Cops to Flashy Things: Stay Out of Boston!

Henry Jenkins offers a balanced assessment of last month's Star Simpson incident, in which police arrested an MIT student at Boston's Logan Airport for wearing an alleged "hoax bomb." (It was a name badge with an LED display.) An excerpt:

One of the things that struck me in the news coverage of the incident was the frequency with which reporters described the security force as "taking no chances" in their response to Star....In this case, the police "took no chances" if you assume that Star was either wearing a bomb or trying to trick someone into believing she was armed.

But if we consider that police pulled machine guns on an unarmed 19 year old in a public place, then we might think that they took a fair number of chances.

"I don't know for sure what happened that day at Logan Airport," Jenkins concludes. "There are some nagging details that don't quite add up no matter how I look at the story. But it is pretty clear that there was a significant misunderstanding involved here, that the news media didn't consider alternative framings of the incident and that they were more invested in frightening the public than in finding out what actually occurred."

More on the story here and here. Boston's battle with lite brites recounted here.

Comments

joe | October 2, 2007, 9:56am | #

How about this angle: airport security is so bad at identifying bombs that they thought a blinking computer chip was a security threat.

John | October 2, 2007, 10:02am | #

"But if we consider that police pulled machine guns on an unarmed 19 year old in a public place, then we might think that they took a fair number of chances."

Of course if you consider the unbelievable stupidity of bringing a fake bomb into the airport, it is hard to have much sympathy for her. Should they have pulled machine guns? Probably not. But, only an elite college student in this day and age would be dumb enough to pull that stunt. We love to make fun of hillbillies and lower middle class people in this day and age, but the dumbest redneck hillbilly I have ever met would be smart enough not to pull that stunt.

"But it is pretty clear that there was a significant misunderstanding involved here, that the news media didn't consider alternative framings of the incident and that they were more invested in frightening the public than in finding out what actually occurred."

What alternative frameworks? How did this story frighten anyone. I thought the whole point of the coverage was to show that MIT has apparently waived intelligence as an entrance requirement. It is not like the media played it up as a real bomb threat. The story I always saw was "moron shows up with fake bomb at Logan Airport."

Jesse Walker | October 2, 2007, 10:03am | #

bringing a fake bomb into the airport

It wasn't a "fake bomb."

Jesse Walker | October 2, 2007, 10:04am | #

What alternative frameworks?

The one where a name tag that lights up is not a "fake bomb."

humblescholar | October 2, 2007, 10:04am | #

When I read something like this I am fascinated by the way the story becomes how the story is told and nobody just remarks on how sad it is that everyone seems so scared of each other nowadays and how this is clouding their judgments and making life a misery for themselves and the people around them.

Syloson of Samos | October 2, 2007, 10:06am | #

John,

Of course if you consider the unbelievable stupidity of bringing a fake bomb into the airport...

See, the deal is that it wasn't a fake bomb. Apparnetly she got up in the morning, threw the clothing on and went to the airport to pick up a friend. Then (as I understand it) she was asked by the reference desk what the object was - she told them it was art.

humblescholar | October 2, 2007, 10:09am | #

Art can be pretty scary in the wrong hands

joe | October 2, 2007, 10:09am | #

Fake Bomb! Fake Bomb!

It coulda caused a mushroom cloud!

It was a blinking computer chip, Jack Ryan.

ed | October 2, 2007, 10:13am | #

Look at the actual photo of the device. Consider the context. In the most charitable assessment possible she's guilty of stupidity.

John | October 2, 2007, 10:14am | #

"See, the deal is that it wasn't a fake bomb. Apparnetly she got up in the morning, threw the clothing on and went to the airport to pick up a friend. Then (as I understand it) she was asked by the reference desk what the object was - she told them it was art."

But it doesn't take much common sense to realize that it would be taken for a fake bomb. I don't care what she called it; anyone with an IQ above 40 should have known security would freak out about it. I suppose I could care a soap bar into the shape of a pistol and call it "art" not a "fake gun" but I don't see how I would have much of a reason to complain when they arrested me at the airport.

Jesse,

That is not an alternative framework. The story always was some idiot brought what security considered a fake bomb to the airport. No one was ever scared by this story. It was on level of a Darwin Award story not a terrorism story.

frequent flyer | October 2, 2007, 10:14am | #

John, your displeasure with the student would be well-placed if said student was actually trying to "punk" the system by bring a fake bomb to the airport.

However, further investigation reveals that this was an art piece that the student wore on a regular basis. This incident was roughly equivalent to the time I accidentally tried to take a pocket knife in my brief case through security in Heathrow. Seven years ago, that was a minor incident. I imagine I would have been thrown to the ground and hand-cuffed if it had happend after 9/11.

pistoffnick | October 2, 2007, 10:14am | #

The real story isn't about flashing nametags or "fake bombs". The real story is about how LESS SECURE you are in any given airport due to "heightened security measures".

de stijl | October 2, 2007, 10:15am | #

It's enough to make Jack Bauer hit the bottle and then hit the streets.

Jennifer | October 2, 2007, 10:16am | #

I thought the whole point of the coverage was to show that MIT has apparently waived intelligence as an entrance requirement.

If you redefine "intelligence" as "don't do anything which might possibly make a paranoid and not-too-bright cop think you might theoretically perhaps be some sort of a threat."

