# MIT student at Logan



## Mark L (Sep 21, 2007)

An MIT sophomore in electrical engineering was arrested at Logan Airport in Boston yesterday.  She was wearing on the front of her shirt an electronic circuit board attached to a 9 volt battery, and carrying in her hand material that resembled plastic explosives that turned out to be silly putty.  She was apparently arrested without incident by the Mass State Police, though her encounter with them was not the first at the airport.  She was question by an airport employee (whose capacity is not known to me), and walked away from the encounter.  The event has been characterized, indirectly, from the students perspective, as a performance piece.  

I think she's lucky she survived the 'performance'.  Thoughts?


----------



## Carol (Sep 21, 2007)

She's lucky she wasn't an Arabic-looking male....


----------



## Kacey (Sep 21, 2007)

Some performances should not be held in public.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 21, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> She's lucky she wasn't an Arabic-looking male....


 

I agree carol other wise who knows what would have happened.


----------



## Carol (Sep 21, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> I agree carol other wise who knows what would have happened.



I'll say one thing though Terry...I'd be pretty gawddang furious if my own life and travel schedule got tossed about from her attention-getting stunt.


----------



## Mark L (Sep 21, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> She's lucky she wasn't an Arabic-looking male....


I'd get past the "Arabic-looking" filter pretty quickly if I was waiting at a gate.  I just saw her on the news, she's from Hawaii and is of Asian/Polynesian descent (not that that matters), and was released on $750 bail.


----------



## docmartin252 (Sep 21, 2007)

I agree with the airport being worried about another terrorist attack, however, none of the terrorist that I have heard about have made a blatant attempt to let officials know they were going to attack. Letting people of authority know before hand would defeat the purpose of a successful attack since police would shut it down before anything could happen. If you saw her sweatshirt you can see that it wasn't really a terrorist threat. That being said, it still probably wasn't a good idea to wear something with blinking lights on it


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 22, 2007)

I guess we need to add an IQ test to purchasing Playdough.

She's a moron.  Had she not complied immediately with police directions, she'd be dead.  Anyone who hasn't gathered that the only workable response to a potential suicide bomber is to kill them before they can kill others has had their heads in certain nether regions...  

And some "pranks" aren't at all funny.

Yes -- this is an issue that hits very close to home to me.  I came very, very close (like fractions of an inch of trigger slack) to shooting a dumbass kid with an Airsoft gun.  And it's gonna happen to someone one day.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 22, 2007)

I guess she won't be seeing her friends and family at home for a while... if this stunt doesn't qualify her for the do not fly list something is wrong.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 22, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> And some "pranks" aren't at all funny.



I'd hardly call making yourself a shirt that has flashing lights on it "a prank".  I've seen a few stories on this, and some pictures.  It doesn't look like she was intentionally trying to cause trouble, just had made a shirt that lights up and not had anything in her head go "maybe I shouldn't wear this to the airport."


Before blaming her I think it's also important to remember previous bomb scares in Boston:


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 23, 2007)

She's lucky she's alive.


----------



## MJS (Sep 23, 2007)

Amazing.  You really have to wonder what goes thru the mind of some people.  Especially in todays world, considering everyone is even more on alert after 9/11, you'd figure that some people would use some common sense.  Not sure what she was thinking when she did this, but I think she needs a hefty fine and some jail time.


----------



## Carol (Sep 23, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Before blaming her I think it's also important to remember previous bomb scares in Boston:



Not to mention the events in Boston, Logan Airport in particular, that weren't scares...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175


----------



## Kreth (Sep 23, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Not to mention the events in Boston, Logan Airport in particular, that weren't scares...


I'm sorry, Carol, I disagree. It'd akin to screaming "fire!" in a theater.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Sep 23, 2007)

I have never been able to work out so-called performance artists.  I always seem to come back to the alledged artist having some private joke that they are not letting anyone else in on.

It seems that they think it is some sort of god-given right to behave in a contrary fashion for their own amusement.

You would hope that a student at MIT would know better than to do something like this in today's security climate.


----------



## Carol (Sep 23, 2007)

Kreth said:


> I'm sorry, Carol, I disagree. It'd akin to screaming "fire!" in a theater.



I was being facetious.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 24, 2007)

Mark L said:


> The event has been characterized, indirectly, from the students perspective, as a performance piece.



_If_ that is true, then this little bit of drama is like screaming 'fire' in a theatre as Kreth pointed out. And it should be prosecuted as such.

This reminds me of the way some people faked anthrax scares when there were people dying from it. It takes resources away from other potential threats. It is the same thing as calling in a fake fire alarm. Do people even stop to think that while those in charge are dealing with their appeals for attention they may be needed elsewhere?

And what about the idea that someone might go in as an obvious target to attract attention while the guys carry the real stuff get more of a chance to get by. These types of things help that sort of thing happen. If she is not hit with a big punishment, then others may just do it as some sort of fad to get their jollies and that might help someone _really_ trying to get something onto a plane that should not be there.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 24, 2007)

Performance art my ***.  Yeah, so are snuff films.  :soapbox:

I hope she's not complaining too much for the "applause" she received ... I'm usually the one defending someone's rights, but I'm sorry - this is ****. 

I think the reason this kind of thing pisses me off so much is because it almost lends strength to the use of deadly force upon the innocent.

Stupid ****.  I hopes she gets jail time.


----------



## Ping898 (Sep 24, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> I think the reason this kind of thing pisses me off so much is because it almost lends strength to the use of deadly force upon the innocent.


 

that's why it pisses me off as well


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 24, 2007)

Out of curiousity, what exactly is it that everyone thinks she did wrong?

Her shirt was not intended to look like a bomb, it didn't really look like a bomb, doesn't seem there was any malicious intent in wearing it.

If a person where trying to get a bomb into a airport using a flashing light up shirt seems like it would be a poor choice.  A suitcase full of explosives would probably work better, yet people carrying suitcases are not arrested by several heavily armed folks that are ready to kill them.

It was basically a homemade equivelant of those shoes that light up that seem to be popular for kids, nothing more.


----------



## thardey (Sep 24, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Out of curiousity, what exactly is it that everyone thinks she did wrong?
> 
> Her shirt was not intended to look like a bomb, it didn't really look like a bomb, doesn't seem there was any malicious intent in wearing it.
> 
> ...




And the silly putty was -- 'cuz she was bored?


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 24, 2007)

The silly putty was paint, "putty" just sounds more threatening.


----------



## Mark L (Sep 24, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Out of curiousity, what exactly is it that everyone thinks she did wrong?
> 
> Her shirt was not intended to look like a bomb, it didn't really look like a bomb, doesn't seem there was any malicious intent in wearing it.
> 
> ...


She was arrested because the authorities at Logan thought she had a bomb strapped to her body.  When first questioned about what she was up to, she simply walked away.  The second confrontation resulted in her arrest at gunpoint.  

The fact that there are some fairly obvious ways to better get a device into the airport is irrelevant.  The fact that you think she didn't intend it to look like a bomb, maybe she didn't intend it either (though I doubt it), or that you don't think it looked like a bomb is also irrelevant.  Security personnel at an international airport thought it could be a bomb, and acted appropriately, IMO.  

How do you know what a bomb looks like?  What does a trigger circuit for plastic explosives look like?  Are you sure it couldn't fit on that 3" x 8" proto board?  How about if you were at the airport with your family, would you just blow it off?  Or some seniors who have no knowledge of the nature of her stunt?  One old lady panicking, resulting in a fall or heart attack, for the sake of a stunt?  This episode could easily have ended badly, and not just for Ms. Simpson.

I think your analogy to LED equipped shoes is absurd.  Equating the footwear of a 7 year old to an adult displaying what could be a trigger and a handful of explosives in a friggin' airport?  Please.

She's been charged with possessing a hoax device, I hope it costs her.  I'd prefer that she be charged with being an idiot, but that's not illegal here in MA (you can verify that by simply looking at our Senatorial and Congressional delegations).


----------



## Carol (Sep 24, 2007)

Mark L said:


> S
> She's been charged with possessing a hoax device, I hope it costs her.  I'd prefer that she be charged with being an idiot, but that's not illegal here in MA (you can verify that by simply looking at our Senatorial and Congressional delegations).



State or Federal?  Wait....never mind.....

:rofl: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 :lol: :lol2: :roflmao: :lfao:


----------



## redfang (Sep 24, 2007)

I'm surprised the same people who are crying about the police infringing upon free speech rights in the taser incident at the Kerry event aren't saying the same here. It was her _art_ after all. By arresting her, they have infringed upon her freedom of expression.:barfBefore anyone hollers at me for not understanding the seriousness of security issues, note the sarcasm in my voice. . . hear it?)


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 25, 2007)

To me it just seems odd to arrest a person and state that they could have very easily been killed for a harmless homemade leectronic device.  

