guns?

Given the situation, yes.

A person, as far as I know..is not required by any law to answer another civilian about anything....

That's probably true, but not relevant. "Unusual behaviour" does not mean "illegal behaviour". It was unusual behaviour for someone to ignore a question about an unusual item they were carrying posed by an airport employee. It was especially unusual if one assumes that this was allegedly "wearable art" and the student was proud enough of it to wear it alot, but the airport employee didn't know that, only that a simple question about an item someone was carrying resulted in that person turning around and walking away. And not just away, out of the terminal.

But, if the ticket agent told security and then someone in security, maybe first followed her and observed the shirt...maybe even came up to her and asked her questions...that sounds more reasonable as second line of defense.

We don't know that they didn't follow her to observe the shirt. We know she had already refused to answer questions about it from a "random person", so there would be no reason to expect her to do so under the same circumstances. Further, she was leaving the premises, apparently, and time was short. Would you rather they had let a "person of interest" simply dissappear back into Boston to try again tomorrow (like the idiot French did with the shoe bomber?) or should they deal with a problem while it can still be dealt with?

I think anyone looking at her, hopefully a TRAINED law enforcement pro, would tell that this was nothing...

Law enforcement training does not teach anyone what a breadboard with an innocent LED blinker circuit looks like. A law enforcement pro would look at the entire package -- including the person's actions -- to determine if it was necessary to stop someone.

...before surrounding her with machineguns one trigger pull away from ripping her apart.

While such hyperbole is wonderful in a novel, it does nothing to further the discussion here. She certainly was not "one trigger pull" away from being "ripped apart". Even so, the same kind of statement could be made about the cops. "They were questioning a suspect with the knowledge that they might be one button push from being ripped apart."

It's their job to stop people who are acting suspiciously and determine what is wrong. Sometimes that person isn't a moronic college student doing something really stupid. Sometimes that person does actually want to hurt people. Sometimes that person hasn't even done anything illegal yet -- at least nothing clearly identifiable to the casual observer. To do their job safely (for them, and the person they are questioning), THEY need to be in charge of the situation. A suspect who runs endangers everyone in the vis cinity, including himself.

Now, what SHOULD be questioned is the later statements by the cops about her being lucky to be alive, etc. That's just nonsense. Whoever said that should not be allowed to be a PIO for anything. That was stupid, but the way the matter was taken care of at the airport was professional and direct. And every bit of it was the student's fault for being stupid and arrogant.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[tgibbs]

Yes, I wouldn't put it past the Boston police to draw on a kid with a bright green water pistol, and defend it with "why take a chance?"

A circuit board is not a weapon. It is not an imitation weapon. It is a standard component of a million benign electronic devices--probably 90% of the people in that terminal had a circuit board somewhere in their possession. And a circuit board with lights, prominently displayed on an article of clothing, is less likely to be a bomb than any random suitcase, purse, or backpack.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[aliquis]

I'm sure real terrorists would wear the bomb showing!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[jythie]

Actually, if you want to be technical. "they" did not try to ask her. An information booth worker tried to ask. That person fills a very different role then the security person.

This was functionally equivalent to an anonymous tip.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[nwbvt]

"Convenient that you bring up that point again as so many have. Her intelligence comes into play here because as the definition of what you wrote: "...she was charged with perpetrating a hoax" her state of mind and intent are the central issue in this charge being valid or not. What else do you think that the jury will be debating if this goes to trial?"

She is a MIT engineering student. If her defense was that she was too dumb to figure that a circuit-board attached to a shirt and handful of play-dough might look suspicious in an airport, she had better either have a damn good lawyer, or an incredibly gullible jury. Any reasonable person will find the idea that this was a publicity stunt much, much more credible. The girl's own mother says she should have been more careful.

"Again, with only one side of the event being known you are assuming a pretty biased viewpoint that you know everything that happened. All I am pointing out here is that unless a person is no longer being given the opportunity to be "innocent until proven guilty" you are correct and she gets no say in what happened and what her punishment will be for doing what others said she did. God bless this great nation and the freedoms we fight to protect. Now you can have your opinion that the police are infallible and should never be accused of being as human and emotional as the rest of us lower creatures, that's a right that you have. The right to disregard her due process in the interest of ego. Snap judgements based on half informed opinions are so much more certain and forceful than thought out weighed and factually based decisions."

Oh drop the "I'm an objective arbiter and you are just making a biased knee jerk reaction" crap. Your opinions are just as biased as anyone else's, the fact that you are making a knee jerk reaction against authority instead of in support of it does not make you objective. You assume that anything the government is doing is automatically an assault on the rights of the people without stopping to think about the facts first. If anything, your position is much more close minded because you refuse to understand this. Give it up, you are not Perry Mason, you are just a wannabe wasting all his time with long winded responses on /. I mean seriously, an 1,100 rant with no substance at all in response to an article 3 days old? Christ, you need to get a life.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[GooberToo]

Sure, she was dumb for wearing the board, but banned for good from airports?

People willfully disturbing public transportation should consider alternate means for transport. The concept is not hard to understand nor would the reasons be difficult to deduce. There is a reason why it is a federal crime to make jokes about bombs at airports. Not only did she joke but she manufactured an actual device which she used to perpetrate her federal crime. It doesn't sound she has any business to be in an airport period, let alone in a time of war. She actually sounds like the perfect candidate to be banned.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[GooberToo]

Almost everything you stated is an inane rambling on subjects which have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Worse, you redress me for topics I never said or implied. I can only say you are far, far out of touch with reality. Your irrational anger is obvious and out of control. You incorrectly make crazy assumptions and project them on me. You want to live in your imaginary world, fine, but don't project your delusions on to me and expect I'll go along for the ride.

Before I leave you, here's some homework so you can sit at the table with the rest of us adults.
o We are at war...go learn about this. Ponder what this means. You might even want to learn about a common weapon used by our enemies.
o What she did has been a federal crime long before 9/11; so your 9/11 BS is just that. Grow up...read...learn...use your head if you have one.
o It's obvious she intended to commit a federal crime during a time of war. She should be made an example of.

Ponder the obvious facts and implications. Then go read some more. Please ignoring the rest of the stray ramblings you have running through your head at this time as I can assure you, based on your previous posting, they are completely irrelevant.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[GooberToo]

Priceless.

Agreed since what I stated was true several decades ago too. People need to realize that strapping a fake bomb on your body at an airport is a great way, and always has been, to get your fucking brains justifiably blown out of your skull. Only a really fucking stupid idiot would do what she did. Only a really fucking stupid idiot would think what she did isn't serious.

Yet according to you, the police have telepathic helmets and are explosives experts, and can determine she is no threat a fraction of a second after making contact.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[blueskies]

I can assure you they have a legal basis for the charges.

In which case the laws are rediculous, and ANYONE could be charged with having a hoax device. Especially because they didn't report anything about her making threatening movements or verbal threats. Funny looking bag? Hoax device--arrest or shoot the person. Drop your walkman and it opens up revealing electronics? Hoax device--arrest or shoot the person.

If that is a hoax device, then the law is overly broad. Everyone should do their part and report anyone they see with funnly looking bags until they realize how stupid it is.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[Romancer]

Nice to see you ignore pretty much every actual point in the "rant" so well then since you are so obviously well adjusted yourself that you feel the need to respond.

"She is a MIT engineering student. If her defense was that she was too dumb to figure that a circuit-board attached to a shirt and handful of play-dough might look suspicious in an airport, she had better either have a damn good lawyer, or an incredibly gullible jury. Any reasonable person will find the idea that this was a publicity stunt much, much more credible. The girl's own mother says she should have been more careful."

Still ignoring the point that you don't know all the details and think of things like this in generalizations and not specifics. It's amazing that you can't even come to terms with a simple concept that the issue I keep trying to get across is not that she is or is not stupid, did or did not take actions that others would obviously find distressing or even if she has any brains at all. It's that the fundamental issue of charging someone with a crime should be backed up by the minimum requirements that the crime in itself accuses. The fact that she must have had intent to pull a hoax keeps escaping you in the same way you keep trying to hit your head against the brick wall that is logical, factual thought.

"Oh drop the "I'm an objective arbiter and you are just making a biased knee jerk reaction" crap. Your opinions are just as biased as anyone else's, the fact that you are making a knee jerk reaction against authority instead of in support of it does not make you objective."

You need to go and get a dictionary or visit a website other than slashdot that has the capability to do basic phrase searches. Try looking up knee jerk reaction for instance. That you say I am having a knee jerk reaction to this and then explaining to me that my opinion is based on the wonderful leap of reasoning that I: "assume that anything the government is doing is automatically an assault on the rights of the people without stopping to think about the facts first." shows how out of touch with reality you actually are. The fact that you say these conclusions do not make them true or even likely. The fact that you repeat them after missing such a fundamental point of reasoning is further evidence that you are just ignoring the posts you respond to and existing in the very fantasy world you accuse others of inhabiting.

"I mean seriously, an 1,100 rant with no substance at all"
If you actually read the post you are responding to I think that you will find some key points in them, and in comparison to your own, you might actually find more actual facts and logic being employed. It's very revealing that you, on one hand respond to a post 3 days after an event and then accuse others of needing to get a life in the same breath. The fact that you cannot actually dispute the arguments or disprove any of the logical thought progressions shows that you cannot address or do not dare attempt to defend your own poorly framed and hastily constructed criticisms of other peoples ideas. The fact that you devolve to accusing people of being closed minded for having a viewpoint that you just created out of thin air and without basis or merit, simply to attack them, shows that you cannot argue the actual issues in discussion.

"Your opinions are just as biased as anyone else's"
Never said that my opinion was anything but my own and should therefore have just as much tendency for bias as anybody elses. Foe fact that you keep avoiding is that in this case my opinion is backed by the many documents that the united states is currently functioning on in at least one branch entirely. That there should be justice in the judicial system, doesn't strike me as a biased opinion but I'm flawed in that area I guess and just like the people who defend those documents, think that people should be charged only with the crimes that they can be reasonably accused of committing. That the crime they are being charged with should have some merit and be r

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[turbidostato]

"I would rather side with the police and have the girl arrested (or shot if needed) and avoid possible loss of life"

So shooting to death a girl is somehow not a "loss of life" nowadays?

Of course nobody remembers now what happened to the one Brazilian shooted by London police, do we?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ta bu shi da yu]

At the risk of replying to a troll, I don't think that she wore that shirt to make it look like she had a bomb. You might think otherwise, but at the end of the day she shouldn't be banned from the airport as she is NOT a terrorist.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[dedalus2000]

How can you not understand it's better the police shoot 1000 innocent people than to allow a terrorist to harm anyone... no wait that doesn't make any sense, forget i said that.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[GooberToo]

At the risk of replying to a troll

Then safe you are. Sadly, you like so many other young /. readers don't know what troll means. Trolling does not mean someone wrote something controversial or that they have a differing opinion on a subject. Period. I'm not trolling. It's just most of the /. readership, such as yourself, who no longer understand what trolling means, have redefined it out of ignorance. Which then feeds more ignorance into the ignorant /. mass, which is sadly reaching critical mass.

You might think otherwise, but at the end of the day she shouldn't be banned from the airport as she is NOT a terrorist.

One has nothing to do with the user. But, if you bother to look up the word, you'll find she actually IS a terrorist. She is actually the text book definition of a terrorist. What she is not, is the classical raving terrorist waving guns, killing people, blowing up things, and scaring people with violence. She went there with a "bomb-like" device on her shirt and s substance which could be confused for explosives to an untrained eye. She was unresponsive to questions about the device or substances in her hand. She could not even explain why she had the play-doh and why she was actively playing with it near the device.

You don't think she terrorized the people that were left to ponder the situation? Obviously people were scared enough the police were called and they were called in under the understanding they had a possible suicide bomber on their hands...which she met a valid description.

Guess what, it is a federal crime to even joke about bombs in an airport. Guess what, that law has been on the books for decades and it has zero to do with 9/11. So regardless if YOU consider her a terrorist or not, she most definitely deserves to be treated very harshly for her crude joke.

So the facts we have:
She is a terrorist as best and and really fucking stupid idiot at worst
She knowingly created a bomb hoax; violating federal law
The police were called in because she scared the shit out of people when she initiated contact but refused to answer any questions about the device.

Please...go look up the word terrorist. Please, go learn about federal laws in question. Please, go read about WHY these laws are in effect.

Now then, does she deserve to be tossed in jail forever? Hell NO! Should be be made an example of? Absolutely, in the worst possible way! She terrorized people. She is a terrorists. She violated a very reasonable federal law. She violated common sense. She is a fucking moron and should be seriously punished. With any luck she'll get kick out of MIT to boot.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ta bu shi da yu]

In that case, I think we are both assuming things that are not accurate. I'm neither a new slashdot reader, nor do I have a lack of understanding about the term "troll" (I was a heavy poster on Kuro5hin for a number of years, if that means anything to you). I suppose that I thought you might be trolling because your reaction is so over the top and to my mind is a ridiculous reaction to what happened.

If you aren't trolling, then I guess I'm not sure what to say. You ask me to look up the definition of the word "terrorist". Sure. The U.N. says that terrorism is the "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act", while the EB says that it is "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective". Neither of which applies to this situation.

Perhaps you are looking up a source I'm not familiar with? Or perhaps you are reacting from your gut and you haven't looked it up yourself?

As for creating a bomb hoax: that's open to interpretation. From my reading of the article, and the lady in question, she appears to like wearing, creating and using tech-art for her own reason. While I understand that the police had a duty to make sure it wasn't a bomb, it looks to me like it was not the intention of the lady in question to cause a scare. I'd argue that she didn't cause a bomb hoax, and that it was a very unfortunate misunderstanding.

Anyway, I guess I'll agree to disagree with you. Personally, I think that you are ranting a little here, but maybe that's just me.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[GooberToo]

In that case, I think we are both assuming things that are not accurate. I'm neither a new slashdot reader, nor do I have a lack of understanding about the term "troll" (I was a heavy poster on Kuro5hin for a number of years, if that means anything to you).

That place has gone down hill much faster than /. Kuro5hin is a troll training camp. So it would seem you have lots of experience will trolls. Perhaps that's why you gave me the benefit of doubt.

The U.N. says that terrorism is

Broader definitions include the simple threat of violence. Which is why "violence" usually includes the threat of violence or even simple aggression. I bet you're surprised about that. ;) This includes calling in empty bomb threats. No actual violence occurred but if the threat resulted in changed behavior, it was a successful terrorist action. Other examples include hijacking airplanes, with no actual violence. Prior to 9/11, it was actually the exception for people to be kill/injured unless you look back at the '70s. This is why people were taught to be quiet and comply; because likely you was escape from the ordeal unharmed. Yet the masses here seemingly do not believe hijacking a plane qualifies as a terrorist action; and it doesn't unless you understand violence can include the simple act of implied violence or aggression.

As for creating a bomb hoax: that's open to interpretation. From my reading of the article, and the lady in question, she appears to like wearing, creating and using tech-art for her own reason.

Find people that do no work in the tech field. You find almost everyone agrees that is not art; rather, it's a bomb. You and I know it looks like "geek-art"; albeit very lame "art". I at least know to never wear something like that to the airport; but then again, I'm not an idiot and I'm a pilot. You'll find this reaction is common because it is the common movie exposure most have to a jury-rigged explosive device (IED) hooked to C4. When you factor in the fact she had play-doh which she was actively playing with around the device and had no explanation, it's obvious she intended to fuck with people by giving the impression she had an explosive device and C4.

Lastly, contrary to be many, many, many insanely stupid remarks made here (no necessarily by you), no-fly lists have nothing to do with terrorists. People who create a public disturbance either in an airport or on a plane, can be placed on a no-fly list.

My over the top reaction is fueled by the stupidity of the masses and everyone's willingness to project this stupidity and ignorance. If one then goes about correcting them, the posts are labeled troll. Frankly, I'm amazed at the general stupidity, lack of knowledge, and just general talking out ones ass which is common on this subject...not to mention the just plain illogical conclusions drawn here about any 9/11 links or what qualifies for no-fly lists and/or terrorism.

Personally, I think that you are ranting a little here, but maybe that's just me.

I most certainly was. This is /. after all. If you remove the rants, moronic, and ignorant/uninformed comments, you'll find most articles only have one or two comments left behind.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics".

[ta bu shi da yu]

Well, I now primarily work on Wikipedia, so not so much experience with trolls anymore. But, that's pretty much the reason I thought that. My apologies for mistaking you for one.

The problem with using the word "terrorist" is that it means different things to different people. After all, one man's terrorist might be another's freedom fighter. I personally don't consider her to be a terrorist. As I say, we can agree to disagree on this point.

Personally, I also wouldn't be dumb enough to wear something like that to the airport, and I agree that it looks pretty lame. However, art is in the mind of the viewer, so she may or may not have realised what it looked like.

Don't know anything about no-fly lists, so can't comment specifically on that topic. But still think that it's going too far to ban her from airports.

from MIT, but not very smart

[yagu]

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)

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[spud603]

I think you're approaching this all wrong. The point is that it was not a "stunt" or "prank" or "joke". The way I read it she really was just wearing the thing.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to go up to an airport wearing a stripey jumper and, a wide brimmed hat and carrying one of those comic book bombs - with the word 'bomb' written on it. Just to see how long I'd survive.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[gardyloo]

I'd like to go up to an airport wearing a stripey jumper and, a wide brimmed hat and carrying one of those comic book bombs - with the word 'bomb' written on it. Just to see how long I'd survive. Keep the jumper hidden under a black cape (preferably lined with red). You also need a very large chin and thin moustache which you continually twirl.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Dead on. (Almost literally.) Some addenda:

  - 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.)

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[p0tat03]

If you wear decidedly unusual clothes you need to consider how others will perceive it, and be prepared to deal with the consequences. Dammit, if I start wearing a shirt with a big LED timer on it and a bunch of colourful wires I'd *totally* be expected to be handcuffed on the ground at some point.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[tholomyes]

Yep; the LEDs formed a star, as in her first name.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[reboot246]

It's not even good art.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[Vellmont]

If you wear decidedly unusual clothes you need to consider how others will perceive it, and be prepared to deal with the consequences.

There's something to be said for that. But that also doesn't mean the police didn't over-react here.

I just have to wonder though.. what the hell is wrong with Boston? This is the second "circuit board is a bomb" incident in less than a year. You can't tell me there's not other people in other cities walking around wearing weird crap like this, yet we don't hear of incidents where the police escalate an incident to the level where it gets national media attention.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[King Gabey]

If it were a prank, I'd agree. Bad judgement, I'd agree. Intentional, I disagree. Just a college girl going to pick up her boyfriend from the airport.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[Obfuscant]

If I had mod points, I'd mod this up. This is absolutely correct.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[TheQuantumShift]

Yes, "Just wearing the thing" that happens to look like your stereotypical Hollywood suicide bomb...

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[TigerNut]

And the airport security guys would figure that out on first seeing it and appreciate the symbolism, right?

She's really lucky that no one pulled the trigger. However wrong that would have been, there's something to be said for basic common sense as it pertains to achieving old age. Go to Israel sometime and do the "exit interview" at the airport, with a bunch of trinkets you picked up from the local market in your suitcase.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[Jafafa Hots]

"If you wear decidedly unusual clothes you need to consider how others will perceive it, and be prepared to deal with the consequences."

According to them, she was lucky she wasn't shot. She WAS arrested. So the consequences for wearing decidedly unusual clothing is that you have to accept being arrested as a lucky alternative to being killed?

"Dammit, if I start wearing a shirt with a big LED timer on it and a bunch of colourful wires I'd *totally* be expected to be handcuffed on the ground at some point."

Really? You EXPECT to be living in a fascist hellhole? And not just any fascist hellhole, but some bizarre alternate universe cartoon fascist hellhole where the fascists are morons who think terrorist devices are bright flashing obvious things that say "Acme Bomb Company" on them?

Essentially what you're saying is that we need to live in a society where insane fear of the unknown or mildly confusing (to those with low IQs) is encouraged. Where being slightly unusual is a crime.

Grow a fucking set of balls. People with attitudes like yours are ruining the country.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[jamie(really)]

Whereas in your enlightened universe, all it takes for a terrorist to walk into an airport with a chest full of explosives is to write "Acme Bomb Company" on it. Hopefully for him there will be none of our universe's "morons" around that might suspect his little ruse.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[Jafafa Hots]

Firstly, it was not a chest full of explosives, it was a small breadboard that any moron could tell was harmless.
Secondly, I did not suggest that those in airport security should not have examined the item, they should have, and then unless being imbeciles they would quickly rule out any issue with it. That's fine, but you're saying that a person carrying a completely harmless item should not merely have it examined, but should be arrested.
Thirdly, you said if you wore a shirt with blinking lights you would expect to be on the ground handcuffed at some point. You did NOT specify at an airport.

So that's the difference:
My world, the sane world: Someone wearing an unfamiliar item to an airport should expect to have it examined and when its found to be harmless, they are left alone.
Your world, the insane world: Someone wearing a harmless but unfamiliar item in an airport should, even after it has been examined and found to be harmless, be arrested and consider themselves lucky to not have been shot... and if they wear the item NOT in an airport but just around, they should fully expect to be on the ground handcuffed at some point.p.This is what you said, this is what you consider rational. It's not rational, it's emotional, it's the fear-based reflexes of a panicky individual. Grow a set.

Re:from MIT, but not very smart

[pipingguy]

wasn't exactly the smartest move

This was an attention-getting move designed to promote her "art". Morons like this we do not need.

As an aside, I flew into and out of Seattle from Canada last week. No problems, very little wait time for customs and no jerkish/stupid behaviour from flyers or security. Where do these air travel horror stories come from anyway? People that feel the need to draw attention to themselves and then get indignant or offended?

What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[moderatorrater]

Do they just need to do some public service announcements about what a real bomb looks like and what fake electronic gadgets look like?

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[dattaway]

I'm sorry, but that was no fake electronic gadget. Those were real blinky lights!

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[Pootworm]

You'd think the people with the guns and the task of protecting us from bomb threats would have some idea of what to look for in identifying a threat. Oh, wait. Does Sony make 9V batteries now? *high-hat*

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[MillionthMonkey]

She should have told them it was a taser.

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Do they just need to do some public service announcements about what a real bomb looks like and what fake electronic gadgets look like?

Fair enough to pick on Boston (it is fun, after all), but it does illustrate the general point - are *you* certain you could tell a working bomb from 'fake' electronic components? Particularly in this case, when wearing the bomb is a common means of deployment.

This 'prank' was stunningly stupid.

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[Cappy Red]

You leave home, wish your kids a good day at school, and drive to work. You stop at Starbucks on the way, arrest someone with not-a-bomb at gun point, smoke some weed, and clock in.

No. Don't arrest someone at gun point with not-a-bomb.


____-----------_______
The More You Know *

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[Radon360]

They've seen too many versions of the bombs conjured up by Hollywood. Every bomb has some blinking LED(s), ticking/beeping noise, or visible seven segment display, depending on design. If people actually saw what is more likely to be cobbled together to make an amateur designed explosive device, it isn't anywhere as close as sexy-looking at that you see on TV or in the movies. In most cases, your standard kitchen mixer would appear more threatening.

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[CheeseTroll]

OK, genius - what *does* a real bomb look like, and how does its appearance differ from what she was wearing? Apparently she was unable to explain the difference, either, since she turned and walked away from the first TSA person without saying a word.

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[74Carlton]

They are jumpy because of the 9/11/01 planes took off from that airport.

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[Obfuscant]

Just what DOES a "real bomb" look like? Just what does a "fake electronic gadget" look like?

Yes, please, sahib, tell us what they look like so I can make my next real bomb look like a fake one and not have people run away from it before it goes off.

The season finale from "Burn Notice" had a scene that made it clear. "The best traps are not scary, because people will run away. The best traps make people curious. A speeding pickup truck makes people want to run away. A slowly backing up truck makes them curious." That's when the slowly-backing-up truck blew up and took out the bad guys, who were walking towards it.

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[stmfreak]

At first glance, I thought WTF? But given the context and the fact that no-one could see what she had under her sweatshirt, the cops probably reacted correctly and (I cannot believe I'm saying this) it is a credit to their professionalism that she did not end up dead.

Considering that if you were a lunatic bomber, you might want to somehow display that you DO HAVE A BOMB, exposing some part of the electronics with lights and a battery might be deemed sufficient to your crazy mind. I seriously doubt whether the average cop, TSA agent or even /.er could accurately discern between LED art gizmo and upper layer of triggering device without intruding sufficiently to give the potential bomber cause to detonate.

Hopefully, this girl will come out of this experience with better judgment suited for our culture of fear.

It's probably too much to ask that we reduce the level of paranoia at our airports instead, but I wish we could do that rather than suppress the young geniuses of today.

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[Merk]

Before anybody here comments saying "it looks like a bomb" or "it doesn't look like a bomb", you should really qualify your viewpoint. Are you trained in explosives, or do you just watch a lot of TV?

On TV bombs have curly red wires, green and blue wires, red LED clocks that count backwards to zero, etc. On TV getting shot with a gun will knock you 6 feet back through the air. On the tires of a car skidding on a dirt road will make a squealing sound. On TV high explosives explode with bright orange flames, rolling up into the air.

Just because it looks like something you might see on 24 doesn't mean it looks like a bomb.

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[moderatorrater]

That was perhaps the stupidest scene in what was a very stupid episode of a stupid, stupid show. I would recommend that, in the future, you not invoke TV series as an argument, especially not ones made for cable.

To answer your question, a fake electronic gadget, one that does nothing and hurts no one, has blinking LEDs, an obvious circuit board, and no wires going from said blinking lights and circuit board to the "putty" and/or "play-doh" in her hands. If you want to make a real bomb look like a fake bomb, you're an idiot, because it still looks like a bomb. Disguise it as something else, like the jacket you're wearing, or a backpack, or an alarm clock, or anything else that doesn't make people look at it and wonder if it's a bomb.

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[moderatorrater]

Having an led on a bomb is superfluous and if she wanted people to know she had a bomb, she could have just as easily yelled "I have a bomb."

Hopefully, this girl will come out of this experience with better judgment suited for our culture of fear. To shamelessly steal from a genius, maybe she refuses to be terrorized.

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[hxnwix]

Apparently, bombs look like electronic name badges. I guess I'm pretty lucky not to be shot when I wear my defcon 15 badge.

As for all you Slashdotters saying that the girl was an idiot for wearing an electronic name badge: please go kill yourselves. Your stupidity is a grave insult to humans everywhere, and it would be tremendous for all of us if you would die immediately.

Re:What the hell's wrong with Boston?

[Obfuscant]

I'm sorry you don't like the show. It certainly says things that make one think, I think.

To answer your question, a fake electronic gadget, one that does nothing and hurts no one, has blinking LEDs, an obvious circuit board, and no wires going from said blinking lights and circuit board to the "putty" and/or "play-doh" in her hands.

No visible wires. She was wearing a hoody, which could easily have covered any wires.

So, if I wanted to blow someone up, I'd create a bomb with blinking LEDs and an obvious circuit board, because everyone knows that blinking LEDs and a visible circuit board means it "does nothing and hurts no one". They'd see the device, say "it's a fake", poke it with their toe, and die. I win, they lose.

If you want to make a real bomb look like a fake bomb, you're an idiot, because it still looks like a bomb.

Which is it? Does a device that has blinking LEDs and a circuit board look like something that "does nothing and hurts no one", or does it look like a bomb, which is intended to "do something and hurt someone"?

Disguise it as something else, like the jacket you're wearing, or a backpack, or an alarm clock, or anything else that doesn't make people look at it and wonder if it's a bomb.

According to you, a package with blinking LEDs and a visible circuit board is a fake electronic gadget, not a bomb. That should be sufficient disguise.

The fact is, there is no definition of what a bomb has to look like, not even one that says what a bomb CANNOT look like. It used to be that bombs could not look like boom-boxes (pun intended), but PAN-AM 103 taught us better. Bombs don't look like shoes. Bombs don't look like two bottles of water. Bombs don't look like "blinking LEDs and exposed circuit boards".

As someone else in the discussion said, this innocent college student could have been an attempt at seeing just what people would think of something with blinking LEDs and an exposed circuit board.

I figure she was hoping for "performance art"...

[Two99Point80]

...featuring lots of her own blood.

ok

[nomadic]

I'm looking forward to the convoluted arguments as to how the security personnel overreacted, and how she did nothing wrong. The damn thing definitely looks like it could have been a bomb. She really is lucky they didn't shoot her.

Re:ok

[danpsmith]

I'm looking forward to the convoluted arguments as to how the security personnel overreacted, and how she did nothing wrong. The damn thing definitely looks like it could have been a bomb. She really is lucky they didn't shoot her.

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.

Re:ok

[hjf]

How sad is the state of things in the US. Did you notice that you're surrendering to fear? Don't try to deny it, you know you are. You believe what the government tells you. It's so sad that most people think like you. "She really is lucky they didn't shoot her." actually means "well, if killing a suspect MAY prevent something bad from happening, then shoot, and if it was a false alarm, well, he deserved it for doing whatever he was doing". But hey, that's the way americans think! "Shoot first, ask questions later." Some day an agent will shoot a guy with a dead-switch and that would be worse.

A president of yours said even said "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself".

Re:ok

[danpsmith]

She really is lucky they didn't shoot her.

PS: How is she "lucky" they didn't shoot her? We are unlucky to be living in such an alarmist, idiot filled nation, in which you are likely to be shot for having anything that sort of looks like a bomb or a gun. Shoot first and ask questions later right? Nothing wrong with that policy at all.

Re:ok

[Anonymous Crowhead]

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?

Yes, because every police officer and TSA employee are experienced in bomb making and dealing with bombs.

Re:ok

[danpsmith]

Yes, because every police officer and TSA employee are experienced in bomb making and dealing with bombs.

Well then there's your problem. Shouldn't the people who are at the end of a trigger if there's supposedly a bomb know WTF one looks like? I don't understand all the people on here posting responses such as "these people are too busy to go to bomb school", if they are gonna shoot someone over a bomb, I'm pretty sure they should know what one looks like. Why do people accept such crumby accountability from the officials that we allow to roam around the country like GI Joes on a regular basis?

But whatever, I'm just another member of the hive for thinking that someone should probably have a good idea about what their job entails. My bad.

Re:ok

[nomadic]

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?

Alright, you have definitely been watching waaaaay too many movies. Homemade bombs aren't standardized ("cut the blue wire! the bad guys always use the blue wire to set it off!"). There isn't an ANSI standard for homemade bombs.

You need the explosive substance, and a detonator. That's pretty much it, and they can take a wide assortment of shapes and sizes.

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?

And they're supposed to know that it's silly putty and not plastique?

Re:ok

[smartr]

Why does a circuit board + a battery = instant hoax device? Do bombs require large obvious circuit boards and batteries? Did she say anything remotely related to bomb? A bomb could be the shoes someone is wearing. Perhaps we need officers to threaten citizens with assault rifles when they wear shoes in airports. Really, clothing could be used to conceal bombs, and someone could even shove separated reactive materials in balloons up their rectum. So perhaps what we need are airports where only naked anally probed citizens with verified US ID cards are allowed on and strapped to their seats in transport so they can't move... Then we *might* be "safe".

Re:ok

[tholomyes]

From TFA: "She's extremely lucky she followed the instructions." How is that luck, exactly? She's lucky that the people who are trained to handle live firearms in public places are responsible people? I was kind of hoping there was more to their training than, "Here's a gun. Luck will guide you."

Re:ok

[Cornflake917]

We are unlucky to be living in such an alarmist, idiot filled nation, in which you are likely to be shot for having anything that sort of looks like a bomb or a gun. I'm sorry, maybe I'm missed something, but I don't recall this happening often, or recently. I think you misused the word likely. Maybe you're talking about Iraq?

Re:ok

[nomadic]

But hey, that's the way americans think! "Shoot first, ask questions later."

Guess you come from a country with a low literacy rate. I guess I was just being a silly American when I actually read the damn article which states they DID ask questions first, which she ignored.

Re:ok

[scubamage]

Let me quote a great man... err.. muppet: "I sense in him much fear. Fear leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Re:ok

[Palshife]

Damn, beat me to it.

Re:ok

[hey!]

Well generally I'm a pretty staunch civil libertarian, however making reasonable accommodations to fear isn't the same as surrendering.

For example, I think you should be able to fly without an ID, if you are willing to undergo an enhanced search. I actually believe that's how it's supposed to work. So: you can either show your ID, or you can submit to a search, or you can travel by ground. This seems like a reasonable accommodation to me.

Likewise, not wearing your electronic art to the airport seems like a reasonable accommodation. We don't hire geeks for security, it's too expensive when you are competing for people who could be engineers. If we did, it'd be more expensive to fly, and fewer people could afford it. Is this is a curtailment of your free speech rights? If it is, it is less so than the rule against joking about having a bomb, because you could wear a T-shirt with the schematic if your wished.

Re:ok

[brkello]

How sad is the state of things on Slashdot. Did you notice that you're surrendering to group-think paranoia? Don't try to deny it, you know you are. You believe what Slashdot comments tell you. It's so sad that most Slashdotters think like you. "The authorities over-reacted to the situation and should have been able to visually tell there wasn't a threat" actually means "I am an arrogant prick that thinks that the job the police and security do is easy. Cops all are on ego trips and constantly abuse their authority. There are no good cops out there that risk their lives to protect others. And when a bomb does it make through security, I am going to blame them for being corrupt and no good at their jobs. And any time they act reasonably and people agree with what to do I will tell them they are surrendering to fear." But hey, that's the way Slashdotters think! "Mouth off first, think later".

Honestly, my friend, I don't know what is wrong with you to have such a skewed opinion of the world...but you shouldn't get every opinion in that little head of yours from Slashdot.

Re:ok

[nnull]

The sad part is that many of us know it's all bullshit, it's just that no one is willing to stand up for what is right anymore. If you do, you get tasered or shot to death, while a group of people around you just watch in shock and horror, then go home and forget about you.

Re:ok

[greyhueofdoubt]

A president of yours said even said "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself".
Franklin D. Roosevelt said that in reference to a bank panic that happened in 1933.

And if you thought that he was talking about foreign enemies, it still wouldn't make sense. I'm sure that those words would be cold consolation to the 450,000-odd Americans who died in WWII alone.

I'm a veteran, and those words mean jack sh** in the face of real fear.
-b

Re:ok

[hjf]

Ah, but you lack the skillz to realize that I was actually referring to things in general, not this particular girl. Wearing a circuit board and silly putty to an airport is pretty ... well, silly. Actually, wearing that in public is pretty silly too. But the point is that you shouldn't get a gun pointed at your face for wearing that. Or get arrested for saying "I have a bomb" (as a joke) to a customs officer, and go to jail after they have searched you (not because they think you're dangerous, but because you made them look stupid). You see, they love to exercise their power. And flight attendants are on the same plan too: if they don't wanna "deal with you", they can get you off the plane (as it happened with the woman with the crying baby a few weeks ago).

Re:ok

[dapsychous]

Thank you! You have the support of someone within the US that believes that the level of paranoia around here is friggin' retarded.

I swear if I hear the word "Terrorist" on more damn time, I'm gonna go completely crackers. Am I afraid of terrorists, terrorism, bombs, sleeper cells, whatever? Fuck no! If it happens, it happens, and no amount of fearmongering, or paranoia is going to change that. Sure, you'll catch of few before they can pull whatever stunt they're planning, but eventually, one will get through.

The very fact that we're so paranoid is evidence that the terrorists have already won. The goal of terrorism is to get your enemy so afraid of you that they change their way of life to make you happy. Check the news; check Fark.com. There's an article just about every day about this person won't take a seeing eye dog in their cab because that would be bad, or somebody jumps up on a plane screaming about allah and how great 9/11 was in arabic, and they get away with no punishment, and worse, they sue and win for "discrimination"; but the instant a college student walks into an airport with a homemade light-up shirt, she gets an MP5 shoved in her face! She wasn't even trying to get on a plane. She was waiting for a friend to come out. I'll be honest, I've worn a shirt like this. After a few minutes, I completely forgot I was wearing it. I finally remembered when I started getting weird looks from cops at IHOP. I don't blame her for wearing it in an airport, I probably would have too, and not even given it a second thought.

She didn't respond to the lady at the counter, maybe because she didn't hear her, or possible she wasn't paying attention. Yes, the police should have responded, but they responded with WAAAAAYYYYY too much force.

Whatever happened to "no harm, no foul?" charges should be dropped against this girl immediately, and she should sue the dogshit out of the TSA.

</rant>

Re:ok

[hjf]

Thank you. At least I see that some people still can think for themselves.

Re:ok

[CodeBuster]

A president of yours said even said "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself".

and he was wrong, those were different times, simpler and more innocent, but the world has changed and those who fail to change along with it will be among the first to fall when the crap really hits the fan.

As for your comments about fear and paranoia you picked the wrong case to back your argument and pitched it to the wrong audience. Do we want to live in a police state? No, but on the other hand she was either *very* stupid (in a common sense sort of way) or *remarkably* naive in her choice of dress and conduct in the airport. Frankly, the world probably would have got along just fine without her and there is some value in letting the terrorists know that we are bringing our 'A' game when it comes to security. The crowd here on Slashdot, including myself, is by nature paranoid as evidenced by our extensive collective fascination with the minutiae of security, encryption, surveillance, and other related topics...situational awareness...its not just for the "other guy" anymore.

Re:ok

[hjf]

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?

Re:ok

[hjf]

he very fact that we're so paranoid is evidence that the terrorists have already won.

That's why they call it TERRORism... domination through terror.

Re:ok

[antibryce]

I'd be willing to bet money this girl would have faced an identical charge in the 90's or 80's or 70's etc. Bombing airliners was pretty popular prior to 9/11 and you can be charged for even saying "bomb" in an airport (and it's been that way for a long time, and it's not a purely US thing.)

Re:ok

[dapsychous]

Damn... my English teacher would've kicked my ass for that post. Sorry to all the grammar nazis out there, I'll try to proofread a little better next time.

Re:ok

[nomadic]

I wasn't talking about this incident, but about the way security forces work in the US.

So your reply had nothing to do with what I said. Then why did you post it in response to my posting?

I said that in this specific situation, the police officers' actions were justified. You're interpreting this to mean I support other actions that weren't justified. Doesn't make much sense.

Re:ok

[Lurker2288]

Seriously, could you shut the fuck up? Blah blah blah, Americans are stupid, Americans are racist, Americans don't have healthcare. But frankly, all countries, including yours, whatever it is, have their share of problems. And in your country, there are probably plenty of people trying to fix those problems who are frustrated when they can't make progress, just as there are here. How ignorant would I sound if I attributed the negative stereotypes of any nation to every one of its citizens? Does it occur to you that your kind of contemptuous attitude, writ large, just reinforces divisiness between America and other countries? Americans have a (probably deserved) reputation for arrogance, but comments such as yours show that we're not the only ones who could stand a little humility.

Don't bother replying; I'll just imagine you said something about how all Americans are fat, or stupid, or lazy. It'll be like reading your posts, but with less of my time wasted.

Re:ok

[BgJonson79]

The same President that said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" was the same guy who had A-bombs built. And his party, the Democrats, were the ones who dropped them.

I feel worse for the people on Tokyo who cooked in the fire bombings, but that doesn't quite have the sizzle of being nuked, does it? Of course, why it took two bombs, only the Japanese know.

Re:ok

[CodeBuster]

Well, you obviously don't have an axe to grind...

but in truth it is precisely because the terrorists don't care that we must be prepared so that our safety and continued survival does not depend in any way upon any level of cooperation from them or lack of care on the part of the terrorists so that *when* they decide to strike again we will be ready for them. They caught us unprepared on 9/11 yes, but it is a testament to the vigilance and professionalism of our security forces that we have not been hit again. I do not subscribe to the theory that we have merely been lucky since 9/11, especially in light of the fact that we are fighting a drawn out conflict against a ruthless, clever, and stubborn enemy (religious fanatics are the worst kind)...if they *could* have hit us again then they certainly would have done so already.

The WTC, the symbol of everything the US means: Money.

Better that than religious fanaticism and Taliban-style theocracy. The Freedom Tower will take its place at the WTC complex as a fitting tribute to the fallen and a testament to our will to survive into the future in spite of our enemies.

Re:ok

[hjf]

Well, If there were news about Argentina I'd rant on them too. Sure, we do have our share of problems... a president that designated its own people to calculate inflation (they deny that there is inflation but my bank account doesn't agree), airport security officers who use the x-ray scanner to find things that they later steal from your bags, Hugo Chavez's people bootlegging USD 800.000 without declaring it at the airport, on a 3AM private flight. Police that don't show up at your house when you call them (because they have to buy their own ammo, and sometimes, weapons and vests), piqueteros and their demonstrations all over the country every day, people being kidnapped, killed for $10 (or for not having $10)... all because of corruption, corruption, and more corruption. I could go on and on all day long (my friends and I do that from time to time). But /. is about the US so I rant about the US.

Oh and by the way, we Argentines are famous for our arrogance :) but that's just the way we are.

Re:ok

[Dread_ed]

Reading the summary of the story I was thinking how great it would be to have a poll for each controversial story where we could vote on how we think the average /.'er will react. I was betting on the "free speech at all costs" crowd posting a ton of explanations of how this is just like the "don't taze me, bro" incident.

However, it seems cooler heads have prevailed. Bravo /., bravo.

Re:ok

[greyhueofdoubt]

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/

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

Re:ok

[Rakarra]

A president of yours said even said "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself".

and he was wrong, those were different times, simpler and more innocent.

No, he was right but only in the context in which his words were spoken. He was talking about an economic slump that could only be broken by optimism, as the pessimistic cautious hold over money stretched out the depression.

In an economic sense, Roosevelt was absolutely right, but it's a mistake to extend his speech to cover all situations the country faced.

Re:ok

[Brickwall]

Guess you come from a country with a low literacy rate. I guess I was just being a silly American when I actually read the damn article which states they DID ask questions first, which she ignored.

Your literacy skills are equally suspect. The only person who asked her about the device was a ticket agent - a clerk. I would feel no compunction to answer questions from a glorified typist. She didn't have a ticket, as she wasn't flying, so she wouldn't be allowed through the security gates. The first people of any authority to question her were the cops, and she did exactly as she was told. I'm not saying what the cops did was unjustified (it could have been a bomb, after all), but charging her with a crime is just ridiculous.

Re:ok

[hey!]

Actually, I think the most important thing about the law is that it is predictable. That it should be just is also desirable, but it can't be just unless it is predictable.

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:ok

[tburkhol]

Why do so many seem so ready to buy into "the terrorists" as an organized force that can be fought and defeated?