Mo | October 2, 2007, 10:17am | #

There was a lot of talk on my fraternity listserv about this. some people knew her. Apparently, she wore the same thing to a career fair the previous day. I guess one could ask what kind of person would wear a fake bomb to a career fair. Or you could ask why would people pull guns on a girl with a lit nametag.

What's funny is when I talk to my friends here about the incident and describe it as a nametag that lights up and the fact that she wore it to a career fair, their sympathy for her goes up. Besides, as brilliant as MIT students are they're not known for social intelligence and common sense. Especially, since they assume reasonable intelligence by people, like the fact that a breadboard does not equal a bomb.

SM | October 2, 2007, 10:21am | #

"We of the FBI have no sense of humor that we are aware of"

BTW - Several airports do have signs warning against this sort of joke, whether intentional or not.

joe | October 2, 2007, 10:22am | #

A soap bar in the shape of the pistol would have the virtue of actually resembling something dangerous.

A pocket knife would have the virtue of being able, at least in theory, of doing harm to somebody.

This was neither.

I looked at the actual photo, ed. Maybe it deserves a "What's that?" and a closer look.

The other problem here, as with the London police who executed that Brazilian, is that the security people seem to have two speeds - they go directly from "Have a good day, ma'am," to "Rambo."

John | October 2, 2007, 10:23am | #

"If you redefine "intelligence" as "don't do anything which might possibly make a paranoid and not-too-bright cop think you might theoretically perhaps be some sort of a threat."


Yeah Jennifer, it takes a lot of intelligence to realize that the cops at the airport are nuts. I am not saying that it is right. I am just saying that if you haven't figured out that they are paranoid and crazy at the airport, you have either been living in a cave for the last six years or you are certified moron. Yes, the lions at the zoo are pretty fucking unreasonable. They will eat you for no reason. But, their unreasonableness doesn't make the people who climb into the cages any smarter.

Number 6 | October 2, 2007, 10:23am | #

How many bombs involve LEDs arranged in the shape of a star and worn on a shirt?

She could have been expected to realize that security might freak out if the device had-you know-looked like a bomb.

John-I'm not going to bother and neither should anyone else. Either you are trolling, or your prior commitments to, well, whatever you believe, cloud your judgement to the point where conversing with you is a waste of time.

joe | October 2, 2007, 10:26am | #

But, only an elite college student in this day and age would be dumb enough to pull that stunt. We love to make fun of hillbillies and lower middle class people in this day and age, but the dumbest redneck hillbilly I have ever met would be smart enough not to pull that stunt.

Men with guns and government authority.

One of those smarties at an elite university.

I'll bet she voted for Kerry, and doesn't even understand that brave men stand on the wall yadda yadda yadda.

thoreau | October 2, 2007, 10:27am | #

If I see a guy with a bulky backpack on campus, there's the possibility that he might have guns in it. Should I call the campus police? Or should I roll the dice on the 99.999999% probability that he's carrying books and gym clothes?

In the wake of Virginia Tech we can never be too careful. Right?

Lost_In_Translation | October 2, 2007, 10:29am | #

People are afraid of what they do not understand. Much like modern medicine can be thought of as witchery in primitive cultures, light brights are inevitably bombs in modern cultures.

Since the terrorists have already won, I'm going to stop worrying and learn to embrace the fear...aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (runs away screaming)

John | October 2, 2007, 10:29am | #

Number 6,

So you really have no clue about what to bring to the airport? You really think that you can take anything regardless of what it looks like and no worries? If you think this woman was anything but a moron, you are trolling. Understand, that is a separate question from whether the airport people overreacted. Yes, they overreacted. But that fact doesn't make her any brighter or less worthy of ridicule.

VM | October 2, 2007, 10:30am | #

OMG!OMG!OMG!

look out! it's the "elite college student"

how about some fumunda cheese to go with your jealous whine...

joe | October 2, 2007, 10:32am | #

As a society, we have two choices when men with guns start making demands on us, John: appeasement, or resistance.

Hey, if you aren't wearing something slightly out of the ordinary, you have nothing to worry about. And that's only a little imposition, to have security.

Lamar | October 2, 2007, 10:32am | #

"Of course if you consider the unbelievable stupidity of bringing a fake bomb into the airport, it is hard to have much sympathy for her."

That's the problem. It wasn't a fake bomb. The cops may have thought it was a hoax bomb, but that pretty much means anything shiny is a hoax bomb. Hell, a pendant on a necklace could be a hoax box cutter, and an umbrella could be a fake shotgun. I have a button with LEDs on it, and I shutter to think that the cops would pull machine guns on me for it.

Syloson of Samos | October 2, 2007, 10:32am | #

Is there anyway to train personnel so that they will be able to differentiate between something that looks like a real bomb and something that doesn't?

JBinMO | October 2, 2007, 10:32am | #

"In the wake of Virginia Tech we can never be too careful. Right?"

I agree with Thoreau, I would just start shooting.

Lamar | October 2, 2007, 10:33am | #

"So you really have no clue about what to bring to the airport?"

Knowing what you bring to the airport is different than knowing what some uneducated copper is going to think is a bomb.