I have no objection to them questioning her, finding out what it is, but after that is should have been a simple "Sorry for bothering you, please carry on.  However in the future this shirt might not be a good choice for a high security area"

"Hoax device" is getting tossed around quite easily, the light brights in Boston where classified as the same.  Yet clearly the intention was not as a fake bomb, but as advertising.

Truth is that any homemade electronic device, and a good number of purchased ones, especially if you take some casing off could easily get that label, if the authorities wanted to apply it. This is a very bad precident IMO, for something to fall under "Hoax device" it should, in my mind, be intended as such.

Bbut when electronics becomes a back room, never take it out in public sort of activity, everybody better not start wondering why all there electronic devices say "made in _____", the blank being anywhere but the Western world, and when they break they need to go over seas to be repaired. 

From everything I've seen she did nothing to indicate it was a bomb or she was looking to blow herself up.  People with guns simply did not know what it was, and reacted with aggression out of fear. 

This constant fear needs to go, I'd rather trust my community and take the risk that one day, one of them might try and kill me rather then living in fear of every unknown thing that flashes or suspicious looking person I see.  9/11 was 6 years ago, and in that time far more people have died of countless other causes. How many other Terrorist attacks have actually occured on American soil? Terrorist attack is really rather low on the list of things that might kill you, at least in North America anyways.  Fear of fast food french fries and Soft drinks would do us much more good then this.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 25, 2007)

Sober and salient insights, *Andrew*.

Of course, she could've been running an elaborate double-bluff in creating a device that looks nothing like a bomb and was simply testing the security waters for a later, more insidious incursion (need a smiley for 'not being serious' here).  

I don't think such even entered her head but I wasn't there and I do think simply walking off when questioned about the device was a bit dim.

The 'third hand' in this game of 'terrorist paranoic whispers' is that the media age makes it all too easy for people to get amped up about incidents - especially if they are not accurately reported in the first place.  "Silly student arrested for wearing a flashing shirt" is not as good 'copy' as the scare-mongering alternative.

Chaps and chappesses, one thing we learned during a few decades of bombings in the UK is that if there's a random chance that you're going to get blown up by a hidden device then there's no point being scared about it; you'd never leave the house otherwise.  

Terrorist attacks tend to be shrouded until the sudden, bloody, denouement and if you're in harms way then that's that.  Don't die every day through fear.


----------



## MJS (Sep 25, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> To me it just seems odd to arrest a person and state that they could have very easily been killed for a harmless homemade leectronic device.
> 
> I have no objection to them questioning her, finding out what it is, but after that is should have been a simple "Sorry for bothering you, please carry on. However in the future this shirt might not be a good choice for a high security area"
> 
> ...


 
In all honesty, this is no different than waving a fake gun at someone while you're driving.  The cops pull you over, take you out at gun point, determine that its a fake and let you go.  Not likely to happen at all.  Most likely you will have some charges brought against you.  No different here with this girl.  Fake or not, facat of the matter is, is that if she was allowed to continue on her way, still with this things on her, you don't think for one minute it'll still cause chaos?  

In light of 9/11, IMO, I think people like the one in question, should smarten up just a bit, dont ya think?  I mean, its amazing how many people still try to bring on banned items, talk about bombs, etc.  A little common sense goes a long way, unfortunately, some don't exercise it much IMO.

Mike


----------



## Mark L (Sep 25, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> "Hoax device" is getting tossed around quite easily, the light brights in Boston where classified as the same.  Yet clearly the intention was not as a fake bomb, but as advertising.
> 
> From everything I've seen she did nothing to indicate it was a bomb or she was looking to blow herself up.  People with guns simply did not know what it was, and reacted with aggression out of fear.
> 
> This constant fear needs to go, I'd rather trust my community and take the risk that one day, one of them might try and kill me rather then living in fear of every unknown thing that flashes or suspicious looking person I see.  9/11 was 6 years ago, and in that time far more people have died of countless other causes. How many other Terrorist attacks have actually occured on American soil? Terrorist attack is really rather low on the list of things that might kill you, at least in North America anyways.  Fear of fast food french fries and Soft drinks would do us much more good then this.


Your first point isn't accurate.  The light bright were not obviously or clearly an advertising ploy.  I was there, there was quite a bit of uncertainty as to what was going on (I'm looking out my window right now at the bridge across the Charles River (which I traverse to and from work every day), where some of those devices were planted).  I couldn't easily get home that day because of that "hoax".

The people with guns did their jobs, they are paid to worry about security, to be maybe a little bit paranoid and over-protective, to treat a questionable scenario as a threat until proven otherwise.  To what aggression are you referring?  The police confronted Ms. Simpson and she immediately acquiesced, no aggression.

As to living in fear, I do not.  Perhaps that is due to the fact that a terrorist attack has not occurred in six years, owing in large part to the vigilance of security forces, including those that patrol Logan Airport.


----------



## MJS (Sep 25, 2007)

Likewise, I don't walk around thinking the sky is falling either.  Since 9/11, I've traveled by plane, train and boat.  We need to get on with our lives.  If we don't me may as well live in a bubble and never leave the house.  Car crashes happen all the time, yet I still get in my car.  

For myself, I haven't done anything different.  I'm still aware of whats going on around me, but I'm not looking up at the sky every 5 min either.  However, you can bet that if I saw something that didn't seem right, I'm probably going to go with the gut feeling and have someone check into it.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 25, 2007)

An electronic device strapped to a persons chest in an airport and the security forces are just supposed to walk up and ask "hey is that a bomb"??


And I love the whole "living in fear" line as a covert shot at political security decisions that people dont agree with. Whos "living in fear"? I dont walk through some areas of the City am I "living in fear"? I dont get drunk in bars and flash large sums of cash around, am I "living in fear"?

It's being over used.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 25, 2007)

I don't live in fear ... but there's common sense and a certain level of decorum to be valued.

A LiteBrite board ... a tennis shoe ... which one looks more like it could be connected to an explosive device?  We know about the tennis shoe incident and, I'm sorry, but if my job were to secure from potential bomb threats I would *not* hesitate to admonish a person wearing a litebrite board.


----------



## rutherford (Sep 25, 2007)

Here's a picture.

I'm with Andrew, and I think the OP mis characterized the incident with his whole "performance piece" bit.  If some hypothetical person decided it would be fun to pretend to be a bomber at an airport, that would be some bad-wrong fun, and maybe being charged with a crime would be a good lesson learned for them.  However, I don't think that's at all what happened here.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 25, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> To me it just seems odd to arrest a person and state that they could have very easily been killed for a harmless homemade leectronic device.
> 
> I have no objection to them questioning her, finding out what it is, but after that is should have been a simple "Sorry for bothering you, please carry on. However in the future this shirt might not be a good choice for a high security area"
> 
> ...


 
We've been unbelievably fortunate and lucky that there have not been more terrorist events in the US, and that many have not been recognized as such.  Issue-based terrorism is actually prety common; think about the actions of groups like EarthFirst, ALF, anti-abortion bombings, and more.

But that's really beside the point.  It only takes ONE success.  And if someone wears something that might be a bomb, might be a threat, or might be dangerous -- they can expect to be treated as if it IS a bomb.  Because the alternative kind of sucks just a wee bit.  

The idiot girl in this incident was confronted by the cops; she obeyed, and lived to learn from the stupid act.  She was charged in part as an object lesson that being stupid like that in an airport isn't acceptable.  My guess?  She'll end up with either a plea to a lesser offense, or the case continued for dismissal, pending good behavior.  Because she is "just" a college kid...  Though I have many problems with the extent of behavior that gets justified with that BS excuse.



MJS said:


> In all honesty, this is no different than waving a fake gun at someone while you're driving. The cops pull you over, take you out at gun point, determine that its a fake and let you go. Not likely to happen at all. Most likely you will have some charges brought against you. No different here with this girl. Fake or not, facat of the matter is, is that if she was allowed to continue on her way, still with this things on her, you don't think for one minute it'll still cause chaos?
> 
> In light of 9/11, IMO, I think people like the one in question, should smarten up just a bit, dont ya think? I mean, its amazing how many people still try to bring on banned items, talk about bombs, etc. A little common sense goes a long way, unfortunately, some don't exercise it much IMO.
> 
> Mike


 
Too many people don't get that it only takes ONE success for a terrorist victory...



rutherford said:


> Here's a picture.
> 
> I'm with Andrew, and I think the OP mis characterized the incident with his whole "performance piece" bit. If some hypothetical person decided it would be fun to pretend to be a bomber at an airport, that would be some bad-wrong fun, and maybe being charged with a crime would be a good lesson learned for them. However, I don't think that's at all what happened here.


 
Given that picture, I'd definitely have been concerned.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 25, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> And if someone wears something that might be a bomb, might be a threat, or might be dangerous -- they can expect to be treated as if it IS a bomb.  Because the alternative kind of sucks just a wee bit.