"They caught us unprepared on 9/11"
"*when* they decide to strike again"
"we are fighting a drawn out conflict against a ruthless, clever, and stubborn enemy"
"if they *could* have hit us again then they certainly would have"

There's always going to be someone angry at the US. There's people angry at Switzerland, for gods' sake, and they've been neutral forever. Terrorists are the national or political equivalent of celebrity stalkers. You can knock one down, but two more will spring up as a result of the publicity. Terrorists have been a fact of society as long as I can remember, and as long as I can remember, their actions have escalated. You know what? School violence has been escalating too. And TV violence. And the scandals perpetrated by politicians. And the fraud perpetrated by corporations. Escalation is also the nature of society. There are no conditions under which terrorists will go away, and it is certain that the WTC attack will one day be exceeded. The only questions are: in what kind of world would you like to live until the next atrocity? How much are you willing to suffer to delay that atrocity by one year? One day?

Airport security? Sure. Strip searches? No. Shoe searches? Not really. Knife ban? Yes. Water ban? No.

Let's take some reasonable precautions against the inevitable wack-os that populate the world, but let's not so restrict our society that we feel restrained from self-expression, or from making cool trinkets, or speaking our mind.

Re:ok

[Mr. Slippery]

The damn thing definitely looks like it could have been a bomb.

No. It doesn't. It looks like a toy that goes blink.

A bomb would have to have some sort of, you know, stuff that goes boom. Not just lights that go blink.

Re:ok

[hjf]

Ah, finally a decent answer. Regarding to the emotional distance, yes, it's something I agree. You see, for my opinions I'm usually called a commie, but then, the commies here don't like me because of that. You see, my country hasn't been in many wars, only the Malvinas war in 1982 (which we lost). But we have had fair amounts of internal wars. My country was under military control several times, and for what I've heard, it's not pretty. But, there's a saying "if the story is told by the ones who won, then that means there's another story".

The commies here (progressists, they call themselves), keep living in the 1976-1983 period of the last dictatorship. Where many young soldiers were forced to kidnap, torture, and kill civilians (at first, left-wing activists, then, several degrees from them: family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors...). So, after the first democratic period (1983-1989, president Alfonsin, who had to leave the office earlier because of the situation of the country -- mostly the hiperinflation when the Austral was 10.000:1 with the US Dollar), the next president (Menem) created the Punto Final (Full Stop) and Obediencia Debida (Due Obedience) laws. The Punto Final laws were there to put an end to chaos, and to avoid a new coup by the military. The Obediencia Debida law was for giving an amnesty to the soldiers, which finally brings us to my point: a soldier has to obey his commanding officer. But in the 70's, the soldiers had to obey them in ANY way, and, for example, not killing someone means that they (the military) would kill you. So, they did. When democracy was restored, people wanted the blood of the military leaders. They got many of them in jail. So, they kept wanting more and more, until they started messing with the young "colimbas" (soldiers in training). That's where the Due Obedience laws where put in practice. There's an endless discussion every now and then about if we should have these laws or not. Well, these are the laws that protect emotional distancing. And I agree. Some things needed to be done, and they were done. Could these things have been done in a better way? Sure, but that's what you say: the past can't be changed.

But in the end, it was our own internal war. Yes, it was a work of the US government, but executed by our own people (and we could say that it saved us from communism).

Also, you know that the military is about emotional distancing. Your training sargeant doesn't yell at you because he's an ass. They don't make you sleep in the mud and crawl on the floor to "prepare you for the battlefield". They do that to make your character, to made you forget what you were taught is right or wrong, to make you do what THEY think is right. They slowly brainwash you to obey. And, well, it works. Sure, it needs to be done, otherwise you wouldn't pull the trigger. You'll have to be a murderer to mercilessly kill other people. But with the proper training, you learn that you can shut down your conscience and fire away. (But, your conscience will bill you later, you know that too).

You said that work in an organization requires rationalization. Yes, but it's different. Firing people also makes you bad. I knew a HR manager who had to let go nearly a hundred employees from a local company when economic crisis in 2002 almost made them go out of business. This woman got a bad rash on her face and neck: it was the stress of having to fire so many people. It took her weeks of vacation and a little therapy to recover. But, you didn't get a rash from killing someone, did you? No, because you were prepared for it.

I'm not trying to analyze you either, but I see that you only feel anger. That's fine, I would too (imagine how the iraqis feel about you invading their country). You also deny the real intentions of Bush. It's understandable: you were trained to obey, not to think. You should be angry not because you got to see terrible things. If you're a soldier, that's part of your job. You should be angry because of the reasons you had to see those thing

Re:ok

[ceejayoz]

"She really is lucky they didn't shoot her." actually means "well, if killing a suspect MAY prevent something bad from happening, then shoot, and if it was a false alarm, well, he deserved it for doing whatever he was doing".

No, it means "having no common sense around twitchy people with guns is a dangerous combination".

Re:ok

[greyhueofdoubt]

I thought that I should clear up the Japan issue. I'll give you a timeline of 1945:

July 26: Japan rejects the Potsdam ultimatum, which outlined terms for surrender
August 6: first bomb dropped on Hiroshima
August 7-8: Truman warns of more attacks; leaflets are dropped on Japanese cities. Japan rejects Potsdam again
August 9: Second bomb dropped on Nagasaki, soviet union declares war on Japan
August 15: Japan finally surrenders, but not until the terms of the surrender were changed to allow the existing oligarchy to stay in power.


As you can see, we did try to prevent the war from escalating. At the time (which, you need to remember, came after years of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths) the best option seemed to be the A-bomb. It worked, but just barely: we were prepared to drop more bombs after the 17th. And, frankly, the Japanese committed some of the worst atrocities of the war (some would say some of the worst the world had ever seen). They were a small island nation with designs on taking over as much of the world as they could. What would you have done? Before you answer, you should probably learn more about the japanese kokutai and just how much the emperor and japanese militants were willing to sacrifice. They would have fought until almost every last one of them was killed. This is not simply opinion; research the situation from objective sources and draw your own conclusions.


I don't deny the real intentions of Bush. I just really don't think that the war was about snatching oil. Even an infant would realize that the potential savings of 'owning' Iraq's oil would be outweighed by even a modest war. Bush/Cheney have many, many connections with the military-industrial complex, and they knew damn well that their contractor buddies would profit whether the war was successful or not. Going in for oil would be a risk, but going in for contractor money was a sure bet. And I can tell you right now that the war contractors are making an obscene amount of money. Or maybe he's just senile or insane and actually thought that Iraq was harboring al queda. Who knows. The guy is bonkers. And your ideas about boot camp notwithstanding, I do retain my own personality and intellectual independence. I do what needs to be done, yes, but so does everyone else who wants to keep their job. Funny thing is- my friends who know me well, and know that I am very independent and stubborn, still retain their personal stereotypes of what the military is all about. Talk about cognitive dissonance...

Re:ok

[The Cydonian]

What you're missing is that they're showing the jacket inside out. The breadboard was _inside_; only the lights were outside.

You know what, I'm not that bothered by the fact that they pulled guns on her. Heck, folks panic, you ask to step up, they screen you, you're let off. No biggie. What is more appalling is how _thoroughly_ those NSA jack-asses are trying to protect their arses on this. Bail? Making a hoodie appear more scary than it really was? Hoax? Wtf?

Re:ok

[Mr. Slippery]

Of course, why it took two bombs, only the Japanese know.

It did not take two nuclear bombs - or any nuclear bombs - to get the Japanese to surrender. They were already beginning negotiations.

It took two bombs to scare the Soviets, and to justify the expense of the Manhattan Project to the American people.

Re:ok

[Mr. Slippery]

She's lucky that the people who are trained to handle live firearms in public places are responsible people?

Considering the low entry requirements and low level of training? Yes, she is lucky.

I was kind of hoping there was more to their training than, "Here's a gun. Luck will guide you."

Not much. Police only get a couple hundred hours of training, and most of that is in procedure, investigations, etcetera. The average cop is not at all well trained to deal with any sort of crisis or potentially violent situation

Re:ok

[BgJonson79]

If they Japanese were ready to surrender, why didn't they after Hiroshima? I hear it's not that hard.

Re:ok

[Mr. Slippery]

If they Japanese were ready to surrender, why didn't they after Hiroshima?

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.

(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. What, stupid and exploitive foreign policy coming back to bite us in the ass? Unheard of...)

I hear it's not that hard.

What, a nation unconditionally surrendering its sovereignty is "not that hard"?

Re:ok

[BgJonson79]

Didn't Germany do just such a thing? Wouldn't the Instant Sunshine sorta speed up the process?

Re:ok

[Mr. Slippery]

Didn't Germany do just such a thing?

Hitler didn't surrender Germany, and in fact denounced Himmler when Himmler tried to start peace negotiations. By the time Dönitz took over after Hitler and Goebbels offed themselves, the war was de facto over, with the loss of Berlin.

If nukes weren't needed to stop Hitler, they weren't needed to stop Japan either. In fact the decision that the first bombs would fall on Japan rather than Germany was made over a year before the massacre at Hiroshima.

Re:ok

[BgJonson79]

I didn't say Hitler surrendered Germany. I said Germany surrendered. Who has their country surrender is irrelevant.

As to who was gonna get nuked, take it up with FDR. He finished what Lincoln started. And I'd say the internment camps were a clear indication he didn't like Japanese people much. Why he is so revered, I have no idea.

Re:ok

[Mr. Slippery]

Who has their country surrender is irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant. The leaders we were at war with killed themeselves rather than surrender sovereignty; the new government, de facto, had no sovereignty to surrender. These fact support the point that surrendering is a very difficult choice for leaders to make.

As to who was gonna get nuked, take it up with FDR.

Um, yes. Isn't that sort of the point of this dialog? I can't take it up with him directly, him being dead and all, but I can take it up with our historical interpretation of him.

He finished what Lincoln started.

??? Piece was president when Perry steamed into Tokyo Bay; the Harris Treaty was signed under the Buchanan administration. What did Lincoln start?

And I'd say the internment camps were a clear indication he didn't like Japanese people much.

Yes. And not just him. The "greatest generation" were by and large a racist bunch.

Re:ok

[BgJonson79]

Sorry, I was referring to Lincoln and FDR gutting the Constitution, not treaties and all that fun stuff. I should have been more clear. Moving on...

You seem to imply that the "leaders" of a country are what give it sovereignty. Isn't a government, by definition, what gives a country its sovereignty? Or am I missing what you're saying?

Apologize??

[darkmayo]

For What.

Re:Apologize??

[nate nice]

For causing a scene like this and almost forcing someone to blow her head off and having to live with that. Do you think the security officer wants to blow an innocent girls head off? Of course not, but he has to make split second decisions and this is something that looks suspicious.

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:Apologize??

[Critical Facilities]

Well, for starters how about:
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:Apologize??

[Achromatic1978]

And frankly, I'm not sure of the legality of a piece of fashion like that in an airport.

Wow, we're outlawing clothes now?

Re:Apologize??

[aaronl]

Perhaps she'd been wearing it the entire day and didn't even think about it any more. #4 can be trivially explained by anyone that's around most engineering school techies: query was answered, moving on, no longer paying attention.

#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:Apologize??

[p0tat03]

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:Apologize??

[nate nice]

Get over yourself. Of course she can wear this shirt, and it sounds like she does quite often. But in an airport, it's a pretty dumb idea, for what happened today. Look into context.

After reading TFA, it doesn't seem like she was trying to be cute and cause a scene. It sounds like she was just really stupid here. I'd drop most the charges and maybe give her a disorderly conduct ticket and be done with it.

Re:Apologize??

[Critical Facilities]

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

The employee asked about the plastic circuit board on her chest, and Simpson walked away without responding, Pare said.

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 something to ensure it's NOT a danger to me or other passengers than security that doesn't want to "offend" anyone by investigating.

Re:Apologize??

[Bryan Ischo]

Your attempt at level-headed argument is much appreciated. However there have been an increasing number of articles around here lately about police/security activity when confronted with hostile/threatening individuals, and there is absolutely no shortage of people who would rather villianize the police at any opportunity than fairly attribute blame to the part of the arrested.

You cannot reason with these people. I would have thought maybe you could before reading not just their initial messages, but also their responses when people pointed out how ridiculous their arguments were. They don't accept the truth even when it's shoved in their faces. It is like a religious conviction that cannot be shaken: cops are bad, their behavior should be perfect, and nobody who instigates police and escalates situations has any responsibility for their actions.

While I do appreciate your attempts to reason with these people, I recommend that you not bother. You cannot change their minds. They want to believe the police are bad because it gives them something to raise their ire, to be indignant about. And some people just really enjoy being indignant, and they're not going to let go of that, just because someone points out the flaws in their thinking.

Re:Apologize??

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

After reading TFA, it doesn't seem like she was trying to be cute and cause a scene. It sounds like she was just really stupid here. I'd drop most the charges and maybe give her a disorderly conduct ticket and be done with it.

Fuck right the hell off. She was wearing a perfectly legal shirt in public.

Re:Apologize??

[Robert1]

This is so true. You'd think people here would have some semblance of understanding with regards to social mores. Maybe the isolated lifestyle nerdy people tend to live predisposes them a lack of critical thinking as it relates to society. It's impossible to argue against them. Every reasonable explanation has an awful alarmst fascist-government response.

I'm always amazed that people will defend stuff like this. Are you people really that oblivious to the kinds of repercussions an event like this has to OTHER PEOPLE, even if its fake or a hoax or someone just being total idiot?

Re:Apologize??

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

You're a goshdarn bum, you fudging poopsicle.

She meant no harm, and deserves no punishment. Being a bit scatterbrained and not thinking through every aspect of a situation - particularly when you're used to another setting where something like a blinky-shirt could go without comment - is not a crime.

It's like saying "Bombay" in an airport. A security guard could mishear and get the wrong idea - but you still didn't do anything wrong.

Re:Apologize??

[nate nice]

Yeah you did, you were disorderly. That's why I said (maybe in another thread) that her charges should be dropped because she probably wasn't trying to fake a bomb. But she should be charged with disorderly conduct.

Re:Apologize??

[darkmayo]

OK.. after looking at the shirt.

She needs to apologize for making some ugly shit. Is that scotch tape I see, geez take some pride in what you make.

And thanks for all for replying, I dont agree with all of it, especially her getting charged but I believe the reaction (especially if she did walk away from the employee without saying a word) was somewhat warranted. Unless of course the employee just didnt like the answer they got.

"Whats with the wires on your shirt"

"I made it, its art"

"Whats with the putty"

Girl Rolls eyes and leaves.

But all speculation of course.

Either way when it all comes down to it, she made an ugly hoody even uglier.

Re:Apologize??

[nate nice]

The person who called it in is a bomb expert now? They've seen real bombs? They know what a bomb is? And they're not at a distance to her at all?

They see something and react on instinct. Who are you to say their instinct was wrong? They felt like they were potentially saving the place.

These people don't know what a bomb looks like. They have an idea. And someone wearing cloths that are close to that idea, in an airport, is going to turn some heads. Not everyone is an electronics/bomb expert such as yourself. A lot of idiots aren't experts in that field and would only do what we thought was best.

Like I said, charge her with disorderly conduct and be done with it. She made a stupid choice and thankfully the police officer doesn't have to live with having killed an innocent college student.

Re:Apologize??

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Bombay is a legitimate destination that is probably uttered many times a day in airports around the world. Any disorder would be caused solely by the guard who misheard the word. I don't believe that one should be made to suffer for other people's mistaken perceptions.

This was a misunderstanding, pure and simple. There are times when there is a disagreement and both parties take a reasonable position from their own perspectives, and in which both are wrong when all of the details come out. In such situations, the most appropriate resolution is for both parties to simply shuffle their feet, avoid each other's eyes, and mumble "my bad".

Re:Apologize??

[nate nice]

Well, it depends on the context. Say you just happen to say Bombay or whatever. Probably no problem.

but if you shout "Bombay!" or say "I have a "Bombay!" you're asking for it.

The irony though is if she really had a bomb, how is pointing a gun at her going to help? Plus, no bomb sensors went off and air ports have PLENTY of these.

Re:Apologize??

[Lurker2288]

"The irony though is if she really had a bomb, how is pointing a gun at her going to help?"

Depends. If it's on a dead man's switch, killing her is a bad idea. Otherwise though, a few 9mm slugs in the brain could bring the situation to a relatively acceptable conclusion.

Also, different types of plastique are more resistant to physical trauma than others, so it's tough to assess how much abuse it might take to make it explode. One bullet? A barrage? Beats me.

Moreover, these are cops we're talking about. They're trained intently to point their guns at dangerous people. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail," etc etc.

Re:Apologize??

[TheGratefulNet]

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 something to ensure it's NOT a danger to me or other passengers than security that doesn't want to "offend" anyone by investigating.

fixed it for you:

"As a dutifully paranoid member of the public, ..."

Re:Apologize??

[syukton]

To someone who is mired in electronics on a daily basis, a circuit board doesn't "look like a bomb" but it actually looks like homework, or a radio, or a motherboard, or something else. For this student and other students like her, when they look at a circuit board, "bomb" is the furthest thing from their mind.

A better analogy would be a butcher who goes to the airport directly from work with blood still on his clothing and thinks nothing of it because being covered in animal blood all day is completely normal for him.

So really, let's consider some common sense here: not all perspectives are equal. What is obvious to you is not obvious to the next person, because the origin of their perspective is drastically different. In the most blatant logical example: If you have three people standing in different places looking at the same large cylindrical object, one looking directly perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, one looking directly along the longitudinal axis, and one between those two positions; they will each respectively see a rectangle, a circle, and a cylinder. What is completely obvious to one is inaccessible to the others, making the "commonality" of "common sense" rather questionable.

What is unfortunate about this story is the reminder that the majority (also known as "the dumb") are seeing bombs and terrorists everywhere that there are none.

Re:Apologize??

[nate nice]

Only tool? Blasphamy, they have Tazers!

I would have killed to get some fresh video of this girl getting tazed!

Re:Apologize??

[Dread_ed]

This is in many ways very similar to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.

You can yell "fire!" in a number of places without a problem. Similarly you can wear a "bomb-look-alike-" shirt many places and not have a problem. However an airport is not one of them.

Re:Apologize??

[Rakarra]

To someone who is mired in electronics on a daily basis, a circuit board doesn't "look like a bomb" but it actually looks like homework, or a radio, or a motherboard, or something else.

I imagine that most components inside of real bombs look the same way. There's nothing inherently 'evil' about bomb parts, they're just everyday materials that are fit together for horrifying results.

Re:Apologize??

[e-scetic]

Actually, my impression of American law enforcement is they do want to shoot people. They're itching for an excuse, any excuse, to use those guns. Many people happily oblige them too, by doing things like bump into them, stand in doorways, be the wrong colour in the wrong place and the wrong time, etc.

Re:Apologize??

[aaronl]

The problem I mentioned was where the *police* did not make an attempt to figure out what was going on before publicly pointing a machine gun at someone, arresting them, leveling spurious charges to cover their poor conduct, etc.

I wouldn't call her apparent conduct "smarmy" either. If you're in a busy store and ask an employee where something is, you stop paying attention when they have led you there. That isn't suspicious unless you're looking for an excuse to find it.

In the current climate of this country, wearing the shirt into an airport was a bad idea.

While you are a member of the public, you don't speak for the public as a whole. It's fine to think this was in your interests, even though I think it wasn't. I'd have no problem with the police having checked this incident out to make sure there wasn't a problem. Unfortunately, that isn't really what they did.

Insane

[endianx]

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".

Re:Insane

[mcmonkey]

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".

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.)

Re:Insane

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Get shot? wth!? Everything for promised safety right?
You know what, "terrorist" should use kill switches on their suicide bombs just to teach those people with itchy trigger finger a lesson.

Re:Insane

[Osty]

You'd have to be insane or a moron to wear something like that to an airport.

I initially parsed that as, "insane or a Mormon to wear something like that." I hadn't heard of any Mormons starting up terrorist cells, but I guess you just never know with any religion.

Re:Insane

[Faylone]

I'm pretty sure if it has the word 'bomb' on it at all you'll still get in a mess over it.

Hey that's a great plan!!!

[hodet]

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.

Re:Hey that's a great plan!!!

[rovingeyes]

Attaching shit to your T-Shirt that looks like a bomb sounds like a great way to end your life. First of all, I am not supporting that girl - she is dumb even for some one from MIT. But I fail to understand how it "looked like a bomb"? Do you know how a bomb is supposed to look like? Just because it has wires and batteries doesn't mean it is a bomb, heck then every single electronic device in airport is a bomb then. Stop your mindless sensationalist reasoning for a stupid, incompetent and ignorant excuse for a human being called TSA.

Re:Hey that's a great plan!!!

[Starteck81]

It's sad how some smart people both smart and dumb don't have any common sense. For example I remember a story about a woman that was mailing out invitations to her wedding. They were having it on the beach so she decided to put a teaspoon of sand with the invitations in each envelope. This was during the Anthrax scare that happened not long after 9/11. Can you guess what happend when post office saw some sand fall out of one of the envelopes?

Re:Hey that's a great plan!!!

[loggia]

Do you know how a bomb is supposed to look like?
Do you?

I mean, are you daft? IEDs look like fucking cordless telephones and duct tape. No one knows what a "bomb" looks anymore.

Re:Hey that's a great plan!!!

[endianx]

What exactly does wires and batteries attached to a T-shirt look like then? My first thought would be "bomb". "Robot" would be my second.

Re:Hey that's a great plan!!!

[CodeBuster]

MIT pumping out the best and brightest I see.

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:Hey that's a great plan!!!

[Yvanhoe]

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.

Re:Hey that's a great plan!!!

[DrCode]

She might be nuts, but this will surely get her membership in the 'stupid male geek culture'.

Re:Hey that's a great plan!!!

[mapkinase]

I am hesitating between two replies:

Oh-uh. Somebody not sealing his/her envelopes right.

Or.

Post office did not handle properly their mail!

Re:Hey that's a great plan!!!

[Mr. Slippery]

What exactly does wires and batteries attached to a T-shirt look like then? My first thought would be "bomb".

It looks like a homemade version of a raver's blinking lights toy.

If your first thought is "bomb", if you're in such a constant state of fear, then the terrorists have won.

Re:Hey that's a great plan!!!

[hxnwix]

She was wearing an electronic name badge. What about this do you not understand? Do you actually work for the TSA? It sure sounds like it. Now, please go die before I kill you with my electronic name badge.

Re:Hey that's a great plan!!!

[ksheff]

maybe the person at the info booth was alarmed by this and the stick figure in flames on her shirt.

Re:Hey that's a great plan!!!

[sco08y]

This person is insane and has a death wish.

I think she wanted to commit suicide-by-cop and chickened out at the last minute. That's not sane behavior, but it fits the facts of the story better, for example, her ignoring the police when they asked her to stop.

MIT pumping out the best and brightest I see.

She might be almost the best and brightest, which would be a very high stress situation, and would explain why she wanted to kill herself.

Boston

[techstar25]

So is there anything that Boston authorities WON'T mistake for a bomb?

Re:Boston

[Selfbain]

Probably a real one.

Re:Boston

[Anne_Nonymous]

A bomb?

Re:Boston

[Glonoinha]

No joke.
Be happy she wasn't carrying a Lite-Brite!

Re:Boston

[StringBlade]

Perhaps as a test we should get someone (preferably about 5') to dress up in a black trenchcoat with a black hat and a thin pointy mustache and carry a round black ball slightly smaller than the size of his head with a 5" lit and sparkling fuse.

I wonder how the Boston authorities would react to that? How about on Halloween?

Re:Boston

[daeley]

So is there anything that Boston authorities WON'T mistake for a bomb?

The 2007 Red Sox?

Oh, wait... ;)

(Dodger fan. I feel your pain.)

Re:Boston

[Gregb05]

I think I know the problem; in the "Boston Bomb Detection Manual" LED isn't properly capitalized, so all the police looking for "IEDs" mistakenly find "leds" s/l/I.

Or perhaps they should quit watching 24.

Re:Boston

[King Gabey]

Doughnuts. *drum roll+cymbal*

Re:Boston

[TheGratefulNet]

note to terrorists: call off your use of radio shack proto boards. they're on to us! also, switch from red to green leds. they're less scary to civies.

pass it on.

Re:Boston

[Afterimage]

Bluetooth earpieces with the blue blinky lights FTW.

Re:Boston

[shoemakc]

The Red Socks perhaps?

-Chris

Re:Boston

[non]

i think you, my friend, are the only person who even comes close to understanding the scenario. the folks in boston (i lived there for 12 years), have this overwhelming sense of guilt about 9/11. not to mention the fact that security there has been breached in a rather serious manner since.

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:Boston

[HardCase]

Curse you for spouting common sense on Slashdot! Don't you know that this is the place for the "I'm smarter than everyone else because I'm self-absorbed" segment of society? This is no place for making sense! If you don't have a left-wing, liberal slant on the story, keep your opinion to yourself!

Re:Boston

[non]

the problem is that i'm so far left, the liberals here seem like right-wingers. but everything in my post is true. i'm in favor of very liberal fiscal policy combined with very hawkish foreign policy. no more tax cuts, lots of R&D. is that so hard to understand?

cue the slashbots

[circletimessquare]

who think playdoh, a circuit board, and some wires hanging off your person should not be a problem in an airport, and to think it is a problem is a sign of the coming fascist apocalypse

Re:cue the slashbots

[644bd346996]

It's more like we understand that no real terrorist bomb would be studded with LEDs. Or worn on the outside of a sweatshirt.

Re:cue the slashbots

[ksheff]

MIT people don't clean up and wash their hands after a project?

Re:Not sure this thing looks like a bomb, myself

[Rob the Bold]

All I see are LEDs, a battery, and a breadboard.

I think in the intense weekend of training that it takes to become a cop, they teach you that you can recognize bombs by the batteries and LEDs (blinky-things) on them.

Academically bright but...

[JamesTKirk]

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.

Re:Academically bright but...

[Cecil]

I actually WANT the police to overreact in cases like this in order to make me feel safer.

Fixed that for ya.

Re:Academically bright but...

[Hatta]

You're exactly right, she probably shouldn't have done this. But This was just an oversight on her part.. she plays with electronics all the time so it's not even going enter her mind what a lay person would think. By all means have the police detain her and interview her, at gunpoint at necessary. But when you learn what's actually going on, LET HER GO! There's no intent to hoax here, just a goofy person being shat on for being different. This was not a crime, but treating her as a criminal is.

Re:Academically bright but...

[localman]

Meh. To keep me safer I want the police to do random strip searches all day throughout my city. And outlaw sticks and stones.

I agree that it was pretty naive for her to wear that thing to an airport. But let's stop with the "keep me safe" justification. Fact is you are almost surely going to die from some "harmless" thing you do to yourself (bad health, driving, choking, falling). It is so unlikely that you are going to be killed by a terrorist (or intentional act, for that matter) that it makes no sense to overrun the country with paranoia.

Cheers.

Re:Academically bright but...

[Tablizer]

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.

Maybe those kind of people should start a website where they share geeky ideas and rank them. Oh wait.

Re:Academically bright but...

[rhizome]

I actually WANT the police to overreact in cases like this in order to keep me safer.

Hey, you too?! Here's the awesome part, you should use this mindset with your children (if you have any; your parents, significant other, or friends if not). Only in this case, use yourself as the police. If they step out of line at all, what are you to do? They could get hurt crossing the street, so you'd better forbid it. If they never go into the street, it's much less likely they will be hit by a car. It's really a can't-lose strategy.

Re:Academically bright but...

[Russ Nelson]

Good catch. He almost made a mistake.

Re:Academically bright but...

[markbt73]

I actually WANT the police to overreact in cases like this in order to keep me safer.

I don't. I want them to react, but not overreact. Which, in this case, is what it sounds like they did.

There are a lot of things that sound funny in your pot-smoke-filled dorm room that arent't so funny in real life, and this is one of them, but I do believe that the appropriate punishment for it is "a good scare," which she has gotten already.

Unfortuately, the way things are now, this girl will probably be banned from flying, placed on a watch-list somewhere, and never live down this one dumb college stunt, and that is an overreaction.

Re:Academically bright but...

[Shippy]

I actually WANT the police to overreact in cases like this in order to keep me safer.

I don't think an overreaction is appropriate in any case. I'd rather have appropriate reactions to keep me safer.

Re:Academically bright but...

[jafiwam]

she plays with electronics all the time so it's not even going enter her mind what a lay person would think. Do not ever, ever, step out into public without thinking about what the layperson would think.

I know, it's hard for you geeks to do that. And had you been able to in high school, a few less beatings would have occurred. You may say you have a right to be whatever you want, and you'd be right. But, reality says otherwise, and that you will encounter power hungry, angry, violent, sick, perverted people that view you as prey... and feminazis who view you as a potential rapist and nothing else.

When you leave your front door, you agree to participate in the rules society has set up. If you don't understand that, stay the fuck home.

This woman crossed WAAYYYY over that line and got arrested for it. I fail to see the problem with that.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's suspicious

[nate nice]

Regardless of if it looks like a bomb (isn't that subjective anyways) it is certainly suspicious and the airport guards did the right thing.

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.

Re:It's suspicious

[nate nice]

Of course she wasn't, but it's not about what she thinks. It's what the airport security and employees think. They don't know her at all. She could be anyone for all they know.

I don't know if she should really be charged with anything. It sounds like she wears this a lot. So maybe let her know this was dumb, give her a disorderly conduct ticket and move on.

Re:It's suspicious

[dgbrownnt]

I don't think either side was right or wrong on this. I do think this should be a learning experience for everyone.

I've been to all kinds of nerdy functions, including stuff centered on electronics. In fact, I've made key chains in the past that could easily get you in trouble at an airport (however harmless they were). You go from something like that to the real world and you tend to forget. I could see myself doing something really nerdy, then getting a call from a friend to pick them up at the airport and not even thinking about it.

However, if I was a security guard or the police and saw someone wearing something like that, I wouldn't take the time to inspect it. I don't know if I would be pointing machine guns at her, but I wouldn't be taking it lightly.

Now when it comes to charging her, I dunno. I'm all about intention. If she really was just clueless about how it looked, then she's not guilty of a hoax. That requires intent. IMHO, this should be filed under a misunderstanding, everyone should be VERY thankful that she didn't die and nobody blew up, and we should go forward from there. It shouldn't be about polarized opinions and blame.

Re:It's suspicious

[Etcetera]

Now when it comes to charging her, I dunno. I'm all about intention. If she really was just clueless about how it looked, then she's not guilty of a hoax. That requires intent. IMHO, this should be filed under a misunderstanding, everyone should be VERY thankful that she didn't die and nobody blew up, and we should go forward from there. It shouldn't be about polarized opinions and blame.

That's the thing people bitching about the charge don't seem to understand. She hasn't been sent to the gulag, Siberia, or any of various killing fields. She's been (or will be) charged with a crime. If she's was truly clueless and didn't mean to, then she'll probably be found not guilty -- but that's up to the jury to decide. Being charged with a crime means that the prosecutor/DA thinks you're guilty of a crime -- not that you're actually guilty. That's how the system works.

Slashdot, quit yer bitching.

We are defending this person?

[loggia]

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.

Re:We are defending this person?

[BoberFett]

I'm normally very critical towards law enforcement, but on this I agree 100%. Sounds to me like she was looking for a reaction, she shouldn't be surprised that she got one.

Re:We are defending this person?

[Obfuscant]

Hello?

Further, when she was asked about the circuit board by the employee she was asking about the flight, she REFUSED TO ANSWER and then walked out of the terminal. She's obviously not too proud of her "wearable art", or else she has a severe case of the "high and mighties" and thinks she doesn't need to respond to anyone as lowly as a simple airport employee. Either way, it's abnormal behaviour, as if gluing a patch board on one's hooded sweatshirt wasn't abnormal enough.

The article said that the cops who surrounded her were carrying "machine guns", not that they held her at gunpoint. They did, however, get her attention, which was the point of having the guns. "Oh, it's a project for school." Oh, yeah, the cops have a daily briefing on all the current "school projects" so they know she's telling the truth.

Should they let her go without any punishment for what she did? Do we let off the next guy who does the same thing?

Re:We are defending this person?

[TheSync]

Her side is that she was picking up a friend at the airport, and thought the flashing LEDs would help (kind of like people holding up a sign, or balloons, etc.)

I assert my right to wear circuits!

Re:We are defending this person?

[hxnwix]

She was wearing an electronic name badge similar to these.

Are with the TSA or something? Please, for God's sake please would you grow a brain ASAP? Thank you.

Responsible behaviour?

[AmIAnAi]

In a civilised society we have to remember our duty to behave responsibly.

I don't like the security restrictions we are faced with these days, but given that the current threat to our airports (in the UK we had a carbomb attack on Glasgow airport at the start of the Summer) we must be prepared to make some sacrifices.

Having looked at the photos, I have to say the police were right to react the way they did ... and Star was very lucky to come away with her life.

Re:Responsible behaviour?

[sabre86]

I agree with you in principle. But probably disagree with your definition of "responsible." Behaving responsibly in a free society means respecting the freedom of expression of all people and it means defending the freedoms of others when they are threatened. "Making sacrifices" as you seem to be using it is the exact opposite of being responsible. Responsibility requires that I exercise my freedoms and do not give into the fear that somebody may kill me or my family in the process. Fundamentally, giving up freedom does not improve security. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin -- so one who explicitly chose not to "behave responsibly" in the UK -- "those who give up essential freedom for security deserve neither."
 
Now, that said, the cops had reason to believe this girl was threatening others and, yes, they acted appropriately. She probably shouldn't be convicted of the hoax charge, though. She was stupid, yes, but if stupidity is illegal, we're all criminals

--sabre86

Re:Responsible behaviour?

[BrianRoach]

I don't like the security restrictions we are faced with these days, but given that the current threat to our airports (in the UK we had a carbomb attack on Glasgow airport at the start of the Summer) we must be prepared to make some sacrifices.

No, we don't. And it's folks like you that are making it so the rest of us are forced to.

What would have happened if after 9/11 we didn't change a *single* thing in regard to airport security? (Except, oh, a lock on the cabin door)

Answer: Nothing. Zippo. Nada.

9/11 had nothing to do with overcoming existing security. It had everything to do with exploiting people's apathy.

The hijackers all had valid passports. They had valid tickets. They had box cutters for christ sakes. Not guns, not 6" knives, not bombs, light lightbrights attached to their shirts.

They exploited people's apathy. No one thought anything more than a detour and sitting on a runway somewhere was in their future, so they didn't bother to beat the crap out of the folks holding razor blades even with overwhelming numbers somewhere around 15:1.

It would have never happened again. Period. I can now take my leatherman on a plane (its blade length is under the limit). I could do far more damage to someone with my leatherman than with a box cutter. The difference is that if I stood up and pulled it out, the Apathy that used to exist would not be in place and I would instantly have the crap beat out of me.

- Roach

Re:Responsible behaviour?

[grahamd0]

I'm real big on freedom. I'm offended by many of things we've (as a society) come to accept in the name of "preventing terrorism", but if there's even a grain of truth to "the man"'s side of the story, this is pretty obviously a case of some naive college kid trying to provoke a reaction.

Re:Responsible behaviour?

[putaro]

I don't like the security restrictions we are faced with these days, but given that the current threat to our airports (in the UK we had a carbomb attack on Glasgow airport at the start of the Summer) we must be prepared to make some sacrifices. Yah, and those carbombs had circuit boards, wires and flashing LEDs glued all over the outside of the car because, duh, you needs das blinken lights for der bomb to work.

Having looked at the photos, I have to say the police were right to react the way they did ... and Star was very lucky to come away with her life. If she'd had a bottle of water with her it would have been bullet through the head time, no ifs, ands or buts.

Normally, I presume over-reaction by the TSA...

[bladel]

...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.

Re:Normally, I presume over-reaction by the TSA...

[gardyloo]

Her choice of "artistic expression" isn't immediately recognizable, and therefore has to be treated as a threat. I'm all for imprisoning most modern artists, too.

      No... seriously.

Re:Normally, I presume over-reaction by the TSA...

[Yvanhoe]

Well, I suspect this from the pictures : given the disposition of LEDs (like a stick figure) and the drawing on the shirt (a running stylized burning character) that the board was actually beneath the shirt. That would look a lot more like art in my eye.

don't-be-a-jerk-to-the-police,-they-have-guns

[bobcat7677]

don't-be-a-jerk-to-the-police,-they-have-guns

Yes, This is why you should bring your own guns so everyone is equal. Worked for Neo.

If it looks like a bomb...

[davmoo]

I see several posts here of the form "its obvious this isn't a bomb because...". What everyone is overlooking is the fact that the average person at the airport, including the guards, are not nerds that would have knowledge of C4 or how bombs really work, etc. They don't all read Slashdot.

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:If it looks like a bomb...

[Tinyn]

Then the first damn thing they teach security guards is what a real bomb looks like, instead of this "If you don't recognize it, its a bomb" crap.

Re:If it looks like a bomb...

[imsabbel]

geez, that thing really looked like a viable bomb. a block that size in c4 would certainly kill everybody in a few meter distance, and _in_ a plane it would be enough to break the hull/down the plane if the person was seated in a critical part of the plane.

Re:If it looks like a bomb...

[jeffmeden]

They do teach that first thing to security guards. It's the first principle of security; if you don't recognize it, TREAT IT LIKE A THREAT. If you don't, before you learn what every single bomb looks like (hint, you can make a bomb out of just about anything) you will get blown up while you stand around saying 'oh thats an interesting looking doodad, but I'm sure its no threat, move along.

Re:If it looks like a bomb...

[u-235-sentinel]

I see several posts here of the form "its obvious this isn't a bomb because...". What everyone is overlooking is the fact that the average person at the airport, including the guards, are not nerds that would have knowledge of C4 or how bombs really work, etc. They don't all read Slashdot.

So... some of them read slashdot? Serious? :-)

Re:If it looks like a bomb...

[Charcharodon]

No what they teach a guard is "If the situation looks wrong, then treat it as such, untill you know otherwise." In the really real world a bomb rarely looks like a "bomb", this isn't the fucking movies. The guards did the right thing.

Personally I don't see why anyone is defending her. When someone walks up and poke a bear with a stick to see if it's dead, we don't call them a "victim" when the bear rips their face off, we call them a dumb ass.

Re:If it looks like a bomb...

[davmoo]

That was pretty much my thinking also. While I don't want security to get ridiculous, I also would prefer not to be in the airport on the day that a guard says "oh, that's not a bomb" and then it explodes, closely followed by panic and general mayhem. While I believe in freedom, and I think King George is a **FAR** bigger threat to democracy and my general way of life than any terrorist organization, there are certain times where "better safe than sorry" is appropriate. And this was one of them.

What a sham and waste of taxpayer dollars

[zappepcs]

All the training and FUD put into anit-terrorism won't stop a reasonably intelligent and determined terrorist. All that has been accomplished is to show the WORLD how ineffective anti-terrorist measures really are. While we are busy concentrating on stopping boy scouts and grandmothers from flying, REAL terrorists are figuring out how to shut down power grids, poison water supplies, or get a job in China so they can poison us with the US Government's consent.

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...

Re:What a sham and waste of taxpayer dollars

[Hydian]

I'm amazed they didn't tazer the girl and turn a piece of artwork into a real exploding device! That's the best way that I can think of to deal with someone that you suspect of having an explosive device that will be triggered by an electric current. :)

Re:What a sham and waste of taxpayer dollars

[c6gunner]

All that has been accomplished is to show the WORLD how ineffective anti-terrorist measures really are

Right! I mean, look at the thousands of terrorist attacks which have occured since those measures have been put into place! Clearly they're not working at all!

Also, someone better tell those silly Israeli's that they're wasting their time. They may as well just throw away all their weaponry and stop trying to defend themselves. Mr Zappepcs will show them the path to world peace!

Re:What a sham and waste of taxpayer dollars

[TheGratefulNet]

how much you wanna bet if it was a guy (instead of a cute coed girl), they WOULD have tasered him?

It's just damn funny.

[FatSean]

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.

Re:It's just damn funny.

[MalleusEBHC]

I like watching douchebags over-react and inconvenience everyone around them. I hope more and more people pull stunts like this.

Who was inconvenienced? Hell, I haven't seen any mention of the terminal being shutdown, which nowadays most airports seem to do if you accidentally take nail clippers past security.

Re:It's just damn funny.

[_Sprocket_]

Who was inconvenienced? Hell, I haven't seen any mention of the terminal being shutdown, which nowadays most airports seem to do if you accidentally take nail clippers past security. Don't look now - but you've answered your own question. That nail clippers are considered a serious security threat is a symptom of the larger issue.

Re:It's just damn funny.

[walt-sjc]

Actually, Nail Clippers are fine.

See the List of Permitted / Prohibited Items.

Re:It's just damn funny.

[jabster]

Is there anyone on slashdot who is over 12 years old?

Just curious.

Re:It's just damn funny.

[Synonymous Dastard]

What about electronic nail clippers with blinking LEDs ?

Re:Not sure this thing looks like a bomb, myself

[fistfullast33l]

I think they also teach cops that bombers always want to get caught before getting on the plane, so they typically will walk up to a flight attendant and ask them questions to draw attention to themselves. They also typically wear the bomb on the outside of their shirts so they can walk aimlessly through the metal detectors and help Homeland Security detect them quicker.

will MIT expell her?

[hedley]

I wonder, negative publicity never looks good for the schools in these gigs. But what
is the school statute that they would invoke to do it... I suppose its a bit like a
hiring arrangement, it can be severed by any party at anytime for any reason.

H.

Re:Not sure this thing looks like a bomb, myself

[Hatta]

They should have just asked her to take her shirt off.

Job fair

[KC1P]

You're hired!!!

No you didn't

[commodoresloat]

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. What airport were you in; Baghdad? There is no way in hell you "almost got shot" for having toothpaste in your carry on, and your nail clipper isn't going to land you on any lists except America's Most Trimmed. I'm not defending the airport paranoia that has followed the war on terror, but you're taking hyperbole to the realm of sheer fantasy.

Re:Not sure this thing looks like a bomb, myself

[MalleusEBHC]

Video of the shirt can be seen here, so decide for yourself. All I see are LEDs, a battery, and a breadboard. There seem to be varying reports on the 'putty' she was reported to be carrying, but even so I'd have a difficult time imagining that a 9V battery and some LEDs are going to set off C4, which requires a large shockwave in order to set it off due to its high degree of stability.

And to a law enforcement officer, all they saw was a strange looking device that could potentially be harmful and a subject who wouldn't respond to their questions. I think Boston law enforcement was totally retarded about the ATHF incident, but I don't fault them for this one. While it's obvious what the proto board is for anyone who took EE101, it's definitely not obvious for someone who isn't tech inclined. They arrested her at gunpoint, which I don't anyone would think is unreasonable given an unresponsive subject potentially carrying a bomb.

The editors substantially modified my story...

[SuperBanana]

Someone edited my story and added sensationalist quotes I could swear I didn't include. Oh, and added a link to Boing Boing, which was pretty pointless, given I linked to an actual newspaper.

Key facts:

• She was wearing an electronic circuit board taped to her chest which contained an assortment of wires, components, LEDs, and a battery.
• She was holding a "putty like" substance in her hand which could easily be viewed as plastic explosives.
• She approached an airport employee, asked for information about a specific flight. The employee asked about the circuit board on her chest, and she turned around and walked away without answering.
• Airport security responded to the description of what sounded like a suicide bomber.