John | October 2, 2007, 10:33am | #

I have never said that the airport didn't overreact. Of course it did. The point is that if who doesn't know that airport cops are nuts? There is nothing illegal about carrying around a bad of rosemary and rolling it into cigarettes. Of course if I do so in front of a cop, I probably will have swat team at my house. Does that mean that the cops are unreasonable when it comes to drugs? Yes. But I am still an idiot for thinking I could do that with no problem. Yes, only a moron in this day and age would take anything anywhere near an airport that looks anything like an improvised electronic device of any kind. Is that fair? No. But anyone who claims not to know that fact is lying.

Lamar | October 2, 2007, 10:34am | #

"Is there anyway to train personnel so that they will be able to differentiate between something that looks like a real bomb and something that doesn't?"

Perhaps differentiation isn't the key. I think it's how you respond to it. Pulling machine guns: not so intelligent in an airport.

thoreau | October 2, 2007, 10:34am | #

John, the point is that while it may be understandable for the cops to be paranoid we still need some sort of guidelines so that innocent people don't get guns pointed at them for wearing innocuous things that a REASONABLE person wouldn't mistake for a bomb.

John | October 2, 2007, 10:34am | #

"Knowing what you bring to the airport is different than knowing what some uneducated copper is going to think is a bomb."

I am thinking that something that has a bunch of wires sticking out of it and appears to be homemade and electronic, is a pretty good guess. I didn't know libertarians loved the stupid so much.

Lamar | October 2, 2007, 10:35am | #

John: hindsight is 20/20.

Number 6 | October 2, 2007, 10:35am | #

Number 6,

So you really have no clue about what to bring to the airport? You really think that you can take anything regardless of what it looks like and no worries?

I didn't say that or anything like it, and you know it.

Mo | October 2, 2007, 10:35am | #

John,
What "looks" like a bomb? A breadboard? A shoe (ala Richard Reid)? A bottle of liquid? A laptop? A suitcase (ala Cold War nukes supposedly made by the Russians)? Notice that all of the things above are innocuous objects that can be turned into bombs, but we don't tell people to come to airports bare foot and without luggage, that's why we screen items people bring into the airport.

Lamar | October 2, 2007, 10:35am | #

Ban wires. Seems reasonable.

Meletary Tuff guy LOIER | October 2, 2007, 10:37am | #

LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! OMG!OMG!OMG!

I'M NOT PARANOID. IT'S THE LIBURAL ELITE COLLEGES THAT MAKE PEOPLE DUMM. I KNOW THE TRUTH.

I'M AFRAID. MOMMIE!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!lolz

(KEEP A CYBER EYE OUT THERE, D00D, I MIGHT BE FOLLOWING YOU AROUND ON THIS HERE BOARD, LAUGHING AT YOU)

John | October 2, 2007, 10:37am | #

"John, the point is that while it may be understandable for the cops to be paranoid we still need some sort of guidelines so that innocent people don't get guns pointed at them for wearing innocuous things that a REASONABLE person wouldn't mistake for a bomb."

What would those guidelines look like? Further, once you had the guidelines, how does that not become a blue print for a real bomb maker to know how to disguise his bombs? The point is that you can't legislate common sense. The cops should have stopped her, looked at it, talked to her, realized what it was and who she was and told her that it probably wasn't a good idea to bring it to the airport. They should have never reacted the way they did. The solution is to have cops with a sense of proportion and common sense. Good luck in accomplishing that. But, no amount of guidelines or regulations is going to work.

SIV | October 2, 2007, 10:39am | #

So was there a can of Play-doh or not?
If there was, what if she had been carring some red cardboard tubes or a length of tape-wrapped pipe?

A home-made electronic device, battery , AND material that looks just like an explosive, in an airport, seems like a very good reason to point guns and make an arrest.

Timothy | October 2, 2007, 10:40am | #

We've all learned a valuable lesson here, today: It's not just the street cops in Boston who are retarded, it's everybody with a badge.

Frequent Flyer | October 2, 2007, 10:40am | #

MIT student ==> gadget equals so cool
Undertrained TSA Agent ==> gadget equals bomb

I don't understand why the entire population of the US needs to be trained to meet the expectations of the TSA.

Number 6 | October 2, 2007, 10:42am | #

Let's try thinking for a moment.

People who want to get bombs in airports do everything they can to ensure that the bomb is not detected until it goes off. We know this to be true because their goal-blowing something up-requires that they think that way.

Therefore, it makes sense to presume that someone with a bomb will do their best to hide it.

Therefore, it makes sense to say that someone with a bomb will not do something to draw attention to it.

Therefore, it makes sense to presume that the bright, attention-getting flashing object that does not resemble a bomb is not a bomb.

Now-people who bring hoax bombs into an airport can reasonably be expected to use a device that resembles a bomb in some way.

Bombs do not have bright, flashing LEDs that are worn prominently on clothing. (See above)

Therefore, the object that the student was wearing did not resemble a bomb, and was almost certainly not intended to.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the student was not involved in a bomb hoax.

Most folks can perform that mental calculus in about 1/2 a second, without verbalizing a bunch of very simple premises and conclusions.

thoreau | October 2, 2007, 10:42am | #

OK, I teach at a university with a very large engineering school. Suppose that the campus police see an ill-groomed guy dressed all in black, a bit twitchy, walking across campus with a metal box that has wires sticking out. Is this an engineering student with too much caffeine carrying his class project? Or is it a psycho with a homemade bomb?

What should they do? Should they point guns?