Both alternatives suck.  Once something is clearly established as "not a bomb" it should end.  Unless she was threatening to blow herself up with a fake bomb, or telling people it was a bomb, there should be no issue.

If unsure check it, once its established as harmless, nothing more needs done.

I think it is a very bad precedent to be able to arrest and charge a person for possession of a harmless and fully legal item based solely on someone else thinking it "might" be something dangerous.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 25, 2007)

I really don't want to argue much more, I just want to say here's a picture of a real bomb which was really intercepted in a real bomb scare.  With that, hypervigilance is more than understandable - even expected perhaps.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 25, 2007)

She is an MIT student! She doesn't attend Podunk School for the Partially Retarded! When there are people in the world who literally strap on vests filled with explosives and blow themselves to pieces, you *DO NOT* go to the airport with amateur electronics attached to your clothing! Especially when people flying out of that airport hijacked planes and flew them into buildings! Are we really supposed to believe that she is *that *ignorant? At the VERY LEAST, she should pay a LARGE fine, spend a few days in jail and be placed on the Federal No Fly List permanently. When you make stupid choices, you deserve the consequences.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 25, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Both alternatives suck.  Once something is clearly established as "not a bomb" it should end.  Unless she was threatening to blow herself up with a fake bomb, or telling people it was a bomb, there should be no issue.
> 
> If unsure check it, once its established as harmless, nothing more needs done.
> 
> I think it is a very bad precedent to be able to arrest and charge a person for possession of a harmless and fully legal item based solely on someone else thinking it "might" be something dangerous.


Yah. Let me introduce you to a little incident that happened in So. Cal some 15-20 years ago:

An up-and-coming actor held a Halloween costume party (adults, now) inside his home.  The neighbors complained to the police about the lateness of the middle-of-the-week party, even though the party was contained to the inside of the house and all doors and windows were shut.  They responded and, upon initially ascertaining that the party appeared to be within ordinance and reason, they decided to check the entire property starting with the exterior.  

One officer went down the side of the property and looked through a window where he saw a man in a cowboy costume pull a gun out of his hip holster and point it at another person in costume who obligingly put his/her hands up.  The officer drew his pistol and fired through the window twice, striking the cowboy (our up-and-coming actor) and killing him.

The gun was a toy gun.  It was a costume party.  They were playing.

This incident along with many robberies performed with toy guns inspired the law in California (I have no idea if it's still in effect) that any and all toy guns must not be black, dark in color or silver or grey and must be OBVIOUSLY fake; further that any toy guns or their bearers that appeared real would be treated as real and confiscated. 

Now ... while I can see the value in the law, especially with the countless robberies and threats made with fake guns, this venue, in particular, *should* have been obvious.  It was a party, there were costumes, all adults, there was no disturbance ... it was a reflex reaction by the officer and, like referees, cops make bad calls too.

But in the incident of our MIT student, this was no costume party, this was no rave, no club, no bonfire.  This was an airport.  _*THE *_Airport.

If our actor wore his costume to the store and pulled the toy gun on the cashier and said, "Stick 'em up! *giggle* *giggle* JUST KIDDING!!"  He shoud have his *** arrested and prosecuted ... for being an idiot?  _*YES.*_

Hence, I feel this ... student ... needs a new lesson.


----------



## Mark L (Sep 25, 2007)

rutherford said:


> Here's a picture.
> 
> I'm with Andrew, and I think the OP mis characterized the incident with his whole "performance piece" bit.  If some hypothetical person decided it would be fun to pretend to be a bomber at an airport, that would be some bad-wrong fun, and maybe being charged with a crime would be a good lesson learned for them.  However, I don't think that's at all what happened here.


From Mass. State Police Major Pare:

"She said that it was a piece of art and she wanted to stand out on career day," Pare said at a news conference. "She claims that it was just art, and that she was proud of the art and she wanted to display it."  

If you don't like my characterization as a performance piece, what would you call it given Ms. Simpson own words?


----------



## thardey (Sep 25, 2007)

I'm still confused as to why she said she was wearing that in the first place?

If it was "performance art", then she was playing the part of something/ someone. It appears she was "performing" as a bomber.


If it wasn't "performance art", why did she have the thing attached to her in the first place? I mean, it's not like she was showing off her brilliance in being able to make lights flash from a 9V battery? Come on, I did that in high school! She's an MIT electronics student! That would be like Bill Gates showing off his ability to write a BASIC "Pong" game.

I do some woodwork - should I take a half-finished piece of wood, pin to a baseball cap and parade it around as "art?" I think she just wanted to cause a stir, get some attention, then write it of as "art".


----------



## rutherford (Sep 25, 2007)

Mark L said:


> From Mass. State Police Major Pare:
> 
> "She said that it was a piece of art and she wanted to stand out on career day," Pare said at a news conference. "She claims that it was just art, and that she was proud of the art and she wanted to display it."
> 
> If you don't like my characterization as a performance piece, what would you call it given Ms. Simpson own words?



Mark L, I didn't like your characterization, because it's misleading.  I originally thought, like many posters, that this was some sort of prank.  Which is what it would have been if the *event* had been the art, like you say in your post.  Instead, it's the SHIRT that's the art!

Apparently, thardey had a similar piece of confusion. 



thardey said:


> I'm still confused as to why she said she was wearing that in the first place?
> 
> If it was "performance art", then she was playing the part of something/ someone. It appears she was "performing" as a bomber.



She went to the airport to pick up a friend.  Most of her friends take one look at her shirt, and know exactly what it is and how it's put together.  

She's just a person who wore something they never in a million years thought anybody would be stupid enough to think was a bomb.  She was probably very confused and frightened by a lot of police officers surrounding her with guns.

And now we'll teach her a few lessons.


----------



## Mark L (Sep 25, 2007)

Let's not forget the modeling clay / Play-Doh she was carrying either.  Those characterizations come from the NYT and AP, respectively.  Taken collectively with the small circuit and battery, airport personnel and state police were "stupid enough" to think it could be a bomb.  

We simply disagree.


----------



## thardey (Sep 25, 2007)

rutherford said:


> Mark L, I didn't like your characterization, because it's misleading.  I originally thought, like many posters, that this was some sort of prank.  Which is what it would have been if the *event* had been the art, like you say in your post.  Instead, it's the SHIRT that's the art!
> 
> Apparently, thardey had a similar piece of confusion.
> 
> ...



My point is that either it was the action that was the art, or the shirt.


If it's the shirt that's the art, what was she saying with it? Art communicates ideas, emotions, viewpoints. 

She said she wanted to "stand out on career day" - stand out by displaying her skills of wiring together something that probably took less than 5 minutes? Or stand out by demonstration? And again, why include the paint/putty/play doh? If it's not part of the "art" what is it? If it is part of the art, it's something other than a flashy bling for a sweater.

Wiring + putty-like substance (or liquid in a plastic container, if it's paint) is not something that you see often - it qualifies as "unusual".

Also, wiring + putty generally = bomb, or imitation bomb. It's pretty rare that those ingredients randomly end up together in a public place.

If it was just wiring, then maybe I can see the confusion.

I'm just not buying that the shirt is art. Call me a Neanderthal, but I don't see artistic merit to it. I think it's a stunt, with "art" being the CYA.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 25, 2007)

thardey said:


> I'm still confused as to why she said she was wearing that in the first place?



I imagine the same reason a person would wear something like this:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/generic/8a5b/

or the same reason a person would put glitter on a shirt, or spikes on a leather jacket, or anything else "normal" people don't wear.  Doesn't make them evil.


----------



## JBrainard (Sep 25, 2007)

MJS said:


> Not sure what she was thinking when she did this...


 
That's the first thing I wondered. If she is an "artist," what statement is she trying to make with her art? That if you deliberately look like a terrorist in an airport security will mess with you?
Not too profound.


----------



## MJS (Sep 25, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> That's the first thing I wondered. If she is an &quot;artist,&quot; what statement is she trying to make with her art? That if you deliberately look like a terrorist in an airport security will mess with you?
> Not too profound.


 
Exactly!  Granted, some things will be harder to spot than others.  I don't recall exact details, but the shoe bomber...I'm sure nobody gave him a second look..at least until he was playing around with the shoe, trying to light the fuse, etc.  This case, with the girl..well, thats just asking for trouble.  Frankly, I'm not sure why she would call that art anyways.  Then again, looking at some paintings that are considered 'art' I still think to myself, "Ummm, sure, ok." Whether or not it was real, a fake or whatever, IMHO, the fact remains, it still caused a disturbance.  I'm sure things came to a stand still for a period of time while this was being dealt with.  So, for someone to say, (and I'm not saying it was you, just commenting on other points in this thread. ) that it was no big deal, or once it was deemed a fake, let her go...I'm sorry, but its no different than someone calling in a bomb scare.  Is it fake? Sure is.  Still doesnt make it right to halt the day to day actions of a business, facility, etc.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 25, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> That if you deliberately look like a terrorist in an airport security will mess with you?



