MIT Student Arrested For Wearing 'Tech Art' Shirt At Airport

"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". by BWJones · 2007-09-21 07:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hrmmmm.... looking at the "device" from the images on the link makes me think the police overreacted. Come on now.... holding her at gunpoint? Granted, it was likely not the smartest move on her part not to respond about the "device" when asked, but once again, I am dismayed that people are getting owned by fears of terrorism and things and people that look "abnormal".

Reminds me of that guy who dressed up as the alien predator in the UK and got the British police all over him. Anyone have a link to the video of that?

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

Or how about the guy who was not allowed to fly with his breadboard that he was using for prototyping. They let him fly with one in its package though if *that* makes any sense.

Pare said. "Again, this is a serious offense ... 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.

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". by goombah99 · 2007-09-21 08:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". by cayenne8 · 2007-09-21 08:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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??

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". by Perseid · 2007-09-21 08:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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". by Martin+Blank · 2007-09-21 08:25 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". by aembleton · 2007-09-21 08:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

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". by _Sprocket_ · 2007-09-21 09:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

This isn't about her being an actual threat (I doubt security was worried she might blow something up) -- this is about the possibility of causing panic in a crowded public area. There are rules about such things for a reason. 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". by nomadic · 2007-09-21 09:57 · Score: 5, Funny

The freedom to wear lit breadboards in airport lobbies?

Ahh, the seldom-cited 35th Amendment.
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-21 09:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

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". by Firehed · 2007-09-21 11:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

--
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". by Jesus_666 · 2007-09-21 12:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics". by Hemogoblin · 2007-09-21 12:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

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". by ArcherB · 2007-09-21 15:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.

from MIT, but not very smart by yagu · 2007-09-21 07:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hmmmm, I think as an art project I'd like to create something that I definitively know is not a bomb but really could look like a bomb to the average person, and maybe even people whose job is security at the airports. As a matter of fact, I think I'll try this out for fun and go to the airport and see what their reactions are. Geez, this'll be fun.

This MIT genius almost became a SBC. I think security at airports is lousy, and it's mostly a joke, but this is hardly a prank I'd consider pulling, and while this "artist" is likely to get mileage out of the alleged overreactions of security, I have no admiration for what looks to be if not stupid, an incredibly mis-guided caper.

These are the idiots who goad people trying their best to do their jobs into making split-second decisions, but have magnitudes more time to create accusations about why the split-second decisions were wrong, or violated their civil rights, or something to make "bad people" look bad. Arrrrgggghhhh.

Notably about this student, she's 19, meaning she's certainly old enough to have understood the gravity of 9/11 being 13 at the time. She might think it's funny, she ought to apologize. </i> (from last post)

What the hell's wrong with Boston? by moderatorrater · 2007-09-21 07:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Do they just need to do some public service announcements about what a real bomb looks like and what fake electronic gadgets look like?

Hey that's a great plan!!! by hodet · 2007-09-21 08:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

cue the slashbots by circletimessquare · 2007-09-21 08:04 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:Boston by Selfbain · 2007-09-21 08:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Probably a real one.

--
Well, it has never been successfully tested.

We are defending this person? by loggia · 2007-09-21 08:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Normally, I presume over-reaction by the TSA... by bladel · 2007-09-21 08:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

...but what the hell was she thinking with a shirt like this?

Her choice of "artistic expression" isn't immediately recognizable, and therefore has to be treated as a threat.

--

Information wants to be Free. Useful Information will cost you.

Re:Insane by mcmonkey · 2007-09-21 08:10 · Score: 5, Funny

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:Academically bright but... by Cecil · 2007-09-21 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

I actually WANT the police to overreact in cases like this in order to make me feel safer.

Fixed that for ya.

--
Random and weird software I've written.

The editors substantially modified my story... by SuperBanana · 2007-09-21 08:13 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
Please help metamoderate.

Talk about dumb by intx13 · 2007-09-21 08:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by bockelboy · 2007-09-21 08:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

OK, let's put it this way... by SamP2 · 2007-09-21 08:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed? by Medievalist · 2007-09-21 08:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Now they say there was no putty. by Medievalist · 2007-09-21 08:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Well then please go help fix it by Sycraft-fu · 2007-09-21 09:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics" by Hamilton+Lovecraft · 2007-09-21 09:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
step 3: god dammit, it doesn't work

Re:"Yeah, those suspicious e-lectronics" by mattOzan · 2007-09-21 11:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Slashdot Mirror

MIT Student Arrested For Wearing 'Tech Art' Shirt At Airport

31 of 1,547 comments (clear)