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.

Re:The editors substantially modified my story...

[stefanlasiewski]

Someone edited my story and added sensationalist quotes I could swear I didn't include. Oh, and added a link to Boing Boing, which was pretty pointless, given I linked to an actual newspaper.

Your submission is in the firehose queue, if you want to compare the differences:

http://it.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?id=297119&op=view

Re:The editors substantially modified my story...

[Jherek Carnelian]

it has NOTHING in common with the whole "mooninite" incident, save similarities in the type of device. That and the foolish persistence of the police and the prosecutor that they need to arrest and charge someone when it only takes an ounce of common sense to see that the right way to handle the situations would be to let it drop as soon as it was determined that there was no threat, never was a thread and no threat was intended.

Re:The editors substantially modified my story...

[Rich0]

I dunno - this looks like an intentional bomb hoax to me - regardless of what the person claims. This person put lives in jeopardy - including her own and those around her - when she created a situation that would for all intents and purposes appear to be a life-and-death shoot on sight suicide bombing incident. This also tied up police forces in dealing with a hoax that could be better employed watching out for real threats.

She should be punished - probably not with 30 years in prison, but some jail time and a heavy fine would probably be appropriate. It seems inconceivable to me that anybody would not expect the type of reaction that she received.

Now, if it turns out that she is mentally retarded and not some college student with a chip on her shoulder then I could see a little leniency being in order.

I'm sorry - I'm against TSA overreaction and the way that police tend to use storm trooper tactics where they are unnecessary and put lives in danger. However, a person standing in a crowded area with an apparent explosive device warrants exactly these sorts of tactics. The whole problem with suicide bombers is that they need to be stopped BEFORE they carry out their intended crimes. The police apparently showed tremendous restraint, running into a situation that could have very well ended their lives while using tremendous care in the use of lethal force. The hoaxer is very fortunate that she wasn't shot. If she were shot I'm sure there would have been an uproar nonetheless and as a result she needs to be made an example of before other college students get the same idiotic idea into their heads...

Re:The editors substantially modified my story...

[Rich0]

It depends - even with a dead man's switch it may be preferable to shoot a bomber at a time when they are not in a position to inflict as many casualties. If they are detonated at a point where nobody is standing around that would be preferable than letting them walk into a crowd or next to a load-bearing wall.

In any case, my point is that police receiving complaints of suspicious devices in high-profile crowded areas are going to respond with a well-armed force ready to shoot upon even a fairly minor provocation. I'm not convinced that any other posture would really be appropriate, unless you're willing to find police willing to go into harm's way with a don't-shoot-first-ever rule of engagement. That could be a recipe for dead cops...

Re:The editors substantially modified my story...

[Jherek Carnelian]

I'm not convinced that any other posture would really be appropriate, unless you're willing to find police willing to go into harm's way with a don't-shoot-first-ever rule of engagement. That could be a recipe for dead cops... Cops sign up for hazardous duty, innocent people don't. Any policy that favors the lives of the police over the people whom they are sworn to protect and serve is not justifiable.

Re:The editors substantially modified my story...

[Rich0]

Yes, and if you actually enact policies that substantially increase that danger you're going to have to pay the cops an awful lot more.

In theory US soldiers are paid for hazardous duty but look at how well recruitment is going right now. There's a difference between getting paid to potentially put your life on the line but with the ability to shoot back and with the knowledge that your superiors are going to go a long way towards safeguarding their life, and getting paid to be a target.

You also have to look at risk exposure. Hazmat teams wear protective gear in environments that ordinary people have been walking around in for days without apparent harm. The issue is that walking through mercury vapor for a day or two is far different from working in it 250 days a year.

Cops have a lot more opportunity to get shot than ordinary citizens - pay or not. If you don't want them getting shot left and right you need to safeguard them to some extent. And keep in mind that I'm normally a fairly libertarian-leaning person...

Re:The editors substantially modified my story...

[Jherek Carnelian]

Cops have a lot more opportunity to get shot than ordinary citizens - pay or not. If you don't want them getting shot left and right you need to safeguard them to some extent. And keep in mind that I'm normally a fairly libertarian-leaning person... And again, a shoot-first policy does not "safeguard" them to any reasonable extent. Bullshit policies don't help the cops nor do they help society in general. Good training, good protection, good equipment -- those things safeguard cops to more than just "some extent" and they don't screw with the fundamental values of a Free country either.

Re:The editors substantially modified my story...

[Rich0]

Sure it does - bad guy points gun at you, you shoot them before they shoot you - you don't have holes in you.

Bad guy points gun at you, you wait, bad guy shoots you - hopefully you at least survive, but you probably do have holes in you.

Shooting first is completely appropriate in circumstances where somebody's life is threatened (the officer's or another civilian's).

I'm not advocating the wild west - but pointing a gun at a police officer SHOULD get you shot - no questions asked.

She's a freaking idiot...

[rehtonAesoohC]

She was holding a lump of what looked like putty in her hands. The employee asked about the plastic circuit board on her chest, and Simpson walked away without responding, Pare said.
Emphasis mine

Anyone in their right mind would have answered when asked about a potentially bomb shaped (to the inquirer, not slashdotters) object on their person.

The guards acted correctly in my opinion.

The media lab is headed downhill

[lavorgeous]

She's involved with the MIT Media Lab and a breadboard with a few LEDs and a battery is supposed to constitute a project?!!!??! One which she's proud of?

Nicholas Negroponte needs to spend less time on OLPC and get back to teaching.

Talk about dumb

[intx13]

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.

Re:Talk about dumb

[bockelboy]

It's a tricky situation. She was headed to MIT's career day, and dropped by the airport to pick up her boyfriend. For career day, she made a little LED nametag with a 5 point star which lit up.

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:Talk about dumb

[loudmax]

How the heck do you mistake this for a bomb?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/09/mit_student_arr.html?p1=MEWell_Pos3

It's one thing to make a fake bomb, but this doesn't look anything like a bomb. She didn't even attempt go through security, she just arrived at the airport. What kind of society is afraid of wires?

Re:Talk about dumb

[MMORG]

So . . . what *are* the distinguishing characteristics that would allow a reasonable person to tell a proto board from a real bomb? Just curious, since it's apparently so easy.

Re:Talk about dumb

[Lucan Varo]

The flashing Leds. It's a movie trope for godsake!

Being in plain view.

The back of her shirt showing she's a techie of sort. They should have seen that when she turned around.

Re:Talk about dumb

[Ellis D. Tripp]

So are you claiming that for some reason a protoboard COULDN'T be used as part of a bomb's triggering circuitry? Or that your typical TSA screener with a room-temperature IQ is even going to know what a protoboard IS?

For once, I actually have to come down on the side of the security people here. This had to have been a monumentally STUPID piece of political theater/performance art or possibly a "suicide by cop" attempt. How else could someone presumably intelligent enough to get into the EE program at MIT not realize that walking around an airport covered with random electronic parts and lumps of putty ISN'T going to attract unwanted attention?

Re:Talk about dumb

[lwiniarski]

and I'm surprised at all the people attacking her. Did you see the picture? It was a prototype board
with a bunch of led's and a 9v battery..there was no damn putty..

Here's the pic
http://boingboing.net/images/cfa4827569_20070921device3.jpg

She didn't walk in with a gun or a bomb..just a bunch of blinking LEDs, and the police thought it would be
reasonable to used deadly force? Electronics != Bomb...or even pretend bomb. do we as a society think
that it's reasonable for police to assume anything they don't understand is dangerous enough to warrant
killing someone for? Should my life depend on my ability to explain something to an idiot with
a gun? Or should we put the emphasis on the person with the gun to justify his action of using
deadly force.

And your comparison of a prototype board to a pretend gun...sheeesh.

Your witchhunt attitude scares me ALOT more than the MIT student with an LED!

Re:Talk about dumb

[bm_luethke]

I would love to see many of those complaining be in the same situation.

I bet they would all, within a matter of seconds, use their vast powers of deduction to realize this is a MIT student that doesn't do mornings (so she didn't recognize that the question was aimed at her) wearing her favorite shirt and that the whole thing was a play on her name "Star". Further using their great powers of observation they will instantly realize there the breadboard didn't conceal explosives (since, as we all know, people in that position will be trained to sniff explosives out) and instantly recognize that the layout of the board was simply to make the light blink all from a single glance. Lastly, the proper form would be to compliment the lady on what a fine outstanding statement her shirt says.

*sigh* the same people would be ranting if she had concealed explosives behind the breadboard and security let her go through (after all, it would be obvious the breadboard was no danger) and she killed half a dozen people. Of course, I also apparently live in total fear so just ignore what I say.

Re:Talk about dumb

[Sebastopol]

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to paint a squirt gun black and walk into a kindergarten,

If you were trying to make an analogy, let me correct it for you. A similar comparison would be:

"Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to paint a banana black and walk into a kindergarten..."

Re:Talk about dumb

[TheGratefulNet]

Or that your typical TSA screener with a room-temperature IQ is even going to know what a protoboard IS?

isn't THAT the problem, mate?

you hit the nail right on the head.

for mission-critical jobs, you need SMART people, not walking kidneys...

there are enough intelligent people out of work; we should NOT be putting neanderthals to work on so-called mission critical jobs!

and yes, I submit that any one with real training (and not just potty training) WOULD know that some obvious-assed blinky led thing is NO DANGER.

sheesh - people are afraid of their shadows, these days. and I guess that's fine, as long as you're not in a position to SHOOT ME...

Re:Talk about dumb

[Ellis D. Tripp]

But in order to get smart people with knowledge of electronics/explosives to do that job, they would have to pay a hell of a lot more than they currently do.

And then you would still have the problem that people who are intelligent and inquisitive quickly become bored with repetitive, mind-numbing work like staring at an endless parade of luggage on an x-ray machine for 8 hours a day. Boredom leads to complacency, exactly what you DON'T want in an explosives screener. People who have the level of knowledge of electronics or explosives that we would think desirable for a luggage screener would probably also be qualified for far more interesting, less repetitive work where they won't have to put up with pissed-off airline passengers all day.

Re:Talk about dumb

[Brickwall]

Or that your typical TSA screener with a room-temperature IQ is even going to know what a protoboard IS?

Er, questioning the IQ of TSA screeners is a bit rich, coming from someone who clearly can't comprehend THAT SHE DIDN'T GO NEAR TSA SCREENERS. It was a ticket agent who reported her to the cops.

Re:Talk about dumb

[LynnwoodRooster]

OK, so could this circuit be used for a bomb? Now, can you make that determination in 3 seconds?

Re:Talk about dumb

[TheGratefulNet]

yes, actually, I could tell. and I'm not even close to trained in the field and only have a self-taught EE background.

but the thing is, I would NOT freak out like the cops did. not over something as OBVIOUS as a girl wearing a blinkey.

come on, even on the fantasy world of the simpsons would anything this surreal happen. some girl just walks up, nonchelant, wearing blinking lights and doesn't even ask to be flown to cuba, for unmarked bills or mention allah?

just let her go. its boston. (I lived there for quite a while. its college town, usa!) there are MANY out-of-the-ordinary people (read: freaks) there. I would have asked her about it but I would NOT have called security over this. worst case - call ONE cop over in a non threatening way and have her explain what that thing is. but to draw arms on her? my god. we've lost it.

Re:Talk about dumb

[Kingrames]

Actually, I think the LED lights spell out a sentence in binary.

"Don't Tase me, bro!" or something like that.

Re:Talk about dumb

[LynnwoodRooster]

Then what is it?

Re:Talk about dumb

[TheGratefulNet]

But in order to get smart people with knowledge of electronics/explosives to do that job, they would have to pay a hell of a lot more than they currently do.

I would agree.

but would you agree that if this is job-one (as our administration seems to think) - then isn't a job THIS important worth putting the very best people on?

this is SUCH a mixed message. put flunkies on the most important safety job in the world.

either it is or it is not an urgent/important job. hiring flunkies is almost proof that its all a show, a facade. they could hire actors (maybe even for the same pay!) and achieve the same results.

and at least if we tell jokes, the actors might even laugh and everyone's day is brightened a bit.

I hate airports. they're damned depressing (and oppressing) places. but they didn't always USE to be that way ;(

Re:Talk about dumb

[foo fighter]

Have you actually seen what she was wearing? It does not look like a little light up name tag. It looks like what C4 with a firing pin in it looks like in the movies. She is indeed lucky she was not shot.

Re:Talk about dumb

[bockelboy]

Here's a pretty good photo of it:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/09/mit_student_arr.html?p1=MEWell_Pos3

That is a star made up out of green LEDs. I see precious little that could look like C4.

Either way, the police had a suspicious device reported and responded. That's good. They told her to freeze and not move, and she complied. That's good. Later on, they determined the device was harmless, and (to me) it appears that she was just dumb, but there was no intent. To have a hoax device, you must intend for it to be a hoax.

The problem I have is when the prosecutor steps in and tries to say there was malicious intent. This ought to be a cakewalk for any decent lawyer; I suspect the charges will be dropped in a month or two (after the city spends thousands of dollars on it, of course).

Waste of time, waste of news, waste of taxpayer money.

Re:Talk about dumb

[MaJeStu]

Have you actually seen what she was wearing? It does not look like a little light up name tag. It looks like what C4 with a firing pin in it looks like in the movies. She is indeed lucky she was not shot.

What are you talking about? That picture is of her hoodie, when turned INSIDE OUT. To those at the airport, it looked like an LCD star with a rectangular bulge behind it.

Are you really suggesting that people are lucky not to be shot for having bulges in their clothing?

Re:Talk about dumb

[Fire Dragon]

But in order to get smart people with knowledge of electronics/explosives to do that job, they would have to pay a hell of a lot more than they currently do.

And then you would still have the problem that people who are intelligent and inquisitive quickly become bored with repetitive, mind-numbing work like staring at an endless parade of luggage on an x-ray machine for 8 hours a day. Boredom leads to complacency, exactly what you DON'T want in an explosives screener.

The thing is that you don't need everybody to be expert screening everything. Hundreds of X-ray machine operators goes trought those thousends of packages during their shift and flag what needs special knowledge. If they can't really tell that if somethings is bombs, drugs, pirated Cuggi handbag..., they red flag it to proper excpert.

You don't have your helpdesk full of network admins/sysadmins,installation experts... to tell that customers internet is not working due the local power blackouts, but to the second/third line of expercy to handle routing problems screened to them by the first line.

Re:Talk about dumb

[Ahuitzotl]

So maybe we should ban wires and putty from airports then ehh? Just because the TSA is a bunch of morons and you want to *feel* safer. What should they do if someone were to bring a 5 yo child in to the airport with a gameboy and a hand full of modeling clay? Should they shoot/arrest the 5yo too? I mean that modeling clay could be C4! That gameboy could be a detonator! OMGZORS!!! 5 year old children are trying to kill us all!!!

Ignorance is no excuse, and should never be. The people that are defending what the cops did are just as ignorant as they are. How far do we have to slide into the pits of fear before you realize that all these TSA people are doing is placating your comfy button? Maybe you will figure it out when a real bomb goes off in a mall because all the *security* was at airports. Oh wait, no you will just call for more *security* and stupidity... I forgot people that are afraid don't think rationally.

Re:Talk about dumb

[mangastudent]

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"

It's not "testosterone", more likely it's "My God, we came this close to having to kill an idiot college student".

It's also a literal statement of fact, and a warning to other idiot college students that when the police command you to "stop or we'll shoot", you would be well advised to take them at their word.

You want "testosterone"? Let's see you get within the blast zone of a suspected suicide bomber and ask her to not move, knowing that she can touch it off faster than you can pull your trigger (reaction times are slow, something the police are taught about WRT knife armed opponents).

The Play-Doh is what turns this into such a strong false positive, it looks too much like a plastic explosive. And do we really think this woman walks around all day on campus with "4-5 oz of Play-Doh" in her hands???

That's pretty far to one end of the bell curve of weirdness for those not in physical therapy. If she doesn't normally do this, she's screwed, it will be pretty easy for the prosecutors to establish that one way or another from the people she's frequently around.

Here's why this *shouldn't* be stupid.

[BrianRoach]

I know there will be lots of folks here says something like ..

"Well, she's stupid for going to an airport wearing that".

And in today's ridiculous climate of fear and over-reaction in the US, they'd be right.

And that's what's wrong.

If the police/authorities think that this is what a bomb looks like (You know ... something with lots of blinking lights and a battery), they need to stop watching TV and actually get some training.

I'm really not worried about someone with a lightbright attached to their shirt bringing down my plane.

I'm not really* worried about a terrorist that loads up ten 3oz tubes with whatever he/she would like, replaces the innards of a portable video game with the things necessary to detonate it, and walks through security without a problem.

But the latter is a LOT more likely to happen when passing through Security Theater at the airport.

* - I have a better chance of getting struck by lightening than by being killed by a "terrorist". I don't stay inside when it rains, nor change my behavior other than perhaps using an umbrella ... which is rather Ironic if you think about it.

- Roach

Re:Here's why this *shouldn't* be stupid.

[Russ Nelson]

Rain doesn't scare me. I lived in Oregon for two years twenty years ago and still haven't recovered.

Re:Here's why this *shouldn't* be stupid.

[smaddox]

I wish i had not commented so that I could mod this up.

This is exactly the point I am trying to get across. The fact of the matter is that the police officers walking around with MP5s aren't really there to catch people. They are there to deter people. Any time they see someone walking by them carrying something that "looks like it could have been a bomb" they should probably not get to worried. The people they should be worried about are the people holding inconspicuous objects, possibly looking really nervous.

I do not know if it is a lack of training, or just bad training that leads to these incidents, but something needs to be changed.

Re:Here's why this *shouldn't* be stupid.

[BrianRoach]

Any time they see someone walking by them carrying something that "looks like it could have been a bomb" they should probably not get to worried. The people they should be worried about are the people holding inconspicuous objects, possibly looking really nervous.

They have a duty to investigate the thing "that looks like it could be a bomb". And I'm all for that. Walk over to the girl and ask what it is. Inspect it. Ask her to disconnect the battery. Hell, if you want to really be paranoid, do what they do with the 6oz toothpaste - offer to check it or ship it to her (Yeah, I know ... Check it ... that makes sense when something is "suspicious"). Confiscate it and let her go on her merry way.

None of these actions would have resulted in anything worse than the over-reacting and pointing of automatic weapons at her. If it were a bomb, and she was going to detonate it, she would have in either case (and actually much more likely in the second, actual reaction).

Instead, they're calling it a "Hoax device" and arresting / prosecuting her. Sorry, but the stupidity that has led to this disgusts me. Every day when I think that America can't get any more ludicrous, something reminds me that I am indeed delusional.

- Roach

Re:Here's why this *shouldn't* be stupid.

[Ellis D. Tripp]

>a terrorist that loads up ten 3oz tubes with whatever he/she would like, replaces the innards of a portable video game with the >things necessary to detonate it, and walks through security without a problem.

>But the latter is a LOT more likely to happen when passing through Security Theater at the airport.

Exactly.

I often wonder what kind of training TSA screeners get that would allow them to distinguish between the x-ray image of a normal consumer electronic device, and one that has a bomb built into it. In the second or 2 that they spend looking at the image, what are they actually looking for? A shadow of an alarm clock and sticks of dynamite?

What would prevent a determined suicide bomber from gutting everything out of a laptop computer that isn't needed to make it boot up (so it would pass the "turn it on for me" inspection they sometimes make you go through). Remove the CD/DVD drive, PCMCIA slot bay, CPU cooler, and most of the batteries, leaving enough empty space to pack with the explosive of your choice and a blasting cap. Neatly done, it would just look like a bunch of electronic parts on an x-ray (kinda like the guts of a laptop do), would pass the power-on test, and could bring a plane down at the touch of a button (like maybe the "sleep" switch?).

So wait..

[scubamage]

Ok, so that means that its ok if I take an ipod, or laptop on a plane. However I can't take homebrew electronics. So are things I make at home not good enough? Why do companies get preferential treatment over me? If I can take an ipod, can I take an Ipod that has been hardware hacked and has wires exposed? Or will I get arrested for posessing a "hoax" device? What really terrifies me is that I work with electronics every day that are both commercial and homebrew, and many of them would be completely unidentifiable to the general public - so if the definition of a hoax device is a device that could be perceived a certain way... What defines a hoax device? Judging from the pictures its pretty obvious its not a bomb. Its a shirt that has paint holding on a PCB for power to light LED's and paint. So can I point my finger at the next asshole who has a cell phone and say they have a hoax device just because I might not know what it is? I want to see the classification of what is a hoax device.

OK, let's put it this way...

[SamP2]

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.

Re:OK, let's put it this way...

[TheGratefulNet]

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

by that reasoning (your zero tolerance POV) you should stop EVERY citizen just in case. just in case. if even ONE person dies due to a bomb, its bad. but if one (also innocent) person dies due to a MISTAKE well, its all in the name of Greater Public Good(tm) right?

flawed logic. problem is, its the logic our leaders are forcing us to swallow.

life is risky and you can't fix every thing. freedom IS more important than life. our founding fathers thought so! heck, even in NH they feel so strongly they have it printed on their license plates, Live Free or Die!

(I wonder if planes still take off and land from NH state....)

Re:OK, let's put it this way...

[Joe the Lesser]

There's a difference between 'taking action to prevent catastrophe' and 'she's lucky she wasn't shot.'

I mean, yes, I want the cops to react to suspicious things. I just don't want them to overreact, and assume their life is in danger, because they see something that they don't recognize.

If they had shot her, and she died, then what good is anti-terrorism if over-sensitive cops will cost American lives? We're gonna end up terrorizing ourselves.

Re:OK, let's put it this way...

[njfuzzy]

That's the second time this week someone has used Pascal's Wager as an explanatory device on Slashdot, that I've seen.

Re:OK, let's put it this way...

[leadghost]

How about of the device is wired to explode if the button is release...not pushed? Grenades are designed so that after the pin is pulled it does not go off until the trigger mechanism is released when thrown. Anyway get trigger happy and you might get blown up anyway.

Re:OK, let's put it this way...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can either choose to take action, or not to.

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.

Re:OK, let's put it this way...

[smaddox]

Lets say I am at a 7-11, and the guy at the counter is selling lottery tickets for a dollar.

The ticket is either a winner, or it is not.

I can either choose to buy the ticket, or not too.

If I choose not to buy the ticket, and it does happen to be a winner, than I just missed out on millions of dollars that I could have used to put forth my plan to solve world hunger, thereby saving millions of lives.

If I choose to buy the ticket, then the worst that can happen is I lose a dollar.

I'll go with the second option, thank you.

Re:OK, let's put it this way...

[JesterXXV]

You win the thread.

This is the single most insightful comment I've ever read regarding terrorism. There is a happy medium between "treat every threat as if it is real" and complete anarchy, and that is to allow officers to use their common sense. As it is now, these law enforcement have no incentives to react calmly - they are taught to follow procedure, no matter how unreasonable.

Re:OK, let's put it this way...

[silby]

if even ONE person dies due to a bomb, its bad. but if one (also innocent) person dies due to a MISTAKE

No one died. Did you RTFA NO ONE DIED! For that matter Has anyone died from the TSA or Police taking action for something like this? You make it sound as if every week people are getting gunned down.

Re:OK, let's put it this way...

[justinlee37]

and I'll probably go to prison for dereliction of duty

Everything you say except this is pretty much correct.

Still, there's a difference between acting to prevent a catastrophe, and later deciding to charge the person with a crime. Wouldn't it be enough to embarrass them with some press coverage, and have airports enact a new security regulation explicitly forbidding the display of such devices?

I mean, they claim it was a hoax device, but she never said "this is a bomb." It was also not apparently made to specifically resemble a known make of explosives (a cast-model pack of TNT would be a different story, but this was just a couple of circuit boards and "putty"). Is she guilty of a crime for how the officers interpreted what she was wearing? Not in this slashdotter's opinion -- yes, the police acted reasonably in confronting her, and she was a bit naive to wear that sort of apparel after the events of 9/11, but she wasn't attempting to cause any trouble and fining her would be unjust.

Re:OK, let's put it this way...

[KenSeymour]

I see this as the equivalent of waving a toy gun in front of a cop.

They will shoot you under those circumstances. Afterwards, the cop will defend his actions
as saying, "I wasn't going to take the chance that I or someone the surrounding area
would be shot."

You think this is overreaction. I think it is a good self-preservation strategy to
avoid looking like you are armed with a deadly weapon when you are near police.
It is the sort of thing that may ultimately determine whether a young person gets to be
an old person.

This time, the police managed to figure out it was not a real bomb before shooting her.

I can understand how a cop, after making those decisions in seconds, might be a little
worked up and say "She's lucky not to be dead."

You might not be concerned if a cop is shot or blown up, but the cop sure is.

HELLO!

[ackthpt]

Hrmmmm.... looking at the "device" from the images on the link makes me think the police overreacted.

This is BOSTON we're talking about!

All of this misses problem #1

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

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.

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[radarjd]

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?

In all fairness, they very well might if they had suicide bombing on their minds and they believed that was the way to get away with the suicide bombing. That is to say, if we declare that anyone wearing a "suspicious" breadboard is obviously too stupid to be a terrorist, then logically the smart terrorists will start wearing breadboards to do their bombings.

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[TheGratefulNet]

But there is exactly zero reason to arrest the kid

you are speaking as a scientist or person of reason.

put on your 'crowd control' hat and you'll see the answer.

1) show the sheeple that DOHS is hard at work, keeping you. safe.

2) put fear into the sheeple that if you DARE step out of line even an inch, you'll possibly be shot and killed. or worse.

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[krgallagher]

"Problem #1 with arresting someone for wearing a "suspicious" breadboard: Terrorists wouldn't do that."

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:All of this misses problem #1

[archivis]

Except in this country, it's the security people constantly yelling Fire! when there isn't any. If anybody else did this, it's off to jail. But if it's security goons and elected officials jumping at shadows, it's just peachy.

If there actually IS a fire, they bury anything that might point that out until after the rubble is cold. And it's not their fault, if they said anything, somebody might have panicked, or someone higher up squelched it. If you've got a uniform or were elected, lucky you, we no longer require you to think or take considered action other than to cover your own ass.

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[nbauman]

We're not safe if our airports are being guarded by security people who aren't savvy enough to know what a proto board is.

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[grassy_knoll]

You seem to contradict yourself here:

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.

I think the point of arresting her was to determine if it was a bomb or a blinking light.

Also, as others have noted, she walked away when questioned ( after she initiaed the conversation ). So an initial attempt to question her failed.

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[Russ Nelson]

are we honestly so stupid to believe that terrorists are going to go walking around with wires all over their clothes?

What you mean "we", Kimosabe? Have you noticed that the smart ones don't work for minimum wage screening airport passengers?

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[idontgno]

And, to complete the trifecta of /. themes...

3) DIY electronics will get you shot. Good consumers will buy and use packaged electronics or suffer the consequences.

Damn. I can't decide if that point is too cynical or not nearly cynical enough.

Oh, yeah, obSlashdot...

4) ???
5) Profit!

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[CodeMunch]

Problem #1 with arresting someone for wearing a "suspicious" breadboard: Terrorists wouldn't do that

Heh yeah - almost as silly as someone trying to light their shoes on fire in an airplane. A terrorist probably wouldn't do something so weird. Blind religious zealotry is certainly the mark of a smart sane person.[/sarcasm]

Since when are we supposed to equate a terrorist with smart and/or sane. I would argue for the opposite of both traits.

However, had this person been a true suicide bomber with the "insanity" trait, they probably wouldn't just "give up" and get arrested. They would be there to cause havoc and not to survive anyway so a gun pointed at their head is not a deterant.

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[Quiet_Desperation]

And there was no countdown timer- the single most important piece of equipment in all of villianous bombcraft

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[joto]

That is to say, if we declare that anyone wearing a "suspicious" breadboard is obviously too stupid to be a terrorist, then logically the smart terrorists will start wearing breadboards to do their bombings.

You obviously haven't thought this through. This is endless recursion. Because you could just as well assume that even smarter terrorists start hiding their circuit boards again, because it's now declared that smart terrorists wear exposed breadboards. Now what will the even smarter terrorists do? And the smarter than even smarter terrorists?

Actually, people have researched issues like this (from a psychological perspective). And the result is that just about no-one is playing this game to a level deeper than 1 (the smart terrorists). Which is just as good, because it's a pile of shit anyway.

You do not find bombs by playing stupid mind-games, you find them by looking for them. Fine, if someone walks around with some leds on their hoodie, ask them what it is. You've done your job now. I'm sure even MIT-students should be able to dumb this down to the level of an average security guard? Having learned something new about both electronics and fashion, you should now leave the girl alone. If you instead choose to put her at gunpoint, then jail, charged with having a "hoax explosive device", you loose, unless it's Boston.

More importantly, the ratio of security guards to people who could potentially carry a bomb at an airport, is pretty low. I'm not against guards investigating if they find something they find suspicious, no matter how obvious it is to someone else that it's not a threat. But once something is determined not to be a threat, MOVE ON! Check the next passenger! Find another suspicious person! Don't waste your energy on harassing people with bad sense of fashion endlessly, instead, do what you are paid to do: find the terrorists! Thank you!

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[joto]

You seem to contradict yourself here:

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.

I think the point of arresting her was to determine if it was a bomb or a blinking light.

You may think so, but it doesn't fit the facts. If she was simply arrested to determine if it was a bomb or a blinking lights, why would she only be released on bail? Why did it take more than five minutes? Why was she charged with carrying a "hoax explosive device", when it clearly wasn't?

I do not know why they chose to arrest her, but I do know that it was not simply to "determine if it was a bomb or a blinking light".

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[Fire Dragon]

Why was she charged with carrying a "hoax explosive device", when it clearly wasn't?

If your actions get security people to think that your suspicious devices are bombs and you refuse to clear facts, you have made them to assume that you are carrying a bomb. After that, if is not a "hoax explosive device" then it is the real thing.

I sometimes carry desktop machines on my handluggage and those will raise some questions. When showing them and explaining what it is and why do I take it to plane will(so far have) allways get me out of trouble. If I'd refuse to tell security people what it was and turned away walking, I'd expect nothing else but trouble. Getting charged in situations like this would be just plain stupidity from my part. Even if wouldn't be anything dangerous than my testmachine, I would expect to get charged of fooling security with a hoax device.

Clearing things early, like when she was asked about the device would have got her out of the trouble, but no, if you want to create havoc by faking that you have something dangerous, you will be arrested of having dangferous devices, hoax or not. Likewise if you shout 'BOMB' in airport, you will be arrested and quostioned and usually charged, even if it was just a joke.

Haven't been on airports that have currently bombthreat going on after 9/11, but even before that it wasn't that relaxing situation when you put huge amount of tired people in small area when they searching bombs.

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[joto]

I sometimes carry desktop machines on my handluggage
[snip]
Haven't been on airports that have currently bombthreat going on after 9/11

That means you haven't been flying for the last 6 years. I believe your expression sometimes is an exaggeration.

If I'd refuse to tell security people what it was and turned away walking, I'd expect nothing else but trouble.

I agree with this statement 100%. The only trouble is, that you are talking about something hypothetical, and try to make it sound like the girl did something similar. She didn't. According the the article, she cooperated with the security people 100%, just as they expected her too. So why was she arrested (and nearly shot) again?

Re:All of this misses problem #1

[grassy_knoll]

Apparently, the device was not clearly not a bomb. You seem to contend otherwise; guess we'll have to agree to disagee.

She displayed the device, engaged others in coversation , then when asked about the device walked away.

The more I think about it, the more the "hoax explosive device" charge seems to fit. She did seem to get security to think it was or could be threatening.

Welcome to 2084

[Blackbrain]

At this moment are all peasants living in a police state. This includes the US, the EU, and the Commonwealth. The fact that so many of you are saying that "She should have known better" just proves my point. Obey. Do not be different. Follow instructions. You have no one but yourself to blame. Don't taser me dude.

Re:Welcome to 2084

[kafkar]

Most rules and instructions are in place for a reason, to protect people. Do you think it's ok to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater because of free speech?

Re:Welcome to 2084

[robert899]

Ok fine I'll be different then. On my next flight, I'm gonna wear a crude looking circuit board that really is a bomb. So don't fucking piss me off.

BTW: It's "Don't taser me Bro"

Re:Welcome to 2084

[darth_fishy]

Ok I've had it with this stupid "Fire in a movie theatre" example. I'm not American so maybe American theatres are highly flammable (I hear rubbish burns quite well) or there is some other reason for this example that escapes me, but I think it's daft.

What's going to happen if I scream fire in my backwards 3rd world African crowded Movie theatre? I get told to shut up and watch the fucking movie.

Wow... complicated right? How fucking paranoid are you people if you panic and storm out of a movie theatre if somebody yells "Fire"? No wonder you arrest people who wear a circuit board with LEDs on it at an airport.

Re:Welcome to 2084

[Blackbrain]

kafkar
Most rules and instructions are in place for a reason, to protect people.
But what rule did she violate? Is there a dress code for airport terminals that is kept secret by the TSA? She wasn't even in a "secured" area of the terminal.

Anonymous Coward
If you were in a police state you wouldn't be able to say that without mysteriously disappearing.
Only if I was a real threat. As it stands now, anybody who points out that fascists have already taken control of the county is laughed off as a kook. Making them disappear would only add credence to their paranoid ramblings.

robert899
BTW: It's "Don't taser me Bro"
Ya..I'm a moron and Slashdot doesn't have an edit feature.

Re:Welcome to 2084

[esecasco]

Agreed, you are not allowed to scream "Fire" in a movie theater just for the fun of it. But lets look at what this is more like. Its kind of like if she were in a movie theater and decided to use slang to ask for a lighter, "Hey man, can I borrow your fire". And then everyone panics the fuck out, "OMG she said fire!, run!" did she approach the air port with a tensioned look like a person that is about to blow themselves to bits. Did she appear to be a threat or just someone that was wearing some badly made electronics? The key question is at which point is this too fucking far. Today, its wrong to have some LEDs and a circuit board on your shirt at the airport, how long until its, "you can't bring a laptop" or how long until you fit a specific profile. What this causes is not just for innocent people to be more careful about what they wear, but also for potential malignant sons of bitches to adapt and execute their plans successfully. What is the one thing you always hear about a serial killer, "Oh, but he was so nice and so normal"

Re:It's official. The terrorists have won.

[GeckoX]

Oh fuck off. No one is terrorized over anything other than the stupid girl that most certainly DOES have to change her shorts I'm sure.

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:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[gardyloo]

Okay.. Maybe I was alone in my jr. Highschool electronics course and just fantasized about all the other students around me, but that sure as hell looks, very VERY obviously, like a bread board and nothing else. What exactly were they worried she was going to blow up, a resistor????? Hey, blasting caps can look a lot like a large resistor or capacitor. That, combined with whatever the hell that "putty" is, is a credible threat. Yes, I've just fed a troll.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[Rakishi]

Well it's great that you have x-ray vision and zoom built into your eyes, you may wish to patent your great invention btw.

judging from the pics...

[pak9rabid]

she should have been busted by the fashion police instead

Re:Not sure this thing looks like a bomb, myself

[mackermacker]

In reality, in was a stupid thing to do. I am all for '19 year old individuality', trying to push the limits, discovering who you are those first years in college, etc. Though the actions were probably harsh, as someone who generally flies monday-friday , did she really think they would just flag her through with open arms, a hug, and best wishes?

In addition, a bomb couldn't be detonated with a 9 volt battery? Interesting theory, though last time i read the multiple bombs that set off all the underground bombs in both spain and london were set off via cellphones, using much smaller batteries than 9volt. Not to sound like an old fark, but I really don't want everyone everything expressing their individuality at airports by wearing clothes with circuit boards and blinkiing LED lights hanging off them.

Unless the person picking you up at the landing airport is going to kill you unless you arrive wearing 'blinking clothes', I fail to see why it would be an issue to pack it in your carryon and put it on upon arriving. I am also fairly certain that the person sitting next to her on the plane will not think its "totally gnarley" to see a blinking shirt while sitting next to hear the whole flight.

We all know the saying "give someone an inch, they take a mile". Think privacy and our government for one. One can say "if they ban a shirt with a political message, whats next to go, etc. However, you can also say "if they start allowing shirts with batteries, blinking lights, and LED's hanging off, what the next thing a step up, joe schmo will try, shoes with a a built in cellphone that plays the afghanistan national anthem when it rings because "I thought it would be a hoot"...

damn, she was almost REALLY famous

[deft]

because one cop getting gittery when ms retard here decided to wear electronics on her chest and refuse to answer questions, and we'd be giving her the darwin award.

Then she'd live forever.

I'm just supirsed that Darwin was about to pluck someone from the MIT gene pool... but thats justt he way it works people. Not all evolution seems like it's perfect.

She is at MIT?!?

[DaveV1.0]

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I have heard. What kind of dumbass does something like that?

And calling it art? Art? Give me a fucking break.

Everyone was nearly shot. Machine Gun!

[Erris]

The Boing Boing page has the other half of the "shocked and appalled" quote:

I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear such a device to the airport. We had someone with a submachine gun at the airport go right to the scene."

I'm shocked and appalled that they thought a submachine gun would be a good way to prevent a bomb in a crowded room. A sniper, maybe, but a submachine gun? Is there ever a situation at an airport where that's a good idea? What were those idiots thinking?

I'm not sure how academically bright

[kaufmanmoore]

If she is that good academically, she'd know from history that 2 of the planes hijacked on 9/11 came from Logan airport, so I would think that would make them more sensitive to security issues.

Re:I'm not sure how academically bright

[smaddox]

Yes, because obviously, if someone wanted to hijack a plane after 9/11 they would do it the same way it had been done in the past (you know, to throw off the police's scent).

Come on guys. Quite thinking from the perspective of a cop, and start thinking from the perspective of a terrorist. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be giving advice on how to stop them.

Re:Not sure this thing looks like a bomb, myself

[GeckoX]

Come on people, sheesh. Do you really think they are trained to look for a particular exact thing? Think about it, that wouldn't work at all obviously. Bombs can be made to look like just about ANYTHING.

Think about being a security officer or policeman at an airport, and seeing someone walk in dressed like she was. What shall you assume? What IS that she is wearing? Would it be wise to assume, ahh just some techy MIT art girl of course! See that all the time! Riiight.

Perspective people!

But hey, if you'd like to try this yourself to prove a point...be my guest. The darwin awards are always looking for new entries after all!

Re:It's official. The terrorists have won.

[BlowHole666]

Oh you were at the airport to see the blinking lights or how she was acting? This is what an IDE looks like http://fusion94.org/blog/index.php?tag=ied/ and this is what her thing looks like http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070921/480/f0ccb94f30c148a5bb53c35e333ee697;_ylt=AgjQr2h5m3Kt6FZZi3tY4FJH2ocA/ How about you walk into a bank with a rubber gun and wave it around at on off duty cop? Ever stop to think someone had to make a split second decision to protect the thousands of people in the airport? The cops did not have time to sit and check out what she had. It looked like electronics it was on her shirt like a suicide jacket that is always talked about in the movies and on the news. You must not have a family. If you do maybe someone should sit next to your family with a fake bomb or a fake gun pointed at you and see if you are worried. Can you tell the difference in a split second?

attention whore

[everphilski]

From the AP article,

"She said that it was a piece of art and she wanted to stand out on career day,"

Just another teenager looking for attention. Unfortunately, not enough brains to think twice first.

Re:attention whore

[bockelboy]

Yeah, she wanted to stand out on career day.

Her name is "Star", so she arranged LEDs into the shape of a STAR, and headed off to school. On the way to career day, she swung by the airport to pick up her boyfriend.

Sure, she wanted attention at the event at the MIT campus; she didn't want attention at the damned airport. Sometimes you just have to read through the crappy reporting. This isn't a performance piece, it's a case of "forgot to take off my hoodie when I went to the airport and scared some folks accidentally". I see no malicious intent.

Airport security don't understand electronics

[porkThreeWays]

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.

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[HungWeiLo]

Most of these guys were $7/hr rent-a-cops before 9/11 and DHS came onboard. Now they're the same people - except now they're fully-funded federal employees making $20/hr doing the same thing.

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[PeeAitchPee]

and at worst we've given up basic civil liberties

Since when has it been an unalienable right for you as a US citizen to wear, say or do anything you wanted in a place like an airport? Where in the Constitution are you granted those rights? Heck, even back in the 1970s they had signs like "Please no jokes about guns / bombs," and if you wore a T-shirt that said "I HAVE A BOMB!!!" in big letters on it back then, you'd be arrested and taken in for some serious questioning. Granted, what this chick did was more like wearing a T-shirt that says, "IS THIS A BOMB?!?!?", but there's not much difference, and I'd wager that the 1970s airport police would have done the same thing. It's not "cute," it's not about trying to reclaim any lost "rights," it's about her getting on the news. Period. What they should really do is send her a bill for the resources (our tax money) that were wasted reacting to her childish, "artistic" cry for attention.

I travel more weeks than not, and I think TSA absolutely sucks (last week I was disallowed boarding and then secondarily screened because my license says "James" and my boarding pass says "Jim"), but defending this chick for being a complete retard is certainly not a fight for which I'll sign up.

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[geekgirlandrea]

As I mentioned in another recent Slashdot thread, I once got that reaction, plus an explosives swab of my luggage, for my TI-92 and a copy of Weinberg's The Quantum Theory of Fields. It really has gotten to the point that carrying anything a high-school dropout TSA minion can't understand is automatically 'suspicious behavior.'

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[TClevenger]

My wife went through security with a couple of PINpads (you know, those things you use to enter in your PIN at the grocery store.) They didn't want to let her through until she powered one up and verified it wasn't a bomb. Problem is, these only work if you plug them into a credit card terminal--with a 4-pin RJ cable. They finally let her through after 10 minutes of questioning. And this was back in the mid-90's.

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[EdwinFreed]

20 years or so ago I was in the security line just in front of a guy in overalls with a fairly large cheap red plastic toolbox. After making it through the scanner myself I looked back. This checkpoint happened to be one where the monitor for the X-ray machine was visible to the passengers and I could see the toolbox being scanned. The scanner clearly showed some screwdrivers, needlenose pliers, and other assorted hand tools along with what was obviously a VOM along with a pair of those leads made with wire that coils up on its own. It also happened to look just like what you'd expect a cartoon bomb (think Rocky and Bullwinkle) to look like under a scanner. It was so absurd looking I started to laugh. I stopped laughing when the security people grabbed the toolbox and opened it (confirming that it was indeed a garden variety VOM with coiled leads) and then literally swarmed all over the poor guy and pulled him through a nearby door.

That was the day I lost all respect for security screening. I mean, come on - their training should at least cover the common sorts of things you can expect to find in a toolbox. And if there was actually good reason to believe it was a bomb, why the hell did they open it?

I was flying a lot in those days so I don't remember the airport, but it could easily have been Logan.