Did she?  Cause I've not seen anything that suggests that.  The shirt was not designed to look like a bomb, nor was she doing anything that would make her seem like a terrorist, just wearing the shirt.

Accidentally, not deliberately. 

So again, my view is that this is a very bad step for personal freedom, allowing arrests and charges based on someone perceiving something in a way that it was not meant to be.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 25, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Did she?  Cause I've not seen anything that suggests that.  The shirt was not designed to look like a bomb, nor was she doing anything that would make her seem like a terrorist, just wearing the shirt.
> 
> Accidentally, not deliberately.
> 
> So again, my view is that this is a very bad step for personal freedom, allowing arrests and charges based on someone perceiving something in a way that it was not meant to be.


Okay, but on that note, when I accidentally forget to remove my knives from my person before reaching airport security, does that mean I get to keep them on my person uninterrupted?  No, I will have to remove them and either forfeit them, lock them up or mail them to myself ... but I can't go any farther.

And ... exactly *how much* of an "accident" is that?  Or is it blatantly neglectful?  I'll take ownership and admit to being neglectful ... and took my lumps.

But come on, a tool I use every day that I keep on my person every day is easy to forget.  I *don't* walk around with a board, a wire, a battery and some plastic in my hand every day ... and I doubt she does either.

To me, it's the equivalent of accidentally arriving at the airport without pants.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 25, 2007)

And again ... the shoe didn't look like a bomb either.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 25, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Okay, but on that note, when I accidentally forget to remove my knives from my person before reaching airport security, does that mean I get to keep them on my person uninterrupted?  No, I will have to remove them and either forfeit them, lock them up or mail them to myself ... but I can't go any farther.



Exactly!  If you show up to the airport with a swiss army knife by accident do you expect to get hauled off at gunpoint, charged on terrorism related charges and make national headlines?  And a knife is more dangeous then a shirt that lights up.



> But come on, a tool I use every day that I keep on my person every day is easy to forget.  I *don't* walk around with a board, a wire, a battery and some plastic in my hand every day ... and I doubt she does either.



Sounds like she does, and has had the shirt for a while.  Engineers are just weird that way.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Sep 25, 2007)

And apparently lacking common sense...

Some of the smartest people, are REALLY ignorant about social consequences of actions they don't even stop to consider. Actually though, I'll say she was actually stupid, as any living breathing adult human would know better than to wear a wired device with batteries to an airport. Heck I get nervous bringing my battery pack for my Palm pilot, it has a switch and a green light that shows it's 'on'.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 25, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Exactly!  If you show up to the airport with a swiss army knife by accident do you expect to get hauled off at gunpoint, charged on terrorism related charges and make national headlines?


If I called it "performance art?" Yes.



> And a knife is more dangeous then a shirt that lights up.


Not when we're talking about bombs.  A knife doesn't explode ... undefined plastic might.



> Sounds like she does, and has had the shirt for a while.  Engineers are just weird that way.


Then I guess she'll learn a hard engineer's lesson.  No matter how smart you are, it's no excuse to act dumb.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 25, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> If I called it "performance art?" Yes.



art is a rather broad term, and it seems like you are assuming the "performance art" was somehow meant to be bomb related, her claim was that she made it for a career fair as a way of standing out.


----------



## Carol (Sep 25, 2007)

She certainly did a good job of standing out, that's fer sure...


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 25, 2007)

I guess she doesn't wanna be a ninja.   Good thing.


----------



## Mark L (Sep 25, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> So again, my view is that this is a very bad step for personal freedom, allowing arrests and charges based on someone perceiving something in a way that it was not meant to be.


Andrew, I have a question for you, but first I must ask that you not assume that my posing the question in any way suggests that you should be disqualified from expressing opinions on this matter.  My view is that your opinion is just as welcome as any other.  Your bio doesn't give your geographical location, but your links suggest you train in Winnipeg.  Do you live in the US or Canada?  I'm asking because I'm curious as to how you think this type of self expression (performance piece seems to be too much of a lightning rod) would be received by authorities in non-US airports?  What do you think the reaction would be in Ottawa, Seoul, Tel Aviv, Beirut, Baghdad, etc.?


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 25, 2007)

I'm in Canada, and I would hope that the person would be questioned on it, possibly warned not to wear it, hell even told to remove it, but not at gun point, and not had charges pressed over it for simply wearing it.


----------



## Mark L (Sep 25, 2007)

OK, thanks for answering.  That is your hope, what do you think would really happen?


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 25, 2007)

My best guess is just that.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 25, 2007)

I think some of you guys are ill-informed at best. Those of you who have any training with Improvised Explosive Devices will agree with this point. If you haven't, then you'll just have to take my word on this.

What she had on her shirt looked EXACTLY LIKE a common device used to denote an improvised explosive device, of which C-4 or some other explosive material would be strapped to the chest or waist on the inside of the clothing. The simple circuit board, wiring, and 9-volt battary is all that is needed for a detonator. If this had been "real," a suicide bomber would simply touch one of the wires to the positive or negative charge on the battary depending on the set-up, and blammo.

This could have been a vary real incidence with a vary different outcome.

Some of you can live in your own insolated world if you would like. Maybe it was just a stunt, but I'm not buying **** until a thorough investigation. I am of the opinion that this ***** needs to be seriously looked into. 

If yall knew how often people have been "testing" airport security to see what can be gotten away with, and who they might be working for, it'd make your head spin...

C.


----------



## Carol (Sep 26, 2007)

There has been an unrelated story in Canadian news about indictments against 16 terror suspects that were caught in 2006 in a major plot against the Canadian government.  

The story is here.  Attached the the story is a photo of Canadian police on patrol at what looks like Pearson International Airport in Toronto (yes, Rush fans, it's YYZ), with submachine guns at the ready.  They are certainly prepared to take action at gunpoint...


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

Good for them. 

A lot of people don't know, but Canada has some pretty kick-*** military and LE units, and have been boosting up CANSOFCOM with the recent awareness of the intl terrorist threat.

http://www.cansofcom.forces.gc.ca/en/index_e.asp


----------



## Big Don (Sep 26, 2007)

Art is something someone must work at, foolishness comes naturally...


----------



## rutherford (Sep 26, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I think some of you guys are ill-informed at best. Those of you who have any training with Improvised Explosive Devices will agree with this point. If you haven't, then you'll just have to take my word on this.



There isn't a single person in this thread who says that the concern wasn't justified.

Andrew has said it, and to clarify, I'll say it as well.  I'm glad that people at the airport were concerned and investigated the incident.


----------



## rutherford (Sep 26, 2007)

Hmm.  No deletion of messages anymore?  Please ignore this one.


----------



## MJS (Sep 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I'm in Canada, and I would hope that the person would be questioned on it, possibly warned not to wear it, hell even told to remove it, but not at gun point, and not had charges pressed over it for simply wearing it.


 
Question for you.  Until its deemed that its a fake, why do you think that gun point is too harsh?  I refer back to my fake hand gun being pointed out the window of a moving car.  Do you honestly think that the cops would not draw down on the person?  Of course they are.  Many toy guns today look very close to the real deal.

Just curious.


----------



## Kreth (Sep 26, 2007)

I think the fact that she initially walked away from Security when questioned had something to do with the escalation.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 26, 2007)

If I were armed airport security and saw someone with what I thought was a possible bomb strapped to their chest, they would get ONE strongly worded order at gunpoint and any response other than what I ordered would be met with lead to the CNS. The slightest move could result in the deaths of many. This kid was lucky.

Folks who think security should hold a nice conversation with someone they suspect is packing a bomb remind me of those who ask why cops dont shoot to wound when someone gets killed by LE.


----------



## rutherford (Sep 26, 2007)

Kreth said:


> I think the fact that she initially walked away from Security when questioned had something to do with the escalation.



This is false.

She initially walked aware from an airport employee who refused to answer her questions about an arriving flight.

When confronted by the state police she cooperated fully.

Airport Security was never involved.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 26, 2007)

rutherford said:


> This is false.
> 
> She initially walked aware from an airport employee who refused to answer her questions about an arriving flight.


No, it's debatable.

The Boston Globe reports:


> 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.



CBS News reports:


> 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. Simpson then walked outside, and the staffer notified a nearby trooper.



She's well-decorated, well-educated ... in short, she's no dummy.  I *doubt* she did not understand how this could have been dangerous or illegal for her to do.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 26, 2007)

Does anybody doubt this was some misguided "statement" about airport security/the "war on terror" etc.

Come on.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

rutherford said:


> There isn't a single person in this thread who says that the concern wasn't justified.
> 
> Andrew has said it, and to clarify, I'll say it as well. I'm glad that people at the airport were concerned and investigated the incident.