Syloson of Samos | October 2, 2007, 10:42am | #

SIV,

That was the reflective paint on her shirt, right?

Lost_In_Translation | October 2, 2007, 10:43am | #

John,

Let's say you're a MIT nerd, its 7 am (you usually wake up at noon), you live and breathe technology, so much so that you have then integrated into your clothes. You throw on your sweater that's been on your floor for days and you blearily get some coffee and get in the car to meet your friend at the airport. You walk into the terminal, ask a desk clerk about a flight arrival and then head back to the car to wait. The clerk asks you about the thing on your shirt and maybe you hear and answer "art" or maybe you're just tired about people asking you about your light bright and walk away. You get outside, where you're suddenly held at gunpoint and forced to the ground with no clue why and taken off to jail, only then discovering that people thought your light brite was a bomb. You can't understand why, having been around people that wear the same type of thing all day and now you're in trouble for it.

This girl wasn't stupid, she's probably going to be a brilliant computer geek, but she does live in a bubble where people don't walk around afraid of every piece of technology they see.

currence | October 2, 2007, 10:43am | #

Something that someone mistakes for a bomb ≠ fake bomb.

A fake bomb is a something that is _intended_ to look like a bomb, but is, in fact, not a bomb.

Lite-brite name-badges are not intended to look like bombs. They are intended to look like lite-brite name-badges.

I bet my iPod looks like a bomb to old people, yet iPods ≠ fake bombs. All technology with blinking lights and buzzers and knobs and dials and buttons ≠ fake bombs.

We are in the 21st century now. We can not let old people who do not know what things are define what "fake bomb" means, especially when they are unable to use a universal remote control or a blackberry or whatever, or distinguish these from fake bombs.

Mo | October 2, 2007, 10:44am | #

SIV and John keep making the same assumption, that being a bomb has certain visually identifiable characteristics. A bomb has properties that are not limited to how it looks. The ability to blow up is independent of physical form. You can make a bomb look like ANYTHING. If you only monitor the things that look like a "bomb" you ignore the fact that there are hundreds of things that can actually BE a bomb.

joe | October 2, 2007, 10:44am | #

When I read stories about police beating up and arresting a black kid for walking in a white neighborhood, I don't criticize the black kid. I criticize the cops.

But that's just me.

VM | October 2, 2007, 10:44am | #

Frequent flyer -

it has to be that way, because some people, you can see who they are, are just way too fucking stoopid.

(points and giggles at yooo-know-hoo)

John | October 2, 2007, 10:44am | #

Look at the picture in the link. It is a rectangular piece of play dough with a bunch of wires coming out of it attached to a battery. I don't what planet you people live on, but in this day and age, no way would anyone have thought that was a good idea to take to the airport. She is an idiot. Actually, I think she is a publicity hound. I think she knew bringing it there would get her in trouble and she wanted to stage a stunt. I just don't see how anyone could be that dumb. She knew what would happen. So we spend resources that should be going to legitimate threats to deal with this clown. Great.

Lost_In_Translation | October 2, 2007, 10:45am | #

Thoreau,

The situation you described is obviously a campus "doomdayer" bringing his box of salvation to the campus square to "save" students from eternal hellfire.

SIV | October 2, 2007, 10:46am | #

That was the reflective paint on her shirt, right?

That is what I thought based on the WIRED
story but the link at the top from the guy at MIT
says she was playing with a wad of play-doh while wearing her electronic device.

Timothy | October 2, 2007, 10:48am | #

John, I filter your inane douchebaggery, but go fuck yourself you bedwetting moron.

joe | October 2, 2007, 10:49am | #

...and I'm not terribly swayed by arguments about what the cops think a mugger looks like, or how the kid should have known that the cops are crazy.

Lost_In_Translation | October 2, 2007, 10:50am | #

John, there is no playdough on that star witha battery hooked up to it.

And I haven't seen or heard anymore about this "alleged" dough substance she was playing with. hell, they probably found out it was one of those stress balls and don't want to even discuss that anymore.

Mo | October 2, 2007, 10:50am | #

Look at the picture in the link. It is a rectangular piece of play dough with a bunch of wires coming out of it attached to a battery. I don't what planet you people live on, but in this day and age, no way would anyone have thought that was a good idea to take to the airport. She is an idiot. Actually, I think she is a publicity hound. I think she knew bringing it there would get her in trouble and she wanted to stage a stunt. I just don't see how anyone could be that dumb. She knew what would happen. So we spend resources that should be going to legitimate threats to deal with this clown. Great.

So why did she wear the exact same thing the previous day to a career fair? To scare the people there into thinking she's wearing a bomb? Or maybe she knew it was harmless, didn't think that the breadboard looked like a bomb and didn't realize that the TSA is full of morons (ahh to be young and naive).

Geez, even when people do go low tech with their bombs and strap explosives to their chest they generally wear it UNDER their clother, not on top.