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[Myopic]

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.

Please explain how to reliably tell the difference between a breadboard full of LEDs and a real threat. I know what a breadboard looks like, but I don't know what a real threat looks like, and I can certainly imagine a real threat looking a lot like a breadboard. So, please, enlighten me.

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[Eric Smith]

Where in the Constitution are you granted those rights?

Before you go waving the U.S. Constitution about, maybe you should actually READ it and learn what it is about. The Constitution does not grant ANY rights to the people. The rights inherently reside in the people. The Constitution is the means whereby the people grant limited powers to the government. The Bill of Rights, a series of amendments to the Constitution, also do not grant rights to the people, but rather serve to delineate some specific rights of the people that the government is not empowered to violate. The fact that some rights of the people are not specifically listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does not mean that the people do not have those rights; this is made clear by the Ninth Amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything empowering the government to control what clothing we wear. Such limitations may be imposed by the government only to the extent to which they further a power of the government authorized by the Constitution. See Article I Section 8 ("Powers of Congress") to get an idea of what those powers actually are.

If you want to argue that the government has the power to prevent people from wearing clothing containing obvious homemade electronics, you would have to justify that under one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. For instance, you might argue that it is part of promoting the common welfare. However, I think it would be very difficult to construct such an argument that would be strong enough to convince a court. To my knowledge, there have been no cases in which a person wearing clothing containing obvious homemade electronics have used that electronics to significantly harm anyone. This is a much different case than someone trying to conceal something under their clothing.

That said, I will agree that the woman would have been much better off had she explained the nature of her clothing/device to the TSA agents.

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[jez9999]

Trouble is, your devices COULD have concealed an explosive and been used as a bomb, if they were physically big enough. That's kind of the problem, there's no particularly good way to let people take electronic gadgets onto planes without potentially allowing bombs on.

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[PeeAitchPee]

If anything, this is a 1st Amendment / freedom of speech issue. It's not about "wearing homemade electronics" . . . it's about bringing something into an airport which many people initially thought had the appearance of a bomb. She would have gotten the exact same response if she would have been holding the device in her hands instead of wearing it. The same thing would happen if you brought one of those novelty blower-powered illuminated devices (which simulate an open flame) into a theater. The 1st Amendment does not classify either of these examples as free speech because of the potential danger to others.

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[chickenrob]

Dude. Both a breadboard with an IC, and your gp2x cound be used to detonate explosives. The gp2x has plenty of processing power to run any sort of timers or failsafes you may want to include in your device and it can be easily modified to do so. You do know it runs linux and all the files are completly open and accessable, right? Maybe the agents are smarter then you think they are. Also, if the agents were discussing this all in front of you, I would venture to guess they were watching you for your reaction to their conversation. There is no way they can really verify all the functions and modifications to your electronics, but if you start sweating bullets, or make a break for it, then they are on to something.

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[Damvan]

I am repeatedly denied boarding and re-screened simply because I have a two word last name, as shown on my boarding pass, credit card, passport, and nearly every form of ID I have, except my driver's license, which shows it as one word. I have been told by the DMV many times that their computer system is incapable of dealing with two word last names.

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[terrymr]

My last name has a hyphen in it - airline ticketing systems can't do hypens so both words of my last name get stuck together without a space. However this has never caused me a problem at an airport.

Re:Airport security don't understand electronics

[ozphx]

In their defense the GP2X handheld does look like an imitation of a portable game system thats been constructed barely well enough to pass a cursory inspection.

Re:How to tell when it's not a bomb..

[GeckoX]

Say's who?

Very often the easiest way to conceal something is to not conceal it at all.

Sometimes people willing to do harm to others just don't give a shit whether it's obvious or not either.

Ah well, at least I'm not depending on people like you keeping me safe out there ;)

Provocation

[TheBitterRaven]

This was probably meant as a piece of performance art or an "amusing" act of protest. In spite of Star Simpson's protestations that she'd only wanted to draw attention to herself on "Career Day," it seems more likely that her actions were meant to provoke exactly the kind of reaction they elicited. I'd guess she knew perfectly well that non-scientists/engineers would assume her device was explosive.

I agree with other commenters: No terrorist who actually knew how to build a real bomb would build one that looked just like one, then carry it around in public. But a nut with grievance might. Terrorism aside, we've seen bomb-building nuts before. The police might not have thought they saw a terrorist, but just a crazy woman with a rickety, but possibly dangerous explosive device.

Re:How to tell when it's not a bomb..

[silby]

So what if it WAS a bomb that was concealed inside "art"? She was asked about it and did not respond, that is what caused the over reaction, not the actual device.

Got to love engineering students

[ouphie]

Common sense doesn't always enter the mind of an engineer (I am an EE by the way), and I have seen my fair share of nonsensical acts and ideas in my years at an engineering college. Hell I came up with quite a few myself, but I have never seen one this blatantly ignorant before.

We have: a prototyping board with a battery strapped to it, an image of a man on fire, a hand full of putty, and an attitude. I feel absolutely zero sympathy for her. If she would have taken a couple seconds to say "I'm an engineer and I enjoy building things. Here is what this does..." or not been playing with a putty, things could have turned out much different.

Damn... and so close

[xednieht]

to a Darwin award

Stupid to try what?

[DoctorNathaniel]

Remember that she was not attempting to board a flight, and was only picking someone up at the airport.

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:Stupid to try what?

[richardellisjr]

First off you may be extremely intelligent and know a little about electronics, but to assume the rest of the world is the same is just crazy. Secondly if the people who guard our safety have suspicion that something is a bomb I'd prefer they investigate and not give it the benefit of doubt. To suggest they shouldn't investigate is assine at best. Secondly if they thought it was a bomb others would think the same thing, which no matter how you put it is a risk to the safety of the people around this girl. I may have been able to tell it posed no threat, but is BillyBob next to me going to be able to or is he going to panic scream bomb and get people hurt as they try to flee?

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.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[Mr. Underbridge]

A grade 12 education could have defused this in seconds, but instead we have a super bright person being oppressed by the stupid.

No, we have a 'bright' idiot provoking cops who lack a EE degree and patience, and finding out what happens when you do that. Seriously, do you think she wasn't *trying* to get a fun reaction from the authorities? This is just another spoiled little brat looking for rebellion from her middle-class existence and biting off a lot more than she was prepared to chew.

wearing crude electronics and holding putty...

[gsfprez]

and then not responding to someone's question about what she had?

hmmmm.

maybe instead, she should have worn roadflares taped together as a haltertop. Then her intentions would have been much clearer.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Lack of education breeds fear and fascism

[kafkar]

Why do you need to be fashionable when riding on public transportation? You're probably not going to see any of the people ever again, so wearing something like this is clearly a desparate grab for attention, and it looks like she got what she wanted. Guns were probably not necessary, unless she was being unrulely, which it doesn't seem like she was? It's naive to think they wouldn't do anything about electronics strapped to someone's chest, even if it does look "artsy"

My Thoughts

[GodCandy]

First: I agree that after some inspection there is no way that was a bomb. Mainly because as a logical rational person what sort of terrorist would walk up to the counter and flash his bomb. Thats like calling to have the airport evacuated before you blow it up. There in the business of killing innocent people, not letting them get away due to there own stupidity.

Second: How can one person be that stupid. I am hesitant to carry my car keys as they might suspect the alarm button to be a remote detonator and arrest me. Most logical people would not wear anything even remotely close to that into the airport. Most would not even pack it in there carry on luggage for fear of being harassed by security at every checkpoint.

I cant see any reason to state that the police over reacted. I would rather see them over react in these situations than change policy and when something really is happening they are too busy being careful that they are truly dealing with a real terrorist. Would it have been better if the police had spent 20 more minutes trying to determine if it were a bomb at which point if it were a terrorist they would have detonated it by then. Of course I have always advocated shoot first ask questions later.

I hope she enjoys jail. I also hope that MIT kicks her out for being an idiot.

"I 'owned' Boston Logan!"

[sciop101]

Star Simpson has the bragging rights to the t-shirt, the hat, and "Wired" magazine cover!

No job In Government. She blew any chance of a security clearance.

She can always teach high school. Common Sense is not needed, just a sense of humor and air of commitment.

Potential Darwin Award winner.

[BigFire]

Seriously, does she want to be remove from the gene pool? Doing this is a location to get the rise out of the security guard might be worth a couple giggle back at MIT Media Lab, but have she thought of the aftermath? Logan Airport should send her a bill for their time and effort wasted. Anyone who's travel got disrupted by her act should also send her a bill. Perhaps a couple of hundred thousand of dollar should jolt some bit of common sense into her.

Provoking

[wonkavader]

Nah, she was holding playdough. She was baiting them.

I think the security guys are morons, but this one left them with no choice. Without the playdough, things would be different, but with it, it's the right reaction.

Hot Taser Action?

[Mongoose Disciple]

Thankfully because she followed our instructions, she ended up in our cell instead of a morgue," Pare said.

I assume she responded to their challenge with the universal, "Don't tase me, dude!"

Good grief!!

[SuperKendall]

It looks like a breadboard to anybody involved with electronics. Explosives have electronics attached to something that goes boom. Unless they thought her boobs were filled with plastic explosives there's really not much there.

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:Good grief!!

[2short]

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:Good grief!!

[TrekkieGod]

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.

And if there's still some common sense in the world, you'd be arrested for assault immediately after that.

You should not freak out everytime you see something that looks unfamiliar. In the US, we live in a pretty safe society, and if you see a kid wearing wires and lights 9,999,999 out of 10,000,000 times you can be sure it's just a form of expression.

Now, I understand that the moment she would try to cross the security checkpoint that they would pull her aside and examine her. Make sure she's not actually carrying anything dangerous. They do that to everyone, right? I have to go through the metal detector, remove my laptop from my bag, etc. If you're carrying extra stuff glued to your clothing, you should expect to have that examined to if you're going through the security checkpoint.

I can also understand that the police would show up in force with the machine guns. They got a call from an idiot employee that somebody is wearing what looks like a bomb. They need to take that seriously. However, once they saw what it was, they should have let her go on her merry way and told everyone that it was a false alarm.

She's an idiot.

Yeah, in the sense that she wasn't smart enough to realize that there are way too many idiots out there who think terrorists show up wearing breadboard with led's bombs on their chests to airports. I certainly wouldn't show up to an airport dressed like that. However, being an idiot isn't a crime. If it is, they forgot to arrest the employee that called the police.

Re:Good grief!!

[Medievalist]

I think your comments are remarkably sane and well balanced, but I personally don't think the Boston police should be trusted with machine guns. I mean, they blew up their own traffic monitor, and they spent $2 million dollars over-reacting to a advertising campaign. I think they need to be restricted to single-shot weapons like the competent cops generally use.

Re:Good grief!!

[KKlaus]

I understand your sentiment, but frankly, I'd prefer if the police didn't try to use psychoanalysis to detect bombs.

"Well she's wearing it on her sweatshirt, which is in plain sight, so it can't be a bomb."

You're right that there are clearly plenty of threats that fall into the more concealed category, but that doesn't police should ignore obvious threats because they have some gold standard perception about how people think. As someone else here said, sometimes crazy people do crazy things, like wear bombs in plain sight.

Re:Good grief!!

[SuperKendall]

If you were going to try and bomb a plane, why would you try and light your shoe on fire in plain sight of someone next to you? Why not go into the restroom, for example.

Obviously someone seeking to bomb a plane or airport is not entirley rational. So why should we say that they would be rational in all other aspects of behavior?

Re:Good grief!!

[SuperKendall]

And if there's still some common sense in the world, you'd be arrested for assault immediately after that.

Absolutley. And then I would be freed later upon realizing what she was wearing. Being arrested is fine by me if others are safe.

You should not freak out everytime you see something that looks unfamiliar. In the US, we live in a pretty safe society, and if you see a kid wearing wires and lights 9,999,999 out of 10,000,000 times you can be sure it's just a form of expression.

You characterize as "freaking out" wht in fact would be a very calculated desciion that I know would have a lot of negative consequences for myself, but a possible upside that was much greater.

It's not just any sets of wires and lights, is something rigged in specific shapes and patterns that in my best judgement looked too questionable to ignore - I have done a fair amount of electronics work in the past and I would not be able to ignore what she was wearing as mere fancy or artistic expression.

Now, I understand that the moment she would try to cross the security checkpoint that they would pull her aside and examine her. Make sure she's not actually carrying anything dangerous. They do that to everyone, right? I have to go through the metal detector, remove my laptop from my bag, etc. If you're carrying extra stuff glued to your clothing, you should expect to have that examined to if you're going through the security checkpoint.

You really do not grasp the potential here? That well before any security checkpoint a bomber could just go in and hurt as many people as possible? Why should I let that evetuality come to pass if I am able to prevent it? Why should anyone?

I can also understand that the police would show up in force with the machine guns. They got a call from an idiot employee that somebody is wearing what looks like a bomb. They need to take that seriously. However, once they saw what it was, they should have let her go on her merry way and told everyone that it was a false alarm.

And you don't think that anyone ever has done dry tuns to probe a security system, with nothing on them that can lead to arrest at that time.

I don't think she should receive any punishment either, but it is absolutley correct to hold her until motives can be clearly established. What if instead of it being meaningless she had gone with the intent of causing panic even if she didn't have a real bomb on here? You simply cannot let someone go who has displayed that poor a level of judgement, without some examination.

Yeah, in the sense that she wasn't smart enough to realize that there are way too many idiots out there who think terrorists show up wearing breadboard with led's bombs on their chests to airports.

No, I mean in the sense that showing up at the airport with something that can easily be perceived as dangerous can and will get you detained, and as she found out, possibly shot. I know that myself without ever having done so, the outcome with very serious guards was obvious. How is she "smart" to ignore what is obviously going to happen wearing what she did? Being situationally ignorant is not smart.

I certainly wouldn't show up to an airport dressed like that. However, being an idiot isn't a crime. If it is, they forgot to arrest the employee that called the police.

I cannot believe you think that we should just let people wander around with questionable devices on them and never call security at all. That is just being foolhardy and asking for trouble. Security is there for a reason but you cannot rely on ONLY security personel seeing everything, everyone should be at least marginally aware of things around them to the point where they say - hey, something's not right. She's a hero, not an idiot - because she dared to take action in the face of people like yourself who would rather live life with your head in the sand and leave trouble to "the authorities". The day the people of the US are not also "the authorities" is they day we no longer have a country.

Re:Good grief!!

[2short]

I don't think you do understand my sentiment, I'm not asking them to use any psychoanalysis. Her sweatshirt should not be considered a threat, not because of any thinking about the mental state of a potential terrorist, but because it is inherently less threatening looking than a briefcase. The briefcase has more space for more mass of explosives. Blinking lights are not an "obvious threat", they're just not dangerous at all in the fist place.

    Some information-desk staffer saw something unusual, but obviously non-threatening if they'd though about it. But instead of thinking about it they thought "Bomb!", and notified the police. A stupid reaction, and a poor reflection on the paranoia of our times, but OK, people make dumb judgments, it happens. So the cops reacted appropriately to the report they got, up to the point where they apprehended her and figured out what we're talking about is a blinky-light name tag. At that point they obviously should have said "Whoops, sorry miss, hope we didn't frighten you, have a nice day." End of story.

Instead, they are charging her with a crime, talking to the news about "fake bombs". It's not a fake bomb; it's a real name tag. Every carry on in that airport is a more convincing "fake bomb"; hers isn't big enough. She should sue for false arrest and defamation.

Re:Good grief!!

[TrekkieGod]

You characterize as "freaking out" wht in fact would be a very calculated desciion that I know would have a lot of negative consequences for myself, but a possible upside that was much greater.

When the "possible upside" only happens in a situation that is perhaps more unlikely than getting hit by lightning...yes, I do. I don't avoid going out in the rain because I fear getting hit by lightning, although that's certainly a possible scenario. I avoid going out in the rain because I don't like getting wet.

It's not just any sets of wires and lights, is something rigged in specific shapes and patterns that in my best judgement looked too questionable to ignore - I have done a fair amount of electronics work in the past and I would not be able to ignore what she was wearing as mere fancy or artistic expression.

I'm an EE, and I question your statement for a couple of reasons. First because, even though I don't know much about bombs, I'm pretty sure that the electronics aren't the part of the bomb that blow up. It's just there to spark the explosive. So, given that the exact same circuit that causes some led's to blink at a predefined time could be used to trigger an explosive at a predefined time, the obvious conclusion is that no amount of wires and lights can ever be suspicious. If you see the explosive, worry. If you see electronics, there's nothing to fear. You don't trust a terrorist's ability to hide the damn thing in a cell phone package? If you're worried about the electronics part of the bomb, why are you afraid of just the unprofessional-looking variety?

Another reason I question your statement, is that as an EE, back when I was a freshman in college, I had to make circuits like that for homework and take it in to class (actually mine had more chips along with the led's, so maybe you'd think it was even more ominous). I'd take the breadboard with me to fast food restaurants the day they were due, and would add the finishing touches while I ate. Nobody ever blinked an eye. Well, sometimes people would ask me, "that looks cool, what is it?" but nobody was ever afraid it was a freaking bomb. So how exactly do you, having done a "fair amount of electronics work in the past" would think it was one?

You really do not grasp the potential here? That well before any security checkpoint a bomber could just go in and hurt as many people as possible? Why should I let that evetuality come to pass if I am able to prevent it? Why should anyone?

Somebody else posted an incredibly insightful comment here about that. People have bags in airports. Any one of those could conceal a bomb. Before any security checkpoint, someone with a bomb inside their luggage could just go in and hurt as many people as possible. Why are you letting that happen? Why aren't you attacking everyone with a bag? Why should you let the eventuality of someone detonating a bomb hidden in their bag before the security checkpoint come to pass if you are able to prevent it? Why should anyone? Do you not grasp the potential here?

I don't think she should receive any punishment either, but it is absolutley correct to hold her until motives can be clearly established. What if instead of it being meaningless she had gone with the intent of causing panic even if she didn't have a real bomb on here? You simply cannot let someone go who has displayed that poor a level of judgement, without some examination.

If someone wears something to a crowded place with the intent of causing panic, I agree with you that's illegal. However what I'm criticizing here is a society that would panic because someone is wearing that. I can't fathom anyone seeing that and thinking it's suspicious. Ugly maybe, but dangerous?

Being situationally ignorant is not smart.

Like I said, I wouldn't have worn that stuff to an airport either, so I agree with you the student wasn't very

Re:Good grief!!

[SuperKendall]

When the "possible upside" only happens in a situation that is perhaps more unlikely than getting hit by lightning

And your at a location is the equivilent of a giant metal rod as far as being a target...

If I saw someone like that downtown or at a mall but I wouldn't think twice. Going into an airport? Different matter, you are ignoring context.

I'm an EE and I question your statement for a couple of reasons...

I minored in EE, I've built my own share of breadboards. And I was interested in exploses as a kid (for the entertainment value) so I imagine between the two I know wuote a bit more about what we are talking about than you you.

Of course it's not the electronics that explode. Conider the images - a large box with obvious electronics, attached to the front a sweatshirt. Even without the Play-Doh placed to look extra suggesitve, that would be pretty damn suspicous by itself - why not carry this box instead of attach it to your shirt? Again context is key - anywhere else I would think it was odd but interesting, but at an airport that's just insane - it also manages to bring forh the image of suicide bombers that weare explosves at waist level for a reason. Even just the same object being carried would arouse far less suspicion, in myself and others.

People have bags in airports. Any one of those could conceal a bomb

Yes, and I don't think anything of them. But that's totally irelevant in the face of someone who chooses t obring something extremely odd into an airport out in the open.

I myself had an even more incisive comment in response - why on earth would you ascribe rational behaviour (placing a bomb in a bag) to someone performing a completley irrational act (blowing up a bunch of innocent people). Sure you or I might decide to put a bomb in a bag - but WE'RE NOT BRINGING BOMBS ANYWHERE.

I can't fathom anyone seeing that and thinking it's suspicious. Ugly maybe, but dangerous?

Agan, we are at an airport. Totally different symbology and meaning of the location.

Again I must point out, that knowing exactly how security forces would treat what I saw I would e compelled to treat it equally as a threat - she is going to be stopped sooner or later, why not by a citizen instead of the police who actually have guns and might kill her? I can only ever be doing such a person a favor, and might be helping a good many more people in the bargain.

Insane Reaction.

[Erris]

I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear such a device to the airport. We had someone with a submachine gun at the airport go right to the scene.

No, I'm not making that up, I got it from Boing Boing.

Imagine a crowded airport and you are in charge. There's a bomb! Do you:

A. Order an evacuation, delay and restrain bomber, send snipers and demand surrender.
B. Send in the A team, guns a-blazing!

The only lucky thing here is that she was given the time to take her shirt off before everyone was gunned down.

A machine gun. Afuckingmachineguninthegoddamnedairport! That's not protection, it's intimidation and terror. Who needs bombers with "friends" like that.

TSA - Terrorist Success Agency.

Re:Insane Reaction.

[Mr. Slippery]

TSA - Terrorist Success Agency.

I am so making that into a t-shirt...

Settlers of Catan

[strider2k]

I jammed my carry-on with Settlers of Catan pieces and was pulled over for "examination" since the roads looked like carrots and the resource cards bound together with a rubber-band looks like some electronic device shaped like a cube.

It was annoying but at least I know that the airport personnel are closely watching.

Re:It's official. The terrorists have won.

[TheRagingTowel]

Osama bin Laden must be laughing his beard off watching us Americans collectively shit our pants over a breadboard with some wires sticking out of it. Great straw-man argument.

I EXPECT security personal at airports to be paranoid, or else you would never had the guts to board a flight... If such security wasn't in place a lot more planes would have blown out of the skies. On top of that, as a Physics grad and EE enthusiast who really knows his way with breadboards - and believe me, if I'd seen her in an airport like that while being armed I would have definitely put a bullet through her head.

Fuck, she could be the first MIT grad who is nominated for a Darwin Award. And I bet she could win!

Here's an idea...

[ChePibe]

Do NOT EVER use an item that could, in a split second decision by someone without technical knowledge, be construed as a weapon, PERIOD.

What this genius did could be compared to walking up to the guards with an air soft pistol in hand. Does the item present any serious risk? No. Could the item be easily construed to present such a threat? Yes. Granted, a gun is a universally understood object, and something designed to appear like a gun should reasonably be taken as one at face value.

She did not, obviously, use an airsoft gun in this case. She instead wired a board to a bunch of putty/play dough. A reasonable person, with a split second to make the judgment, could - and in my opinion, should - stop this person right in their tracks. Unlike a gun, which takes on a generally easy to determine shape, a bomb can exist in many forms and a person without adequate training cannot be expected to identify them all. So, it is reasonable - particularly given the grave threat of allowing a bomb to enter an aircraft with hundreds of people on board - for untrained personnel to cast a very wide net, particularly when an idiot who not only straps a few circuit boards to herself but then wires them to PUTTY. I mean how STUPID can you possibly be?

Think about it from the TSA's point of view. A person walks up to the security line with what looks like a SUICIDE WEAPON strapped to her. A suicide bomber, by definition willing to give up his own life, can generally only be stopped by the immediate use of deadly force. The TSA acted with remarkable restraint in this situation and, unlike every other time I have personally had to deal with them (took them an hour to decide if I could put a paintball gun which looked nothing like a real gun in my check baggage without a mountain of paperwork, mistook bottle of souvenir sand for liquid, the list goes on), I must say they did a very good job here. This girl was lucky to walk away alive.

Re:Here's an idea...

[esecasco]

Anything can be a weapon to someone at some point. If I happen to pull my pen out to sign something, but I pulled it out the wrong way, "OMG call the police, he has a stabbing weapon!" Any real terrorist that would actually be able to do some damage would stop and think, "hmm, they're paranoid, but everyone uses cell phones, I'll conceal this in a cell phone like package"

Cry for attention

[MitchInOmaha]

Wearing something like that into an airport is just asking for trouble. It's not even being naive, just flat out rebellious and stupid. It's really not that hard to wear an unmodified sweatshirt to pick up your friend at the airport. -- Mitch

Especially since

[Sycraft-fu]

According to the EOD guys I know, modeling clay/plasticine is the type of stuff they use when simulating explosives. Whether it be an official thing like training, or given a fake bomb to a coworker to let them try their skills on it, materials like that were what was used as a stand in for actual plastic explosives. The reason being that it looks similar, can be moulded in a similar fashion, and apparently even looks very similar in an X-ray.

Thus it is not a stretch to think that people might wonder if it were the real deal, especially since she didn't answer questions about it. Simply saying "Oh it's art, this is just modeling clay," would have gone a long way.

Not all bombs are subtle

[sirwired]

There is a well-known case of some bad guys convincing their friend to walk into a bank with a bomb visibly strapped to his body to rob the place. They told him the bomb was fake. It wasn't. The robbery went south, and the friend wasn't able to meet up with the bad guys to get the bomb off. The police didn't round up the bomb squad in time. The bomb went off, and the guy died.

Sometimes folks want to make a statement before doing bad things. No, not necessarily terrorists, but they aren't the only murderous folks in the world.

Google for Brian Douglas Wells for full details.

SirWired

An honorary Darwin Award...

[equimarginal]

... should be given to this girl. So close, it practically counts.

Her fault

[Kal42]

I'm as against all the crazy regulations as the next guy, but come on. The girl goes into an airport with something that looks suspicious, and doesn't respond to questions about it. She's asking for trouble.

Addendum

[ChePibe]

(yes, responding to my own post)

Do NOT EVER use an item that could, in a split second decision by someone without technical knowledge, be construed as a weapon, PERIOD.

Referring here to bombs or toy guns that look close enough to the untrained/unfamiliar eye, and referring specifically to instances where one could reasonably expect to have a run in with law enforcement/security.

"Hoax device"

[Belgand]

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.

What is a "hoax device?"

[yuna49]

From TFA:
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.

Just what exactly is a "hoax device," and how would I know if I were carrying one? And why is carrying one illegal?

If I wanted to blow up an airport terminal I'd put the bomb in an attache case like all those businesspeople are carrying, not wear it on the front of my body. Real bombers don't wear signs that say, "Look at me, I'm a bomber!"

I used to like living in the Boston area, but after this case, and the "management" of protestors to the 2004 Democratic Convention, and the Aqua Teen idiocy, I'm beginning to wonder. All of this is the result of the 9/11 planes having flown from Logan Airport.

Let me just add one other anecdote. Just before the 2004 election, parents at one of the elementary schools in my Boston-area suburb caused an enormous ruckus over whether the city was doing enough to protect their children in case someone was going to blow up their school on election day. (This was around the time of the Chechen school takeover.) I live in (the less wealthy part of) a rather upper-middle-class community where nearly everyone is at least college-educated if not more so. Yet here we had a bunch of parents forcing the school committee, the Board of Alderman, and the Mayor to spell out how they were going to protect elementary schools against supposed terrorist bombers. Out of the millions of potential targets in America that might can any intelligent person really think terrorists would single out an elementary school in some Boston suburb?

reality check

[King Gabey]

When the news first broke I thought it was a callous prank. But as the details unfolded, I had a completely different picture. It's a 19 year old girl, who made a blinky star to put on her hoodie. I'm sure Star was very pleased with it. The back of her hoodie said "Socket to me". It sounds perfectly normal to me, especially for an MIT kid. And to someone like her, the breadboard probably looks completely innocuous. What's amusing to me is when they questioned her about the playdo, "she didn't have a good answer". Come on now. Think of all the things you did for no reason at 19!

Re:reality check

[yuna49]

I taught at the Institute for about a decade, and kids wore stuff like this all the time. She could have easily put it on to wear to class then drove out to the airport to pick up her friend.

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.

Re:reality check

[pthor1231]

It wasn't when the guns were pointed at her that she was tongue tied though, but when an airport employee asked her about it, after Star approached the airport employee. Granted the hoax device charge may be a bit much though.

So Al Qaeda really has won the war on terror?

[friend.ac]

Sorry to troll... but if everyone's rushing around worrying about some tech art (admittedly with a bit of immaturity on the side of the wearer), and held at gunpoint with the wording "its lucky she's in a cell not a morgue" certainly strikes me that Al Qaeda really has won the war on terror.

Re:It's official. The terrorists have won.

[Stiletto]

None of your links seem to work, but here are a few of mine:

Not a bomb.
Not a bomb.
Not a bomb.
Not a bomb.
Not a bomb.
Not a bomb.
Not a bomb.

Bombs tend to have an explosive payload of some kind, and they also tend to be too heavy to simply dangle from a shirt without some means of securing them. I'm surprised AIRPORT SECURITY doesn't know this. I am also alarmed at the "assume something is a bomb until proven otherwise" mentality.

It was a bunch of wires sticking out of a breadboard. I know people in general aren't that bright, but come on. We aren't talking about a to-scale gun replica here.

Joking is a crime

[FlopEJoe]

AFAIK, it's a crime to even joke that you have a bomb or other explosive. It's been around since before 9/11 and Bush. If that's the case then, no matter what I think it looks like, it probably looks like a bomb to a lot of people.

Perhaps less immediately dangerous

[smchris]

Did anyone ever follow Penn Jillette's PC Computing article and set their computer to autorun a program that flashes: "10", "9", "8", "7".....

Reminds me of the Fear boxes in NYC

[Dekortage]

See here:

"Clinton Boisvert, an art student at the School of Visual Arts in New York City, placed ominous black boxes labeled "Fear" in the Union Square subway station for a school project. His teacher, Barbara Schwartz, praised the project and gave the student an "A" in her class. She said the 25-year-old student intended to observe the public's reaction to his project.... Well he certainly got a reaction. In the bustling transit hub that I use continually people were frightened. An evacuation was forced for five hours after the 37 'Fear' boxes were taped to the walls, pillars and benches in this subway station."

A machine gun is reasonable in crowd?

[Erris]

They arrested her at gunpoint, which I don't anyone would think is unreasonable given an unresponsive subject potentially carrying a bomb.

I've read that they sent a man with a sub machine gun. Who do they think they were going to protect with that? At that rate, the bomb would have done less harm if there was one. Everyone is lucky some 19 year old TSA agent did not gun down the whole crowd.

When you consider the fact that most bombs have dead man switches, pointing a gun is both useless and stupid if the bomber is not walking to a place where they can hurt more people.

Another "Boston Stunt"

[Unknown Relic]

Much like the Boston stunt with the Aqua force whatever team signs....this is horrible overreaction."

Logan Airport where this happened is also in Boston...

Awesome person

[hklingon]

I want to be her friend. We need more people like this in the world.

She really did nothing wrong and probably feels that the world around her has gone crazy... her crime, like many of ours, is that she's a bit smarter than average and probably has a slightly twisted sense of humor as a result. I mean.. who among us, especially on Slashdot, can really say we haven't constructed something similar in the past?

Everyone has lost their mind and the terrorists really have won. This is probably worth 3 days of special reports from NBC... It really sucks for her because I'm sure this one episode will linger with her for years, years and years and no one really deserves to have that kind of mental baggage rattling around from something so innocuous. "Remember that time I was minding my own business but something I didn't realize would scare people scared enough people that a team of hitmen had to take me out and it was covered by 11 television networks and 50 or so newspapers?" I don't understand why, at every level of society, human beings make other human beings jump through ridiculous and endless series of hoops just to get from A to B.

I went to a robotics competition once, on the opposite side of the US with my team from college. It was before the whole terrorism thing. We crated the robot up in a 2 foot foam and cardboard cube at the airport and my tools were among our carry on luggage. Included butane, soldering equipment, rosin core solder, micro torch, electric screwdriver, mini drill (for drilling PCBs or wire-wrap stuff) and a lot of other similar things. It didn't occur to me, my teacher, or anyone on the team, that this might be an issue. As my toolbox disappeared into the x-ray scanner I felt a twinge of panic.. the security guard raised one eyebrow and asked what "..is all this for?" After I swallowed most of my internal organs, I explained what we were doing and he waved us through. Good times. good times.

The conversation, at worst, should have been.. Security Guard: "Can I see your ID? What is this?" HEr: "Here is my MIT student ID and this is my career day shirt. See? Socket To Me?" Guard: "MIT? Eh, probably shouldn't wear this around her with people being crazy and all... here, have a bag?". But of course it never will be because that would require independent thought on the part of.. someone... at some point during the ordeal. The security guard(s) involved were probably following the rules.. but again.. you cannot substitute rules for brains.. and the "rules" were created with the worst possible situation in mind. BS like this tells me eventually they'll be one rule: "If you see something out of the ordinary, PRESS THE BIG RED EMERGENCY BUTTON" which promptly gasses everyone and then whatever is sorted out while everyone is unconscious. Tazer first and ask questions later anyone?

Re:Awesome person

[ksheff]

I guess you didn't read the part where the person at the information booth asked her what was on her shirt and she just walked away w/o answering. What you suggested as the conversation is what should have taken place, but didn't. Who is at fault for that?

She was 13

[gillbates]

When 9/11 happened. She probably does not understand the impact that it had on the psyches of Bostonians, especially those involved in air travel.

In a post-9/11 world... We have lost all common sense.

How about some more prattling, "In a post-9/11 world..."

• How can we justify airline employees not being able to differentiate between a bomb and breadboard? Flying with electronic prototypes (complete with wires hanging out) used to be a regular part of my job. I've been twice searched by security with such devices and never held at gunpoint.
• How can we justify hiring and retaining officers who cannot immediately recognize the difference between something likely to be a bomb and an electronic project? (HINT: explosive is required. Wires and lights alone won't work). You would think that with the recent Mooninite (sp?) scare, police would have updated their training. Apparently not.
• How did she even get into the airport in the first place? She was wearing it! How did security miss that? If she had been a bomber, she could have killed quite a few people, and yet security didn't react until an employee called them.

Quite frankly, what she did probably wasn't the smartest thing to do. But the reaction is appalling; what will happen when a toddler breaks his electronic toy and the wires spill out? Will the toddler be held at gunpoint? Will Boston charge the parents with creating a hoax device?

If anyone doesn't believe that stupidity and authority don't mix, they need look no further than Boston.

Wow... fear mongering really works.

[Pitr]

OK, I'm seeing a lot of posts about how dumb this girl is. Have you looked at the shirt? It's really not threatening unless you watch too much TV. And play doh, or silly putty do NOT look like C4, nor do terrorists go walking around playing with it, or wearing a detonator on their chest. They would try to conceal it.

Boston has a problem. If you saw the last bomb scare you probably laughed. Mind you no one had a MACHINE GUN pointed at them then. Who thought a machine gun was a good idea? Wouldn't you want a sharp shooter perhaps? A machine gun has a much greater chance of civilian casualties.

The air port f*cked up here, and the girl didn't think there was anything wrong with her shirt BECAUSE THERE WASN'T! What if you're wearing one of those blinky shirts from think geek? They're not much different. If she was getting ON a plane then MAYBE there'd be reason to detain her and examine her shirt thoroughly, but not arrest her, and certainly not wip out some automatic weapons.

If you think this was a reasonable response, you've totally bought Bush's kool aid. The boogie man isn't hiding behind every corner. Chill the hell out.

Re:Wow... fear mongering really works.

[agallagh42]

Consider the fact that you can be arrested and convicted for carrying a gift-wrapped package into an airport. Also for just saying the word "bomb" or "hijack", even in casual conversation. Strapping some shoddy electronics to your chest is a really, really bad idea these days, no matter where you are. Not necessarily because it's illegal (it is illegal in an airport, probably not anywhere else), but it's incredibly stupid.

I don't necessarily agree with the laws in place, but that's not going to change the facts. If you go into an airport and pull any kind of stunt like this, expect trouble.

Re:Everyone was nearly shot. Machine Gun!

[znode]

I'm assuming video games are your sole source of firearm knowledge? It shows.

Submachine guns are just pistols with more barrel length. Loaded with hollowpoints, they have more range than pistols, but more importantly, has minimal penetration (stops after hitting just one body or a single piece of wood), minimizing collateral damage or bystander death. A full-powered "sniper" round like .308 can easily penetrate multiple people and multiple walls, tearing up everything in its wake.

Ignorance and idiocy.

[nathan s]

I've seen the pictures.

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.

Re:Ignorance and idiocy.

[winkydink]

All we have right now is her arrest and initial statement. I'd say it's premature to say whether or not it was a hoax. That determination is what one hopes will result from an investigation.

On the surface, if it were just the circuit board, I'd be inclined to agree that this was a kid who made a stupid decision. The circuit board and the Play-Doh together raise my suspicions of her intent.

Re:Ignorance and idiocy.

[nathan s]

Don't forget that we ALSO have the precedent of Boston seriously overreacting with the Mooninites, which is why I mentioned it. I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt given what we know about the apparent intelligence of the security types there.

Re:Ignorance and idiocy.

[JesterXXV]

Based on the evidence we have, yeah, it doesn't seem like a hoax. But that's for the prosecutor to decide at this point, and I'm hopeful they won't bother to press charges.

And I disagree that only an idiot could mistake it for a bomb. If you were in that airport and saw her wearing electronics on her shirt, what would you think? "Bomb" would probably be the first thing to my mind, thanks to hours spent watching movies with bomb-wearing evil-doers. It would take me a few seconds to even consider it a hoax, and even then there's no way to be sure.

And please, nobody bring up 9/11. I'd probably have a similar reaction before that, too, because there have *always* been security checks, signs telling you not to joke about explosives, etc.

Re:Ignorance and idiocy.

[Hoi Polloi]

If she wanted to wear "tech art" how about at a bar or on the street? NOT in a hypersensitive place like an airport.

Re:Ignorance and idiocy.

[PeeAitchPee]

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:Ignorance and idiocy.

[Rakarra]

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.

I totally agree. She should have known better than to wear something like that to an airport and not to stop and answer questions (from any airport personnel) when asked. Two series lapses in judgment I'm sure she won't make again.

Yes, I know that's not what you meant. I thought Boston totally overreacted to the Mooninite thing. But in this case the blame is actually being placed on who it should have been -- the girl at the airport.

Re:Ignorance and idiocy.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Dude, are you on crack? Airport != South Beach runway with anorexic supermodels

DUH! Of course you don't bomb runways with anorexic supermodels... All the model has to do is turn sideways and the explosion completely moves them. Worthless targets...

Re:Ignorance and idiocy.

[SvnLyrBrto]

> And I disagree that only an idiot could mistake it for a bomb. If you were
> in that airport and saw her wearing electronics on her shirt, what would you think?

When I saw that the shirt also had "Course VI" written on it, especially if I was in BOSTON at the time; I'd assume that it was a CS/EE student from MIT being proud of the fact... especially considering that any Course VI student who was so inclined to do so could do a LOT better at building a detonator or timer than a breadboard with some blinkenlights.

cya,
john

Re:Ignorance and idiocy.

[Raenex]

Don't forget that we ALSO have the precedent of Boston seriously overreacting with the Mooninites, which is why I mentioned it. That can also work against her. She should know the environment and realize that some homebrew electronics that could easily be mistaken for an IED should not be worn on her shirt at any airport, let alone Logan airport. It's quite possible she did so knowing full well that it might be mistaken for a bomb. In fact, it seems the most obvious answer. College kids doing foolish things and making political statements? Gee, that never happens.

For trying to provoke people

[Sycraft-fu]

I mean say I decide to come to campus some day apparently armed to the hilt. Guns holstered on my hips, holding a carbine and so on. However the trick is they aren't real guns, they are all rubber replica guns, totally non functional. I'm going to guess the cops would get called and I would be detained at gunpoint. I'd think maybe in a case like that, an apology would be called for. Even though I didn't violate the law and carry weapons on to the campus it would still be acting like an asshole and scaring people.

While it certainly is incumbent on people to be reasonable and not overreact, it is also stupid to try and provoke a reaction, and it isn't ok to justify everything with "But I was just trying to make a point and show..." and so on.

When you do something that shows no common sense and no courtesy to others, it isn't unreasonable to ask that you apologies for that.

Re:For trying to provoke people

[tftp]

IANAL, but you might be arrested for a crime of brandishing a firearm:

1) One who brandishes a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner or uses any firearm unlawfully in a fight is guilty of a misdemeanor. This action is a felony if it takes place on the grounds of any day care center or in the immediate presence of a peace officer. (Penal Code section 417.)

(copied from here)

The "threatening manner" is hard to prove if you are armed on a hunt, and trivially easy to prove if you are armed on campus (where usually weapons are banned, except the police.) And once a police officer approaches you this instantly becomes a felony.

Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed?

[Medievalist]

Hrmmmm.... looking at the "device" from the images on the link makes me think the police overreacted. Come on now.... holding her at gunpoint? 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. Speaking as a person who has been "involved with electronics" for over 30 years, I have to say you are quite wrong. Even turned inside out to show the breadboard (as in the pic) the device in no way looks threatening. Seen as worn normally, it's a light-up shirt and has zero threat value to anyone "involved with electronics".

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.

Re:Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed?

[ScrewMaster]

You can't have a bomb without explosives or at least a detonator and supposedly the TSA is capable of detecting those.

Yes, and if they spent a few hundred million less on untested bomb detectors and a few hundred million more on competent security forces we'd all be a lot better off.

Re:Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed?

[Phanatic1a]

Speaking as a person who has been "involved with electronics" for over 30 years, I have to say you are quite wrong. Even turned inside out to show the breadboard (as in the pic) the device in no way looks threatening.

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

This is the detonator for an IED:

http://fusion94.org/images/missed_call.jpg

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:Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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:Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed?

[Medievalist]

Let me guess: you've never been involved in security. Funniest comment so far! If you only knew.

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. No. False. NOBODY was in ANY danger from people with wires coming out of a shirt. EVERYONE was endangered by the foolish over-reaction of people who are supposedly paid to know what is and isn't a threat. And spin it any way you want, THIS GIRL WAS NO THREAT. The security forces had a ring (think about the stupidity of THAT for a second) of people with fully automatic weapons out in a public place FOR A FALSE ALARM. It's total bullshit to claim they were just doing their jobs, their jobs are to either get people on planes or to stop violence - not to wave weapons around and make wild-assed claims about what somebody's shirt did or didn't look like.

But I suppose your 30 years of electronics experience makes you superior to anyone doing a menial job like security. Ah, nice ad hominem! No, my command of reason and lack of cringing fearfullness makes me superior to you, though.

What the kid did was asshattery. Think of the stress going through the TSA agent when seeing her do these sorts of actions. And that justifies brandishing full-auto weapons in the street? The "kid" was not the menace here. SHE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF HURTING ANYONE. Why are you willing to excuse the police for harassing the innocent? It's their job to know what a threat is, not to fly off the handle when someone does something totally harmless. Why do you support the restriction of individual freedom in order to reassure cowards of their non-existent safety?

Everybody dies, Mr. AC. Some of us will die on our feet, some will die licking the feet of the TSA and begging for another cavity search.

Re:Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed?

[Medievalist]

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. Um, I've worked on thermonuclear weapon delivery systems. Several different ones. I've improvised a few explosive devices in my time, too (although that's more than 30 years in the past).

I will show your pictures to my spouse and children and let you know what a totally untrained eye sees.