 
Really? Because I keep reading statements like "it doesn't look like she was intentionally trying to cause trouble," and "Her shirt was not intended to look like a bomb, it didn't really look like a bomb, doesn't seem there was any malicious intent in wearing it," and "what exactly is it that everyone thinks she did wrong" and "She's just a person who wore something they never in a million years thought anybody would be stupid enough to think was a bomb." And so on and so on.

But apparently no one is saying anything like that, everyone thinks that it indeed looked like a detonator to an explosive device, and everyone thinks that the airport and police behaved reasonably. So, something must be wrong with my computer, cause I keep reading all these other comments. 

My bad...


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 26, 2007)

Well, to be fair, *Crue*, until you pointed out certain salient truths about it's appearance (and I saw a more 'in context' picture), I do have to say that I thought it looked nothing like a bomb - it looked like a little LED guy giving 'the finger' to me.

I have friends who delight in wearing (more polished) examples of that sort of illuminated, animated and otherwise technological-looking clothing.  Thankfully I'm too old for that sort of thing - I much prefer suits and frock-coats .

If the reports are straight, then she was lucky not to get 'ventilated' in the current security climate.  

The subsequent furore is out of proportion to the offence, however.  A stern talking too about the narrowness of the margin between larking about and being a corpse, followed by sending the foolish mare on her way with the promise of her idiocy being plastered all over the national news would suffice just as well.

Unless, of course, she really is a secret terrorist trying out the limits of what you can get away with.  Given that she wore the darned thing openly rather suggests otherwise tho'.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 26, 2007)

I dont think that was the device used in this instance. That was a device that caused an uproar in Boston when they were posted up en-mass around the city. That was last year or so ago.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 26, 2007)

Meanwhile, Indianapolis International Airport closed a concourse this morning to investigate a suspicious package which consisted of a battery, wires, a switch, and a modeling-clay-like substance.  The report says it appears to be a simulated IED.  Or maybe it's a "performance piece".

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070926/LOCAL/709260492


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Well, to be fair, *Crue*, until you pointed out certain salient truths about it's appearance (and I saw a more 'in context' picture), I do have to say that I thought it looked nothing like a bomb - it looked like a little LED guy giving 'the finger' to me.


 
Hey, I can appreciate that. That is why I stated that "I think some of you guys are ill-informed..." I realize that not everyone might know that this in fact looks exactly like a type of detonator, especially at a glance. But, when I posted that, there seemed to be some objection, as if I was wrong in the assumption that some are no well informed on this. I find that weird, because as you just stated and based on other comments, many people don't know that this looks exactly like a type of detonator. 



> I have friends who delight in wearing (more polished) examples of that sort of illuminated, animated and otherwise technological-looking clothing. Thankfully I'm too old for that sort of thing - I much prefer suits and frock-coats .
> 
> If the reports are straight, then she was lucky not to get 'ventilated' in the current security climate.
> 
> The subsequent furore is out of proportion to the offence, however. A stern talking too about the narrowness of the margin between larking about and being a corpse, followed by sending the foolish mare on her way with the promise of her idiocy being plastered all over the national news would suffice just as well.


 
This is I think where my frame of thinking differs from many of you, which is where the disagreement is. She isn't a teenager. She is an adult who is not insolated in any way, and who is attending a reputable university and has been functioning in society for long enough to know the current security enviroment we live in. I have a difficult time believing that a responsible adult with her background would knowingly wear something that could even be questioned as a security risk to the airport in an environment where you can't even have nail clippers on a carryon bag. I think that most of us agree that the item on the shirt is odd and questionable, even if we don't know that it looks exactly like a detonator. So, it is very difficult for me to think that she wasn't up to something. 

Because of this, in my mind, she deserves the response she got and the potential fallout afterwords.



> Unless, of course, she really is a secret terrorist trying out the limits of what you can get away with. Given that she wore the darned thing openly rather suggests otherwise tho'.


 
I disagree here. Most of you are thinking from your own frame of reference, and not that of a suicide bomber. Your thinking that if you were to want to see if you could get a device past security, that you would try to not get caught and therefore would do a better job of hiding it then pasting it on your shirt.

This is not how many suicide bombers think, however. If they do a test run, they want to do it in a vary blatent way to see how far they can get past security before they are stopped. They fully expect to be stopped; what they are trying to see is exactly when that would occur and how long it would take security to catch on. That is why they pick something "harmless" like a block of cheese with wires attached to it, or a simple circut board with silly putty and a battary. They can't be detained for very long for a block of cheese or a silly gimick on a shirt. So the thought is that they will be able to do the real thing, or assist in the real thing at a later date.

Furthermore, suicide bombers aren't thinking about there personal future as members of our society. So, they don't care if they face criminal charges, fines, and so forth. In fact, the more the better, because it is all for their cause. And as far as suicide bombing goes, the idea isn't to "get away with it" like most people think; it is to attract as much attention as possible. Attention is even more important than producing mass casualty, although they usually go hand and hand. 

So getting all the way into an airport, attracting a lot of attention from law enforcement and personell, and getting arrested would be considered a successful test run. By itself without an explosion, it sends a message. And a real suicide bomber would want exactly that; to get far into the airport and to attract a lot of attention and people - only then end result would be an explosion and loss of lives rather then an arrest.

When you get into the psychology behind terrorists and specifically suicide bombers, you see this incident from a whole different perspective. I just think that it is a good thing our law enforcement is on to this, and remains one step ahead. They definatily deserve our respect for that, IMO.

But, perhaps this was just a stunt, or an incident of someone not thinking things through? This is equally as possible. But, consequence for her actions as well as investigations need to be in place.

C.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 26, 2007)

If she did something stupid like run into the airport, she could have wound up like that gate jummper in London who ran from cops and got shot in the head. And I would say the same thing about her as I would have said about him.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Meanwhile, Indianapolis International Airport closed a concourse this morning to investigate a suspicious package which consisted of a battery, wires, a switch, and a modeling-clay-like substance. The report says it appears to be a simulated IED. Or maybe it's a "performance piece".
> 
> http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070926/LOCAL/709260492


 
This has been going on a lot; I think a lot more than people realize. And the media attention and so forth is actually a part of terrorist's strategy. I am just glad our LE is on top of this ****.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Really? Because I keep reading statements like...



No one is claiming they shouldn't have investigated and figured out what it was.  However, upon investigation it should have been very clear that it was not an explosive device, and just a harmless light up shirt.  At that point the issue should have been closed and everyone gone back to what they where doing.

The idea of arresting and charging a person because they wore something that you thought might be a bomb but really wasn't nor was it intended to be seems to be opening a door I would not want opened.

How would you draw the line? If there is no intent or accompanying actions to warrant the arrest where does the line between harmless homemade property and "hoax device" get drawn?

A person being arrested for having a bomb, no argument at all.  A person being arrested for having something that someone thought might kinda look like what a bomb could look like?  That is a law I don't want, and one that would have gotten everybody that took a electronics course in junior high school arrested for if they got spotted with it in the wrong place.



> The simple circuit board, wiring, and 9-volt battary is all that is needed for a detonator.



Yup, that covers everything I produced in Junior High electronics.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 26, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> This has been going on a lot; I think a lot more than people realize. And the media attention and so forth is actually a part of terrorist's strategy. I am just glad our LE is on top of this ****.


 
Never doubt the stupidity of homegrown wack-jobs that just get off on doing stuff like that too. I dont doubt that some are terr. dry runs, but I think many could be nutters too.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> No one is claiming they shouldn't have investigated and figured out what it was. However, upon investigation it should have been very clear that it was not an explosive device, and just a harmless light up shirt. At that point the issue should have been closed and everyone gone back to what they where doing.
> 
> The idea of arresting and charging a person because they wore something that you thought might be a bomb but really wasn't nor was it intended to be seems to be opening a door I would not want opened.
> 
> ...


 

Depends on what the cops think her intent was doesnt it? If somebody wasted the time of LE, scared a group of people and made me miss my plane for a stupid stunt, Id want to see her charged.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Depends on what the cops think her intent was doesnt it? If somebody made me miss my plane for a stupid stunt, Id want to see her charged.




It does, but with nothing more then a board that causes colored paint to light up, how can you determine intent?

With no way of showing that the intent was not malicious should it not be innocent until proven guilty?  Which is really what I object too, I've seen nothing to point to her as having a malicious intent, just making a mistake.  To presume guilty based on no more evidence then a geeky shirt is, in my mind, a very bad thing for a free society to be doing.


----------



## MJS (Sep 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> No one is claiming they shouldn't have investigated and figured out what it was. However, upon investigation it should have been very clear that it was not an explosive device, and just a harmless light up shirt. At that point the issue should have been closed and everyone gone back to what they where doing.
> 
> The idea of arresting and charging a person because they wore something that you thought might be a bomb but really wasn't nor was it intended to be seems to be opening a door I would not want opened.
> 
> ...