John | October 2, 2007, 10:51am | #

You might not want to get through security; you might just want to blow the place up. Further, you people assume that every terrorist is some kind of genius. Some of them are dumb. Also, people put bombs in jackets and blow themselves up in crowded places quite frequently in Israel. It has never happened here, but that doesn't mean it won't. The police were absolutely right to stop her and find out what the hell she had. Should they have arrested her? It is a crime to take a fake bomb into an airport. Is the object in the picture a fake bomb? It certainly could be considered one. Remember they don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, just probable cause to arrest. They shouldn't have pointed guns, but I am not sure this is a per say unlawful arrest. You people say, it is not a fake bomb now because you know the story. Had you been there at the time and not known who this woman was or what she was doing, it wouldn't have been so easy.

anonymoose | October 2, 2007, 10:51am | #

Of course bombs have flashing LED's on them. They do in all the movies, at least. And countdown timers, too.

frequent flyer. | October 2, 2007, 10:51am | #

It is a rectangular piece of play dough with a bunch of wires coming out of it attached to a battery.

This is factually wrong. It is obviously a bread-board. A laywer wouldn't know that, but any engineering/science student would.

thoreau | October 2, 2007, 10:51am | #

Further, you people assume that every terrorist is some kind of genius. Some of them are dumb.

Wait, they're a bunch of idiots but a dire existential threat nonetheless?

SIV | October 2, 2007, 10:53am | #

You can make a bomb look like ANYTHING.
In this case she made ANYTHING look lik a bomb.
By Mo's logic the cops should ignore a grenade looking object because it could be a novelty take-a-number paperweight while a laptop could be a real bomb.

John | October 2, 2007, 10:54am | #

"So why did she wear the exact same thing the previous day to a career fair? To scare the people there into thinking she's wearing a bomb? Or maybe she knew it was harmless, didn't think that the breadboard looked like a bomb and didn't realize that the TSA is full of morons (ahh to be young and naive)."

The career fair is a fair point. Perhaps she is just that stupid. Libertarians apparently love the stupid.

John-David | October 2, 2007, 10:55am | #

John,

You have outdone yourself on this thread. Nothing but incorrect assertions of fact and things you "think." Congratulations.

thoreau | October 2, 2007, 10:56am | #

Libertarians apparently love the stupid.

Hey, we let you and Dan T. post here!

sixstring | October 2, 2007, 10:56am | #

I recently went through airport security. I had forgotten that I had a bottle of Diet Pepsi in my bag. Security found it. They casually tossed my bomb into the nearest garbage can.

Frankly, I think she was asking for it. While a homemade blinking nametag alone should probably elicit a question of "What is that?" rather than a SWAT team, what's up with the PlayDoh? It's really not that far a stretch to think that PlayDoh could be mistaken for Semtex, especially by the $11/hour airport security.

jimmydageek | October 2, 2007, 10:56am | #

Lamar | October 2, 2007, 10:35am | #

Ban wires. Seems reasonable.

Better yet, strew some wires around the airport. When someone picks them up, shoot them!

John | October 2, 2007, 10:57am | #

"Wait, they're a bunch of idiots but a dire existential threat nonetheless?"

It only takes a few smart ones. Certainly, Richard Reed wasn't very bright and he damn near brought down an airliner. You don't have to be smart you just have to be lucky. The dumb ones are not an existential threat, but they still can kill people and it if you are dead, who really cares what kind of a threat they are, you are just as dead either way. Seriously, your standard of security can't be, "we won't check into this because no one would be dumb enough to do that."

Lamar | October 2, 2007, 10:58am | #

I just looked at the picture of the "device." There is no way in hell that thing looks like a bomb. It's connected to a freakin' 9 volt battery. I'm embarrassed for those cops. How could they not pull her aside quietly?

Nevertheless, John, your story has changed from "no sympathy because she had a fake bomb" to "she was stupid not to know that Boston mustaches would overreact."

Fair enough.

thoreau | October 2, 2007, 10:58am | #

Better yet, strew some wires around the airport. When someone picks them up, shoot them!

Or we could strew play-doh around the airport and shoot any kid who picks it up. That way you get the terrorists while they're still young.

Erica | October 2, 2007, 10:59am | #

John: it's not a rectangular piece of play-doh; it's a protoboard. According to the write-up in The Tech she was holding some play-doh in her hand that she had shaped into a rose to give her boyfriend (the guy she was meeting at the airport).

John | October 2, 2007, 10:59am | #

You people just hear what you want to hear. I never said that the airport cops were reasonalbe, only that perhaps the arrest was not per say illegal. Further, if what this woman did was so harmless and smart, why don't all of you put together a similiar device and wonder around the nearest airport in it. If she can't be expected to know, how can you? None of you would do that in a million years, because you know how stupid this woman was even if you won't admit it.

tarran | October 2, 2007, 11:00am | #

To be honest, I feel more secure in Boston when the Boston PD is not around than when they are.

I've head a couple of experiences where one cop was yelling at me to do A another was yelling at me to do B, where A & B were mutually exclusive actions. Furthermore, since both instances involved me riding my bike on some bike-legal road or path and coming up on construction sites or detours that the PD was manning, the fact that they were behaving as if they were in combat while they were merely facing ordinary people doing ordinary things was kind of freaky. They didn't have any weapons out, but I got the feeling that one wrong word, and I would be getting several thousand volts' worth of compliance training.

Warty | October 2, 2007, 11:01am | #

Somewhere along the line, people got the idea that wires == bomb. Why? It is a mystery.

Oh, and joe, your city is dumb. And y'all talk funny. And fuck Bill Belichek.

Lost_In_Translation | October 2, 2007, 11:01am | #

I think what it comes down to is that the girl was not stupid (naive maybe, but not stupid) and the authorities, obviously not trained in identification, overreacted. Then, when the media blew the whole thing out of proportion, Massachussets reacted by protecting itself, saying that it was a fake bomb.