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). Using your pictures, I'd say the obvious tell is that the IED was found (probably unattended and surreptitiously placed) in a combat zone, and the shirt was found on a harmless co-ed going about her business. Was that supposed to be a hard question?

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. Well, given that in the year with the most terrorist activity since 1800 your chance of being killed by a terrorist was still far less than 0.001%, and your chance of being accidentally shot to death by police was significantly higher, (and in the last five years zero people have died in a terrorist attack inside the USA while hundreds of people have died falling down the stairs) the method should be to assume that it's NOT a bomb until conclusively proven to be a bomb by a bomb expert. That way, fewer people will be killed even if several bombs go off in crowded airports because we will limit the exposure of people to police with guns. People don't become cops because they are incapable of shooting people, you know. We probably wouldn't want cops incapable of violence.

Don't EE's do math anymore? I switched majors because I couldn't handle Calc 4, but that was in the days of the dinosaurs.

Look at these numbers and tell me if a strategy that "anything that could conceivably be a bomb, should draw massive armed response" makes sense. And think on this, too - any MIT student with half a brain can construct a bomb that's indistinguishable from a common household object. The Soviets could put a nuclear device in a cigarette pack! Why do you think there's any need or purpose served by "airport and security personnel" being able to detect bombs "accurately, at a glance"? If, in some fantasy world, this was actually possible, why should we spend money on superman IED-detecting glasses when spending the same amount of money on nearly any form of disease control would save far more lives? Terrorists are a non-threat compared to the family dog or lightning strikes, for cryin' out loud, why do we need to be so scared that we'd harass tens of thousands of innocent people?

You've been so manipulated in your perception of risk, that you think this girl was in the wrong. But really, I'd bet money that the people we hire to be the TSA are statistically more likely to be terrorists than a coed in a blinky t-shirt with wires hanging out. The goal of terrorising people is not the goal of a patriot or even a normal level-headed individual, it's the goal of terrorists. You win the war on terror when you stop being afraid... most successful religions and philosophies tell us to live our lives so that we don't have to fear our inevitable death, a strategy that every single person should seriously consider.

I dunno

[Steauengeglase]

What she did certainly wasn't the smartest thing, but am I the only one who thinks there is something wrong with Boston? I think it is high time all of the Boston police go through some type of bomb training or something.

I know that girl

[Anonymous Coward]

She's the bomb...

Do consider

[ChePibe]

It looks like a breadboard to anybody involved with electronics. Explosives have electronics attached to something that goes boom. Unless they thought her boobs were filled with plastic explosives there's really not much there.

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:Do consider

[Ihlosi]

2. In a situation with a possible suicide bomber fractions of a second count.

In a situation with a possible suicide bomber, you pump him (better: his head) full of lead (remember what happened to the guy in the UK) and pray that he doesn't have a dead man's switch on the thing. Since the person in question is still alive, either security didn't think that they were dealing with a possible suicide bomber or they're very poorly trained to react to one.

Re:Do consider

[CodeBuster]

The fact that she had something in her hand only increases the level of suspicion, especially when combined with all of the other elements which you have outlined, in my mind. It turned out to be putty, but if you were a security guard then how would you know *what* exactly she was holding in her hand (remember that you get only a brief glance at her entire person before you must react)? It could have just as well been the detonator switch for the "device" integrated into her sweatshirt. The silly girl certainly is fortunate that she was in the United States and not in for example, Israel or near the El-Al terminal when she was confronted. The Israeli security guards would have shot her on sight if she approached them wearing a sweatshirt with flashing LEDs and appeared to be holding something in her hand. The post 9/11 world is no place for the security naive person.

Re:Do consider

[geekgirlandrea]

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:Do consider

[linzeal]

She turned out to have paint on her hands.

Re:Do consider

[pla]

The average security guard/police officer is not involved in electronics

Then perhaps they aught not hold jobs where they make life-and-death decisions about whether a given device can blow up or not.

The guys actually carrying bombs will fashion them to look very much like a laptop or novelty lamp or some other harmless electronic device. They'll make their next improvised knife-like weapon out of the razor-sharp RF shielding inside their cell phones or GBAs. They'll synchronize their attacks by a lunar eclipse or some other natural phenomena.



She did something very, very stupid and is lucky to have walked away alive.

On that, we agree completely - Don't fuck with the guys with guns.

That doesn't make it "right".



The police acted with great restraint and should be commended for it.

By not shooting someone based on (as you yourself point out) their complete lack of understanding of both electronics and explosives?

I don't think the greatest comedic geniuses of history could have written a more scathing indictment of modern society than your exact words.

Re:Do consider

[RobertinXinyang]

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.

I think that if you bother to look, you will see that Police and Airport security make more than electronics types. The supposed low pay of these jobs is a hoax that keeps people willing to constantly hand them more and more money, whenever they ask for it.

Re:Do consider

[dj4aces]

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.

I will commend the police for their restraint when they drop all the charges. Til then, the police should be chided for overreacting yet again to electrical devices.

Re:Do consider

[Scratch-O-Matic]

By not shooting someone based on (as you yourself point out) their complete lack of understanding of both electronics and explosives?

How is your knowledge of dead dogs? There have been bombs along the road in Iraq that look like dead dogs (because, well, they WERE dead dogs.) Also empty cans, and tires, and newspapers, and cinder blocks. Would you recognize any of those things as bombs? Probably not. But they had one thing in common: they were all detonated WITH AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE. That's something that many of the security experts here on Slashdot have overlooked: you can argue all day about what a bomb looks like, but one irrefutable fact is that virtually all bombs have a detonating device featuring some sort of simple ciruitry. So her shirt featured a device that DOES LOOK very much like a detonating device, and while electronics are very common, electronics on the front of a shirt are extremely UNCOMMON. So a threat was perceived, and it was checked out by armed police who took precautions and controlled the situation but did not use deadly force.

To be honest with you, I'm on the fence about whether she should have been charged. I do think that if they determined or suspected that she did it on purpose to cause trouble, then charges are appropriate. If she was truly so unbelievably dense as to not recognize the potential problem of wearing her novelty shirt to the airport, then perhaps she should just be let go with a warning.

Re:Do consider

[pla]

they were all detonated WITH AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE.

OMG! You posted that message WITH AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE! Quick, take him out, alpha team!

Sorry, I honestly don't mean to sound like a jerk here - But should we really treat anyone in posession of an unidentified electronic device as though they have a bomb?

In the modern world, even the typical stuffed animal contains sufficient electronics to detonate a bomb. If it smiles after hearing its name, you just wire the relay to the lip-servo and name it "Excuse me, Sir". The fact that someone would bother wearing a protoboard on the outside of their clothing pretty much makes it a dead giveaway that they pose no threat to anything except their own social life.

You ask if I count as an expert in dead dogs. No, I can't say that I do. Should I therefore start reporting every instance of roadkill I see to the FBI?

Re:Do consider

[Scratch-O-Matic]

But should we really treat anyone in posession of an unidentified electronic device as though they have a bomb?

Nope. But a person with a device that looks like it could be a detonator attached to her chest in a high security area (which an airport is, even outside of the checkpoints) certainly warrants a second look. And in a situation involving a potential bomb, there is only one way to take that second look.

The "if it's not hidden then it's not a threat" definitely falls into the "I'm not actually responsible for anybody's safety, so I feel free to criticize those who are" category of thought.

Re:Do consider

[kevinbr]

By your criterion, everything in the airport could conceal a bomb. And you know what - this is true. So essentially the whole exercise of trying to spot the bomb via visual means is futile.

The reality is this says more about how so many Americans are ready to dispense with civil rights and freedom.

Osama - 2
US - 0

( one point for 9/11 and one point for convincing Americans to give up freedom)

Re:Do consider

[Scratch-O-Matic]

By your criterion, everything in the airport could conceal a bomb.

Again, the focus here is not on the BOMB but on the DETONATOR. There was, in fact, a highly unusual, visible device that looked very similar to a detonating device.

So essentially the whole exercise of trying to spot the bomb via visual means is futile.

Tell that to the Israelis, who periodically stop suicide bombers based on visual clues. Guess they should just give it up.

Re:I think it was total police over reaction

[jamie(really)]

Isn't is the job of the police to collect evidence AFTER a crime is committed, not to kill people they think may commit a crime?

The police did not kill this person. The police do have a duty to investigate suspicious activity.

You are the "Crazy" Ones

[dblagbro]

Everyone who thinks they have something to say about this based on Star being 'crazy' or that 'the cops have to react like this to any threat' is only looking at the outer peel of the onion. there's a much deeper question inside the onion than simply 'is she crazy'... its why are we all crazy as a country? why, to protect america, do we trash what is good about america? like the kid who got tazered for excercising his freedom of speech, or the fact that we feel cops have to draw their guns if someone makes a t-shirt with electronics on it... and then call them crazy for doing it. its a free country isn't it? if so, why can't she do it? seriously, why not? if a terrorist were to wear a bomb in the airport, THEY WOULD HAVE IT ON THE INSIDE YOU STUPID @$$ES!!! i'm an ex-cop and i know this: i wouldn't have pulled my weapon were i present. knowing the level of thought that the average cop is capable of however, i would immediately have informed all other cops of the fact that it was an inocuous device clearly displayed so that they wouldn't over-react like these clowns. why do terrorists want to kill us? this is the deeper question still within the layers of the onion. "they are extremeists" the government will tell you but "we keep shipping guns to their countries and bringing out war by sponsoring death merchants" is the real reason. this country is its own worst enemy and we need more "crazy" people to point it out to you who don't see it... open your eyes. if you can't wear whatever you want where ever you want, i don't want to live there. today's electronics are tomorrows jewish yamacha's (sp?), arab veils, pot-leaf t-shirts, rapper t-shirts, foreign / random symbols that could 'cause fear' for someone who is intimidated by something they don't know.... don't laugh, this is the next step and these steps have all happened somewhere in this "land of the free" lol, sorry, always laugh when i say that.

Re:Not sure this thing looks like a bomb, myself

[morgan_greywolf]

Have you even been to an airport? Did you RTFA? I'm guessing you answered 'no' to one of those questions.

Star Simpson, 19, was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and approached an airport employee in Terminal C at 8 a.m. to inquire about an incoming flight from Oakland, according to Major Scott Pare of the State Police. She was holding a lump of what looked like putty in her hands. The employee asked about the plastic circuit board on her chest, and Simpson walked away without responding, Pare said.

If you've ever been to an airport, you'll know that you can't get anywhere near a terminal without making it through at least one security screening checkpoint. So the DHS people let her through the security checkpoint with the 'bomb-looking thing' attached to her shirt.

joke her if she cant take a Fuk

[deftones_325]

I'm so sick of girls with a "cause". Guys do it too.. but it just seems that the girls do it with an even more ignorant/innocent knowledge base about how your actions are going to be viewed by the majority of(uneducated)people out there. Something about.. If a dude did that he would bend over and take the punishment the coppers dish out. The chick is gonna cry "abuse" and "mistreatment".

right

[circletimessquare]

because people who strap bombs to themselves are always following rational thought

Re:I think it was total police over reaction

[FroBugg]

Let me get this straight.

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?

You are all the "Crazy" ones....

[dblagbro]

Everyone who thinks they have something to say about this based on Star being 'crazy' or that 'the cops have to react like this to any threat' is only looking at the outer peel of the onion.
there's a much deeper question inside the onion than simply 'is she crazy'... its why are we all crazy as a country?

why, to protect america, do we trash what is good about america? like the kid who got tazered for excercising his freedom of speech, or the fact that we feel cops have to draw their guns if someone makes a t-shirt with electronics on it... and then call them crazy for doing it.

its a free country isn't it? if so, why can't she do it? seriously, why not? if a terrorist were to wear a bomb in the airport, THEY WOULD HAVE IT ON THE INSIDE YOU STUPID @$$ES!!! i'm an ex-cop and i know this: i wouldn't have pulled my weapon were i present. knowing the level of thought that the average cop is capable of however, i would immediately have informed all other cops of the fact that it was an inocuous device clearly displayed so that they wouldn't over-react like these clowns.

why do terrorists want to kill us? this is the deeper question still within the layers of the onion. "they are extremeists" the government will tell you but "we keep shipping guns to their countries and bringing out war by sponsoring death merchants" is the real reason.

this country is its own worst enemy and we need more "crazy" people to point it out to you who don't see it... open your eyes. if you can't wear whatever you want where ever you want, i don't want to live there. today's electronics are tomorrows jewish yamacha's (sp?), arab veils, pot-leaf t-shirts, rapper t-shirts, foreign / random symbols that could 'cause fear' for someone who is intimidated by something they don't know.... don't laugh, this is the next step and these steps have all happened somewhere in this "land of the free" lol, sorry, always laugh when i say that.

So how do you react?

[Radon360]

is the penalty for being a college student doing dumb things summary execution?

So what would be the proper procedure to approaching someone that has presented themselves with a strong suspicion of carrying a bomb?

"Excuse me, but may we examine your shirt, we think you might be carrying a bomb."

Recognizing that in a situation where someone wearing an explosive device into an airport is already predisposed to killing themselves in the process of detonating it, what action do you take? You gosh darned want to do whatever is necessary to prevent the bomber from escalating the situation by arming and detonating their device. Unfortunately, split-second lethal force may be all that is available to do this.

I think the law enforcement personnel should be commended that they were able to de-escalate this situation without shooting first and asking questions later.

What's an illusion?

[TihSon]

Control is an illusion.

Seriously, all this article shows is the great lengths we as a culture will go to in order to maintain our illusion of safety. Guns have been drawn, headlines have been written ... so the illusion is in fine working order. All that remains is to nail the naive little school monkey to the nearest tree to make an example of her.

Perceived Threat = Threat

[aphxtwn]

Hoax or not all suspicious devices need to be examined and treated like a real threat. Sure it's an overreaction, but it's better to err on the side of caution.

oh ok

[circletimessquare]

so what does that fact change? was she undeserving of the reaction she got then?

(smirk)

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[ps3udonym]

She is a MIT student in Electrical Eng and Comp Sci. She REALLY isn't thinking about what she is wearing.

Since when is "provoking authorities" ever been an excuse for taking someone's rights away? What happened to "It is better that a thousand guilty men be freed than one innocent man suffer for a crime he didn't commit", or to paraphrase "innocent until PROVEN guilty".

There are two parts to any crime, the action and the INTENT. Did she intend to deceive authorities into thinking the "device" is a bomb.. highly unlikely as she didn't refer to it as such. It was an ASSUMPTION that those police made. How many of these assumptions have paid off??.. well so far NONE. So lets grab another famous quote (paraphrased) from the founding fathers that sums it all up;

"those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither."

Those officers deserve neither liberty or security for what they have done, nor do those who gave them the power to act in such a manner in the first place.

Now they say there was no putty.

[Medievalist]

Did you miss the part where she was also holding putty? Now they say she just had paint on her hands. I do too, right now, because I'm a sloppy painter. It'll come off eventually but in the meantime I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't TOTALLY FUCKING PANIC.

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. 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?

Re:Now they say there was no putty.

[springbox]

Ever hear of self expression? I guess the world would be better if everyone was bland and predictable.

Re:Now they say there was no putty.

[masdog]

Self-expression is great, and I'm all for it. I'm also for people having enough frickin common-sense to know that there are times and places for certain kinds of self-expression as it may, just may, incite a panic. For example, walking through an airport with a breadboard on your chest...

Re:Now they say there was no putty.

[MCZapf]

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.

Re:Now they say there was no putty.

[indiechild]

Bravo. You said what few dare to say. The world is overrun with indignant cowards nowadays. Fear and FUD are the order of the day.

Re:Now they say there was no putty.

[SuperKendall]

Now they say she just had paint on her hands.

Dude, there was also Play-Doh on the device. You can't wiggle your way out of this one.

No, you are a coward.

I see, I am a coward for potentially scarificing myself and letting scores of others live.

And a violent one, at that. A reasonable person might have approached her and asked her why her shirt was lighting up.

My approach left me with some possibility of being alive, and the idiot (who was going to be arrested anyway) only with a slight headache or other minor injories. In fact I might well save them from being shot through my actions. Perhaps you should think of the big picture, and of thew totality of repercussions.

I am not violent at all, I take spiders outside for example rather than kill them. But I will not stand by while others are killed even if it imperils myself. Unlike you.

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.

I also grew up around electronics in a peaceful environment. But I was intelligent to learn on y own that all people are not peaceful. If your son does not learn this lesson, other will teach him - in a manner not very pleasnt I am sure. People such as yourself almost make me think having to take a test to raise children would be a good idea.

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?

Why not ask yourself that at the next all-hands in Afganistan?

In order for evil to previal, it is only nessecary for good men (and women) to do nothing. Your attitude and willful ignorance frightens me.

Re:Now they say there was no putty.

[SuperKendall]

What few would "dare to say"? Slashdot is full of people such as yourself "daring" to follow the status quo every day.

Sheep.

Dumber than dirt

[j_w_d]

The level of reasoning and common sense in this episode is appalling at all levels. An MIT student, presumptively smart, but evidently with no common sense, doesn't realize that any high school dropout hired by the TSA is going to need new underwear when they see something "strange" - like a college student - or a nail clippers - but won't blink an eye at a lethally sharp plastic comb - and will jump all over her. She doesn't bother to consider, "it's an airport" - nobody from MIT in charge - IQs so low ants will trip on them scattered all over armed to the teeth, directed by bureaucrats who are required to have their IQs removed BEFORE being put in charge. I hate US airports, BTW. Ben Gurion any day. Israel actually has real security threats AND trained security personnel.

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:Dumber than dirt

[imperio]

You're so ignorant it isn't worth the time to insult you for it. Just a thought... Why don't you create a piece of art the looks like a bomb, sans the blinky lights, and walk into a major airport. In the end we can chalk up a point for Darwin and rest easy that your dumb ass is no longer available to the gene pool.

Re:Dumber than dirt

[j_w_d]

It doesn't look like a frigging bomb. Any half-baked bomb maker would be embarrassed. Even if, by some stretch, it DID look like a bomb, that still wouldn't excuse officers of any form charged with public safety for the supreme idiocy of pointing a weapon at something they suspect is explosive. Think about it.

Re:Dumber than dirt

[LynnwoodRooster]

I'd suggest talking to a police officer some time... Drawing a weapon accomplishes many things, including capturing the attention of the suspect, and serving as a visual warning to bystanders to get the heck away from the area. Both of which are wise actions in the case of a suicide bomber.

Re:Dumber than dirt

[Loligo]

Since when is plastique detonated by impact (ie: a gunshot)?

I'd suggest you're the one that's maybe seen a few too many movies.

One of the key benefits of plastic explosive is that it's fairly inert UNTIL detonated. You can hit it with a hammer or, yes, shoot it with a .45 and it won't go boom.

The idiot in this equation is the "artist". The cops acted appropriately.

  -l

Reading comprehension: try harder.

[Kadin2048]

I was responding directly to the GP who said "I think that even to people involved with electronics..." I was not talking about anybody else.

That said, I'd hope that TSA agents would be familiar with bombs, or at least what bombs look like, and what parts might go into a bomb, and might therefore realize that flashy LEDs are not crucial components in one. I suppose that's asking a bit much out of Kip Hawley's DHS, though, since their job is quite clearly to create an appearance of security, and little more.

Re:Reading comprehension: try harder.

[BoberFett]

While I think the ATHF incident overblown, I don't think this one was. If LEDs were evidence of an item not being a bomb, it'd be a simple matter for truly dangerous people to include LEDs and easily avoid suspicions. After all, it's got lights, it couldn't be a bomb.

The main difference between the ATHF scare and this one is that the first one was some people not thinking before doing something that was not intended to raise alarms. This on the other hand, between this womans actions in conjunction with her "art", it sounds like she was looking to get a reaction. She got one.

right

[circletimessquare]

because if i find one kind of extreme behavior wrong, then it is obvious that i wholeheartedly endorse another kind of extreme behavior. i mean heaven forbid it's possible that i come from a moderate interpretation that finds both extremes wrong. that's impossible, right?

Suicide Bombers

[failedlogic]

The point I'd like to make responding to parent, is that the threat of suicide bombers in some countries, venues/public spaces is real. There have also been some loonies that emulate/copycat acts from scenes in movies - and there are several of people visibly wearing bombs - the movie Speed comes to mind. So why wouldn't this scenario be possible? And why shouldn't airport security consider this to be a real threat?

As to other poster in this thread saying this was probably a bread board for security ... consider that the cameras might not be hi-res enough. Also don't assume security people know everything about science and technology items. Even upclose, when arresting someone with guns pointed, I'm sure there's enough adrenaline to just think about stopping or arrest the person. That is, they are doing their jobs. This event is certainly rare. If everyone were wearing, what I'm sure are fashionable shirts with wires handing out and holding 'silly putty' then other security measures would be considered.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[ps3udonym]

Take a look at the pics. Those officers were obviously close enough to make out the details. No zoom vision required. Hell, if I can make it out from some nebulous pics, someone standing in front of the girl should have NO problems.

This begs the question.. if they thought THAT was an explosive device, they obviously don't know an explosive from a resistor radio. Perhaps they should have some training BEFORE they are allowed to wave their guns in people's faces.

Either way, they either are untrained and incompetent to being doing the job they are assigned, or they were abusing their authority. Take your pick.

Well then please go help fix it

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Well then please go help fix it

[swillden]

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.

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

[PeelBoy]

wait wait wait... let me get this straight...

"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."

but then you say..

"Smart terrorists aren't going to bother with passenger planes anyway. The most you can do is blow up a plane, now."

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:Well then please go help fix it

[swillden]

"Smart terrorists aren't going to bother with passenger planes anyway. The most you can do is blow up a plane, now."

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. Yep. Because it was done once, passengers will no longer allow it to happen again, as was proved on flight 93.

Re:Well then please go help fix it

[tburkhol]

"Smart terrorists aren't going to bother with passenger planes anyway. The most you can do is blow up a plane, now."

Why exactly is that again? Sounds like a contradiction.

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:Well then please go help fix it

[llZENll]

So true, the only thing all of this security does is raise our taxes and wait times, and (I didn't know this was possible) make air travel an even more annoying experience. Anyone who thinks it will stop another attack is kidding themselves. Slash TSA by 80%, and military spending by 90%, then we actually may be able to save social security, remove the deficit, and restore what is left of our crumbling economy. It will NEVER happen though, all of the morons won't have their ILLUSION of safety.

Re:Well then please go help fix it

[PeelBoy]

That doesn't prove shit you moron.

Just because something was done once doesn't mean it can't be done again...

BESIDES....The passengers on that flight did a great thing...but it still cost them all their lives.

A suicide bomber once blew up a restaurant....

Did that prevent it from ever happening again?

Give me some fucking logic here.

Re:Well then please go help fix it

[PeelBoy]

Don't describe what 9/11 was to me as if I'm clueless.

"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."

WTF are you talking about??!!! the Pilots on those ships were killed and the hijackers took over control for the plane.

They didn't walk up to the Pilot and say "Hey man do you mind giving me control of this ship because I plan on killing a whole shit load of people!!!"

Get your fucking facts straight. 3 out of 4 of those flights succeeded (for the most part) and the 4th still ended up killing everybody on the plane which is more than most suicide bombers could ever hope for.

So what exactly is your fucking point?

Re:Well then please go help fix it

[PeelBoy]

Oh and if you tell me it has something to do with the SECURITY put in place AFTER 9/11 then my original point still fucking stands.

The person I responded to said we should just go back to how things were before 9/11.

Re:Well then please go help fix it

[Chibi Merrow]

then we actually may be able to save social security

But who's going to save us from social security?

Re:Well then please go help fix it

[swillden]

Just because something was done once doesn't mean it can't be done again...

It does if people to change their behavior to prevent it.

In this case, there's evidence that behavior has changed, such as the Air Mauritiana flight hijacking in February. That hijacker was lucky the security forces got on board quickly.

BESIDES....The passengers on that flight did a great thing...but it still cost them all their lives.

Why did they do it? Think this through... imagine yourself on a hijacked plane. Prior to 9/11, what would you do? Common wisdom was that your best chance of survival was to sit quietly and cooperate, because most hostages were released unharmed. After two planes crashed into the WTC, that changed. It changed so quickly and so completely that passengers on a plane who were already in the air when it happened found out about it and adjusted their behavior to the new situation.

If you're on a hijacked plane, you now assume you're going to die when the plane is crashed into a target. So what's your best move? What gives you the best chance of survival? Doing exactly what the passengers on Flight 93 and on the Air Mauritiana flight did -- fight back, hard! In the case of Flight 93, it didn't save them, but it did save other lives. In the case of the Air Mauritiana flight, the passengers survived it as well.

Post-9/11, the only way hijackers have any chance on a passenger plane is if there are enough of them to physically overwhelm the passengers and flight crew, because nobody on board with half a brain is going to sit quietly and go along.

Give me some fucking logic here.

In deference to your limitations, I've spelled it out for you.

Another "15 minutes" freeloader

[blueZ3]

I'm not buying what you're selling.

This "innocent girl" who wore something that looked like a bomb was out for just the effect she caused--a big scene, and her fifteen minutes on the nightly news. I'm expecting to see her on all the talks hows next week, and in court the week after suing the Airport Authority for violating her "civil right" to wear a fake bomb.

In exactly the same way that those Muslim clerics who made a big scene of praying in the airport and then asked for unneeded seatbelt extenders was hoping for a reaction.

Re:I think it was total police over reaction

[TopShelf]

is the penalty for being a college student doing dumb things summary execution?

For extreme cases of "dumb things" like this, the answer could very well be Yes.

Ok, maybe... But...

[ivan256]

Ok, maybe the initial reaction was justified... They didn't actually shoot her after all.

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?

WTF?

[msimm]

...friends at MIT say she wears the hoodie on a regular basis- it's just unfortunate that she had it on while trying to pick a friend up at the airport. MIT students don't really do mornings, or worry about what they're wearing, so I can't imagine she'd even think about her clothes before heading out to pick up a friend at the airport before 8am.

Is it official fuck reading the actual story day? Here is a link to the "fake" bomb:

hoody

If you can be bothered to read, its a board (looks kind of familiar) with LEDs on it connected to a ...get this... 9v battery to power the LEDs. I wasn't a stunt for the airport, it was a silly outfit she apparently liked.

Obviously her paranoia level is too low and she over looked the passing similarity between blinking lights and high explosives. That or we are simply living in such an amazing state of fear that we see high explosives everywhere (and feel justified in it).

Re:WTF?

[drew]

Obviously her paranoia level is too low and she over looked the passing similarity between blinking lights and high explosives. That or we are simply living in such an amazing state of fear that we see high explosives everywhere (and feel justified in it).

No, she just forgot to stick the battery somewhere out of sight. Tacky and suspicious.

Honestly, though, it sounds to me like security responded appropriately, right up until the "lucky she's not in a morgue" press release... Regardless of whether or not she actually thought about what she was wearing (having been in College myself once, I can understand this) she didn't help herself by ignoring the person who asked her about her shirt. But in the end, nobody got hurt, and the poor college girl probably had a little bit of sense scared into her. Next time, she'll at least know enough to hide the wires, right?

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[ps3udonym]

If I can tell, at a glance, that it ISN'T a bomb.. then I would EXPECT a trained professional to know it even faster. Esspecially if you are up close and personal holding someone at gun point. If these so-called professionals can't tell a bomb from a hole in their asses, they aren't trained enough to do the job, period.

"With great power comes great responsibility". To bad that seems to be forgotten in the US today.

I can't believe I'm siding with the cops

[jollyreaper]

Upon first glance, I can't tell what the hell she's wearing but it looks suspicious. Now of course no reasonable, rational terrorist would wear a bomb in the open, they would try to disguise it. But then again, how rational or reasonable is someone who is wearing a strap-on bomb?

The cops acted appropriately here by confronting her and figuring out what the hell the device was. Sure, techies are going to say "that so doesn't look like a bomb!" Yeah, and a plastic toy gun doesn't look like a real gun in proper lighting where you get a chance to study it. Now try asking a cop to tell the difference when deciding whether to shoot or be shot. That's why toy guns have that little red tip at the end. Maybe if I was a crafty criminal I'd put a red tip on my glock.

I saw on another site people were trying to make it like this was racial profiling because the girl is brown-skinned. WTF? No, a white girl would not get away pulling this stunt. I promise you, PROMISE you, if I walked into a bank wearing a shirt that said "Everybody be cool, this is a robbery," there would be a poor reaction.

The cops were right in stopping her, even though the odds were favorable that she'd just be dumb rather than a suicide terrorist.

Re:I can't believe I'm siding with the cops

[swordgeek]

"I saw on another site people were trying to make it like this was racial profiling because the girl is brown-skinned. WTF?"

Pretty simple to understand.

If bad things happen to vaguely black-looking people in the USA these days, it's racial profiling. If you're muslim, mediterranean, aryan, or any other visible group, it's just life. If you're "African American" (including 1/74th black but excluding actual first-generation African immigrants or visitors), then it's ratial profiling. SOMEONE will take your side and jump up and down about the racially insensitive behaviour of the white oppressors.

Seriously when you look at it from the outside, the USA's hypersensitivity about anti-black racism is leading to pro-black racism to a degree that's almost unheard of in the rest of the world (outside of Zimbabwe, of course.)

From a Harvard study: As of 2005, the present proportion of black students at majority white schools "are a level lower than in any year since 1968." What isn't addressed is _why_ this is happening again--it's naturally assumed that the white oppressors (yes, them again!) are isolatiing themselves, but is it really?

Consider Black Entertainment Television." Could I get away with a "WTV. White TV for White Folks" channel in the USA? I doubt it. Then there's blacknews.com and blacknewsweekly.com, the latter of which would probably constitute hate-speech if it were anyone else writing it.

The USA has to get over itself. That's the short answer.

Is insanity contagious?

[wulfbyte]

So many posts here defending the police; saying the girl was stupid for doing what she did. How can so many people get so far from common sense? What if she had become indignant and made some silly protestation as to her rights and had been shot for it. Would a dead student still be blamed for not exercising good judgment in attire? Would the police still be praised for making a rational and correct assessment of the situation? I think according to many of the sentiments I read here that it would be just so.

Perhaps I am being unreasonable when I expect that those persons charged with the preservation of good order and the safety of those around them be exceptional people, capable of sound judgments. I know I was not on the scene at the time, but I do know that there were alternatives that could have been chosen. I cannot believe that what occurred was the least violent method for dealing with a young person at an airport wearing odd clothing and a poor attitude.

For so many others to apparently express the belief that this was a reasonable action by the police, I can only assume a wholesale abandonment of reason. I should hope that such a descent into madness is not an inevitability.

(Disclaimer to hopefully stop some baseless rebuttals before they are made: I am both an Infantry combat veteran and a former armed security professional. I have been extensively trained and experienced in the use of deadly force, both on the giving and receiving end. When I say that there were means of dealing with this situation other than what actually happened, even without having been there, I'm not just speaking out of my ass.)

Not as bas a the ATHF incident...

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

From the article:

Written on the back of the sweatshirt in what appeared to be gold magic marker was the phrase "socket to me" and below that was written "Course VI,"

I don't see what the big deal is... so the airport security personal are fans of emacs, do you expect emacs users not to be fascists?

Seriously though, I thought the way the city treated the entire ATHF "hoax device" ordeal was laughable. From beginning to end they reacted in the dumbest way possible. Especially to continue calling it a hoax device, well after they knew exactly what it was. This case is much different... she was at an airport with wires sticking out from a device attached to her chest and holding putty in her hand. Imagine for a second what a suicide bomber might look like, and that's pretty close.

But again in this case, continuing to call it a hoax device is just insulting to everyone including yourself. It wasn't a hoax, it wasn't intended to be a hoax. How can you charge someone for possessing a hoax device if the true intention of the device and the user is completely not hoax related? If it's just up to the interpretation of the police officer, than what's to stop them from thinking my Blackberry is a hoax device.

Why is this news for nerds?

[joekampf]

I'm really sick and tired of reading on Slashdot about things that are not, "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters." Lets face it, it someone who WANTED to be arrested. WANTED to bring attention. But all of the Orwellians will jump on the bandwagon and say that we live in a police state.

Re:Why is this news for nerds?

[joekampf]

Would you take that bread board to the airport strapped to your chest? How about walking around with a carving of a Glock 40. That is art too. There are reasonable things to do. And then there are things to do just to cause a stir. This person knew that she was going to cause a stir. So she did it. Because she could. Because she was trying to prove some point. She was trying to get some attention. And honestly, I'm tired of our world being dominated by the vocal minority.

Re:Everyone was nearly shot. Machine Gun!

[winkydink]

Had you bothered to read the article, you would have seen that she was apprehended outside.

Stupid

[MBGMorden]

You know, when I first read this, I had a different picture in my head. I thought she was wearing like a sweatshirt with a PCB/circuit board pattern PRINTED on it. I've had mousepads that look like that. Thought they looked cool. Police would have been wrong to arrest her for that.

But then after looking at the pictures: she is an idiot. A real bomb very well could look like that: get average model rocketry engine ignition. It fixes and ignites when current is applied. Setup breadboard with circuits to countdown and apply current at end of countdown. Stuck ignitor in putty based explosive (which she apparently had something resembling this on her. After timer runs out: boom. If I see ANYTHING that looks electric, especially something as make-shift looking as the device she had, strapped to someone's chest, I'm "taking evasive action". This is the equivalent of running into a theater and yelling fire. Freedom of speech isn't an excuse for that, or is it for this. She created a public danger of panic even if there was no real bomb threat.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[gardyloo]

If I can tell, at a glance, that it ISN'T a bomb.. then I would EXPECT a trained professional to know it even faster. The point is, you CAN'T tell, at a glance. Nor can anyone. There are any number of ways that wires may be routed elsewhere, through the base of the breadboard, etc. (This, of course, raises the issue that anything, including luggage, may be a bomb. But it doesn't excuse your claim that you can tell, at a glance, whether a few wires, a battery, and an LED are ALL that the device is composed of.)

I can't stand you on K5, but FUCK YEAH

[SuperBanana]

Spot on.

MIT Rolls Over

[Bob9113]

MIT is cooperating with the state police in the investigation, according to a statement released by the MIT News Office this afternoon. "As reported to us by authorities, Ms. Simpson's actions were reckless and understandably created alarm at the airport," the statement continues.

Engineering students creating personal technology, wearing it at a job fair, then forgetting to take it off when picking up a friend at the airport is reckless? I would expect a bit more balanced response from what is supposed to be a respectable engineering school, particularly one with such a long and legendary history of hackery.

Don't get me wrong, I think the police reacted relatively appropriately. And I can understand people who are ignorant about electronics being terrified (that's the whole goal of terrorism, and some people have succumbed to it). But pressing charges? That is ridiculous, and the fact that MIT is not pointing that out is wrong. It sends a terrible message to their budding geeks about restricting technological exploration to officially authorized paths. If this is what MIT has come to, it's no surprise we're getting our asses kicked in technology.

What I want to know...

[jamieswith]

Is why nobody told us that they started making good-looking female nerds?

I suppose it could be more unusual... she could be on slashdot!

Re:re; Death Switch.

[hjf]

If someone has a deadman's switch, he isn't interested in having a conversation.

I think a deadman's switch is the best warranty you have that you want have a conversation, and not getting shot at first chance.

Creating perception of criminal intent is a crime.

[Jim Logajan]

I believe there are laws in many jurisdictions around the world whose underlying axiom is that if a police person concludes you may have a criminal intent in mind, then you are in fact guilty of a crime if you do not successfully remove that perception. I presume this is what happened in that case. True, in some cases it takes the interaction of several laws to yield that result, but there it is. Indeed, it is clear that a number of posters to Slashdot agree with that axiom: if you appear threatening then you forfeit your rights. They only differ in the measure of the perception - not the underlying axiom.

It should be noted that, with a few clearly defined exceptions in some jurisdictions, the average citizen does not appear to be allowed to employ that axiom. Those who believe in the idea should press to have the law changed so we can all be allowed to constrain the rights of anyone we feel is an immediate threat. (E.g. Right now you can't legally preemptively attack the person approaching you who you think is dressed and acts like a mugger while out on your 1:00 AM stroll.)

Of course a variant of the axiom is to contrain the "threatening" person's rights only long enough to determine whether the threat is real. In this case that would have meant the woman would have been let on her way and she would be under no threat of further legal peril.

If you're not doing anything wrong...

[Slyder]

If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear!

What's that? Submachine guns? Criminal charges?

Oh, nevermind.

Everyone seems to be missing the point...

[msimm]

It wasn't a hoax bomb. It was a silly hoodie she'd made and wore to school. It had a circuit board with battery operated blinking lights and read:

Socket To Me / COURSE VI.

This is a probably really a simple case of over-reacting then using the terrorism and hoax cards as a ass covering tactics. Because you know, it would be pretty stupid of you arrested (armed with automatic weapons no less) a 19 year old girl for wearing a shirt with lights affixed to it.

FYI, friends at MIT say she wears the hoodie on a regular basis- it's just unfortunate that she had it on while trying to pick a friend up at the airport.

Re:I think it was total police over reaction

[sholden]

Isn't is the job of the police to collect evidence AFTER a crime is committed, not to kill people they think may commit a crime?

Those things aren't mutually exclusive. They have both jobs.

When crime has been committed the police investigate. When a crime is being committed the police try and stop it.

I take it that if someone had a gun pointed at your head with police all around you want them to wait until he shoots you so they can start collecting evidence, and not to try and stop him from shooting you in the first place which may involve using deadly force? After all the gun mightn't be loaded.

Having a bomb strapped to your body in an airport is certainly a crime, and certainly puts other people in danger. Notice, that she wasn't shot so the procedures that require confirming a threat before using deadly force in this case worked, and Darwin loses.

Terrorist kills 11 at airport

[ProteusQ]

An Islamic extremist detonated a bomb she was wearing on the front of her blouse at Logan Airport earlier today. She and ten bystanders, including one security guard, were killed instantly. When a guard who survived the blast was asked why the woman was not detained, he replied: "We thought she was just exercising her right to free expression with a battery, silly putty, wires, and a circuit board over her blouse. How could we have known?"

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.

Re:Terrorist kills 11 at airport

[OrangeTide]

I would much rather error on the side of caution myself. If people want to blame someone for the totalitarian lock down of US airports, they should feel free to blame those who have been ramping up their attacks for the last 20 years.

Everything is not somehow a right to free speech. And stopping someone and asking them questions is not the same as preventing free speech. I would say in this case, it was discouraging erratic behavior. And really the only inalienable right to speech seems to be when you're publishing criticism of the government, or discussion your religious convictions.

One is naive if she thinks that we live in some sort of free socio-anarchist utopia.

If you want to see what it's like to be in a non-free totalitarian state, do the same thing and then instead of being delayed and questioned, you are shot or detained for weeks without trial or even a formal arrest.

Re:Terrorist kills 11 at airport

[AlamedaStone]

Yeah, thank god the president, or anyone he chooses, doesn't have the right to arrest and detain US citizens at any time, for any reason, and then torture them.

Oh, wait. Yes - he can. You are living in a police state. It just isn't exercising its new powers yet. Try not to be ignorant your whole life.

This kind of stuff has been happening before

[bsharma]

I remember an EE friend of mine of Iranian origin (U.S. Citizen) was always hassled when he carried a prototype circuit board (of cell phone processor)in a proper container while boarding aircraft (this with all paper work etc., in order). He had to resort to book it as cargo to avoid being denied boarding etc., This was before 9/11. When he was little, my son had shoes with LEDs that would light up when he walked. I think they would be major no no now a days. You want a real shocker? A friend of mine who was a Professor in Washington State had her Green Card cancelled and was told she was "Not Admissible into United States". (She had lived in US for over 10 years, had her family & home here). It took a lot of political intervention and a couple of years to get her Green Card back. Her crime? She had gone to East Berlin (out of curiosity) when she visited (west) Berlin for a conference. (This was during the days of Berlin Wall). Want another? Another friend of mine, a very respected computer system designer for military aircraft had to quit his job because they took away his SECRET clearance. What was his crime? He spoke too much (over phone) to his mother in a foreign country who was dying of cancer! He knew all his international calls would be listened to; but couldn't imagine anyone will find a problem with his phone calls to a obviously very sick old woman.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[Rakishi]

I'm amazed. You can tell that there was nothing else beneath the sweatshirt, that none of those components were capacitors, that no wires went anywhere else except that device, that the putty in her hand was not connected to the device and so on.

No they thought it may be part of an explosive device, their job is to identify potential threats.

It's nice to know that I'm smarter

[ClosedSource]

than at least one person attending MIT.

People act as though there is no rational course

[mdarksbane]

I hate to see how polarized this crap gets.

Yes, it was a little dumb for her to leave this shirt on when she went to the airport. Just like it's dumb when someone forgets they have a large lock-blade in their back pocket (that they always carry) and get to airport security.

She should have responded to the person asking her about the shirt. But maybe she didn't hear them. Maybe she didn't think she needed to respond?

The item on her shirt does look suspicious if you don't know anything about electronics. It's a reasonable thing to suspect.

A security person who questioned her about it and did not get a response should have called the police. The police should have had their guns ready in case it was a threat. HOWEVER, the moment they actually interviewed the girl and examined her jacket and realized it was NOT a threat, this is where all the problems should have ended.

They should have told her it was stupid to wear this at an airport, apologized for pointing guns at her, and either let her go on her way or at worst question her a bit while they got someone who knew more about electronics to check out her shirt.

No bullshit charges should have been brought. She should not have been held overnight. She should NOT have had her jacket confiscated.

You know, last time I went to the county courthouse I accidentally brought a fairly large pocket knife. What did they do? They put it in a locker for me, had me sign a slip of paper, and gave it back to me when I left.

I don't know why airlines are so fricking special that they get to ignore all human decency and logic in the treatment of these sorts of things.

A city should not get to work itself into a panic by overreacting and then start sending people to jail because they (the city) were idiots.

Re:I think it was total police over reaction

[Hoi Polloi]

You think Boston is bad? Try flying through Europe. I just came back this week through Munich and had to pass through security about 4 times, even on the way to my connecting flight. We never entered the general airport area (which had a security check to enter too). I guess they were worried that I might be carrying a dangerous copy of "Sky Mall" from the previous flight.

Here's the problem with making assumptions

[Sycraft-fu]

Lets me get around you easily by just playing to your assumptions. Suppose we assume that no terrorist would ever wear a bomb on their clothes, and we further assume that they'd certainly never tell you. Now I know if I pack a bomb in my bag, there's a good chance it'll get noticed on X-ray. If I put it under my clothes, good chance the metal parts will set off the detector. In both cases I've got a concealed device that looks like it might be an explosive (since it is) and I get busted. Ahh, but I know that Rz is in charge of security, and he's told everyone "No terrorist will ear a bomb in plain view, so don't worry about anything you can see." So I strap the shit right to my shirt and carry parts in. Security asks me what it is, I laugh and say "Oh it's a bomb," they all laugh with me because their boss Rz told them no terrorist would ever do that. So I get through security with my bomb, because it was assumed that nobody would ever do that.