 
IMO, one of the things that some may be over looking, is the fact that she caused a disturbance.  I'd be really surprised if the people that do things like this girl in question, didn't realize that there wouldn't be consequences.  

As I said before, the fact of the matter is, is she interrupted the normal flow of business.  Why should she be exempt from charges?  If a kid calls in a fake bomb scare at his school, she they be exempt?  "Oh, well, I was bored today at school, so I thought I'd cause a little tension, so everyone could get some fresh air."  Sorry, doesnt cut it in my book.

Basically, you're saying that its ok that tension was caused, that her actions should be excused because the shirt was deemed fake.


----------



## JBrainard (Sep 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Did she? Cause I've not seen anything that suggests that. The shirt was not designed to look like a bomb, nor was she doing anything that would make her seem like a terrorist, just wearing the shirt.
> 
> Accidentally, not deliberately.
> 
> So again, my view is that this is a very bad step for personal freedom, allowing arrests and charges based on someone perceiving something in a way that it was not meant to be.


 
As for your first two paragraphs... You're kidding, right? Unless she is a *complete* moron, you can safely assume that she was trying to get a reaction from people.

As for the last paragraph,  I am all for personal freedom, something that is erroding before our eyes. But in this social climate, her "artistic expression" should *at least* be checked out. As for whether she deserved a punishment and to what degree, I haven't really formed an opinion on that yet.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> It does, but with nothing more then a board that causes colored paint to light up, how can you determine intent?
> 
> With no way of showing that the intent was not malicious should it not be innocent until proven guilty? Which is really what I object too, I've seen nothing to point to her as having a malicious intent, just making a mistake. To presume guilty based on no more evidence then a geeky shirt is, in my mind, a very bad thing for a free society to be doing.


 

I think you are confusing "innocent until proven guilty" which happens in a court with "probable cause" which happens on the street. The cops job isnt to determine "guilt" just if the action warrants an arrest. Which they thought did Im assuming. She was released on bail and hasnt been convicted of anything yet am I right?


----------



## MJS (Sep 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> The shirt was not designed to look like a bomb,


 
Isn't this a pretty bold assumption Andrew?  You work with computers right?  Therefore, to *your* eye, it may seem, upon first look, that it was nothing more than a harmless display.  However, line up 10 average Joes, and I'd bet you'd get opinions that differ.



> nor was she doing anything that would make her seem like a terrorist, just wearing the shirt.


 
Hmmm...did the 9/11 hijackers do anything that would make them seem like terrorists?  I'd have to say no, considering they got on board the plane!




> So again, my view is that this is a very bad step for personal freedom, allowing arrests and charges based on someone perceiving something in a way that it was not meant to be.


 
Hmmm...as always, the cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Had this been a real bomb, and did nothing, I'd be certain everyone would wonder why they stood by.  Now, here we have them doing something, and they still take heat.  Amazing.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I think you are confusing "innocent until proven guilty" which happens in a court with "probable cause" which happens on the street. The cops job isnt to determine "guilt" just if the action warrants an arrest. Which they thought did Im assuming. She was released on bail and hasnt been convicted of anything yet am I right?



No, I'm thinking that a person should not be arrested, or have to post bail unless there is some good evidence supporting the claim that they did something illegal.  But I can't see the crime here.



MJS said:


> Hmmm...as always, the cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Had this been a real bomb, and did nothing, I'd be certain everyone would wonder why they stood by.  Now, here we have them doing something, and they still take heat.  Amazing.




And they should definitely have investigated, determined it was a harmless "fashion" display and thats it, duty done, everyone is safe.

And you are right, I do work with computers and could probably pull half a dozen items that would make as convincing of a "bomb" as that out of the back room without much effort at all.  The idea that I could get arrested for them seems absurd.


----------



## MJS (Sep 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> And they should definitely have investigated, determined it was a harmless "fashion" display and thats it, duty done, everyone is safe.
> 
> And you are right, I do work with computers and could probably pull half a dozen items that would make as convincing of a "bomb" as that out of the back room without much effort at all. The idea that I could get arrested for them seems absurd.


 

I guess the next question that I had already asked, but will ask again...why should someone who causes a disturbance, get off with a slap on the wrist, if that?  Someone calls in a bomb scare to a hospital, a court house, a school...now you have emergency services, ie: police, fire depts, racing to a fake call, endangering the lives of themselves as well as others on the road, the chaos of trying to get everyone out of the building...and you're saying if its determined its a hoax, do nothing to the person that caused it?  Alrighty then.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 26, 2007)

I don't think *Andrew* was saying that, *MJS* but I do concur that, under such conditions as you noted above, actions should have consequences.

It boils down to _intent_ in the end.  

For example, I have been 'guilty' of wasting emergency services time by calling for an ambulance when, leaving a pub, I saw a chap fall down at the side of a country road and lie twitching and frothing at the mouth in an obvious fit.  I'd gone back into the pub to make the call on a public phone (no such things as 'mobiles' back then) and when I came out, he was gone!  

I waited for the ambulance crew to turn up and explained what had happened but I'd still pulled them away from other emergencies that may have been occurring.

I made a mistake.  Should I have been charged for it?

I know we're heavily theorising about another persons motives here but, just maybe, the Eejut Student about which we've spoken so much, just walked up to the information desk in a moment of devilment, simply to see the look on the fellows face.  Or maybe she really didn't think anything of it.  Or maybe she was wearing the thing for the benefit of people flying in that she was going to meet, needed some information on the flgiht and couldn't take the sweatshirt off because she was wearing nothing underneath.

We don't know and I doubt we ever will.  The discussion itself is worthwhile tho' and there's been some good posts on it from both sides of the Draconian Divide :tup:.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2007)

MJS said:


> I guess the next question that I had already asked, but will ask again...why should someone who causes a disturbance, get off with a slap on the wrist, if that?  Someone calls in a bomb scare to a hospital, a court house, a school...now you have emergency services, ie: police, fire depts, racing to a fake call, endangering the lives of themselves as well as others on the road, the chaos of trying to get everyone out of the building...and you're saying if its determined its a hoax, do nothing to the person that caused it?  Alrighty then.



If it is determined that she intended to cause a bomb scare, then charges should be laid.  Prison I don't think is appropriate, but certainly a fine or community service.

But, if all she did is wear a shirt that she has had for a while and worn before quite often before how would this be proven?  

Let's take another airport scare, suppose I am waiting for my flight, boarding call comes and I gather my stuff, but forget a bag.  An abandoned bag leads to a bomb scare, should I be charged for forgetting my change of socks?


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> And you are right, I do work with computers and could probably pull half a dozen items that would make as convincing of a "bomb" as that out of the back room without much effort at all. The idea that I could get arrested for them seems absurd.


 
Not just arrested, but killed for it if your reaction was anything less then compliant when the cops arrive.

And as it should be. The problem we have in combating improvised explosive devices is that it only takes about an 8th or 9th grade level electronics course worth of knowledge plus materials you can find at the hardware store to make them. Yet, the damage they can do is quite great. That is why they are so dangerous, and that is why anyone ****ing around with it needs to face the consequences.

I am sure the courts will look at the evidence and she will be punished accordingly. She will probably get off without much penalty, but she will have to go through extensive investigation, and at least the trouble of going through the court system. And as it should be. If you **** up, you pay the consequences. And if this was just a simple oversight on her part and a mistake, then it's not like she won't be able to repair her life after going through the court system. She'll be fine, and she as well as others will have hopefully learned something.

But to say that once the cops saw that it wasn't a bomb, she should have just been let go with no consequence is absurd when one considers that this fits the exact profile of someone doing a test run for a suicide bomb, and the thing on her shirt in question fits the image of a particular type of detonation device that is commonly used TO A TEE.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 26, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Really? Because I keep reading statements like "it doesn't look like she was intentionally trying to cause trouble," and "Her shirt was not intended to look like a bomb, it didn't really look like a bomb, doesn't seem there was any malicious intent in wearing it,"


Richard Reid's shoe wasn't suspicious looking. The 19 hijackers on 9-11 were reported to have been very polite, until, that is, they hijacked the planes...


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Richard Reid's shoe wasn't suspicious looking. The 19 hijackers on 9-11 were reported to have been very polite, until, that is, they hijacked the planes...


 
Well, then we can all ***** that airport security sucks, and LE isn't doing their jobs, etc., for not catching them... :lol:


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 26, 2007)

This may sound bad but im gonna say it anyway. Just like climbing a fence into a nucular power plant could get you shot for what boils down to trespassing. Wearing a curcitboard strapped to tour cheat holding putty, in the current atmosphere should get you at lest arrested. Hell, if she ran she could have been shot.