I was reading on that MIT site that the great moonnite caper ended up with no criminal charges and just some misdemeanor charges for vandalization which resulted in a small fine and community service.

The moral of this story is that it really is the media who is the worst perpetrator of fraud and they can get off with no penalty for reporting things with no evidence, causing chain reactions which incite everybody on all sides.

I hope that the legal group in Boston calms down again and let's Ms. Sampson go on her way with no charges and thinks seriously about how well people at their airports are trained to handle these sort of situations and how to respond when the media decides to cry the sky is falling.

Syloson of Samos | October 2, 2007, 11:02am | #

A rose? Cute.

John | October 2, 2007, 11:02am | #

"Nevertheless, John, your story has changed from "no sympathy because she had a fake bomb" to "she was stupid not to know that Boston mustaches would overreact."

Fair enough."

Lamar, that was my entire point. This woman is a moron. Yes, we need the cops at airports to be smarter. But, I have not one whit of sympathy for her.

Dan T | October 2, 2007, 11:02am | #

I'm kind of with John on this one - while it's obvious in retrospect that Simpson's device was not a fake bomb, I would hope that an airport security guard would not just think to himself, "Hmm...there's someone with a black hooded sweatshirt with a battery, wires, and some sort of plastic material sticking out. Nothing to worry about with that one!"

SIV | October 2, 2007, 11:03am | #

from the link above....
Police have also found it suspicious that Simpson was playing with Playdough in the airport.
A wad of putty like material + circuit board,chip,wires and battery looks like a bomb.
Oh but she was wearing this now who would wear a bomb?

Warty | October 2, 2007, 11:04am | #

black hooded sweatshirt

Wait, those are bad? I love mine.

Eric S. | October 2, 2007, 11:06am | #

The only difference between this story and the one involving the ATHF is that the City has yet to shakedown MIT for a couple million dollars.

Yet.

VM | October 2, 2007, 11:06am | #

I for one love the stupid.

Perfect for BATIN.

Hay "John" why don't you go and like do something else, there, man. Yeah.

Instead of adding you to the "Pity List", you're straight on the "I'm gonna make a line of naughty farm supplies in your likeness" list.

Hier's what we know about him:

deathly afraid of "elites" and intellectualism
afraid of things he does not understand (see above)
wants to force the world into his boundaries of understanding
wants to eliminate those aspects of the world that are outside of his safe zone
to accomplish this, he would demand some degree of conformity.

dunno. sounds like this twaddlenock is a stoogie for north korea or suchlike.

agreed, Warty!

sixstring | October 2, 2007, 11:07am | #

John,

Per se. It's fucking per se.

Ed | October 2, 2007, 11:07am | #

So it was a hoax. Its still a warning sign and the cops did the right thing. Remember Columbine? Remember Virginia Tech? There were warning signs about the shooters that went ignored. Yet people want to say it was obviously not a bomb. This isn't about fascist police, its about a sociopath trying to grab some attention. She deserves to be punished. I'd probably have her kicked out of school, too. If she's willing to put herself and othersat risk to grab a headline, she's capable doing a whole lot more.

frequent flyer | October 2, 2007, 11:08am | #

If she can't be expected to know, how can you? None of you would do that in a million years, because you know how stupid this woman was even if you won't admit it.

She is not stupid John. I imagine in 10 years or so she will be making double what you do.

She is the classic tech/nerd stereotype. Unfathomable by regular people, like yourself.

The villians here are the TSA. Airport security has gotten progressively stupider over the last ten years. I fear flying now much more than before 9/11. And it isn't the terrorists that I fear.

Lamar | October 2, 2007, 11:08am | #

John, the cops being unreasonable is the point of the story. They brandished machine guns in a public place. Moreover, an airport is already a high stress environment. By "not taking any chances" with a 9 volt battery, they put the lives of hundreds of people in danger while protecting no one.

The stupidity of a smart girl doesn't excuse the brandishing of deadly weapons over a harmless item. It's poor training and it puts people in danger. Given the idiocy of it all, I have little faith that Boston cops have the ability to stop anything.

JLM | October 2, 2007, 11:09am | #

Rectangular breadboard = play dough?

John, have you considered a job with the Boston PD? Sounds like you're qualified.

joe | October 2, 2007, 11:09am | #

The general meat-headedness of security personnel needs to be accounted for by limiting their rules of engagement when dealing with the public, not by expecting the public to scamper around and foresee how their meat-headedness will express itself.

VM | October 2, 2007, 11:11am | #

"Ed":

I've diagnosed you, too. hier.

fuckin' twaddlenock.

Lost_In_Translation | October 2, 2007, 11:11am | #

John is so willing to call this girl stupid and moronic, but has he never done something inadvertantly that could cause an overreaction by the authorities?

Hell, I had a cop threaten me with violence after he pulled me over for speeding and reached and unclipped the holster for his gun when I reached for my wallet to hand him my drivers license. He was so pumped up and adrenaline going 90 to nothing that he he really thought a guy going over the speed limit in a small sports car was a threat to life and limb. I understand that shit can happen and if they let their guard down to the wrong person they could get shot, but are we so afraid of each other now that civility and calmness is a luxury we cannot afford? What does that say about society and the path we've come down.