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

[rinkjustice]

She must have done it intentionally, to get bigtime attention, because that act seems purposeful and reckless "to the max". Boston security responded appropriately.

For those people who said it doesn't look like a bomb... what does a bomb look like? Does every bomb look the same?

Re:Nobody is that stupid

[zanaxagoras]

Obviously. And anyone who thinks her intent was anything other than creating a disturbance is either a complete idiot or a cornpone lying liar. Anyone with a functioning brain can clearly see that she's a fucking clown pulling stupid clown shit at the fucking AIRPORT for NO OTHER REASON than to make a scene. If that's the "civil liberty" that's at risk here (clowns losing their right to do clown shit), then I'm A-OK with that.

Re:Nobody is that stupid

[TheGratefulNet]

its like pr0n: you can't necessarily tell what IS pr0n, but you can certainly tell what is NOT ;)

well, same with bombs. even a rat shack clerk (ewwww) could tell a 'triple five' timer chip and some leds (I'm assuming that's the gist of what her circuit was) from anything that would do real damage.

5 leds arranged in a star (and her name is STAR - get it?) - is clearly not a bomb. are you seriously saying you couldn't tell that if you were next to her, maybe 5 feet away?

come on, people - think!

Re:Nobody is that stupid

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Boston security responded appropriately."

I'd like to respond to you appropriately, but there is no "beat him over the head with a baseball bat over the internet" option on the Slashdot reply page. Hopefully the next version of Slashcode will implement the feature.

right

[circletimessquare]

because people who strap bombs to themselves always behave with perfect logic and reason

What??

[unablepostAC]

He appalled and angry she was wearing a tshirt with electronic bits attached, bullshit

the real offense is to as he said almost killed a person due to the paranoia and bullshit in airports

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[ps3udonym]

Okay, so go up to her an LOOK.

Let me fess up here, I DO have training in electronics and if you look at the "device" you can see that all wires terminate correctly and their doesn't appear to be any holes drilled in the board. All this adds up to is "reasonable doubt" and it could have easily been verified by going up and asking her if you could take a look. The risk that she is a suicide bomber doesn't equal the right to take away EVERYONE'S rights. It never, EVER has. This is giving into terrorism at it's most fundamental level.

You are right, ANY device can be a bomb, especially electronics. Take out half the battery of a cell phone, radio, ipod, or laptop and replace it with C4 and you have yourself a very nice little bomb that lights up all nice when they ask you to take it out and turn it on. MORE than enough to bring down a plane. THESE are the types of devices that security should be looking out for. They should be experts in visual recognition of explosives devices. People who CAN take one glance in real time and say "Nope, not a bomb." Turns out these people have little training or aptitude for the very jobs that are supposed to be "Protecting" us.

The fact remains that they were wrong, again. How many times have they been right.. oh.. I forgot, NEVER! So, the nearly non-existant risk of a suicide bomber has trumped your rights, yet again. How many times does this have to happen before it happens to YOU?? Took out any books lately? People have been taken off planes for their reading material, are you wearing something "acceptable"? Only last week someone was kicked off a plane for wearing clothing "Too revealing" to fly in, yet perfectly acceptable to a conservative TV audience... how about speaking the correct language? People were thrown off planes for speaking Arabic.. HOW MUCH MORE??? Seriously?? What does it take for you Americans to wake up and demand your rights? It boggles the mind that the country of Jefferson would let such abuses take place. It is truly unbelievable.

What if it was a replica gun instead of a bomb?

[dircha]

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.

Re:What if it was a replica gun instead of a bomb?

[King Gabey]

Dude. It was an LED blinky in the shape of a star. I don't blame them for reacting, glad they did, but now that it is an obvious misunderstanding, they should drop the charges.

Re:What if it was a replica gun instead of a bomb?

[evilviper]

is not remotely constitutionally protected speech.

"Not protected speech" is a long way from "indiscriminately shot on sight".

held at ready,

That's the big "if" there... It's one thing if she was running towards a crowd, but quite another walking up to a rep and asking a normal question.

She should have been detained, but the cops still overreacted.

Re:What if it was a replica gun instead of a bomb?

[Temporal]

wearing a device that looks like an IED, that you designed specifically to look like an IED

The device did not look like an IED and it clearly was not designed to look like an IED. I doubt Star had ever imagined anyone would mistake it for an IED.

http://images.salon.com/tech/machinist/blog/2007/09/21/star_simpson/story.jpg

Re:What if it was a replica gun instead of a bomb?

[BluBrick]

The device did not look like an IED and it clearly was not designed to look like an IED.

Really? Just what does an IED look like? What circuitry is under that tape? Is that really a 9V battery supplying power to a harmless circuit of LED's or is there a hidden battery behind the breadboard about to supply power to a small detonator embedded in a lump of C4 hidden inside the battery shell?

I know a little about electronics and I can't answer any of those questions after studying the photo. What chance has an electronically untrained guard of answering them after a glance?

Re:What if it was a replica gun instead of a bomb?

[Temporal]

Using arguments like that, you could argue that anything might be an IED. My bags, my cell phone, my laptop, etc. could all equally well be stuffed with C4. Shall we all abandon our bags at the front entrance and change into orange jumpsuits to make sure we don't have anything that could possibly be a bomb?

I think the guards should be trained to know what a bomb looks like. I also think that if they do make a mistake, as they did here, they should apologize and let the person go (possibly asking her to take the thing off and put it in her pocket) rather than arrest her, charge her with a crime, and brag about how they were about to kill her.

Re:What if it was a replica gun instead of a bomb?

[Ihlosi]

Shall we all abandon our bags at the front entrance and change into orange jumpsuits to make sure we don't have anything that could possibly be a bomb?

You forgot that the bomb could also be stuffed in some random cavity of your body, or even implanted. Orange jumpsuits alone just won't do ... bend over now and once that's finished step over here for a full-body x-ray scan.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[ps3udonym]

And they got it wrong, again.

Sounds like they are incapable of doing their jobs.

right

[circletimessquare]

because there are no lone deranged nonterrorists out there (and if there are, they will also of course behave with perfect logic and reason and hide their bomb, of course)

Reminds me of the ATHF bomb scare.

[mhalagan]

Haha. Reading this reminds me of the police blowing up Aqua Teen Hunger Force lite-brite advertising around cities because the police thought there were bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_Mooninite_scare

Why...

[bumby]

Why the heck would a terrorist have his/her bomb visible and full of flashing LEDs?

She got what she deserved.

[brantisonfire]

dude, they didnt overreact. they did their job. who in their right mind would wear something like that into an AIRPORT and not expect to be aprehended? in the current state of the world and the threat of terrorism would you want to get hassled over a simple shirt design???? No, so why wear it in the first place. If she claims that she didnt think anything would happen, that's just ignorance.

i don't understand your point

[circletimessquare]

are you saying feeling safe or being safe is unrelated? that it bears no relation to the actions of airport security guards? i wouldn't BE safe or FEEL safe if a woman with a circuitboard on her chest and wires hanging off it was yawned at

Re:i don't understand your point

[Rakarra]

Because the enemies are imaginary and airports are no targets, right?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[aurispector]

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.

Grenade

[fishbowl]

When I worked in entertainment, I always travelled with tool bags. The first tool to come out of my tool bag was a grenade. It was a real grenade, of course with no explosive material or firing pin. But I didn't consider it a joke. If you put that on your workspace (roadshow sound board), it says "you touch, you die" better than anything I could think of. I carried that damn tool bag on more planes than I could count. Nobody ever said a word about it. Twice I had trouble at security. One time, was when the screener said "I thought I saw a knife". I was like "yeah" and dug out my buck knife and showed it to her, put it back in, and went on the plane. Another time was when I carried on my dartboard case (I always setup a dart lane in the hotel rooms). They couldn't open it, because you needed to take out long screws in order to do that. That time, I was allowed to just check the dart case on without opening it for anyone.

Of course, all this was (long) pre-9/11.

Just pointing out how things have changed.

not to freak you out....

[rpbird]

....but back in the 1980s (or was it the 1970s?), Israeli airport security found a well-made bomb inside a working radio. They managed to squeeze the explosives into the radio case and modify the radio so it would still work. Considering how fragile airliners are, even the amount of Semtex you could squeeze into a large pocket calculator would open up the side of a plane. Everyone's so bent out of shape about Arab terrorists, but what about people who've actually killed people with bombs? Those include Sikh separatists (took down an Indian airliner), the Tamil Tigers (fond of using suicide bombers, and they aren't religious extremists, just ordinary secular extremists), Christian fundamentalist bombers who like to take down abortion clinics, narcotraffickers in Mexico and South America, leftist guerrillas in Peru, disgruntled workers in the USA, and rightist guerrillas in Central America. Not to freak you out or anything....

Re:Everyone was nearly shot. Machine Gun!

[Erris]

Had you bothered to read the article, you would have seen that she was apprehended outside.

Spraying bullets outside an airport is not much better than spraying them inside.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[pthor1231]

What rights were taken away? They detained her to ascertain if something that was reported as a possible threat was credible or not.

The Fashion Police Should Arrest Her

[nate nice]

That sweatshirt is gawd awful.

BAD IDEA

[Agarax]

If you think someone has a bomb the VERY last thing you want to do is send electricity through them.

Think about it.

Judging by the picture of what it was they caught her with, someone trained to keep an eye out for bombs would definetly think it was a bomb, and I wouldn't blame them.

What's sad is that they think they know...

[2centplain]

The depressing part of all this is the smug attitude of officials reporting on this great success of finding a potential terrorist before they could cause harm.

All they found was a misguided, fashion-clueless, MIT Course VI gnurd, who probably shouldn't have wandered off campus dressed in her proud creation.

But, someone who actually intended to cause harm wouldn't be so foolish as to so obviously display some device.

So, does the TSA actually have the means to identify the 0.0000000000000001% of travelers who intend to blow something up? I'm not convinced.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[Mr. Underbridge]

Since when is "provoking authorities" ever been an excuse for taking someone's rights away?

Since always, if your provocation simulates a public emergency. See 'crowded theater, yelling FIRE in.' I'd say a reasonable person would conclude a fake bomb in an airport qualifies. In fact, there are laws on the books for specifically that - and postings in every airport to the same effect.

Did she intend to deceive authorities into thinking the "device" is a bomb.. highly unlikely as she didn't refer to it as such.

No, she just had a breadboard, wires, and silly putty in an airport. Do you really believe that wasn't intent to simulate a bomb? Do you have a plausible alternate explanation? Come on. I can't think of a single acceptable reason you'd have those specific things in an airport.

It was an ASSUMPTION that those police made. How many of these assumptions have paid off??.. well so far NONE.

Forgot Richard Reed? Based on your argument I'm sure you'd claim that having wires coming out of your shoe is freedom of expression. Additionally, based on the relative risk of a false alarm to a missed detection (ie, a night in jail for a moron vs. hundreds dead), I'm perfectly fine with the cops arresting absolutely anyone who does anything this dumb.

"those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither."

Those who confuse liberty with anarchy are usually college students.

Re:Everyone was nearly shot. Machine Gun!

[dedazo]

This is not what you "spray bullets" with. This is.

Any competent law enforcement official or soldier can do a 4-inch group at 50 yards with an MP5 or an M-4. Any civilian can kill six people with a .38 revolver at 5 feet with their eyes closed. You can also drown in your bathtub. Stop taking baths.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[gardyloo]

I also have training and experience in electronics. Without taking the entire back off the breadboard and carefully kneading or scanning that "putty" you can't verify that the device didn't pose a threat of some sort.

  That being said, I agree with most of what you stated, especially the larger picture of lost rights and the negligible risks of suicide bombers vs. insidious rights abuses. I also think you've hit the nail on the head with going up to her and asking if you could take a look at the device to verify its status as a bomb or not. Still, she was an idiot for doing what she did, whether or not the cops overreacted.

Idiot Security

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

It's obvious to anyone with any sort of electronics background that she was wearing a breadboard with some LEDs and a 9-volt battery.

Maybe it's not such a good idea to hire high school dropouts to handle security? I can't help but to wonder what kind of training, if any, personnel are receiving.

How about a t-shirt saying "I am not a terrorist"

[bluenote39]

will it automatically mean a strip search? what if the t-shirt says "I am a terrorist".. what if it says something ambiguous like "we will not be silent"?

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[ps3udonym]

lets go over some of them;

Rights violated:

Freedom of speech: These rights include symbolic language and actions (like her shirt)
Freedom of Assembly: She was meeting with her friend in a public space and was detained
Freedom from unlawful search and seizure: she was arrested and had her person and belongings searched
Freedom from malicious prosecution: Even after it was determined that the authorities made a mistake, instead of saying "sorry" and letting her go they charged her and made her post bail. She will get off on the charges, but not until she has spent thousands on legal fees that she will be unable to recoup.

I am sure you can come up with more if you think about it.

What, exactly, did you think the American revolution against the British was about anyhow?? Private mercenary armies (Blackwater anyone??) and unlawful arrests and searches of property and person.. these are the rights that your forefathers DIED for. Yet you don't even see when they are being taken away.. mind blowing.

Constitution 2.0

[matt me]

I think America's developers need to work on Constitution 2.0, including Free Speech 2.0, open-source it. 1.0 was kinda rushed, that's why they had to release all those amendments.

1.0 is clearly buggy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgrFSHZfD1o
Don't tase me, bro!

This whole thing could have been avoided...

[mark-t]

If she had just been open about what it was from the beginning.

I once got nabbed by campus security for tinkering in the cafeteria with what appeared to the uninformed person who reported me to be some sort of bomb built on a prototyping board. Shocked as I was when security hauled me away, I explained in their office that it was actually part of a clock that I was building for my digital electronics class. They asked why I wasn't working on it in the lab, and I told them that the lab supervisor wasn't there right now, but I would be going there in the afternoon. I was more than a little worried that they were going to rip it apart (which would have undone hours of wiring), but one of the security guys there knew about the digital electronics course there and how the students would often build digital clocks, and after verifying that I was who I said I was, they said I could go. They apparently also told my DE prof about the incident, who decided to poke a little fun at me (and the ignorance of some people in general) in class the next day remarking to the class about how I almost caused a bomb scare with my harmless digital electronics project. He advised us from then on that we should confine our building to either at home or else in the lab... "so that I don't end up getting in sh!t for teaching people how to build fake bombs", according to him.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[innocent_white_lamb]

They did their jobs. A potential threat was quickly neutralized with no loss of life and a prankster was arrested.
 
Problem solved.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[Hamilton Lovecraft]

The article specifically states that she ignored questions about the shirt and putty then walked away.

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:We a

[coaxial]

You're right this isn't ATHF part two. That was obviously not a bomb, This wasn't obvious.

My first reaction was to assume that she wanted to provoke a reaction, too. I thought, "This has ''don't tase me bro'' written all over it." But from what I read on boingboing, from people that know her, she made the shirt a while ago and it reads "Course VI" (MIT speak for EE/CS), and the "explosive" is some sort of electroluminecent puffpaint. Apparently, she wears it everywhere.

In light of that info, I'm thinking she simply put on her hoodie, and went to the airport to pickup her boyfriend.

Should she have worn that shirt? Oh hell no! She should have known better, but honestly, I don't think she even thought about it.

Did the cops overreact? No. I while I don't think that it necessarily resembled a bomb, I do think that it was reasonable to investigate it further, which means the cops have to assume it's a bomb,

idiot

[Thaelon]

Look at the picture. If you walk into an airport with that thing on your chest you've just demonstrated that you completely lack any common sense and deserve what happens.

The only reason she was charged for having a "hoax device" is because there's no law against plain old stupidity.

Re:idiot

[AlamedaStone]

"The only reason she was charged for having a "hoax device" is because there's no law against plain old stupidity."

For which you must be enormously relieved. Thank baby Jesus we have people that can charge us with random crimes, or heck just shoot us, when we are acting stupidly.

Remember, guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people! ...wait...

Too Bad

[diewlasing]

Meaningful discussions like the ones here on slashdot are a good thing. Too bad public discourse on the subject or similar subjects is almost non-existent. It would be good for everyone involved, law enforcement, common people and techies alike. Misunderstandings like this would be less frequent.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[ps3udonym]

Since always, if your provocation simulates a public emergency. See 'crowded theater, yelling FIRE in.' I'd say a reasonable person would conclude a fake bomb in an airport qualifies. In fact, there are laws on the books for specifically that - and postings in every airport to the same effect.

None of those things did she do. She went up to a counter and asked a question. This is FAR different from saying "I have a gun", or yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. If a "reasonable person would conclude a fake bomb in an airport" then they would know it was fake and therefore not a problem. She didn't try to board a flight or anything else of the sort, nor did she gesture or have ANYTHING other than the contents of her shirt. So if I have a picture of a bomb on my shirt and someone from a distance concludes that I am wearing a bomb does that give the police the right to throw me to the ground and arrest me??? Since when does "innocent until proven guilty" come with a stipulation????

No, she just had a breadboard, wires, and silly putty in an airport. Do you really believe that wasn't intent to simulate a bomb? Do you have a plausible alternate explanation? Come on. I can't think of a single acceptable reason you'd have those specific things in an airport.

I can't think of a single reason why NOT to have those things at an airport, or anywhere else for that matter. At our local airport the duty-free shop SELLS silly putty. Occam's razor means it is far more plausible to believe that she had a piece of art T-Shirt and some putty in her hand rather than she has some sort of bomb strapped to her chest that will wirelessly explode some putty in her hand. She doesn't need a reason to bring or not bring anything into an airport to pick someone up. Nor do you, or anyone else for that matter. This INCLUDES a gun if you are licensed to carry one.

Forgot Richard Reed? Based on your argument I'm sure you'd claim that having wires coming out of your shoe is freedom of expression. Additionally, based on the relative risk of a false alarm to a missed detection (ie, a night in jail for a moron vs. hundreds dead), I'm perfectly fine with the cops arresting absolutely anyone who does anything this dumb.

Richard Reed wasn't caught until he tried to LIGHT his shoe on a crowded plane. I believe he went into a bathroom, tired to light a FUSE (not wires.. there were no electronics involved) and someone smelled smoke. At that point he was detained. Airport security had the chance to stop him (this is where that training comes in) but did not. So the score is still nil. How many suicide bombs have there been in US history.. umm.. none. How many airport bombings? So, explain to me how you come up with a reasonable risk here??? There was no risk, there has been no risk, and so far, the risks that ARE out there have been completely missed by the security professionals who are supposed to detect it. You feel that way because it isn't YOU who is being arrested. But how long until YOU are? This person wasn't looking for attention, she was there to pick someone up. If she was trying to make a statment, fine, that is her RIGHT. You might not like it, but she has a right to say it without being threatened with death!

"those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither."

You are one of those that Jefferson was refering too.

Consider WHERE this event occurred...

[Svartalf]

This is the damn town where they EOD-ed friggin' light-bright type LED magnet signs, thinking they were terrorist devices.

Think long and hard about it.

Then she really is an idiot...

[Roadkills-R-Us]

... if only for not answering their question.

Despite the enormous flaws in the current system, they have done a good job of getting the word out about what they expect, and that they don't have a sense of humor about it. If she can speak English (and apparently she does), and is intelligent enough to go to MIT (apparently she is) then she really ought to have at least enough of a clue to (a) not have worn this to the airport or (b) to at least have been aware of the possibility of trouble, and been prepared to answer their questions and work with them.

Far brighter would have been to not have worn it at all. It really sounds like she was testing the limits, or looking for attention. But I'll allow she simply could be completely clueless. At best.

Next I guess she'll wear it to Circuit City, and see what happens when she tries to walk out the door without a receipt because she didn't buy anything.

I don't have much sympathy for her.

Speaks much of the zeitgeist

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

It says a lot about America when anything that's unknown is assumed to be a bomb.

A blogger went through an airport recently with a USB power supply and the TSA held him for hours because they thought it was a bomb (it was a USB hookup, a few resistors, and a place for putting batteries.) - they wouldn't even let him bring his D-cell batteries on!

Here, they see electronics mounted on someone and they assume it's explosive? It's pretty much Status Quo or Death in the United States. No wonder the rest of the world has past the US in innovation.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[ps3udonym]

You are correct, of course. There always COULD be a bomb. But if a cursory glance from someone with even a little training tells them that it is unlikely to be a bomb, then it makes more sense to go and ask them what it is before pulling out the guns.

Benefit of the doubt... NOT

[topham]

I looked at the picture and was immediately reminded of actual NEWS FOOTAGE of suicide bombers in Israel.

Of all places to go visiting wearing 'artwork' like that a Federal build, or an Airport wouldn't be on my list. She is lucky she wasn't shot.

Gooberism by Security forces

[Oriumpor]

This is not the first time airport security has made a stupid determination that benign gadgets are a threat to the security of others. (See Steve Mann's encounter with airport security.) Breadboards are inside all sorts of consumer electronics, laptops etc. Someone could build an IED inside a digital camera (that still worked!) and get it through airport security uninhibited. This individual had it on their person where a logo goes, similar to other devices available for public consumption (see thinkgeek: t-qualizer mentioned in other posts) and they go ape shit.

Water bottles, fingernail clippers and geek art will get you detained at Airport security. Sounds like the stuff that people can really do damage with have been curtailed. Good job America, mission accomplished.

Cute Techie Girl!

[gary gunrack]

I'm kind of guessing she knew it was a bad idea to wear the thing to the airport. Cute techie punk girl is cute!

A joke

[Anonymous Coward]

MIT pumping out the best and brightest I see. Q: What's the difference between the average idiotic, spoiled, rich brat with absolutely no idea how the world works at Harvard and the average idiot, spoiled, rich brat with absolutely no idea how the world works at MIT?
A: The way they dress.

Re:BAD IDEA

[Svartalf]

Shooting them with a gun is an equally BAD idea. The bunch we're so damn paranoid about have the tendency
to have dead-man switches, possibly multiple types- shoot 'em, they die, they go BOOOM.

Again, the response, and the comments are ABJECTLY inappropriate for the situation, even if it WAS a terrorist.

Scared into her...

[msimm]

If wearing a hoodie with lights merits arrest at (automatic weapons) gun-point then I guess you're right. Mission accomplished. As for the not responding, we'll have to let her speak up (or not). But at 8AM if some clerk got weird with me when I asked a simple question because I had blinky LED's I might not provide the response they wanted either. My first reaction might not be: oh. I totally look like a terrorist! But more: what a moron. Where's my coffee.

I've Done This

[vertigoCiel]

I have a sweatshirt that has eight blinking orange LEDs on the left sleeve. I've gone through security at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport and JFK International without any problems. Granted, there are no visible circuits, just the LEDs. I answer questions about it when asked, and I've never been detained or surrounded by armed guards.

While not responding to questioning was quite stupid of her, the guns were clearly overreacting. The thing that scares me about this situation, though, is how quickly the authorities responded with the threat of deadly force. One of the State Policeman involved said something to the effect of "it's good she ended up in our cell rather than in a morgue."

What kind of country are we living in, where wearing the wrong thing to the airport has a decent chance of getting us killed?

Re:I've Done This

[AlXtreme]

What kind of country are we living in, where wearing the wrong thing to the airport has a decent chance of getting us killed?

Considering the killing of a Brazilian commuter in the London subway two years ago by the police because they thought he was a terrorist, it's clear that this has little to do with which country you are in. Whatever the terrorists were trying to succeed, they did succeed in getting authorities paranoid.

Having said that, wearing a fake-bomb in an airport (no matter how close to the real thing it is) wouldn't have been a very smart move prior to 9/11 either.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[Perl-Pusher]

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.

Rights and Common Sense

[Pfhorrest]

This woman had every right to wear that shirt, which was in fact not a bomb. However, she should have had the common sense to realize that it could easily be mistaken for a bomb, and that that would upset a lot of people in the airport. And while she was both stupid and rude to ignore the initial questioning (if she was indeed intentionally ignoring them and not just not paying attention), instead of just saying "it's an art piece" and possibly avoiding all the hassle, it's her right to say or not say what she wants, and her silence in itself should not constitute a threat - though it *may* be taken as suspicious activity worthy of investigation, given the circumstances.

In that vein, the police had every right, and indeed, the responsibility to stop her and make sure that she was not in fact carrying a bomb. That's what police are there for: to ask questions and investigate potentially dangerous situations. However, upon finding that the situation was not, in fact, dangerous, they should have let the suspect go. And though they're holding her on "hoax" charges, unless she claimed that it was a bomb, then that's just bull. It's not a hoax unless you meant to deceive; if just being deceived was grounds for calling "hoax", you could be arrested for anything just by the police playing stupid - "well *I* thought it was a bomb, how dare she fool me like that, she should have to pay". That's the only injustice in any of this. The rest is just stupidity.

This isn't the time or the place....

[westlake]

If it were one of your family members wearing this thing, I suspect you'd feel differently.

The shirt is cute, clever. But the geek's "wearable tech" is simply not appropriate dress for an airport or a hospital. The security guard isn't obliged to believe that it is harmless.

Re:We a

[ToasterMonkey]

This makes a lot of sense. She may have had a sudden realization of what she was wearing & where when asked about it, got flustered and tried to leave.

Dumbass.

[otis wildflower]

Intelligence and Wisdom are separate stats in Dungeons and Dragons for a reason, and this is it.

So, basically ...

[NoMaster]

... she went along to an airport, dressed up like a bomb, to stir the shit a bit - and the shit turned out to be a little deeper and ickier than she thought.

This isn't a first amendment / free speech / free expression issue, it's a "I got caught doing something stupid, now I'm angry I got caught" issue.

I haven't read your constitution in a few years, but I don't remember that one being covered in there...

Re:So, basically ...

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I haven't read your constitution in a few years, but I don't remember that one being covered in there..."

Well, you're one up on most of the politicians and judges in the US, as well as the citizens, most of whom apparently haven't read it ever .

This woman did the US citizens a great favor, intentionally or not, if they can ever figure it out. Feeling safe because there is a TSA, millions are being spent, and you are being profiled? Glad all of your civil rights have been trashed in the interest of safety? Well, here is a heads up US citizens: the people "protecting" you cannot tell the difference between a bomb and a Radio Shack circuit board with LEDs on it. Still feeling safe? No? Here is todays list of violations of the Constitution, all the better to rape^H^H^H^Hprotect you without ...

I cannot believe all the people here saying things like: "of course the average folks won't know if it is a bomb or a breadboard project." How can it not occur to you that these "security professionals" are not supposed to be laypersons

Re:I don't think you have kids.

[rhizome]

I don't think you actually have any kids. If my daughter strapped a bunch of electronics to her chest and walked into an airport with a fistful of silly putty, and didn't have a VERY good reason for doing so, I'd be fucking furious.

Way to fly off the handle. What does that have to do with wanting the police to overreact?

Idiots like this student are only going to make airport security regulations worse.

Is that so? I thought it was the President, Congress, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. Please direct me to any information that ties changing airport regulations to a particular act (besides 9/11).

You don't goof around like that at the airport

[walterbyrd]

There is a time, and a place, for jokes, and artistic statements. The airport is not it. The woman is lucky she wasn't shot.

My dad was a cop, then a pilot, and now works in airport security. He will tell you in minute: you don't say "Hijack" in a joking manner, you don't play jokes with fake guns, or grenades, and for crap sake: you don't go into an airport with a fake bomb.

Save that sort of crap for the frat house, or whatever. Security, at the airport, is deadly serious.

Re:You don't goof around like that at the airport

[Archon-X]

Save that sort of crap for the frat house, or whatever. Security, at the airport, is deadly serious. ..which is the biggest joke. The "airport thing" has been done. They were targetted because there was no security. If there's a next time, it'll be something else.
Security in all major cities is a complete farce, with ready access to anyone to metro tunnels, trunk lines, rooftops, whatever.

Re:Not sure this thing looks like a bomb, myself

[masdog]

Arrival areas, where a traveler would pick up their luggage or meet their ride home, aren't heavily secured. Unlike gates, there aren't security checkpoints to check everyone who walks into one of those areas.

Obiviously Benign

[bill_mcgonigle]

Looking at the "device", it is not obvious that it is benign.

Really? Why would a real terrorist make no effort to conceal his weapon? The terrorist MO is to conceal until detonation. That's how they're effective.

If we stop assuming terrorists are idiots we could stop worrying about so many things.

Re:Obiviously Benign

[Torvaun]

Well, this is Boston we're talking about. They go nuts over Lite-Brites. You think electronics and putty are going to just glide through an airport there?

Re:Obiviously Benign

[lymond01]

Why would a real terrorist make no effort to conceal his weapon?

It worked...if she were a terrorist hiding a the explosive underneath her sweatshirt connected to her displayed circuit-board, she could have wiped out the lobby. From the sounds of it, she wasn't arrested immediately by any means.

Re:Obiviously Benign

[PachmanP]

but but that would be to scary to think about. It also would be harder to waste federal money to deal with.

jesus christ people...

[Simulant]

Did you see the picture of her shirt? A breadboard, some LEDs, and a 9v battery. This incident displays only marginally less paranoia than, say, confiscating my toothpaste, and we are not any safer. She didn't attempt to board a plane or go through any security checkpoint and we really have NO IDEA if she actually heard anyone ask her about the device, or indeed, if they actually did. (I'm willing to bet it's CYA on someone's part...) Frankly I'm appalled (not only by this incident), at the lack of common sense of the FAA, HLS, amd Boston Police. I say we all go out & buy some blinky, flashy, raver toys and flashmob an airport!

Re:jesus christ people...

[Quiet_Desperation]

breadboard, some LEDs, and a 9v battery.

Yes, WE, the technically inclined community on Slashdot know that. But we're dealing with the government drones of the airports.

They WAY overreacted, but, I have to be blunt here: wearing something like that into an airport is the action of a complete, fucking dumbass.

I'm sorry, but there is no rational excuse for it. However, I wouldn't punish her to any extent other than a small fine for being an utter tool.

I say we all go out & buy some blinky, flashy, raver toys and flashmob an airport!

Yeah, you do that. Buy some water pistols to point at the cops, too.

Re:jesus christ people...

[someone1234]

Nah, improvised devices could look like anything.
Would you recognise any and all devices that have exploded in Iraq?
This girl got away luckily.
By fucking the police this way, you just lower their awareness.
Next time, a real bomber comes and they'll ignore that.
I hope YOU will be at the airport that time.

Re:jesus christ people...

[belg4mit]

They could look like anything, eh?

    Oh my god! The bitch has got a cellphone! On the ground! NOW!!!

    That giant basketball player has crutches and the foam pads look like putty!
    He's even got his hand wrapped around some kind of dead-man switch! DIE!!!

Clearly the solution is for airports to be a mandatory nudity zone.
It'll also make the caity searches that much easier.

Re:jesus christ people...

[Simulant]

So it goes like this then?

Many bombs have wires and blinky leds (in the movies at least.. I don't recall seen any leds on any unexploded suicide bomber rigs), thus we must arrest anyone who shows up at the airport with wires, batteries and blinky leds.

(what about schools, shopping malls, & office bldgs?)

You can use the same logic for:

A crazy guy tried to light what looked like a fuse sticking out of his shoe so we now must make everyone take their shoes off and run them through the x-ray/explosive detector.
(I'm still not convinced the shoe was actually explosive and even if it was, it most likely wouldn't have done much more than injure the wearer and the one or two people next to him, which he could have accomplished with the fork that came with the meal (oh wait, US airline? Probably no meals and he probably couldn't get the fuse lit because there was no room between him and the seat in front of him to allow him to reach his own foot. AHA!! so that's why economy class sucks! Clever, those FAA/TSA/HSL guys are.)

or slightly more tortured:

Some morons had a plan (hardly feasible and nowhere near being implemented) whereby they were going to blow up a plane using some sort of liquid/gel/paste (we're not entirely sure which) explosive, thus we must ban all liquid,gels, and paste. Except that, damn, everyone needs that stuff so, maybe we can just force them to bring in little bottles of it instead of those big, jumbo size bottles. No limit on the number of bottles though. Have a nice flight.

The only reason there's a difference in the "authorities'" reaction in the last and first example is that everyone needs toothpaste but everyone does not need a blinky led on their shirt.

and finally (and maybe not far off) we have,

Many bombers have brown skin and beards, thus we must arrest everyone who shows up at the airport with brown skin and beards.

In every case, the logic is more or less the same, but these are stupid, fear driven (and fear creating) reactions and are not making anyone safer.

The really fucked up thing is that, I can get through security with practically any odd looking electronic device with wires, batteries, & leds, so long as it looks (to TSA & HSL) as if it came from Walmart or Best Buy, but god forbid I bring my silly, simple, school project to the airport to show my friend when they arrive.

Does anyone really think the bad guys can't put some explosive in a laptop or a detonator in a cell phone? We're running scared and being manipulated people.

AND FLYING ABSOLUTELY SUCKS these days. Personally I'd be willing to risk another shoe bomber or toothpaste exploder for a more pleasant air faring experience.

(And before you go off on how scared I really should be, I grew up in a place where bombs went off practically every week for a period of several years. The way you deal with it is to act intelligently and get on with your life.)

Re:jesus christ people...

[Simulant]

And that guy over there has a laptop that could EASILY be a bomb, and that woman over there has a cell phone that could EASILY detonate something. And listen! That kid over there is holding some electronic device that is making funny bleeping noises. But wait! OMG!!! That baby right there has a bottle with actual liquid in it!!!! (and her mom's got a headscarf on... oh shit)

And HOLY CRAP!!!! They're all wearing SHOES for christ's sake!!!!! Take Cover!!!!!

You must be very frightened indeed, Mr NotaNoShitFucktard, at the airport these days.

Stupid ..

[dindi]

Or maybe I am, but in these rather screwed up times I consider twice what I wear at an airport.

I even once looked at the mirror, and was wearing my favourite "obey" brand t-shirt, that features 4 pictures (4 shades of the same figure)
wearing a hat with a red start, slightly resembling Che Guevara ....

I pictured myself answering the "purpose of your visit" then, "so who is the communist guy on your shirt and why are you wearing it when you enter our country " question ... so I changed to a polo-shirt ......

Some shit strapped to a shirt with a wire looking out is trouble at ANY airport, US on not .... it is an idiotic act of someone either too "rebel", or just immature to look at news and understand them ....

Oh yeah, not answering the question about the wire hanging from your shirt is a clear provocation, and it is just plain luck the person wasn't shot .....

That's called a "deadman's switch"...

[Ellis D. Tripp]

, and I have heard of such setups being used on suicide bombs. The bomber presses down the handheld button, then turns on a second arming switch (hidden). The handheld button has normally closed contacts, so if the bomber lets go for any reason (like being shot/killed), the bomb goes off.

Re:Putty or C4? You be the judge!

[daenris]

Yeah, except if they weren't trained then their ideas about C4 probably come from TV/Movies, in which case they could easily mistake random putty/clay as C4. And if they were trained (which I hope they were) it doesn't really matter, because how good of a look do you think they got at what was in her hand before having to make a judgment about it?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

More like speaking"Eirf!" to the person next to yo

[FatSean]

Considering that it had lights, a circuit board and some putty...the putty in her hand and not attached to anything else...

When government is malfunctioning, it is our duty to point that out, not to just 'go along' with the malfunction. Yeah she might have guessed that this shirt would cause a problem, but so what? Do you advocate that black people stay out of white suburbs because the cops there tend to harass minorities? It might be the safe route for the minority, but it isn't right for our society. You'd probably tell Rosa Parks to move :P

You know who else made an ass out of himself to prove a point? Jesus. Gandhi. That Chinese guy who was run over by a tank. Just about anybody who committed 'civil disobedience' in the fight for civil rights in this country.

Sure, she could have made better choices for herself, but I think she made a better choice for all of us. Selfless actually.

Re:We a

[masdog]

Then why not just answer the airport employee's question?

+3 insightful?

[msimm]

Did you read the two links? I keep seeing the words replica and 'hoax bomb' around here like people know what their talking about. But I've seen the hoodie. The "electronics" consist what looks a solderless circuit board with some LEDs and a battery to power them. A hoax is supposed to be intended to deceive someone.

Art or not...

[SlashDev]

.. She deserves a harsher sentence... And I am more of a liberal. This person was out to make an art statement, she chose her venue (the airport), her art and her attitude. She is very lucky to be alive, I bet if she were at an El-Al front desk, she would have been shot.

Re:Art or not...

[ColdWetDog]

.. She deserves a harsher sentence... And I am more of a liberal. This person was out to make an art statement, she chose her venue (the airport), her art and her attitude. She is very lucky to be alive, I bet if she were at an El-Al front desk, she would have been shot.

No, she would not have been shot. Nor molested. Nor would Israeli security have made a media circus about it. They would have surrounded her, quietly trundled her off into a side room, asked lots of questions and stared carefully at the device.

They might have given her a ride off airport property and they might not have let her on the plane. But shot her, they would not.

That sort of knee jerk over-testosteroned reaction is left to the cowboys playing at security.

Re:Art or not...

[belg4mit]

No, she did not "choose here venue." She's been wearing the cheesy thing for a week,
going about her routine. It just so happened that yesterday she went to pick someone
up at the airport.

Why should she have to answer?

[FatSean]

I thought this was America. Feels more like the bad old USSR that I was warned about in grade-school. You know, the USSR that sucked compared to the USA because they did shit like this.

So what if it wasn't a terrorist?

[Headw1nd]

What if it was a hoax?

The problem with this kind of thing, that everyone seems to be failing to notice, is that it doesn't really have to be a bomb to kill people. Starting a panic can be every bit as dangerous as setting off a IED. My first reaction when I saw this story was to think that maybe this girl was a little off, and had put together something that might look like a bomb, with the intent of causing a disturbance. Before people jump up and say "but it doesn't!" keep in mind that's form close examination at a safe distance, not in a split second observation while the wearer screams "I'VE GOT A BOMB!". In that kind of situation, it would be a good idea to take their word for it.

Of course, that wasn't the situation here, I think this girl just might not have thought things through before she got dressed for the airport. But security was justified in keeping her out of the airport until her motives could be ascertained, a process it seems she could have expedited if she had answered the counter girl's question. Airport personnel need to be on guard against hoaxers as well as terrorists, people in airports are too nervous to do otherwise.

madness has no purpose but it can have a goal

[westlake]

This isn't 24, it's real life.

The geek fallacy is to believe that the world is rational.

The bomb can tick. The bomb can beep - and still be a bomb.

Why do you suppose that after almost seventy years the most compelling and contemporary villain in the Batman mythos remains The Joker?

Re:Everyone was nearly shot. Machine Gun!

[winkydink]

Thank you for explaining this much more clearly that I could have.

Just goes to show...

[ucla74]

...that while you need to be intelligent to get into MIT, you don't have to be very smart.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[mattOzan]

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.

The Massachusetts Hoax Device Statute

[cfhboston]

To convict under this statute, the state would have to prove that she intended to scare people, not just that she was clueless about how they would react.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm
Section 102A1/2. (a) Whoever possesses, transports, uses or places or causes another to knowingly or unknowingly possess, transport, use or place any hoax device or hoax substance with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "hoax device" shall mean any device that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such device is an infernal machine. For the purposes of this section, the term "infernal machine" shall mean any device for endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both, by fire or explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically. For the purposes of this section, the words "hoax substance" shall mean any substance that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such substance is a harmful chemical or biological agent, a poison, a harmful radioactive substance or any other substance for causing serious bodily injury, endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[Anonymous Coward]

I am seriously curious: in your opinion, under what conditions should security detain someone?
At what point should airport security shoot to kill? I'd love to hear what you think and why.

I am not "gun crazy". I don't own a firearm, I don't support unfettered access to firearms and I definitely do not support a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. However, security policy MUST take into account every possibility.

AFAIK current policy draws heavily on advice from israeli security experts, who have considerable practical experience dealing with this sort of thing. The reason they shoot people in the head is to try to prevent suspects from triggering explosives by instantly disabling motor skills. Shooting someone in the legs does not prevent them from triggering a bomb if they so desire.

I personally don't have very much sympathy with people who don't understand the level of security in american airports. Just how much crap should the security personnel tolerate?

She got into MIT... how?

[Sitnalta]

Idiot. An ugly, poorly dressed idiot at that.

I'm...I'm...

[v1]

I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport.

Actually I'm shocked and appalled that an airport would react in such a way to someone wearing this type of device anywhere.

Well, not shocked, really. Not in the world we live in today. Merely appalled.

No. FDR was right.

[JayBat]

Freedom isn't for the faint of heart. I'd like to think my country is the land of the free, and the home of the brave, but judging by the Slashdot response to a college student with a protoytpe board hotglued to a teeshirt, it's apparently the land of the "please big daddy keep me safe", and the home of those willing to surrender their unalienable rights for the illusion of that safety.

It's pretty disgusting.

-Jay-

Re:It's official. The terrorists have won.

[Smight]

The issue isn't even what the cops did. It's perfectly fine for the cops to take control of a suspicous device. The real issue is that she is being prosecuted for creating a "hoax device" long after they determined there was no threat and no intended threat.

America is over...

[rthille]

When half of the replies support the actions of the police in this, I know that Americxa as a bastion of freedom is over. I would have thought it would take more than killing ~3000 people with 4 airplanes to terrorize the entire nation into giving up all their rights, but I was wrong. The press and the government have been working harder than any 'terrorists' at terrorizing the public, and the public is falling for it.

To think that I can roll my two pieces of luggage with ~150 pounds of C4 each into the terminal, then whip out my cell phone and dial a number to set them off, but I can't walk around with some LEDs blinking on my chest. Wow, just fucking wow. I mean, I understand that people don't want to make mistakes that get themselves or others killed, but this is just over the top.

Re:America is over...

[gatkinso]

You, sir, are a fucking idiot.

Re:America is over...

[rthille]

Well argued sir...

Re:America is over...

[joto]

I believe that any insult from someone that responds like you to the grandparent post, should be a hallmark of pride.

Re:America is over...

[flajann]

The US was never the "free" place it has been so vaunted to be. Most people here have no idea of what true freedom is, and even if they do don't really want it. They want their mommy government to tell them what to do and to control every aspect of their lives. Those of us who actually DO desire freedom find this annoying, but are stuck in this failed system.

I feel for that girl, and I had an incident at Logan a few months ago that could've potentially gone very bad. But you see, I had the good sense to "get the hell out of Dodge" before the other shoe fell. I will never use Logan again, though I may have to if I want to fly internationally. I'm not sure if we can trust any large airport in the US. They are all driven by the same inanities, though Logan may be extra-paranoid due to its connection with 9/11.

I fear to wear certain tee-shirts to airports for fear of this paranoia. I have one that says "Bomb Technician. If you see me running, try to keep up!" It's a joke of course, but I really don't need to be thrown to the ground at gunpoint over a lousy tee-shirt. I do recall the airport security types giving one gentleman hell for merely having a book with a picture of a bomb on the front cover. Sheesh.

Hollywood F/X

[Sebastopol]

Well, no wonder "Mr Joe Schmoe WWF Nascar" would get his panties in a bunch if he saw a protoboard with some LED's and play-doh!!!