----------



## MJS (Sep 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> If it is determined that she intended to cause a bomb scare, then charges should be laid. Prison I don't think is appropriate, but certainly a fine or community service.


 
Well, at least we're making some progress now.   My point was simple...something should happen to her, be it a fine, community service, etc., but to walk away with a slap on the hand...I disagree with that.  As for her intentions..like I said, she must be pretty stupid to think that wearing something like that would not gain attention.  Its no different than a girl wearing a short skirt and low cut top.  A passing guy looks at her, and the girls boyfriend gets pissed because you look.  Hey, if you don't want to draw attention to yourself, choose your clothing careful. 



> But, if all she did is wear a shirt that she has had for a while and worn before quite often before how would this be proven?


 
Do we know for sure that she's worn this before?



> Let's take another airport scare, suppose I am waiting for my flight, boarding call comes and I gather my stuff, but forget a bag. An abandoned bag leads to a bomb scare, should I be charged for forgetting my change of socks?


 
I'm going to say there was a different intent between the two cases you list.


----------



## MJS (Sep 26, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> I don't think *Andrew* was saying that, *MJS* but I do concur that, under such conditions as you noted above, actions should have consequences.
> 
> It boils down to _intent_ in the end.
> 
> ...


 
Again, difference of intent.  If you call in a report of a bomb, knowing its false, yes, thats a waste of service.  In your case, you called in a valid concern..someone fell.  There was no ill intent on your part.

I think that the main issue is..why did she wear something like that?  Is she that clueless to think that it would not draw attention to her?


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2007)

MJS said:


> Do we know for sure that she's worn this before?



Yup, It turned up in one of the stories comments or blogs on it.  One of her friends came in and said she's had it for a while and most likely didn't even give it a second thought, it was a shirt with lights.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> This may sound bad but im gonna say it anyway. Just like climbing a fence into a nucular power plant could get you shot for what boils down to trespassing. Wearing a curcitboard strapped to tour cheat holding putty, in the current atmosphere should get you at lest arrested. Hell, if she ran she could have been shot.


 
And this may sound bad, but since terrorism is a very real threat, I wouldn't want it any other way...


----------



## MJS (Sep 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Yup, It turned up in one of the stories comments or blogs on it. One of her friends came in and said she's had it for a while and most likely didn't even give it a second thought, it was a shirt with lights.


 
Interesting.  I find it odd that if she in fact did wear this shirt out in public, that it never once cause an issue.  It took her wearing it to an airport before someone saw it and said, "Gee, that looks like a bomb!"


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2007)

same as the mooninites where up for weeks all over the country until someone decided they where a bomb?

Anyways, here's her instructables account: http://www.instructables.com/member/stasterisk/

Personal site was here: http://stars.mit.edu/ but is down right now.

asterix... stars...  "Star Simpson"... Hey, that sweater has a green *star* that lights up!


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2007)

Another interesting thing to consider is the evolution of the "facts"

What was paint on her shirt became putty, then the putty became playdoe and moved from her shirt to on her fingers, then it turned into her carrying a wad of it around...

Her claim that it was "art" became "performance art".

Her responding to the information booth attendant that it was "art" and then walking away turned into her just walking away when questioned about the shirt.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

For those of you who don't believe me, the device on her shirt looks EXACTLY like an actual detonator. Go ahead and check out these inert explosive devices: http://www.letargets.com/html/explosive_training_devices2.html

About 1/2 way down the page you can see a circuit board and timer that attaches to a 9v battery that simulates an actual detonator. You don't need a timer for the device to work; you simply touch the wires and blamo.

And yes, there are certain areas that are considered more of a target then others, and will cause more alarm. She could probably go into the local pizza place and not be questioned with her shirt, but not in an airport or courthouse for example..


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2007)

But at the same time those basic components are common to all electronic devices, not something specific to detonators.

Complete circuit light turns on, complete circuit buzzer buzzes, complete circuit bomb goes boom.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 26, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Richard Reid's shoe wasn't suspicious looking.


Yeah I've said that a couple of times and even included the foto ... but nobody wants to talk about *that.*


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Yeah I've said that a couple of times and even included the foto ... but nobody wants to talk about *that.*



I think a lot of people just want to believe that a person looking to do harm should be obvious, and that if you are alert you should be able to spot them.

But if I wanted to sneak a bomb into a place, giving it flashing lights and wearing it on my chest in full view would not be my first choice, something that people have on them every day and by all outward appearances was nothing special at all would be.


----------



## Mark L (Sep 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Another interesting thing to consider is the evolution of the "facts"
> 
> What was paint on her shirt became putty, then the putty became playdoe and moved from her shirt to on her fingers, then it turned into her carrying a wad of it around...
> 
> ...


I pointed to both the New York Times and the Associated Press as characterizing the material as modeling clay / Play-Doh right from the start.  The only place I've seen referencing paint is here.  I haven't seen any reference to location other than her hand,  where did you see this?  I don't know why the circuit board itself is the focus of the discussion.  I'm an EE, I knew exactly what that prop is and what it does at a glance.  The LEDs look like they are arranged in the shape of a star.  Would that have any significance if you didn't know her name?   Like if you were a cop in an airport.  What alarms me is the goop she was holding in her hand *coupled* with the circuit board on display.  I think that is the cause for alarm, and is why the authorities did what they did.

"Performance art" was part of my original post, maybe I was wrong to say that, maybe I wasn't.  In prior posts I have quoted the state police major as saying she said she wanted to be noticed / stand out, or words to that effect.  Want to debate active vs. passive performance?

Again, the data dump from the state police indicates she walked away without answering the question posed by the airport employee.  I've not seen any reference indicating she replied to the query with "art", where did you see that?

I've also not heard outrage expressed by Ms. Simpson or her representatives, no reports that she has been 'convicted' without the benefit of due process, that she's being railroaded, that she's simply an innocent victim of a mis-understanding.  Nothing from the ACLU, I don't think.  Can you point to any credible source that says her arrest was unjustifiable?

I work with lots of MIT folks, I've had Course IV interns and grad students working for me for 20+ years, including two of her classmates this past summer.  My experience is that these are really, really bright folks, and there is little that escapes them.  I don't for a second believe that Ms. Simpson was surprised by the reaction she elicited.  BTW, I saw her today at lunch in Cambridge, she looked quite comfortable and happy riding her bike along Main St with a friend (streaming _very_ long pink hair through the holes of his helmet).


----------



## Carol (Sep 26, 2007)

Most of the people complaining about Boston's reaction to perceived terror threats are people that don't live here.

I haven't heard a lot of outrage from many people here in eastern Massachusetts.


----------



## Mark L (Sep 26, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Most of the people complaining about Boston's reaction to perceived terror threats are people that don't live here.
> 
> I haven't heard a lot of outrage from many people here in eastern Massachusetts.


Check.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 26, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Most of the people complaining about Boston's reaction to perceived terror threats are people that don't live here.
> 
> I haven't heard a lot of outrage from many people here in eastern Massachusetts.


Given that two of the planes on 9-11 flew out of Logan, I'd say their reactions are understated.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 26, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> There has been an unrelated story in Canadian news about indictments against 16 terror suspects that were caught in 2006 in a major plot against the Canadian government.
> 
> The story is here. Attached the the story is a photo of Canadian police on patrol at what looks like Pearson International Airport in Toronto (yes, Rush fans, it's YYZ), with submachine guns at the ready. They are certainly prepared to take action at gunpoint...



I was in Canada when that case broke.  Their media coverage is much different than the US.


----------



## Carol (Sep 26, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Given that two of the planes on 9-11 flew out of Logan, I'd say their reactions are understated.



Five of the people that perished lived within two miles of my home...

Our city's disastrous infrastructure dubbed the "Big Dig" had the unintended end result of making our city more vulnerable to a devastating terror act terrorism than most cities due to its infrastructure.  The main traffic artery through the city used to be an elevated expressway, it's now a 6 lane tunnel that runs underneath the heart of downtown, flanked by Boston Harbor.   

So yes, when the Cartoon Network pranksters put up LED blinky-thingies at the entrance to these tunnels....yeah, some people got very concerned and called people that took the concern seriously.

Its a different city that has had different experiences.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 26, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I think some of you guys are ill-informed at best. Those of you who have any training with Improvised Explosive Devices will agree with this point. If you haven't, then you'll just have to take my word on this.
> 
> What she had on her shirt looked EXACTLY LIKE a common device used to denote an improvised explosive device, of which C-4 or some other explosive material would be strapped to the chest or waist on the inside of the clothing. The simple circuit board, wiring, and 9-volt battary is all that is needed for a detonator. If this had been "real," a suicide bomber would simply touch one of the wires to the positive or negative charge on the battary depending on the set-up, and blammo.
> 
> ...