Dan T | October 2, 2007, 11:12am | #

For people who love the second amendment so much, you folks sure are horrified by the "brandishing of machine guns in a public place".

tarran | October 2, 2007, 11:13am | #

John,

I've seen the device. Only a stupid moron of the highest order would think it looked like a bomb. She wore it alot. I can't think of anyone who wears home-made blinking name tags during the course of their normal business. however, plenty of people carry nail-clippers, guns, water bottles and lighters with them during the normal course of their business. And guess what? Every day, thousands of people show up at airports with these contraband items which get confiscated and then go to fill up warehouses.

So to recap, she like thousands of ordinary Americans, normally carried around something that was 'contraband' according to airport security. And, like thousands of ordinary Americans, she forgot to ditch the contraband before walking into the airport. The only thing that differentiates her from Jennifer, the nail-clipper wielding passenger, is that her bit of contraband had blinky lights.

If a fad of wearing homemade blinking name tags broke out across the U.S., I'll bet you'd see tens of incidents just like this one every day.

SIV | October 2, 2007, 11:13am | #

According to the reports she had a lump of Play-Doh in addition to the home-made electronic device. The combination is quite provacative especially in the context of an airport.

from wiki




Plastic explosive (or the obsolete term plastique) is a specialised form of explosive material. It is soft and hand malleable and may have the added benefit of being usable over a wider temperature range than pure explosive. Plastic explosives are especially suited for explosive demolition as they can be easily formed into the best shapes for cutting structural members, and have a high enough velocity of detonation and density for metal cutting work.

joe | October 2, 2007, 11:13am | #

Warty,

I don't live in Boston, but in Lowell. Lowell is not dumb.

And you, my frind, ah wicked queeah.

JLM | October 2, 2007, 11:14am | #

When big brother has machine guns and I have been disarmed, yes, I'm horrified.

VM | October 2, 2007, 11:15am | #

I for one am more terrified by quibbledix like "Ed" and "John" diagnosing or trying to suppress any activities or behaviors that they don't understand, feel a threat from (ugh. structure), or don't like. Then they would seek to ban such activities.

Damn. You know, those guyz are so stoopid, they deserve to be arrested. You know. Such rank stupidity is a warning sign. And we cannot ignore them.

The agents are on their way.

Rhywun | October 2, 2007, 11:15am | #

A quick glance at the thing shows a block of something with wires sticking out of it. WTF was she thinking? Airport security are not engineers and scientists, they're looking for any possible threat. I hate to side with those idiots, but in this case...

Warty | October 2, 2007, 11:15am | #

Bruce Schneier wrote everything that needs to be said about this in February.

clicky clicky

Highlight:
"It had a very sinister appearance," [Massachusetts Attorney General Martha] Coakley told reporters. "It had a battery behind it, and wires."

For heavens sake, don't let her inside a Radio Shack.

jimmydageek | October 2, 2007, 11:16am | #

Dan T | October 2, 2007, 11:12am | #

For people who love the second amendment so much, you folks sure are horrified by the "brandishing of machine guns in a public place".

I don't think it's the "brandishing" that scares us. It's the trigger-happy John McClanes / Rambos / Jack Bauers that scare us.

tarran | October 2, 2007, 11:17am | #

For people who love the second amendment so much, you folks sure are horrified by the "brandishing of machine guns in a public place".

Dan, speaking for myself I feel comfortable in an environment where many people are armed.

I don't feel comfortable in an environment where only members of a particular gang are armed, especially when that gang has a penchant for brandishing those weapons at people who are not doing anything wrong, and on occasion even shooting them.

VM | October 2, 2007, 11:18am | #

Woah.

I'm gonna back peddle now. I just found out what "John" looks like: hier...

*wets self, laments fact that rubber innerwear is in the wash...*

joe | October 2, 2007, 11:18am | #

Tangentially, it's interesting how the pro-profiling people don't let their reasoning work the other way when an "elitist" from an "elite university" finds herself in their gunsights.

whit | October 2, 2007, 11:18am | #

for pete's sake, she had a lump of playdoh in her hand, and a "device" with exposed wiring, circuit board, and a battery attached to her sweatshirt.

she is galactically stupid.

assuming they had reasonable suspicion, she was a walking IED, the pulling of the rifles was exactly how they should have handled it. of course, if she had a deadman's switch, they woulda been porked, but they did what they could. they gave instructions, she complied.

the desk guy prolly rang up the cops and said she had what appeared to be a bomb (given, that's a stretch but...) and the cops responded.

improper response would be to calmly walk up to her, gun holstered, and inquire.

Timothy | October 2, 2007, 11:19am | #

VM: Your diagnosis seems right on, Ed and John seem to suffer from really bad cases of representativeness bias coupled with the incurable onset of bedwetting douchenuttery.

Dan T | October 2, 2007, 11:19am | #

I've seen the device. Only a stupid moron of the highest order would think it looked like a bomb.

Of course, you can't truly judge that because you knew it was not a bomb when you saw it.

Once again, if somebody's walking around an airport in a sweatshirt that has wires and a battery and other material sticking out, then yes, that's pretty suspicious.