That's pretty much the typical Hollywood depiction of a bomb!!!

A bomb? Seriously.

[tripmine]

When was the last time a terrorist bomber strapped LED's to their chests? C'mon, real terrorists don't put flashing light, or led timers, or cool bleeping noises whenever a minute goes by. Oh yeah, and real terrorists detonate themselves when they're held at gunpoint. Not really a smart move.
This is Aqua Teen Hunger Force all over again. Except someone almost died.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[rajkiran_g]

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?
From TFA,
Star was an intern at Squid Labs this summer, and is an all-around awesome geek who loves to build things. FYI, friends at MIT say she wears the hoodie on a regular basis- it's just unfortunate that she had it on while trying to pick a friend up at the airport. MIT students don't really do mornings, or worry about what they're wearing, so I can't imagine she'd even think about her clothes before heading out to pick up a friend at the airport before 8am.
She was NOT attempting to board an aircraft. She was there to pick up a friend.

It doesn't look like a bomb!!

[j_w_d]

The circuitry for a bomb worn by a suicide bomber is really simple. It's a switch. Push it on, go "BOOM", or for the really determined, let go (so called 'deadman switch') and same eventuality. There's no need for a circuit board of any sort, much less TWO batteries. Not to mention the guards apparently aren't trained to think, or to handle a real suicide bomber. If they were, the first thing they would avoid is pointing guns at suspected explosives!! Only the TSA would think anything else. What the student should have considered on her errand to meet the arriving friend was, "Airport. Pig-ignorant paranoia. Do I look strange enough to panic a bureaucrat?" Since anyone that looks in their mirror will see a face that will panic a bureaucrat, AND the TSA has to justify its budget somehow - after all, how many REAL threats have they protected the public from - the answer is always "yes." She should have left the fun stuff for later, but being an innocent, who thought she'ld give a laughable surprise to her friend, she forgot the most unstable substance in the airport is the brains running it.

There are laws in place that make it illegal to panic people in an airport. Humour concerning explosives, crashes, etc. is right out, in fact so is the First Amendment. The point is you are not supposed to do it deliberately or knowingly. This though was the equivalent of carrying a sign with the arriving passenger's name on it and the odds it crossed her mind that her SHIRT might be mistaken for a bomb are very low. Carrying a sign for the same reason, mark you, isn't illegal, even though sheet explosives can be carried in nice flat packages that look completely innocuous and could be easily mistaken for heavy cardboard. Think about that the next time you are in an airport. Which is more likely, explosive disguised as sign carried by "chauffeur" or a "suspicious" looking T-shirt with a circuit board openly displayed on the front?

Re:It doesn't look like a bomb!!

[PeeAitchPee]

Which is more likely, explosive disguised as sign carried by "chauffeur" or a "suspicious" looking T-shirt with a circuit board openly displayed on the front?

Far more likely than either of these is some dumbass trying to draw attention to themselves. She deliberately tried to provoke a response and got one. Why else would she not answer pointed questions about what was attached to her chest?

Re:It doesn't look like a bomb!!

[SvnLyrBrto]

Because as long as it is not, IN FACT, a bomb, and all of the naughty bits are covered; it's none of anyone else's damn *business* what sort of fashion sense she has in choosing her outerwear.

cya,
john

What Muslim men removed because of their Arabic?

[cbraescu1]

"The Muslim men that were asked to leave a flight because they spoke in Arabic".

There was no such incident, sorry to disappoint you. If you have any link to any article describing Muslims being removed from their airplane *just for speaking in Arabic* please do it. Otherwise stop spreading urban legends, especially because you are talking about sensitive issues.

The incident I believe you are talking about is this: Six Imams removed from US Airways flight (or read alternative article).

Let's see the reasons why those Muslims were subject to removal from the airplane (which is not really a huge issue, it also happens to drunk passengers):

• made prayers right before boarding the plane (suspicious timing)
• they participated in the same conference, came together, prayed together but their seats were spread out throughout the plane (suspicious behaviour)
• the 6 men made anti-US comments before and during the boarding (suspicious activity when connected with their other activities)

Sounds to me they pretty much fit themselves into the standard profile of a would-be Muslim suicide bomber.

While the removal off their plane may have been right or wrong, it definitely has nothing to do with them talking in Arabic.

Papers Please.

[FatSean]

Why should someone need to answer a question about what they are wearing? Just because some GED-sporting TSA Goon couldn't find their own ass with two hands, we all have to dumb down our luggage and clothing? Fuck that.

When she's in a work-camp in Alaska, it'll be too late.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[Oktober Sunset]

The article specifically states that she ignored questions about the shirt and putty then walked away. And newspapers specifically stated that Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket with wires sticking out and jumped over the ticket barriers.

Remind me not to take this to an airport...

[rthille]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lava_bomb

Nor have a conversation with my wife about what we saw on vacation on the big island of hawaii...

Re:"Yeah, those suspishus e-leck-troniks".

[Lord Balto]

The American people really are the most cowardly bunch of fools on the face of the earth. "Oh my god, he's speaking ARABIC! Quick, RUN AWAY!" "Oh my GOD, she has TRANSISTORS and DIODES on her dress! SHOOT HER!" But let four planes be hijacked and fly off course and nobody even scrambles the jets. Give me a break fellows. This is all a farce.

Man Shoots Japanese Pilot.

[arthurpaliden]

Well he was a pilot after all and you do have to remember that we are living in a post 12/7 world. So how long is this 9/11 stupidity going to last.

Duh!

[zcat_NZ]

Deliberate attention-seeking. She wore something at an airport that she surely must have known would arouse suspicion, and she refused to answer when questioned about it.

People, surely you should know by now, DON'T wear or carry anything unusual at all when you're flying. Airport Security are deadly serious people.

I'm actually surprised they didn't just shoot her at the point that she ignored questioning and walked away.

Re:Duh!

[Brickwall]

People, surely you should know by now, DON'T wear or carry anything unusual at all when you're flying. Airport Security are deadly serious people. I'm actually surprised they didn't just shoot her at the point that she ignored questioning and walked away.

I am amazed at how many posters here either didn't RTFA, or can't understand it. This girl was NOT approached by airport security, nor did she ignore any questions from people who actually have authority. She was asked one question by a freakin' TICKET AGENT, which she ignored, and may not have heard. The only people with badges who talked to her were cops with their guns drawn.

Re:Duh!

[zcat_NZ]

Sorry, what I read suggested that someone from airport security asked about it, and she ignored him and walked away. If I'm wrong, I still think she's an idiot. Surely she would know by now that walking into an airport (any airport, let alone one in Boston!) with any kind of home-built blinky-light circuit visible is just asking for trouble these days.

Also, manyMIT people are dumb in that specific way

[xzqx]

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.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[kwandar]

But I heard the police stopped a straw man in the airport who was trying to do all of the above.

Ohhh, so well said!

Surprised

[geoskd]

I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport
I'm shocked and appalled that a person who is quite obviously ignorant of what could potentially be a bomb, and what can't, would be employed in a job where he or she would be tasked with identifying bombs.

-=Geoskd

Re:Surprised

[Stickney]

What makes you think that it couldn't have "potentially" been a bomb? Have you seen the IEDs that come out of Iraq and Afghanistan these days? I'm shocked and appalled that a person who is obviously quite ignorant of what could potentially be a bomb, and what couldn't, would waste everyone's time berating someone who was tasked with identifying bombs.

Re:Not sure this thing looks like a bomb, myself

[Brickwall]

I agree that the cops had to check the girl out, but charging her with the lamest law I've ever seen "carrying a hoax device"? Once she explained what it was, the police should have just said "OK, move along". I can't wait to see what happens in court. Whatever ADA that gets to prosecute this case is going to feel like a major asshat.

It wasn't a TSA person

[j_w_d]

RTFA. It was an information kiosk attendant. It was quite possible that the question asked seemed so off the wall, she decided it wasn't serious. It was her shirt after all, what ELSE would it be? We spend a lot of time justifying the way law-enforcement types think. They on the other hand do not spend much time worrying about how the innocent think or react. They are expected to assume guilt and let higher authorities sort it out later. I've been in a jury trial where a police officer asked a reasonable question, received a LOGICAL answer, and still arrested the guy because the answer sounded like a confession to the officer. Situation: narrow driveway, view out mostly blocked by houses on either side. Police edge up in cars staying out of site of back of driveway where a cock fight was held. Individual sitting on porch near front of driveway sees the cars and walks out to see what's up. Officer, who knows the guy, says, "So-and-so, what are you doing here?" So-and-so answers. "I came to look." Busted. Took the jury half a day to conclude there was a reasonable doubt about the communication sequence there. The long time hold out was a Christian Fundamentalist who thought Buddhists worshiped the Devil.

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:More like speaking"Eirf!" to the person next to

[Sinbios]

That Chinese guy wasn't run over by a tank.

At least you admit you are a coward, Mr. AC!

[Medievalist]

You're too busy being sensationalist to realize how non-crazies think though, apparently. Good job. No, you are too chicken-shit to understand the concept of FREEDOM.

If the woman wasn't hurting anyone she should be free to do whatever the hell she wants. Your fear was not caused by her behaviour, it was caused by your fundamental cowardice! If you are being hurt by your fears, you are the cause, not this woman. You'd allow a bunch of jackbooted thugs to threaten her life and endanger everyone in the area because you are afraid to die? Do you think you're somehow going to escape death through inane sumptuary laws? News flash: You are going to die, and so is everyone else, and the odds of you dying due to terrorism are far less than the odds of you being shot by a policeman. LOOK THAT UP, IT'S NOT HYPERBOLE. You are defending a course of action that is more dangerous to the populace than terrorism, when you support armed response to totally unverified and highly unlikely threats.

Cowards like yourself are destroying the moral fiber of this country. How do you sleep at night? Don't you understand that we fought two world wars without tearing up the constitution? Are you too busying watching "survivor" to be bothered with fundamental issues of right and wrong? Why can't you admit that it's bad to live as terrorized sheep, and seek therapy for this ridiculous obsession with imaginary bombs?

Re:At least you admit you are a coward, Mr. AC!

[vrmlguy]

Are you too busying watching "survivor" to be bothered with fundamental issues of right and wrong? Actually, I'm too busy watching "Lost", "Heros" and "Jerico".

Here's a close-up pic

[lena_10326]

pic

Look at the playdough type substance holding the wires down. That and the wires make it look very suspicious. What a stupid girl. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. I don't understand how smart people can lack so much common sense.

By the way, a great way to hide a real bomb would be to hide it as tech art or some sort of wearable attachment, so I don't buy this "they should know a real terrorist wouldn't put it on the outside" baloney.

I read an earlier post saying it was "just a breadboard".... yea, yea, yea. Ma and Pa flying in from Utah would know that. Mmmmm'kay.

Re:Here's a close-up pic

[Zero__Kelvin]

"By the way, a great way to hide a real bomb would be to hide it as tech art or some sort of wearable attachment ..."

Yes. It would clearly be foolproof; a great way. Just ask Star Simpson. Oh, err ... ahh ...

It is a good thing she wasn't reading 1984, or the new Bill Clinton book, or she surely would have been shot.

I think I'm in love.

What did she expect?

[crivens]

Seriously, what did she expect? That's perhaps almost the dumbest thing one could wear to an airport these days. No sympathy from me!

Freedom of speech is dead

[razpones]

And other freedoms as well, we have seen in the last few weeks that any kind of different thinking or opinions or even in this case, fashion, is a cause for reaction of the worst kind, we can get tasered, shot, arrested, and even in forums like this, called names for trying to make a statement of any kind. Its a sad day when the reaction to fee thought & speech are guns. The USA is out of control. And don't tell me that they are keeping me safe, they are keeping everyone afraid that's it!.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[SleepyHappyDoc]

The article also specifically states that she had a hoax device. I suspect that if you asked her, she'd disagree.

Hey Zonk

[zCyl]

Someone edited my story and added sensationalist quotes I could swear I didn't include.

That's definitely NOT a professionally correct thing to do, especially for a news site. Zonk, please be more careful when editing to NOT attribute the edited portions to someone who did not submit them.

And also, please do not move links from text which clearly describe what they are, like "report by the Boston Globe" over to things which make it very difficult to figure out what the link is about, such as, "who thought she was armed with a bomb". Think about it. The first section, as chosen by the original submitter, clearly shows that this link contains an article discussing this story. The second text portion looks like it's supposed to link to a blog entry by someone who thought she had a bomb. It makes no sense to change it. We should not have to guess the contents of links when they can be easily labeled.

Your highly trained and skilled TSA screener...

[Chris Tucker]

... going off to his shift at Logan Airport .

And that ain't a bottle of Moxie in that brown paper bag.

Feel safer, now?

wow

[c6gunner]

I am truly amazed at some of the comment here. I'm even more amazed to see them rated +5 insightful.

The only thing I've learned from reading through the comments here is that the average slashdotter is so insulated from the real world, that he or she cannot even identify a real threat when they see it. I mean, seriously, I'm convinced that some of you, were I to swing a baseball bat at your head, would stand there grinning like idiots, fully secure in the knowledge that nobody would EVER swing a real bat at you in public. It's mind-numbing.

I always used to think that nerds not getting laid was Darwinism in reverse, but I'm starting to think that mother nature may not have made a mistake after all....

Re:wow

[joto]

So you believe it's better for security to waste time on some nerd girl, than to start chasing actual terrorists? This could have been over, with no fuzz, in less than a minute.

1. Ticketer alerts security
2. Some security guard approaches the girl and asks about the device
3. The girl shows the device to the security guard, and convinces him/her it's harmless
4. The security guard can start looking for other threats

What happened here, is that pure lunacy from the security people involved here, has wasted valuable police and security guard time. Time that could be used for protecting the passengers, has instead been wasted in harassing some weird, but harmless MIT student meeting a friend. Every second the guards waste in harassing people who are no longer viewed as threats, is time real terrorists can walk by. No, I'm not impressed. And I work in security.

Re:wow

[The Cydonian]

While you're busy working up some hate for "them nerds", here's something to think about:- your police is essentially saying, "We'll shoot you down if we feel scared by your t-shirt." I've been to war-zones (Iran, during the Iran-Iraq war), areas with a lot of terrorist activity ("hyper-sensitive districts", in Indian governmental parlance) and as a civilian, have seen action up very close. A bomb went off some 500m away from me once. As recently as three weeks back, I missed a terrorist bomb in a public park by a mere twenty minutes. My workplace has seen at least two bomb hoaxes this year.

And yet, NOWHERE can I imagine the frigging POLICE making threats to the regular public. Worse is the fact that your police isn't just getting away with making such brain-dead threats, but also seems to be getting some significant public support.

What is so scary about airports anyway that warrants such paranoia? We've seen our share of terrorist plots/ hijackings out here, but we still treat airports as a public mall of sorts; I routinely go to the airport for lunch or dinner if I'm in the area.

A nightmare for the cops

[towsonu2003]

A hooded black shirt AND a device with LED lights??? I guess the cop was like "#$%@#$%!!11 a middle eastern black Q$%@#$%1!1!! OMG WTF!1!" with red flags appearing left and right due to various kinds of racisms. Even Simpsons didn't do this much. Considering what's going on with Jena Six, she's just plain lucky to even get bail. In Louisiana, they would have charged her with 1st degree murder and conspiracy to commit tech art...

I'm not in favor of bad fashion sense either, but

[Medievalist]

Even more importantly I'm not in favor of issuing fully automatic weapons with gigantic clips (and what appear to be silencers?) to people who have been repeatedly shown to have bad judgement. These guys blow up their own traffic monitors, you know... oh, wait, has Faux News deleted that video from their site? I can't find it any more.

A good cop - a competent cop - could take down a female MIT student with a single shot from a .32 snub nose. I cannot think of any valid reason for anyone to be carrying weapons like this in any airport. It's totally inappropriate, like equipping frame carpenters with jackhammers and degaussing coils.

Wanting attention

[chord.wav]

Can we give her a Darwin Award medal of honor and move on to a more relevant subject, and so she stops desperately trying to get some public attention?

Seriously, did you guys took a look at the t-shirt? ANY fuck1n' idiot knows that the airport security guys would see that as a bomb. Can't imagine how the hell did they not shot or tease her. Imagine being an airport officer and some guy/girl appears with a t-shirt with a strapped battery. Would you risk your life to ask him/her if that's a bomb or a geek tshirt?

Just because she has the right to wear whatever she wants, doesn't mean she should exploit that privilege to annoy everybody, specially "armed everybody".

Besides, there are much better ways to get attention. I don't know why she chose the dumbest one. She could have shown her tits or something.

Nearly the same thing happened to me...

[zacnboat]

I was in the airport in Albuquerque, NM and after they ran my laptop bag through security I was pulled out of line and had my bag searched. Where upon the T.S.A. agent called over the airport police who escorted me into a locked room and proceeded to drill me for TWO AND A HALF HOURS on why I had, (and I'm not kidding), 2 USB hard-drives in my carry on luggage. Apparently USB harddrives look like bombs because the T.S.A. morons are techno-phobes who can't differentiate one piece of technology from another.

There's nothing quite like being yelled at for no reason and threatened with being "taken-in" for carrying a common piece of technology that any moron can buy at Best Buy.

In the case of this MIT student she had something on the outside of her clothes that looked suspicious... I was wearing a freaking suit and tie, with nice shoes... and they freaked out over something that wasn't even on my person. What a joke.

Someone who is trying to get something through security at a major airport wouldn't put it in their bag, or on the outside of their clothes. Terrorists aren't stupid. Although it certainly seems like our airport security think that people interested in causing serious harm are to dumb to tie their own shoes... I mean REALLY.

She probably should have been a little more conscientious, but the reality is that they over reacted... just like they are over-reacting to techno-philes all over the country.

If you travel with more than a notepad, and pen be prepared for the Luddite assault you'll receive at the airport. I now give an extra hour every time I travel to account for these people; it is literally the most pathetically predictable thing you will ever experience.

I've actually started taking bets with my collegues every time we travel on whether or not I'll get flagged for special search. I ALWAYS bet in the affimative... and thus far I haven't lost... despite my attempts to wrap my cables more cleanly and pack my electronic more frugally. It has no effect.

I realize this may be flame-bait... but if you travel as part of your work, and you work in technology, you're almost gauranteed to get treated like a criminal everytime you go through security. It's down-right insulting.

Re:Nearly the same thing happened to me...

[vidarh]

Given the number of wires and electronic stuff I have in my carry-on every time I fly (because I only go for a week at a time, and so I fly with only a carry-on to save time - I can pack a weeks worth of changes + my laptop, a few books and other stuff in it) to and from the US (about 6-8 times a year) I guess I'm lucky I haven't gotten shot yet.

Amazingly I haven't gotten searched on a single business trip yet. In fact the only time I've gotten searched at all in my 32 years was when leaving Oslo, Norway this year, by a very apologetic security guard who explained he was only filling the quota (they're required to search one in ten) and who folded everything neatly up and put it back in my bag again better packed than it was when he started. Apart from that, I've been pulled aside to pass me through one of the air puffers once at SFO, but that's it (another quota thing).

I don't know what to think. I obviously don't look like an evil genius, nor a muslim (ignoring the fact that there's been more than one white convert mixed up with extremist organizations already)... Is it too callous of me to believe being pale, blue eyed with short, clean cut blond hair is part of the reason I never get stopped? (I guess I'm jinxing myself and is in for a full body cavity search next time...)

Re:It's official. The terrorists have won.

[Quikah]

I am not sure what your point is, a bomb can't have wires and circuit board sticking out of it? First 2 below looks like they could easily be dangled from a shirt:

Bomb
Bomb
Bomb

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[aurispector]

Correct. Please note that in this case the "suspect" was not injured, possibly owing to the presence of mind and restraint of the officers involved. I never said she *should* have been shot, just that she COULD have been shot. Neither you nor I know anything about what happened except what we have been told. Since that's all I have to go on, that's what I used as a basis for comment.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[Rakarra]

Freedom of speech: These rights include symbolic language and actions (like her shirt)

You don't have the freedom to wear devices that look like they could be bombs in an airport. Sorry, you just don't.

Freedom of Assembly: She was meeting with her friend in a public space and was detained

Thanks to the first non-freedom, this one is null and void. If you're legally detained, then your 'freedom of assembly' isn't being illegally curtailed.

Freedom from unlawful search and seizure: she was arrested and had her person and belongings searched

Again, this was not unlawful and no court in the country would rule it so. If you suspect someone of wearing anything close to a bomb at an airport... yes, you detain them.

Freedom from malicious prosecution: Even after it was determined that the authorities made a mistake, instead of saying "sorry" and letting her go they charged her and made her post bail. She will get off on the charges, but not until she has spent thousands on legal fees that she will be unable to recoup.

While what she did was stupid, I don't think it really requires serious charges.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[Rakarra]

And what if she doesn't answer the airport staff?

Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007

[seandiggity]

She's gonna be pretty screwed according to the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007...

Everyone is Missing the Point....

[paulsnx2]

Sure, normal everyday people might not understand what a breadboard is, and might mistake it for a bomb. But the people that didn't understand what a breadboard is (a block of plastic used to prototype circuits), the people that couldn't understand that to make a bomb you would need to hook the circuit TO something, the people that couldn't see the difference between paint and putty were....

Wait for it.... The people were....

The ones that couldn't look at this and figure it out, were....

The ones with the guns were....

THE PEOPLE WE HAVE SUPPOSEDLY TRAINED TO RECOGNIZE THIS STUFF AND PROTECT THE REST OF US FROM THIS!!!!

And they are going to charge this girl with a crime because they can't figure out what a bread board is by just looking at it!

This is so wrong!

Age and Apology

[UncleBex]

Whether the student understands 9/11 or not shouldn't matter. All of our decisions as a society should not be based on a singular event. That she is 19 does not matter except to note that she is an adult with all of the rights and privileges so entitled.

Nowhere in any of the articles I have read did the woman suggest that she thought the situation was funny. Regardless, going on the premise that you suggest that she apologize... apologize to who? To the police officers for exceeding their authority? To the information kiosk woman for not answering her question? Perhaps to the people of the United States for reminding us once again that as a country we love to make a big deal about nothing.

You assume all too much and know too little.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[putaro]

The point was that the newspapers were *incorrect* (in the Jean Charles de Menezes case) and the police lied to the newspapers as was later shown by CCTV footage.

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.

Breadboard? Sloppy Wiring? What's up MIT?

[BBF_BBF]

As a gEEk with a healthy respect for MIT, I was utterly disappointed at the crappy quality of the "Star" LED device.

Is this the level of gEEkitude that one can expect from the uber gEEks at MIT these days? I was not surprised at all by the fact that an MIT gEEk has the street smarts of a "mentally challeged" person, but how can one also have the wiring skills of a "mentally challenged" person as well?

Come on, any gEEk worthy of MIT would have at least etched a custom circuit board and soldered the components.
Sheesh, the wiring on the breadboard wasn't even routed at 90 degree angles. :-O
Un-frickin-believable.

Oh, how the mighty MIT has fallen...

Taser her....

[fontkick]

if she explodes, it's a bomb. If not, well, sorry for the inconvenience, ma'am.

Did arresting this girl make us any safer?

[dr2chase]

If it did, then we can at least talk about tradeoffs between safety and civil liberties.

If it didn't, then we've lost liberty for nothing.

And no, I don't think it made us one bit safer. It might make panicky paranoid people feel safer, but anyone who can count knows that we've got more terrorists behind the wheels of automobiles, than ever tried to get on an airplane.

But the sotry about the car...?

[porpnorber]

Leaving aside the original incident, I must say I'm floored by your second story ("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"). For this to be reasonable, as you seem to believe it is, I have to conclude that you consider a human life - specifically, your own life - to be less valuable than an automobile. Or am I not grasping something?

What use is your car, if you are dead?

The entire logic of arming the regular police frankly eludes me, because a policeman is someone who has volunteered to put themselves in harm's way, and is actually paid for this strange behaviour. A member of the general public, however, is not. Ergo, by an amortisation argument, a random citizen's life is worth more than a policeman's, and a policeman cannot reasonably go armed into a situation where they expect to do less than save two lives. This seems inescapable to me.

How is a policeman upholding the rule of law by killing?

Explosives, as in the article, are another matter, of course; but as others here have pointed out, threatening to shoot someone who already intends to die is dumb, dumb, dumb game theory.

Re:But the sotry about the car...?

[goombah99]

Hi porpnorber,
I't probably just me an you takling here but if you are seriously interested I'll answer your query.
I've had a life time to dwell on and process the incident so I realze you are just speaking from a gut reaction. First let me acknowledge that having a gun pointed at you is among the most clarifying things that can happen to a person. It brings a great deal of soberness.

My belief and hope is that the cop was smart enough to not pull the trigger wantonly. So if I behaved in a very subdued manner I would be safe. It is scarey to be so abjectly under the will of another. But cops are--one hopes--not lookeing for any excuse to kill. If one assumes that then it's rational that they should seek to act with extreme force when they act. Not to hurt but to control absolutely after the intervention decision is made.

I'm fine with that.

I might have had a gun for all he knew. I don't want cops getting shot because they are not supposed to hurt my feelings.

My opinion would change in a flash if they abused that seeding of authority. That's infact why I'm an outspoken activist on the matter of authority abuse. I prefer a government that earns its trust.

Re:But the sotry about the car...?

[ksheff]

Thugs love unarmed people and an unarmed cop would be just another victim.

Re:But the sotry about the car...?

[porpnorber]

I was once woken up by someone (an army cadet, actually, who later explained that it was 'funny') poking me with a gun. I tried to kill him with my bare hands (nothing else being available). Had the gun been loaded, I would clearly now be dead; as it was, it took four people to subdue me, and it wasn't very pleasant, even though it was the first time since childhood that I had attempted to fight anyone. What was in my mind at the time was simple: "This is a mad animal. I am already dead. Maybe I can save some of my friends."

Pointing a gun at someone is not a move to stabilise a situation. It is the ultimate abuse: it is a move to remove all hope. A person who has a gun pointed at them has no options any more, and is no longer in a position to make rational compromises. In particular, even when dealing with armed criminals, it guarantees that the person who has a gun, or whose accomplice has a gun, will use it, because they are no longer thinking 'what will my jail term be?' but 'can we live to see tomorrow?'

If she really wanted attention...

[GeorgeFitch3]

... she should have worn one of these http://musepat.club.fr/sfair.htm instead of just some plain breadboard. Don't those MIT types have any fashion sense?

Who is the real idiot here?

[busydoingnothing]

Reading this news story presented me with a real moral and philosophical dilemma. On the one hand, I fully support our first amendment rights and am fully against the trampling on said rights. I am for thinking outside of the box and pushing the limits to really get people to think. On the other hand, I am all for common sense. Sometimes I have to choose between the two.

What this case really boils down to is, "Who is the bigger idiot in this case?" Is it the girl who wore a provocative device which could (and was) easily be mistaken for some sort of explosive device, or is it the police for reacting the way they did in the presence of said device? To really give a straight answer, one would have to step outside his regular beliefs and look at this situation as objectively as possible. Look at it in a way that the average human being would. Keep in mind how the human mind works and how people react to such situations. If these steps are taken, I don't think it is possible to defend this girl's position.

The following factors combine to create a volatile situation: an unusual article of clothing, a device which easily resembles a bomb, Playdoh, an airport, heightened security, failure to communicate, increased scrutiny and anxiety, a large, fast moving crowd of people, police with guns. It's easy to look at this situation in the past as it happened, but imagine being in that situation as it unfolded, where the answers weren't available, when everything was unknown. Apply the following formula:

Anxiety = Uncertainty x Importance

This was a mess waiting to happen, and I refuse to believe that this girl did not know what she was doing.

Did the cops react in an expected manner? I believe so. Should she be charged with anything? Meh, that's debatable. I think better things (such as an open discussion) could come out of this than simply charging the girl and moving on.

Does this story mean the terrorists have won? Only if terrorists are responsible for the basic human emotion of fear. Pre or post-9/11, I believe this situation would have been handled the same way. 9/11 just helps stories like this make it to the front page.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[ps3udonym]

You don't have the freedom to wear devices that look like they could be bombs in an airport. Sorry, you just don't.

In fact you do. Your first amendment rights CAN'T be curtailed. There are certain situations that fall under "criminal intent" such as the much bally-hooed yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or pretending to have a gun in the security line up to board your plane. You still, however, have the right to wear something that says anything at all, anywhere you want. No questions asked. That is what the whole "Freedom of speech" thing is about. Of course authorities can always come up and ASK you what it is if there there a security question. However, their security doesn't trump YOUR rights. That is what the whole Boston Tea Party was about. THAT is the freedom that your founding fathers gave their lives to insure that you would have.

Just because you would happily give up some rights for security doesn't mean that it is right. Even if the majority agree with this (and majorities have done some pretty heinous things in the past, McCarthyism anyone?) it still isn't right. That is why the founding fathers made it so difficult to amend or change the constitution. They saw that there may be a time when the "majority" would agree to restrict their own rights, and they made it very very VERY difficult for that to happen. Of course they didn't see that some day the Constitution would be completely bypassed and the people wouldn't use their constitutionally protected rights to throw the tyrants out using force!

There is no situation where the taking away of rights is allowed. Wearing something that kinda, somewhat, a little bit looks like it could, maybe be a bomb, certainly isn't one of those situations. The question is one of degree. You can't make something a little bit illegal. Either it is, or it isn't. So when does it stop? If she can be thrown down at gun point and have her life literally threated for wearing a breadboard, does me wearing a picture of a bomb on my shirt count? From a distance it COULD look real! How about reading a book such as "Catcher in the Rye"? Don't laugh, people have already been thrown off planes for what they were reading. Talk about a slippery slope!

If she had gone in yelling "I have a bomb!" they would have a point. They were well within their authority to go and talk to her to confirm it wasn't a bomb, but not to throw her down at gun point for EXACTLY the reason as the fallout that is happening right now! It ONLY works if you are RIGHT. So far, every time this has happened, they have been WRONG. This means that in order to catch 0 terrorists, every one of us has to give up our rights. I have used this quote earlier in this thread, but it bears repeating:

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve niether"

If the direct words of one of the founding fathers doesn't move you, then I think you had better rethink your idea of what being an "American" is. Trust me, the REST of the world knows what "America" stands for, too bad the "United States" has seems to have forgotten.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[LynnwoodRooster]

But see, the first time they get it wrong the other way (fail to identify an actual bomb), people die.

Better to guess wrong like this case 1,000 times than miss the other way once.

Re:BAD IDEA

[Agarax]

How so?

These are questions we need to ask ourselves.

Freedom isn't lost when you have heightened security, freedom is lost when you can't ask the appropriate questions and have dialogs ABOUT the heightened security, either because it's illegal or because it's 'inappropriate'

In any event if the training the guards at the airport are given is anything like the military ones, the response is to shoot (preferably for the head/throat because the switch for the device might be in the center of mass) and hope for the best. Most high explosives need something a little more powerful than a bullet to set them off, so your biggest worry is the deadman switch possibility. However, electricity would probably set off ANY kind of switch.

Face it, USA TSA/COPS are psycho pathic paranoid

[cheekyboy]

SCHITZOS!!

Seriously, what do you expect from sub par monkey level IQs.

What Idiocracy, funny movie on how usa turns dumb.... im afraid its already half way there.

Threat probabilities are near zero, and the chance of a female is zero.

But seriously also, no one needs to 'terrorise' the usa citizens, the USA TSA and government is doing the job of the terrorists, every one is scared and pissed off.

Welcome to terrorism by proxy thanks to the govt. A real Ts just have to do 'fake' threats and bingo everyone is on edge and treated like scum by their own moronic govt/tsa.

Win the War on Terror: DON'T BE AFRAID

[triclipse]

Here is a letter I sent to my congressman and senators:

I am not afraid of terrorism, and I want you to stop being afraid on my behalf. Please start scaling back the official government war on terror. Please replace it with a smaller, more focused anti-terrorist police effort in keeping with the rule of law. Please stop overreacting. I understand that it will not be possible to stop all terrorist acts. I am not afraid.

See also: I am not afraid.

Re:I think it was total police over reaction

[Kingrames]

"...they should wait until after it explodes to take action?"

I think you're replying to Mr. Newton. he meant "an equal and opposite reaction."

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[ps3udonym]

The justice system is based on a very simple principal;

"it is better that a thousand guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffers for a crime he did not commit."

This has been reduced to "innocent until proven guilty". But lets look at what you are saying further, because this was exactly the attitude that Jefferson was addressing with that aforementioned famous quote.

So they miss a bomb and it explodes killing a thousand people. Heavy stuff, and this is the argument that the Bush administration has used to take your rights away. However, if you should drive your car through a crowded mall you could kill tonnes of people! Does that mean that no one should have a drivers license? The DC sniper showed exactly how much terror a single person with a rifle could inflict on an entire city, yet there is no move to ban all assault and or sniper rifles. In fact every time someone tries there are howls of protest! How about flying? Terrorists used two planes to kill 3000 people, but you can still get a pilots license, same as before.

There are plenty of things that MIGHT happen. But a possible bad event in the future doesn't justify taking your rights away today. Increased security is good, and necessary in today's world. However, this kind of totalitarian, heavy handed approach doesn't do anything to insure your security. They WILL miss a bomb because sooner or later someone is bound to be smarter than they are. At that moment will you give up even MORE rights? The rest of the world has come to accept that terrorism DOES happen, however, they also know that you are FAR more likely to get struck by lightning than be killed in a terrorist incident. Furthermore they know that to increase security to the point where you are destroying rights means that the terrorists have won! This is the exact result that they wanted. The only way to beat them, is to live life as normal. Once you start taking away peoples liberty, then they have achieved their goals.

In the end we ALL are targets of terrorism. There is nothing you can do about it. The chances of another attack on American soil over time reach 100%. However, the chances of a terrorist attack in any one location is so very very slim that the only way you could "protect" yourself is to take away rights and force draconian security measures on your own, innocent, people. Even THIS won't protect you because of the laws of probability. The chances of another attack, over time, on US soil STILL reach 100%, no mater what you do. Because no mater how good your security, if someone really wants to beat it, they can.

So in the end it is a question that you have to ask yourself. If you are willing to give up rights NOW, to stop an event that is certain to happen sooner or later, what rights will you give up once that event HAS happened? ID cards? Restrictions on personal movement? Cameras on you 24 hours a day? How about someone tapping your phones and reading all your mail, just in case you might be planning something? How about it? When will you draw the line?

Wearable light sources and Boston

[BillX]

A friend and I nearly got bounced out of an electronica concert at the door due to homebrew wearable blinkenlights (err yes, this was in Boston). As some other posters has suggested, Instructables might do well to devote a section to "making your homemade circuits look purchased" so as not to attract nuisance Homeland Security attention and/or jail time. (Although, the Mooninite boards that ground Boston to a halt in January were professionally manufactured, and appeared to be machine-populated boards. They even masked the boards in black solder mask (unlike the boring green mask on most circuit boards), which costs extra for small runs.)

Re:Wearable light sources and Boston

[BillX]

Mayor Menino! Is that you?

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[putaro]

They did their jobs. A potential threat was quickly neutralized with no loss of life and a prankster was arrested. SInce when is it the job of the police to arrest pranksters or even silly MIT students? That's what everyone is up in arms about. Asking her what the thing on her shirt is, explaining to her that it's not a good idea to wear the shirt cause it makes people at the airport nervous those are fine. Arresting her and saying that she's lucky they didn't shoot her in the head? Not so good.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[LynnwoodRooster]

Except no one's giving up ANY RIGHTS here. You walk in to a controlled area, wearing unique and unidentifiable electronics parts, and refuse to answer a casual question, then the authorities - who are in charge of that area - have the right to question you. Its not an unreasonable search.

After determining she wasn't a threat, she was released. No illegal detention.

I take it that you vehemently oppose the police looking for suspects based upon physical descriptions, too?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[kwandar]

Okay, the moderator who marked this flamebait must not understand what Strawman refers to. Mod this comment up as insightful and funny!!

Re:I think it was total police over reaction

[bug1]

"wearing something that may or may not be a bomb"

Like say, a t-shirt, a t-shirt may or may not be a bomb...

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[ps3udonym]

I am opposed to any detention based on anything BUT fact. That means that before you arrest the guy, you had better made DAMN certain that it is the correct one!

She wasn't "detained". She was thrown down at gun point. Her life was in immediate peril. She was THEN detained. At that point she was arrested and her person was searched. There was no warrent and a cursory examination would have shown there was no threat and as there was no provable intent (ie she didn't come out shouting "it's a bomb!") there was no crime. There is a HUGE difference between being questioned, and being threatened with death.

She was NOT in a "controlled area" as you say. That would refer to the security zone of the airport past (and a little before) the screening stations. She was in the public terminal, a zone that is most defiantly NOT a "controlled area". People can come and go as they please.

I have been thinking about this tonight. It comes down to this, "are you wiling to die to protect your freedom?". I don't mean join the army. I mean are you willing to put your life on the line for your and your children's liberty? I am, I know that the founding fathers of your country certainly were. So are you? That means running the risk of being blown up by a crazy person because you refuse to give up the rights that many many others have given their lives to give you. One more quote that seems apropos after that comment;

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". So are you a patriot, or a tyrant?

Safety Anyone?

[Mizu]

Please, do take note, that security personnel (sorry, no links to this, however I was told by a reliable source) are required to keep the safety of their guns on when pointing the weapon at any person(s). So, the safety was on, and any moves made on her part that would have led the police to believe that she was about to set off a bomb and/or run, would have equaled the safety switched, and a shot fired in either a fashion to disable her, or kill her. I won't say she's lucky to not have been shot, because that would be stating that she would have been unlucky to have been shot. I believe she would have had that coming, had she been that naive and oblivious. I would like to state that if you were the police officer/security personnel, then you would have seen her from a distance of approximately fifty feet or so. So, from that distance and also note that the officer has probably never seen a real bomb before. Anything strapped to a person that looks remotely electronic and with that same person fiddling with something in their hand would, of course, bring about sudden alarm as to the fact that the officer has no clue if it is truly a bomb or not. It looks remotely like what a bomb looks like in movies, why not in real life (btw, that's what they think, I admit they can be incompetent, but your average civilian doesn't know how to tell the difference from a breadboard to a bomb. Sorry, but they're not all geeks and electronics-savvy)? I must side with the police, as attempting to prevent any sort of threat to the civilians they are assigned to protect (in this case), must be taken to the highest degree. Anything that looks remotely dangerous and that could cause mass casualties must be detained and controlled. The first instinct in extreme situations - as that officer would believe to be, standing around fifty feet away, looking at a person with an unidentified electronic device strapped to them with something in their hand they can also not distinctly identify - is to control the extreme situation with extreme reaction; pulling the gun out, and attempting to control what was happening, so as to not bring harm to the people nor themselves.

Time for a new tag ...

[PhxBlue]

In any topic that deals with a controversy about police use of force, someone should add the tag donttazemebro.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[LynnwoodRooster]

I am opposed to any detention based on anything BUT fact. That means that before you arrest the guy, you had better made DAMN certain that it is the correct one!

So here's the question: you are unsure what the device is. You ask the person and they refuse to answer. How can you be damn sure you're correct? Do you just say "well OK then" and walk away? Or do you arrest the person and figure it out later...

I am a patriot (and in fact, worked on that missle system, even). What you advocate is the tyranny of anarchy, where the rights of the individual trump the rights of society. I'm sorry, but we THE PEOPLE means more than YOU the INDIVIDUAL.

Got Nitro?

[deltacephei]

Damn! Guess I won't be wearing my NHRA Snap-On Tools Got Nitro? t-shirt to Logan; unless maybe I pair it with a black leather miniskirt, heels and red lipstick.

Oh, wait, Southwest Airlines would be offended. Well, shit. OK, kids, do you hear me? NO self expression whatsoever in a public place. Buy your Think of the Children, Anti-Terrorist (TM) , better known as TCAT (TM) Elizabeth Hasselbeck approved SafeNEz Airport Wear uniform today! Only $29.95! Act now and we'll throw in the Sex Offender Detector Air Freshener purse or wallet spray, regularly $9.95, but free, if you act within the next 15 minutes!

Paging John Belushi, please resurrect yourself and save us from ourselves!

Yeah but don't poke the bear

[mstahl]

Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is considered a possible bomb?

I don't think that's the issue. No matter what level of paranoia works for you as your personal preference, you have to admit that it'd be better for them just to be sure. It wasn't a good idea for her not to respond to questions about it, for one thing. Whether you yourself agree with it or not, the cold hard fact of the matter is that airport security and airport employees here in the US of A are a little edgy. Many of them carry guns (remember those troops in airports with assault rifles after 9/11? those guys looked harsh!). I think it's ridiculous that things have gotten this way but this is the way they are right now; it's best not to poke the bear. Know what I'm sayin'?

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'm glad you had the good sense to preface that with "I think" because it's not fact. There are many more people milling about those extra long lines at airports (even in the security line; how ironic would THAT be!) than there are in an actual airplane. What if a terrorist's goal were to be to blow him/her self up in the ticketing area? You can speculate all you want and that's what /. is good for, but you don't know and neither do security guards. Again, it's best not to poke the bear.

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.

Don't be so sure....

Much like the Boston stunt with the Aqua force whatever team signs....this is horrible overreaction.

The Aqua Teen Hunger Force incident in Boston was hilarious... I think the reason why the authorities couldn't just admit that they were wrong was because it caused such a stir and because it sucked up so many police resources. I'm personally of the opinion that Boston was a HUGE overreaction and that they should've just been like "My bad..." but that was then, this is now. While I do agree with you that in this particular case the police should be able to admit that they made a mistake, so should she. Leave your tech art clothes in your checked luggage, 'cause everybody knows bombs are never ever allowed into the cargo hold of a plane (*rolls eyes*).

am I the ONLY one that did not become overly paranoid about terrorists coming to blow me up?

I promise you you're not. The terror threat level, the slow-ass airport security, the craziness, the fact that any time I buy a one-way ticket somewhere I get searched, the fact that I spent a year on a watchlist when a clearly defective machine detected trace levels of TNT on my hippie sandals, is all crazy to me, and I'm sick of it. But that doesn't mean that I think it's a good time to wear my futuristic sex robot halloween costume to the airport. Thank you and goodnight!

Security before boarding plane,not enteringairport

[hornrimsylvia]

Let me get this straight, they arrest her for thinking a light-up hoodie is a bomb at the _information_desk_ in the airport, but had she gone to a train station, a bus station, a Red Sox game, a Patriots game, movie theaters, museums, aquariums, or any other event with thousands more people around, no one would point several guns at her head? If some lady at the information desk asked about my bracelet out of ethernet wire in a condescending tone, I'm not going to tell her how to make one. I doubt she would even understand it. I only think about airport security when I'm actually taking a flight. That's when I leave my knitting scissors and swiss army knife and personal water bottle with water in it at home. Otherwise, I'm bringing them to the airport to wait for Northwest Airlines late planes. If airports are so worried about the security of people who aren't flying, maybe they need to have security screenings OUTSIDE of the airport. This girl was entirely justified. Her rights have been trampled.