One could hope that those serious enough would attach the power lead first, and then look to attach the ground when they desire. Why? Ground can be found in lots of places, such as car doors or houses, or tables, or , and they hopefully would just be another Darwin award winner. 

Arresting someone on sight like this is for the greater security. Once it was determined to be a stunt, she may not have been sent to some detention center for questioning, but being charged with disturbing the peace and other charges are valid. People used to like to yell "FIRE" in the movie theatres to see peopel run. It is now illegal so they can prosecute.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 26, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Never doubt the stupidity of homegrown wack-jobs that just get off on doing stuff like that too. I dont doubt that some are terr. dry runs, but I think many could be nutters too.



Yes, I agree Home grown Militia orgs can cause terrorism and damage. See our history prior to 9/11/01


----------



## Mark L (Sep 26, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Five of the people that perished lived within two miles of my home...


I knew two.  One of them, the co-pilot of AA 11, was my classmate at both Burlington High School '77 and BU '81, the other was my teacher and guidance counselor at BHS, a passenger (with his wife) on AA 11.  The recent events at Logan do not disturb me one bit.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> No, I'm thinking that a person should not be arrested, or have to post bail unless there is some good evidence supporting the claim that they did something illegal. But I can't see the crime here.


The crime is similar to yelling fire or walking into the airport with a firearm or knife. The signs say no weapons. This includes what some people perceive to be weapons as well. 

The crime of causing a stampede or panic or the threat of it. 



Andrew Green said:


> And they should definitely have investigated, determined it was a harmless "fashion" display and thats it, duty done, everyone is safe.



I would have still detained her. Why? To find out if she needed a psych eval. Why would anyone do this? Also I would not let her go back out and possible cause a panic. I mean what would happen if they let her go and someone thought they needed to do something about her. Detaining her and removing her is also for her protection.



Andrew Green said:


> And you are right, I do work with computers and could probably pull half a dozen items that would make as convincing of a "bomb" as that out of the back room without much effort at all. The idea that I could get arrested for them seems absurd.



I travel with a laptop. I pack all controllers in check in. Yet, I still get full investigation on my bag with the charger cords and vehicel charge and accessories. But if you do it right, it is only a proble for the people behind you in line as you need three or four tubs to put your stuff in and then to re pack everything on the other side.


************


I recently traveled from Las Vegas to St Paul to Flint. We change planes in St. Paul. I got on and this guy was sitting in my seat. Back of the plane next to the bathroom and an isle seat. He looked at me and said "Ya Ya" He continued to play with something in the seat back and then stood up like I would get in. I looked at him and said I have the isle seat. He got in and was not happy.  He then proceded to just sit there and ignore me. Until right before take ioff. He pulled out his cell phone and made a call. He was on the phone even after they said all phone off. (* I have talked to some pilots personally who conducted the test in flight themselves and they do interfer with the tracking and Nav systems. *)  The Stewardess came by and I pointed at him she did not understand and I looked at her crossed my eyes and pointed agian with my outside arm. She then told him to put the phone up. He did not. She checked the back of the plane and the bathroom and then came back and told him again. He waved her off. ** He was supposedly talking to his familiy ** She went up and did not give the all clear. She got on the PA again and told the plane to turn off cell phones. She then walked through again and this time when she told him he did. This delay actually cost us our take off slot. To me this is terrorism. I wanted to hit him right then and there. So we get off the ground and the first thing he does as soon as the wheels are off the ground he pulls out a pocket new testament. Not the whole bible just the new testament. He then starts to read passages and moves to the next and then the next while he is rocking the whole time. The passages were about Bringing the work of Christ to others and "Making" others see the light and the teachings of JC. 

Now if this was a dark haired guy like me and looked Islamic or middle easter like me and if it was the Quran then it would have been a major issue for many. But as he was white and red hair, no one else around me had a problem. Most of the people were worreid about me. ** Stupid ****s **

So I position my self to strike and prepare to stop him if required. I am serious, I was ready to kill him becuase he was acting like a LOON!. 

Now the level increases. He starts counting on his hands how far up the exits are. Now I do this, but I do not need to count on my fingers and talk out loud doing it. He also started counting where all the large guys on the plane were. I could watch his fingers count and his eyes and head nod and see what he was doing. 

Now I am really geared up and ready for him to try to get up and "use the bathroom" 

Next level of intensity, he pulls out his cell phone and starts to play with it. Turns it on and starts to push lots of buttons. I look at him like I am going to kill him if he hits the send button. I am obvious about it. He then begins to realize that I am staring at him and and his phone and he turns it off. 

In the end the plane landed with no issuse. He got picked up in a beat up van (* matched him and his look and the look of his wife and kid *). 

Most would ask why worry about it? 

Others would say I over reacted? Yet I know on flights the same actions by certain types got the planed landed and people arrested. 

Some might call it a win as I am alive and nothing happened. I call it a loss as I had a very bad flight and he farted and it smelled like salami. Which to me is just another form of personal terrorism towards me. 


I know I fit certain profiles. I am large, unknown race, travel with electronics, and have no jewelry. I know I get special attention all the time.  I understand this. But I also know how to react and get through with the minimum issues. I always ask to enter the metal detector. I always ask if my bags and equipment are "Clear" before I touch them. I always ask the person at the end watching, if it is ok for me to leave once I am repacked. It takes hardly any time and it avoids issues. 


******

Now for something funny. In the late 80's I traveled to California and came back with a red wood pine cone. In the carry on bag though the x-ray machine was stopped and other brought in to look at it while being x-ray'd. Once allowed to talk, as they did not want me too until the Experts had a chance to look, I explained that I had a shaving kit, hair dryer, and a pine cone. Imagine razor blades lined up with the pine cone and the coil and plug for the hair dryer. It looked like it was an IED. They let the bag out and had me open it. Once open they verified what I told them, and let me go. Note: Everything in the bag was not visable to the outside where it could have caused fear in others.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 26, 2007)

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V127/N41/simpson.html



> &#8220;Still,&#8221; DiFava continued, &#8220;of all places, an airport; of all airports, Logan. &#8230; Logan even confiscates water bottles.&#8221; The two planes that struck the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 departed from Logan, and American Airlines Flight 63 was diverted to the airport on Dec. 21, 2001 after Richard Reid attempted to blow up the plane using explosives concealed in his shoe.
> 
> Dwyer said that he believes the police have a protocol they must follow and that these days there is &#8220;no opportunity for the exercise of discretion.&#8221; Dwyer said that prior to 9/11, he believes no arrest would have been made in this case.


----------



## rutherford (Sep 26, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Most of the people complaining about Boston's reaction to perceived terror threats are people that don't live here.
> 
> I haven't heard a lot of outrage from many people here in eastern Massachusetts.



I'll be in Boston tomorrow.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> The crime is similar to yelling fire or walking into the airport with a firearm or knife. The signs say no weapons. This includes what some people perceive to be weapons as well.
> 
> The crime of causing a stampede or panic or the threat of it.
> 
> ...


 
:rofl:  Totally off topic but...

2 things:

#1. We can't take Rich anywhere.

#2. What's funny about Rich is that he tells a serious story, and I am laughing my *** off. Then he goes into his "funny" story, which is not nearly as funny as his traumatic experience that involves me laughing my *** off.

Whew. Definatily have to get a beer soon Rich so you can tell me more about your trip! :lol: :cheers:


----------



## Mark L (Sep 26, 2007)

rutherford said:


> I'll be in Boston tomorrow.


Seek opinions, let us know what you hear ...


----------



## Carol (Sep 26, 2007)

Mark L said:


> Seek opinions, let us know what you hear ...



If you have blinky LED things on breadboards....you might want to keep them under wraps if you have to go to Logan


----------



## MJS (Sep 27, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> The crime is similar to yelling fire or walking into the airport with a firearm or knife. The signs say no weapons. This includes what some people perceive to be weapons as well.
> 
> The crime of causing a stampede or panic or the threat of it.
> 
> ...


 
Rich,  for what its worth, IMHO, I'm right there with ya man!  You did nothing wrong and I probably would've been looking at the guy as well, thinking, "What the ****!!  Stop acting like a fool, sit there, and enjoy the flight!"



Cruentus said:


> :rofl:  Totally off topic but...
> 
> 2 things:
> 
> ...


 
LOL!  Yes, I chuckled as well.  I only know Rich thru pictures I've seen with him at seminars, the MT Meet & Greet, etc., but judging by his size, I could picture him decking this guy!!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 27, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> :rofl:  Totally off topic but...
> 
> 2 things:
> 
> ...


 

Paul, 

I knew you and others would laugh at the serious story. Part of the reason I share.   Laughter is good for people.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 27, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> Paul,
> 
> I knew you and others would laugh at the serious story. Part of the reason I share.   Laughter is good for people.


 
And if any one of us farted and it smelled like Salami, you'd tell us right!? :rofl:


----------