If that's true then sure

[TheLink]

You can't be sure what really happened based from the article.

And it's Boston after all- so if the guy lied about her having playdough in her hand then he's a big problem. Otherwise you'd risk having another "charles de menezes" case where the cops lied to cover up their mistakes. Or the other guy who was shot after he ran out of the plane - they shot him when he got OUTSIDE. And they claimed that he mentioned "bomb".

Well at least there's a protocol that didn't work too badly for her this time - she's not dead.

I don't see a reason to go around charging anyone with an offense. Just tell her not to do that again. Most people aren't that silly and won't be doing that anyway, not even terrorists.

Why is it always "someone has got to be charged for this". It's as if every incident must be "punished". To me that attitude is creating more harm in the world than reducing harm.

p.s. it's pretty crappy looking art IMO.

Not shocking...

[smitth1276]

What is even more shocking is that dumb-ass anarchists on slashdot don't understand why security reacted.

That's not shocking at all. There some really fucking stupid people on slashdot. A lot of them.

How to get attention for your bullshit art 101

[zbend]

1. Make cliche bomb looking blinky thing.
2. Strap to your chest in a visually prominent position
3. Walk into Boston airport.

For bonus points ignore security questions, and carry play-doh.

perhaps daddy will notice and love you now?

Should have shot her on sight

[FishinDave]

The woman deliberately looked and acted like a nut job in the last place we need nut jobs. She wanted to provoke a reaction to her "artwork" and the one she got was too subdued.

Re:Security before boarding plane,not enteringairp

[kasek]

bullshit, what she did was stupid, plain and simple, and they should give her some time in jail to work on her 'art' skills.

Considering

[fireheadca]

2 Cents to join the crowd

Considering a simple bomb could be made with a power source, switch, detonator and explosive (simple, no? there is simpler...) the breadboard on her chest could be ..something... {waving hands into thin air}

Oh yes, maybe the cops knew it wasn't a threat but also knew she should be stopped cold for her own sake and sake of others. Wow.

Hell, who knows, maybe she was testing the waters?

If someone walked into a crowded room wearing something like this, would anyone be surprised if they threw open their coats and yelled 'NOW YOU ALL DIE!!!'.

It would be *my* final oops, not theirs.

---
The frickin sharks with lasers have a new toy....

The cops should DEFINATELY Apologize!

[Zero__Kelvin]

Well, I can see how the police should be apologizing for items 1 through 3 & 5, but they should let a PR person handle item 4. As to #6, when did they mention Duracell?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[Anonymous Coward]

And since your biased against the press you disregard anything written. Come on. What about a little reading comprehension? The articles I read say that the only suspicious act was not answering a question from some baggage handler... it wasn't like she was stopped by the police and tried to walk away. But the mainstream press are trying to make it sound suspicious that a girl walked away from someone who asked about her shirt... given a large sampling of girls I have asked about what's under their shirts and they walk away, I think I have clearly ascertained that this behavior is completely normal.

Re:We a

[Atragon]

So if a cashier in McDonald's asks you "Why are you dressed like a gay cowboy?" you would answer it?

What about, "What is that thing on your crotch?"

Not every question from a complete and total stranger deserves an answer.

Boston is the worst city in America.

[bXTr]

The people there have proven themselves to be the most paranoid and obnoxious people in the country. I'm never going anywhere near that city if I can at all help it. Osama, there's your next target. Help a brutha' out, dog.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[JPribe]

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?

And what exactly does a bomb look like?? I have to put my laptop in a serperate bin each time I go to the airport. I have to disassemble my camera and have those TSA fools get there grubby paw prints on my lenses and expose the inside of my dSLR to the garbage in the air at the airport. I can't carry a decent tube of toothpaste or a regular stick of armpit anti-funk.

Why is that? Because a bomb can take any shape. OMG itz da bomz!!!!!1!! This is a poor excuse for a bunch of alarmist gun toting morons. No self respecing person with antisocial motives would go anywhere wearing a bomb in such an obvious manner. It would be concealed until said whacko wanted it to be known that s/he was insane...not walking around with it waiting for the authorities to show up.

Bottom line: Boston is full of self important people who assume someone would *want* to blow themselves up in Boston. I mean really...it is Boston for crying out loud.

Looks like it could be a bomb

[thatblackguy]

Well, the point is that it looks like it. I don't think they were wrong to think it could have been a bomb, hell I even believe them when they say it looks like putty instead of paint, on the board anyway. It is a good thing she complied and wasn't shot up but c'mon they could have been a little more understanding in their press release. They're under a lot of pressure to weed out the actual terrorists but it's not too much to ask to show a little humanity when you arrest a student. It would go a long way to not come off as drunk-on-power monsters. Especially after the (albeit hilarious) 'Don't tase me bro!' fiasco.

The real lesson to be learned here

[blueg3]

If you're planning on making a bomb and sneaking it into a secure area, put it in a nondescript package, rather than wearing it on your shirt.

Frankly, any terrorist able to pull off a decent plan will have a well-concealed bomb. If you can see the bomb, then it's too late.

There goes freedom again ...

[Hektor_Troy]

One more notch in the belt of wouldbe fearmongers (like say ... terrorists).

Hell, I'm looking forward to the day that someone grabs a regular trolley suitcase, fills it up with some kind of explosive and loads of small metal balls (maybe steel bearings), and detonates it in the middle of an airport terminal. Think of it as a mobile Claymore.

What'll they do to stop "potential" terrorists then? How will they make us "feel" safe? Move security check points to the curb? Arrest people who walk around with regular bags because they make people feel uncomfortable? Maybe force everyone to be nude in public - that'd be a hoot.

Obligatyory male hormonal reference:

[Zero__Kelvin]

Have you seen a good picture of this woman? She is Da' Bomb!

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[el americano]

The prosecuter during her arraignment said that she answered the employee that it was art. Everybody panic!

The REal truth

[Quiet_Desperation]

The authorities are overreacting *AND* the student was a complete, dumbass tool.

It doesn't have to be either/or.

Oh, and as "art" it's laughable.

For prosterity

[Nazlfrag]

SuperBanana writes "According to a report by the Boston Globe, 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. Her actions seem purposefully designed to elicit a reaction from airport security- or this is further proof of the poor judgment of Boston area college students."

- That summary is superb. The editors are douchebags.

The the folks calling her "hot"...

[Quiet_Desperation]

...need to get out more.

Re:Also, manyMIT people are dumb in that specific

[Quiet_Desperation]

We get some MIT grads where I work sometimes. I really try to avoid having them on any of my teams until they've been seasoned a bit. Their work is no better than any other newhire, and there's a whole "You can't tell me anything cuz I went to MIT" subtext to every discussion. I have a job to do and milestones to hit. I don't need that juvinile bullshit.

ehmmmm

[Swingblade]

Ooooo what a shocker. Having paranoid security personnel in the airports, and wearing something like that. Oh yeah, great mix.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[Carewolf]

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.

I doubt the police have a case

[A1kmm]

From http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm
> Section 102A1/2. (a) Whoever possesses, transports, uses or places or causes another to knowingly or unknowingly possess, transport, use or place
> any hoax device or hoax substance with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons shall be
> punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than
> five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
>
> (b) For the purposes of this section, the term "hoax device" shall mean any device that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such device
> is an infernal machine. For the purposes of this section, the term "infernal machine" shall mean any device for endangering life or doing unusual
> damage to property, or both, by fire or explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically. For the purposes of this section,
> the words "hoax substance" shall mean any substance that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such substance is a harmful chemical or
> biological agent, a poison, a harmful radioactive substance or any other substance for causing serious bodily injury, endangering life or doing
> unusual damage to property, or both.

So firstly, for it to be a 'hoax device', a person would have to 'reasonably to believe that such device is an infernal machine'. Automatically thinking any electronic device is a device for endangering life or damaging property by fire or explosion would be unreasonable, because electronic devices are so ubiquitous.

Secondly, even if the clothing is considered a hoax device under the above definition, for it to be an offence the possession has to be done "with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort" which wouldn't be the case if it was intended as jewelery.

On the one hand ...

[imagin8r]

... there have been no [significant -- okay, I'm covered] terrorist incidents on US soil since 9/11; so perhaps such aggressive methods of 'terror detection' are well-warranted. On the other, the US is rapidly being turned (or at least the attempt is being made) into a highly orderly and compliant society what with [well-meaning] paramilitary SWAT teams raiding the houses of innocents, TASERS, pain rays, and other highly militarized and uber-aggressive methods of social control. The metaphor of 'war' is used in just about every context: War on Drugs, War on Cancer, War on Illiteracy, War on Poverty, War on, well War. Hollywood seems to have skewed American culture towards highly macho, ultra-aggressive responses to just about every challenge. 'War' is transplanting 'sport' -- ball park figure, home run, first base, Monday morning quarterbacking, football field, touchdown, etc. -- as the lens that Americans use to view and engage with the world. I have nothing against 'U S Americans' - as our Teen Queen recently stated -- doing everything to defend 'their way of life', 'freedom', or whatever. If SWAT teams and over-reaction is what is needed to protect those 'freedoms' then so be it. But the rest of the world is laughing at them. And maybe the rest of the world is wrong. But those 'freedoms' are gradually ebbing away.

What makes a bomb...

[TheVAXmanCometh]

It's at times like this that I think Hollywood has a lot to answer for. So here goes nothing.

A basic bomb consists of 5 items:
1. Explosive charge - many suitable choices exist
2. Detonator - small charge, usually electrically fired
3. Battery - to fire the detonator
4. Switch - to complete the circuit
5. Wires - obviously

This is the sort of thing that suicide bombers tend to use. There is no need for any fancy electronic devices.

A circuit board attached to a bomb indicates:
1. Remote detonation
2. Digital timer
3. Anti-tamper device

So, if you see anyone wearing a flashing circuit board, there are (probably) two possibilities:
1. It isn't a bomb. (99.9% probability)
2. It is a bomb, but it has a remote detonation facility. (0.01% probability) Shooting the wearer is definitely not going to help.

Re:I think it was total police over reaction

[kevinbr]

Ummm......bullshit. In Munich, when you connect, you pass though one security check between connecting flight. Not 4. Unless you left the secure zone several times. The Germans actually take a lot of verbal abuse without arresting people. They are better than the Swiss. In Europe you might get arrested, but your probability of being beaten or shot is much less.

Re:Problem #2, however, is paranoia...

[Fire Dragon]

The ONLY real terrorist bombs have all been constructed in such a way so as not to draw ANY attention to themselves. They might make them look like trash, they might hide them in something, but they sure as hell won't have wires and blinking lights.

If you'd had, say, a cell phone with wires coming out of it attached to a package, I'd be more inclined to believe it, but I have to say: I would definitely not have mistaken this for a bomb.

This would make sence if you'd be sure that everybody is sane. Blowing things up don't make people terrorists, it just makes them insane people that have some personal agenda. Most of the insane people are not explosive experts, normally they prefer guns and shooting around before taken down. Any security personel in public area cannot be sure why somebody wants attack some place and how they would do it.

You can easily have a divorcing dad that has lost a job opportunity because they missed a connecting flight and herefore the job and kids to blame the airport of his situation. They are not terrorist, but they threat the safety of people around with their crazy ideas as terrorist would do.

If you did, I'm sorry, but you're part of the problem. You're one of those people who has surrendered to the terrorists.

Shit happens, it just doens't get that much press time if it wasn't terrorist that did it. Insane people go shooting around, blow up their former workplaces, burn down places and harm otherwise people they don't like. They are not terrorist and reporting that somebody does something weird isn't surrendering to terrosrist, it's just keeping up with world. There are people that are insane and unfortunatelly it makes them even more dangerous than terrorist because you just don't know what is their personal agenda.

Retards manning the fort

[sdkee]

Honestly, is anyone even surprised that airport security is so boneheaded? These ex-con-hiring, power-mad, politiceized bureaucrats can't tell a threat from a 90 year old grandmother with knitting needles. Since there really aren't any threats, but they're shure that there must be some (since a lot of other g-men said that there are constant threats), this makes them even more confused and delusional. Of course, since they're with the g-men, then they can't have been wrong. It is all the fault of the person who wore a shirt which confused their addled criminal minds. Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. Take your soma. Nothing to see here... Scott

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[aurispector]

I understand your point, in fact I agree with you completely about all the points you make here. I also note that you did not answer my question.

Most of the people here seem to be missing the essential point about this incident: Security is trained to look for things that are out of the ordinary, since they can't be expected to know at a glance whether an object is or is not a weapon.

It was the behaviour of the suspect after being questioned that triggered the arrest. How can they know that she was not fucking nuts?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[aurispector]

HEY! I *like* Boston - even if it IS run by overreacting morons. (the same could be said about the TSA and the US government at large)

My whole point is not about the items in question, but the behaviour of the person involved. Airport guy sees something weird--> subject doesn't respond clearly--> ssecurity event triggered.

How could she NOT know that airport security is jacked up to unreasonable levels? How could security know that she was not mentally ill and acting irrationally? People smart enough to build bombs can be mentally ill. "Suicide by Cop" is not an unknown phenomenon.

How should airport security deal with that?

Re:Not sure this thing looks like a bomb, myself

[morgan_greywolf]

The gates for arrival are the same as the departure gates. Your right in that the luggage areas aren't heavily secured, but the article did say that she walked up to a terminal employee.

Flashy clothing?

[minimum]

So, I guess next target who probably gets shot at sight is Leah Buechley with her LED tanktop or e-textile kit.

Re:BAD IDEA

[Svartalf]

In the case of the class of devices in question...

Switch is depressed by the thumb. Kill them or ko them the thumb is RELEASED and the bomb goes off.
There's a device monitoring the pulse. Kill them, the pulse stops, the bomb goes off.

Either of which situation, shooting the person is the WRONG thing. You need to be thinking like
the terrorists to handle them. I do not pretend to even begin to know these crazy people, but I
do work with people that DO know something about this. The police need to be trained better or
they need to be told to just contain the problem until help arrives or they and the people around
them are seriously endangered before acting. What they did wasn't even remotely close to that.

The What If Scenario

[NoMoreFood]

I always like to look at these events in the what-if worst case scenario. In this situation, what if the gadgetry she had been wearing was actually a bomb? Had something bad happened on the terminal or a plane, many of us would probably be looking at this slightly differently: Authority to cognizant TSA Officer: "You mean you saw a woman carrying a possible homemade explosive and disregarded it? You even questioned her about it and she walked away? Don't you think you should have escalated the situation? Hundreds of people are dead now...".

Re:The What If Scenario

[vidarh]

By that account, "what if" my laptop was a bomb? Maybe I should be challenged about it every time I go travelling? My laptop has far more space for explosives than a little breadboard. For some reason people seem to expect bombers to make the bomb obvious, while airport security is tight enough that anybody except loonies who WANT attention drawn to their explosive would be able to hide it a lot better. And loonies wanting attention to it would've made it large and obviously a bomb.

This idea that "looks homemade == likely bomb" is stupid, and it reduces security by giving people the inverse idea that if it looks factory made it's almost certainly ok.

I travel a lot (about 60.000 miles so far this year and counting), and over the last couple of years I've noticed exactly that idea taking hold. It's not that long ago since I was regularly asked to turn my laptop when walking through security, for example. Now they just x-ray it, so all people need to do to get explosives through is make it look like a plausible laptop on x-ray, rather than make it look plausible AND make it appear to work.

Re:The What If Scenario

[NoMoreFood]

I was simply stating that it was a lose-lose scenario for the airport guard. If they act aggressive (as they were), we condemn them as unintelligent. If they act lenient, they leave themselves liable if something actually does happen. I'm not questioning the stupidity of it all. The perception of security in this country far outweighs the actual effectiveness of it. These security practices have been analyzed for cost/benefit just like everything else. Cost: bunch of underpaid, GED-at-best guys in a uniform. Benefit: deter the uncreative terrorists and give people the impression that they are safe.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[mclaincausey]

OK, so if it had been a terrorist with a bomb, then they could have just said the bomb was "art" and they should have been let on a plane...

Re:Also, manyMIT people are dumb in that specific

[belg4mit]

I have a job to do and milestones to hit. I don't need that juvinile(sic) bullshit. Then perhaps you should do a better job vetting new hires.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[Ihlosi]

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!).

At an airport, I would suppose that the bomb is hidden in a piece of luggage, not on the hypothetical bomber.

he kind of explosives you can acquire and produce in a western country will only create events like that at Glasgow, which was a joke.

Madrid ? London ?

Paranoia

[aoism]

Is it me or could anything from a stick of gum, to ear plugs, to a bottle of water be considered a 'Hoax Device' to somoneone who was paranoid enough?

"Who the hell WEARS electronics?" True Geeks!

[Bananatree3]

Wearable electronics do exist, and they are for the truely nerdy people out there. But alas, it seems laypeople don't have a clue as to this geeky beauty. They think anything with a circuitboard in an airport is a bomb.

Yes, it's easy to frighten the ignorant town folk

[skeptictank]

Ms. Frankenstein. All you need is a breadboard, some LEDs, a battery and some silly putty. The vast majority of people on this planet are completely confused by and terrified of technology; even the ones in the developed world that are totally dependent on it. They are intimidate by Scientist and Engineers and more than a little distrustful of us. A jack-ass stunt like this doesn't help the situation.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[davegravy]

I agree regarding phony airport security:

I carry a knife on my key chain (a knife that folds up into the shape of a large key and hangs off my key chain). On two occasions I have forgotten to pack it in my suitcase and carried it through airport security without being stopped.

Security is probably pretty efficient at catching things that have been tried before, but there are probably millions of methods to getting weapons on a plane that haven't yet been attempted.

Doesn't go far enough!

[cumin]

Now terrorists will know that they can get away with taking bombs in if they put the bombs under the shirt! We'll never be safe until anyone with apparent breasts is required to show them before entering an airport. I have to take my shoes off already, I say its only reasonable to have to take my shirt off to prove my man-boobs aren't explosive devices as well and of course everybody with apparent boobs should have to prove that they actually are breasts. Any that seem especially full should be patted down to ensure they don't contain any surgically implanted electronics or detonators.

My only concern is that this may lead to other suspicious bulges, fortunately I doubt I'll ever be noticed for such a thing. Also, as one of the men who instantly saw the need for this type of security, I volunteer to help keep airports safe by providing random screening services.

Disclaimer: Intentionally moronic, most of the time.

Re:Also, manyMIT people are dumb in that specific

[Quiet_Desperation]

Not my department, typo Nazi. I *have* suggested better guidelines, but, well, I'm not the CEO, and he's too busy fucking whores on piles of $100 bills.

How do you keep getting modded up?

[bigtallmofo]

You are a serious piece of work. I've seen at least three +4 modded comments from you in this story that all use the same basic tactic. i.e. Exaggerating the police reaction and making an inane obviously correct statement that has no applicability to the story. Take this sentence:

The cops certainly are NOT supposed to draw their weapons down on you for your lack of speaking to them, or cooperating with them.

You're right. Drawing guns on someone just for not speaking or cooperating is ridiculous. However, wearing home-made electronics with wires and a battery sticking out of your black hooded sweatshirt at the airport while holding PLAY-DOH in your hand and then failing to respond when asked what the hell you're doing is a completely different matter.

Then let's add the fact that she walked up to a security person to ask about an arriving flight. She was obviously looking to make a scene, otherwise she would've used the electronic screens that are EVERYWHERE in an airport that show when arriving flights are arriving.

I'm rarely on the side of police in these situations, but she was looking for trouble, and got it. Congratulations, dork-girl.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[fredklein]

She wasn't trying to get on a plane, you moron. She was meeting someone who was arriving.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[Carewolf]

I don't know about Madrid, but in the London explosions large bags was used.

Tell you what...

[SvnLyrBrto]

... when I go in to work on monday, I'll ask the first half-dozen or so co-workers* I encounter what and where a college student is studying in "Course VI"; and get back to ya in this thread.

*And just to be fair, I'll skip the one who actually *IS* a Course VI alumnus.

I'd bet money, right now, that no less 75% will get it right. Depending on who winds up coming in when, I'd not be a bit surprised if 100% get it right.

cya,
john

Re:Tell you what...

[ksheff]

After it has been plastered all over the news, lots of people are going to know what "Course VI" is referring to. If you would have asked me last week or even 17 years ago when I was taking CsC/EE classes what it meant, I wouldn't have been able to tell you. Who keeps up on how various schools refer to their degree programs other than the people who have gone there?

Re:Tell you what...

[MoneyT]

It doesn't count when you work at MIT

Re:Tell you what...

[SvnLyrBrto]

The thing is though... this isn't just some "various school" we're talking about here. It's the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. When I was studying CS, at least three of the profs were MITers as was the department head. So yeah, even though I've never attended a class in Cambridge myself, I got a healthy exposure to the kind of people who do; and I damn well knew what Course VI meant! I'd imagine the situation would be the same most anywhere else. The top-tier schools do produce a disproportionate number of senior faculty, after all.

You are correct, though, that all the news exposure makes my own proposal completely invalid. But I still suspect that I'd have found a good percentage of clue, even if I had I asked before this story broke.

cya,
john

Re:Tell you what...

[ksheff]

Nope. They may produce disproportionate number, but that doesn't mean they're distributed evenly.

Have MSc in Physics - would have tackled her..

[ckedge]

..and tried to "disarm" her.

To wear that shirt to an airport or even into a Bank is to ask to have guns pointed at your head. She's lucky she didn't bump into me first, she'd have a lot more bruises on her - I'm not as well trained in disarming people as officers of the law.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[TFGeditor]

Someone with mod points please give the parent an "Insightful."

Understanding

[SuperKendall]

No, you are too chicken-shit to understand the concept of FREEDOM.

And you are too stupid to understand the meaning of CONSEQUENCES and PERSONAL RESPONISIBLITY.

I have the FREEDOM to shout fire in a crowded theater, or to wear a bomb-looking thing into an airport. But I am RESPONSIBLE enough to know the anguish and problems that wold result from such an action, so I do not do so.

Want to wear wierd electronics to a art event or halloween party? Right on. But wearing random electronics far outside the norm to an Airport? That's just not thinking straight, or even thinking of otehrs at all - it's the ultimate in selfish expression, not artistic at all.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[mclaincausey]

Yeah, who cares if they just blow up the baggage claim.... fucking idiot.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[fredklein]

If she had wanted to blow anything or anyone up, she:

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. ...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.

Who would have thought?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[mclaincausey]

That's ludicrous. If people could be expected to react to an obvious terrorist threat with complacency, then terrorists could simply be obvious. They could count on someone saying "Oh, well, that CAN'T be a bomb, I can SEE it," while they walk in with a wheelbarrow full of C-4. Further, such a person could be providing a diversion so that another person could make it through security. Further than that, a handful of plastique could kill a few people. It doesn't have to be a fucking nuclear bomb to be concerning. The point is, we live in a world in which people can universally be expected to overreact in a predictable manner when faced with the perceived threat of terrorism, no matter how obvious it looks in hindsight. We have already seen this same city freak out over a bunch of LiteBrites. In an airport, you can;t even joke about a bomb if you expect to get on a plane. Like it or not, it's her fault for being a fucking idiot and not considering the climate of an airport after 9-11.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[fredklein]

"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....

please someone mod the above up

[circletimessquare]

if a joke, spot on

if serious, draw droppingly insane

Are you people jealous?

[melink14]

I see a lot of people on here taking shots at MIT for this "stupid" person it accepted. You guys must feel really special now, probably makes you feel a bit better about this great school you could never attend. The problem with your analysis it wasn't at all a conscious action/decision for her to wear some leds to the airport. She woke up and was essentially like, "Today, I'm going to wear some leds." Sometimes you wake up and decide to wear red, same thing. What seems to be the turning point, is that you arbitrarily think it's okay for people to wear red but not for people to wear leds. Because something's less common that makes it a bomb. I shouldn't have to ask my self "Is the next thing I'm about to put on, going to be seen as a bomb?" Next time I'm going to bomb an airport remind me to put the detonator in an ipod. The terrorists have won.

Re:Everyone was nearly shot. Machine Gun!

[putaro]

Any competent law enforcement officer should be able to determine that a breadboard with some LEDs and a 9 volt battery is not a bomb or even a fake bomb, tell the young lady that wearning that shirt at the airport is a bad idea and let the whole thing drop.

Those guys weren't competent and I don't see why I should trust them with any form of weapon.

Re:More like speaking"Eirf!" to the person next to

[Rich0]

Uh, what exactly was she protesting against? Police responding to threats of suicide bombers? If she did this in Texas in a location other than an airport she'd probably have been gunned down by 14 helpful citizens.

This isn't a case of a college kid protesting against government oppression. This is some kid with a chip on her shoulder.

And when a real suicide bomber threatens to kill dozens of people in a crowded area do you really want the police trying to figure out if the wires on their explosives appear to be properly attached? Wearing what would appear to be a bomb and then being evasive when questioned about it is about as smart as pointing an unloaded gun at a police officer and being surprised at the outcome...

Re:I think it was total police over reaction

[Hoi Polloi]

Ummmm...Sorry but no bullshit. Though I also included the security I had to pass through on the 1st leg to get there (security to enter the airport and then to the gate). I had to pass through security on the way off the plane in Munich and on the way back to my connecting flight.

pathetic

[Bizzeh]

"we cant tell the difference between a dead bit of PCB and a real bomb, so because of our mistake, which we will never admit, you now have $750 less than you did yesterday and you now have 'suspected terrorist' on your record.... but your lucky really, we where going to shoot you"

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[redcane]

This kind of "pre-emptive" security is like pre-emptive war. Pointless. BTW any intelligent bomber knows what a dead mans switch is, and what it's for, shooting the "tarist" in the head is a good way to get blown the fuck up. I don't have much sympathy for a society that dictates you can't build your own LED name tag, I mean, it's not technically illegal, but enough "wiggle room" has been put in these laws that *everyone is breaking at least one law*. Think about that. Effectively, they can arrest *anybody* on some pretext. Here in Australia under the new "terrorism" laws, that means you can be held incommunicado, your not allowed to tell your Family, your workplace, anybody. Better hope grandma doesn't really need you to come back from the shots with her insulin.

Re:BAD IDEA

[Lurker2288]

I don't claim to be an expert, but I've never heard about a suicide bomb rigged to the carrier's pulse. It seems it would be excessively complicated with pretty low return (because after all, how often do you hear about a bomber being shot before he could detonate himself?).

The dead man's switch, on the other hand, is perfectly plausible, but in that situation the cops can choose to not shoot and let the bomb go off, or shoot and hope that the bomb isn't on a dead man's switch. Tough to say what the individual might do in that case.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[mclaincausey]

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??) No, I am not. It was a mere exaggeration, quit with the bait-and switch. The point remains valid and unchallenged: a threat being obviously, to you, in hindsight, nonthreatening, doesn't mean that people who are sworn to protect us should ignore it. A terrorist wearing some sort of device in an obvious fashion is just as deadly as a more discreet terrorist if they are treated the same way.

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?? I don't know what "mis-interperated" means, but my point is clear: I'm saying she deliberately baited this attention and deserves what she got. It's common sense. These people are trained to always be alert to threats, and they probably have a visceral gut reaction that is difficult to manage one the adrenaline is flowing. None of them wants to be the one who is themselves a victim or fails to save other victims frmo an attack.

I think that we have a really paranoid climate, and I don't think we're in nearly as much danger as that climate would imply. But that's the way people are. You don't wear red in a crip neighborhood, and you don't fuck around with anything that could be taken for a bomb in an airport.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[fredklein]

you don't fuck around with anything that could be taken for a bomb in an airport.


But the point is, to any reasonable, thinking person with two neurons to rub together, what she had could not be "taken for a bomb".

And if you disagree with that, then please answer this: Which of the following could NOT be 'taken for a bomb' by a sufficiently stupid or paranoid person??
1) A laptop that was left in 'sleep ' mode until the battery died, so the passenger can't turn it on for the TSA guy.
2) A guy whipping out an **OH-MY-GOD**-It's an Electronic device with blinky ligh... er, it's just a cell phone. Nevermind.
3) A kid playing with a Gameboy... or is it?
4) A bottle of water.

I don't know what "mis-interperated" means

misinterpreted - interpreted in the wrong way

A terrorist wearing some sort of device in an obvious fashion is just as deadly as a more discreet terrorist if they are treated the same way.

The point is, a terrorist wouldn't wear their suicide bomb visibly. Kinda defeats the purpose. So, anyone wearing a device visible is most likely not a terrorist. Worth a second look, yes. By all means. Send someone who knows what they are doing over to take a second look, ask a few questions. But don't freak out and point guns at someone because they have a blinky light on them. Before this incident, I would have said that was an over-reacetion. And now I've been proven right.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[aproposofwhat]

--> ssecurity event triggered.

Absolutely the best Freudian spelling slip, evah!

Homeland SSecurity is here to protect your SSafety!

Mass S. P.: Protecting you from blinky things.

[Big Bill the Conjure]

First the Aqua Teen thing, now this. I think the MA State Police need to spend more time training on real antiterrorism techniques and less time looking at movies, or something. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they have officers in boats circling Logan to protect against sharks with laser beams on their heads.

being different..

[azrin_abbas]

i'd say they overreacted.

but then again..people are always afraid with something that is different. i don't think we see people with gadgets attached to their shirts as obvious as that all the time.let alone in an airport. so the reaction was right, to me. just a little bit over the top.

what can one say, being different has a price to pay. that was hers.

Re:It's a fucking BREAD BOARD!

[Rakarra]

In fact you do. Your first amendment rights CAN'T be curtailed. There are certain situations that fall under "criminal intent" such as the much bally-hooed yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater,

Then here's where our fundamental disagreement is. I think we agree on most points, but I do feel that wearing a sweatshirt that looks like a bomb is akin to yelling "Fire" in a theater. I find most "9/11 changes everything, we have to clamp down on everything" arguments are ridiculous. I actively support EFF and the ACLU. I felt warrantless wiretapping and other illegal domestic surveillance was.. uh, unwarranted. I thought the Boston ATHF incident was a stupid overreaction, and I have often repeated the usually-overused "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither" Franklin catchphrase. But when you wear something like that to an airport and you REFUSE to answer airport staff questions about it, that's about as suspicious behavior as you can get without without actually shouting "I have a bomb and a list of demands.."

So much of this could have been avoided if she had not stupidly decided to ignore airport personnel.

If you think this is ok, here's what your missing.

[krunk7]

You can't stop terrorists or terrorism. Yep, that's the long and short of it. Harassing folks in situations like this is completely out of line, why: because a real terrorist with a real bomb would have blown it up as soon as she got in a crowd. You can "foil" terrorist plans, you can arrest them before the act, but you can't stop a suicide bomber unless you want a completely fascist "you must have your papers visible or be shot on site" society. And even in this case, you still can't stop them completely and have no hope of stopping suicide bombings of public places.

Countries suffering from consistent bombings should ask themselves why the hell such a large organized group of people are willing to die as long as they can kill as many of you as possible in the process. If your answer is "because they're evil", then please go fix yourself another glass of cool aid and leave the big decisions to the grown ups. When you find the answer to that, you have two choices: Stop what your doing (or actively attempt to get your government to do so) or accept it as a consequence and stfu, but don't use it as a lead pipe of paranoia to beat over the public's head. Because you can't stop it. You can slow it, but if a group of people really want to blow up public target X, are willing to die to do so, and have the materials to make it happen....it'll happen.

The reason terrorism is to popular amongst poorer militant activists and governments alike is because it's so damned effective and impossible to stop.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[turbidostato]

"However, security policy MUST take into account every possibility."

Yeah... this man seems too serene, too well-dressed and he has a briefcase. He is obviously a terrorist in disguise carrying a bomb in front of everybody's eyes, *that's* why he tries to hide so well. Or isn't he?

Of course security policy MUST take into account every possibility *and* then have the ability to discern *real* menaces from paranoia. Or else, I already have the solution: just close airports -end of the problem. Two planes crashed against the Twin Towers? Easy: let's forbide planes.

Under an untrained but paranoid eye *everything* can be a bomb. I will of course concede that girl didn't show too much of a common sense but I would consider that people carrying murderly weapons and with the responsability of our security *must* show quite of a common sense or else we are doomed anyway. I can *even* concede that under current circumnstances the girl would have been taken apart, furtherly investigated and even reprehended because of his carelessness. But a fine? That only shows something on the lines of "we are this school's bullies, and we don't want nobody showing up how stupid we are". And I can assure that's *not* what I want from people working *for* me.

"Just how much crap should the security personnel tolerate?"

How much crap should you tolerate from your boss? Remember: a public official is nobody but an employee of mine, a tax payer.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[Iron Condor]

But the point is, to any reasonable, thinking person with two neurons to rub together, what she had could not be "taken for a bomb".

And since when is security personnel recruited from the pool of "reasonable, thinking persons with two neurons to rub together"?

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics"

[fredklein]

Good point.

Holy crap, it's worse than I thought.

[Medievalist]

I have the FREEDOM to shout fire in a crowded theater, or to wear a bomb-looking thing into an airport. No, you pretty clearly do not have the freedom to shout fire in a crowded theatre, at least in the USA, even though Schenck .v. United States was overturned and Holmes' opinions have been losing their appeal over the years.

"Freedom" can be concisely defined as the opposite of slavery. It is an American tradition, as far back as the 1700s when the distinction was more obvious, to define it this way; I'm not just making up my own semantics. Our founders read the classics and dug Aristotle. And unlike modern Americans, they were openly contemptuous of cowardice, and they had scorn for the idea that police should be more heavily armed than law-abiding people, and derision for sumptuary laws governing what you can and can't wear.

A slave has exactly as much ability to "shout fire in a crowded theater" as you do. You both will be punished by those who have set themselves above you as your masters. So that's not freedom. Get it?

And as for this:

And you are too stupid to understand the meaning of CONSEQUENCES and PERSONAL RESPONISIBLITY. I may be stupid, but I thoroughly understand consequences and I take personal responsibility - unlike you. You've already stated that you're in favor of other people (in this case, the Boston PD and TSA) taking responsibility for your person, and you clearly do not recognize the historically inevitable consequences of eliminating person freedoms.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." -- Sam Adams

Re:Holy crap, it's worse than I thought.

[SuperKendall]

I think you are confused about what slavery really is - being property, also means you are outside legal protections afforded by the rule of law. It means you are not a person.

Since I am in fact a person I have the ability and Freedom to do many things, some of which are indeed illegal. But that is a different matter for I can be tried by a jury and found not guilty for extenuating circumstances, or even have an unjust law changed if I am backed by enough people. As a slave you just get whipped, you have no recourse for bringing about change.

I hope that clarifies the issue for you.

I may be stupid, but I thoroughly understand consequences and I take personal responsibility - unlike you. You've already stated that you're in favor of other people (in this case, the Boston PD and TSA) taking responsibility for your person, and you clearly do not recognize the historically inevitable consequences of eliminating person freedoms.

How did I state I am for other people taking responsibility for your person, when I am saying I am for taking responsibility of my own person? Curious interpretation.

Re:Holy crap, it's worse than I thought.

[Medievalist]

I think you are confused about what slavery really is - being property, also means you are outside legal protections afforded by the rule of law. It means you are not a person.

Since I am in fact a person I have the ability and Freedom to do many things, some of which are indeed illegal. But that is a different matter for I can be tried by a jury and found not guilty for extenuating circumstances, or even have an unjust law changed if I am backed by enough people. As a slave you just get whipped, you have no recourse for bringing about change.

I hope that clarifies the issue for you. No, I'm afraid it doesn't. You seem to think a jury can resurrect you from the dead after the police have shot you and a dozen innocent bystanders. And you just stated that slaves aren't people. I can't get behind these lofty rhetorical statements that contradict reality. And incidentally, don't count on that jury trial; all that has to happen is for one man to say you are an "enemy combatant" (regardless of your citizenship) and you can kiss due process goodbye... in order to "fight terror", you know.

How did I state I am for other people taking responsibility for your person, when I am saying I am for taking responsibility of my own person? Curious interpretation. It's your whole argument. You've defended police over-reacting to a harmless individual based on mistaken perceptions - in order to "protect others", ostensibly including me since I use Logan Airport occasionally. You are defending your inclination to throw projectiles at innocent people "because they might hurt somebody", presumably including me if I'm in the crowd. I don't want any of that. I'm not afraid of light-up shirts. I'm not even afraid of terrorists, they don't kill as many people in the USA as police do (according to all published statistics I've seen). I want to be responsible for my own safety - like a free man, not like some piece of government property that has to be watched over by uniformed stooges. And if I die because of that, well, too bad for me. We'll all die eventually, it's perfectly normal and nothing to be afraid of.

Re:Holy crap, it's worse than I thought.

[SuperKendall]

It's your whole argument. You've defended police over-reacting to a harmless individual

Of course that's according to your definition - if you insist on changing the meaning of any word you say, of course you are right. Obviously to a rational person the police were not over-reacting. Now according to you I am using my deifnition to make my words say what I want. Yay we are both right! Thank goodness for your moral relativism making everything in the universe OK and reasonable from someone's standpoint.

What a waste of electrons you are.

Why are you so scared of putty?

[Medievalist]

Now they say she just had paint on her hands. Dude, there was also Play-Doh on the device. You can't wiggle your way out of this one. As can easily be inferred by my silly putty reference in the same post, I haven't got a problem with you (or anyone else) exercising your god-given right to Play-Doh. No need for wiggling. I am not afraid of Play-Doh and I grieve for those so terrorized that they fear Play-Doh. Incidentally, Play-Doh has an odor that is quite different from the major plastic explosives... maybe you can familiarize yourself with the scent and overcome this part of your irrational fears.

No, you are a coward. I see, I am a coward for potentially scarificing myself and letting scores of others live. Scarify yourself all you want, but please do not make the mistake of acting cowardly in the name of others. I do not wish you to play the coward for my sake.

And a violent one, at that. A reasonable person might have approached her and asked her why her shirt was lighting up. My approach left me with some possibility of being alive, and the idiot (who was going to be arrested anyway) only with a slight headache or other minor injories. In fact I might well save them from being shot through my actions. Perhaps you should think of the big picture, and of thew totality of repercussions. What, exactly, makes your life so precious that you can justify this behaviour based on your continued existence? You would put every principle of honor and society aside so that some incredibly vital work you are doing might be completed? You'd rather live on your knees than die standing up? Personally, I'll take my chance of being shot than be saved by totalitarian control over dress codes.

I am not violent at all, I take spiders outside for example rather than kill them. Hmm, yes I agree that spiders are our friends. I encourage wolf spiders to live in my basement and barn, to keep down the crickets. A litte off-topic, though, aren't we?

But I will not stand by while others are killed even if it imperils myself. Unlike you. That's rich. Your acceptance of totalitarianism is far more dangerous to others than my own insistence that harmless people be left alone.

Re:Why are you so scared of putty?

[SuperKendall]

Incidentally, Play-Doh has an odor that is quite different from the major plastic explosives..

Having seen (and smelled) both I know the difference. The problem is that at a distance you can't readily tell (or smell) what the substance is, and there is a lot of homemade putty related explosives you could do that might smell like all sorts of things. It's silly to assume putty is silly-putty just because you *think* you know what silly putty smells like.

Scarify yourself all you want, but please do not make the mistake of acting cowardly in the name of others. I do not wish you to play the coward for my sake.

I find it odd that you continue to try and push the agenda that intervention is cowardice. You don't think even going up to talk to someone is braver than doing nothing?

Action to remove a perceived threat at potential cost to yourself is inherently not cowardly, no matter how much you try to brush the words on the subject. They just do not stick.

You'd rather live on your knees than die standing up?

Well that would be more intelligent. Dieing on your feet is great and noble and all but if it could have been prevented, in the end more foolish than noble. I am a very practical person and whatever labels you seem to arbitrarily assign to things simply are not the same in the contexts I envision, especially not in the known context of this situation.

That's rich. Your acceptance of totalitarianism is far more dangerous to others than my own insistence that harmless people be left alone.

By acting of my own volition to defuse a potential situation I am inherently proclaiming that individuals have the right and responsibility for the protection of themselves and others - I am more against totalitarianism of all forms than yourself! Rather than thinking "I'll just let someone else handle that" I seek to resolve problems myself before authority even becomes involved.

Re:Why are you so scared of putty?

[Medievalist]

By acting of my own volition to defuse a potential situation I am inherently proclaiming that individuals have the right and responsibility for the protection of themselves and others - I am more against totalitarianism of all forms than yourself! Rather than thinking "I'll just let someone else handle that" I seek to resolve problems myself before authority even becomes involved. Please stop trying to protect others. I do not want you to protect me, my family, my friends, or anyone else. We aren't scared, you are. You apparently imagine that any putty you might see at an airport has more than a 0.0000000001 percent chance of being explosive and are willing to react violently. I don't want you to protect me. I don't want the Boston cops to try to protect me either, since they do not appear to be competent to do so.

The problem is not so much that you are willing to attack people (and then hide, according to your post, for fear of being blown up) but that you have no judgment of when you should do so. Sane people don't want to be protected from imaginary threats. The "potential situation" you reference did not exist, and your insistence that it was justified to think so is incorrect, dangerous, and cowardly.

If you want to throw yourself in front of a bullet to save somebody, OK, but leave people who you think "look scary" alone, you (and the Boston cops) are clearly unqualified to make such a judgment. It was not a bomb, and therefore it was not correct to treat it as one, and there is no way to change that reality. People should be able to wear whatever they want, anyway.

Listen, I've got other things to do. I commend this book to you, it's sometimes been known to make people forsake fear.

Re:Why are you so scared of putty?

[SuperKendall]

Please stop trying to protect others. I do not want you to protect me, my family, my friends, or anyone else. We aren't scared, you are

Already said I wasn't scared. I said I was acting to help others. Too bad if you don't want help, I'm not wired to let people die, even such people as yourself and your hopefully de-programmable offspring.

Sane people don't want to be protected from imaginary threats.

Sane poeple realize there are some threats not imaginary.

If you want to throw yourself in front of a bullet to save somebody, OK, but leave people who you think "look scary" alone, you (and the Boston cops) are clearly unqualified to make such a judgment

Actually I already explained why I was qualified to do so. The fact that you arrived at a different conclusion with your armchair evaluation shows that you probably shouldn't be doing so though.

People should be able to wear whatever they want, anyway.

I'm wearing a vest of road flares to the airport tomorrow and expect nothing at all will happen because it's totally reasnable and I should be able to do what feels goon, man!

Groovy.

MOD PARENT UP

[Medievalist]

...if they spent a few hundred million less on untested bomb detectors and a few hundred million more on competent security forces we'd all be a lot better off. Most intelligent comment in this discussion! Giving undertrained adrenaline junkies expensive guns doesn't make people safer - quite the opposite, in fact. Highly trained and dedicated people would be a real investment in air safety.

Ah, an appeal to emotion.

[FatSean]

Please...try again.