VM | October 2, 2007, 11:21am | #

Hay Timothy:

do you think they'd want to buy URKOBOLD brand rubber innerwear so they can, despite their bedwetting douchenuttery, function in, errrr, "normal" society?

but check out (above) how tuff he really is!

jimmydageek | October 2, 2007, 11:22am | #

Once again, if somebody's walking around an airport in a sweatshirt that has wires and a battery and other material sticking out, then yes, that's pretty suspicious.

Or, a pretty cool gadget...

*hmmm...that's neat! Hey, look, dipping dots!!

SIV | October 2, 2007, 11:23am | #

I've seen the device. Only a stupid moron of the highest order would think it looked like a bomb.

Of course, you can't truly judge that because you knew it was not a bomb when you saw it.

Dan T = threadwinner

VM | October 2, 2007, 11:23am | #

Dan T:

you mean, if this guy were running around?

jimmydageek | October 2, 2007, 11:25am | #

HERE is a link for John, Ed, and a select few others here. You might find it quite useful.

Syloson of Samos | October 2, 2007, 11:26am | #

SIV,

Don't plastic explosives have to be hooked up to something to work?

Lamar | October 2, 2007, 11:27am | #

"that's pretty suspicious."

True. Point machine guns in a public place and endanger hundreds of innocent people suspicious? No.

VM | October 2, 2007, 11:27am | #

Jimmydageek!

brilliant!

Was it bad that I sent a gross of penis-shaped pacifiers to them?

jimmydageek | October 2, 2007, 11:27am | #

Wait, while I'm not sure of the "status" of SIV...did a troll just declare another troll the threadwinner? We might have an internet first here! Call the people at Guinness World Records!!

VM | October 2, 2007, 11:28am | #

SIV:

Simeon Immunodeficiency Virus - perfect for MONKEY TUESDAY!!!!

yay!!!!!

QuietReaderGirl | October 2, 2007, 11:29am | #

The stupid-it burns!

Neither Columbine nor Virginia Tech have jack-squat to do with this situation.

It was not a hoax. A hoax bomb is intended to be mistaken for a real bomb. The student's nametag was not intended to be mistaken for a real or fake bomb.

There is no evidence she is a sociopath, and there is no reason she should be a punished for a damned thing, as she did nothing wrong.

DangerMan | October 2, 2007, 11:30am | #

Dan T | October 2, 2007, 11:12am | #
For people who love the second amendment so much, you folks sure are horrified by the "brandishing of machine guns in a public place".

Actually, it is the one-way brandishing that bugs me. I think the cops would be a little more polite if they were outgunned.

Lamar | October 2, 2007, 11:31am | #

That girl is being punished because the cops fugged up. They have to justify their boneheaded response.

Lost_In_Translation | October 2, 2007, 11:32am | #

Dangerman,

They usually are. Most people are very polite when outgunned.

Randolph Carter | October 2, 2007, 11:34am | #

Syloson,
Yes, they actually (iirc) need a blasting cap too.

anon | October 2, 2007, 11:37am | #

John,

You probably thought executing that poor Brazilian fellow by the British cops was a good idea too.

Lost_In_Translation | October 2, 2007, 11:39am | #

anon,

Only guilty people run. It's just up to you what they're guilty of...

SIV | October 2, 2007, 11:41am | #

SoS

Don't plastic explosives have to be hooked up to something to work?

frequenty flyer | October 2, 2007, 11:43am | #

She's extremely lucky she followed the instructions or deadly force would have been used," Pare told The Associated Press. "And she's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue."

God Bless America

SIV | October 2, 2007, 11:43am | #

Where did it go?

SoS Yes they do.Something like an electric blasting cap and a source of current- picture...
wires and a battery.

T Jefferson & J Madison | October 2, 2007, 11:46am | #

We really meant the 2nd Amendment to read "a right to bear arms and playdough." But we were tight for space and the playdough part was edited out.

notlitebrite | October 2, 2007, 11:46am | #

The device used Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) which are individual light sources running off electricity, not lite brites, which are plastic pegs with no light emitting qualities.
I have seen devices like the one Star Simpson wore at science fiction conventions and art shows.

Buck Futter | October 2, 2007, 11:57am | #

But what if the device utilized LEDs (Light Emitting Dildoes)? Would the military move in as a response to the weapons of ass destruction?

Jesse Walker | October 2, 2007, 12:02pm | #

notlitebrite: Jenkins wrote that it was lite brites, but I've Googled around and it looks like you're right. I've corrected the post.

adrian | October 2, 2007, 12:04pm | #

John, Siv and the rest.

For those times when you are scared or frightened just get some of this and apply it liberally. The soothing begins almost instantly.

ninnies

joe | October 2, 2007, 12:06pm | #

Buck Futter,

They got them special trucks that can drive over lite-brites now.

ed | October 2, 2007, 12:07pm | #

Quick show of hands: how many people here are explosives experts?

Come on, don't be shy.

Anyone?

Timothy | October 2, 2007, 12:11pm | #

Quick show of hands: How many people here have threatened to shoot an undergrad because she was wearing a light-up nametag? Anyone? Ah, just John and Ed, as I suspected.

jimmydageek | October 2, 2007, 12:11pm | #

I can assume that none of the bed-twits are.

jimmydageek | October 2, 2007, 12:12pm | #

Dammit!! That was supposed to be ..bed-wetting twits....

VM | October 2, 2007, 12:13pm | #

Timothy - can't show my hands right now. Just gimme another few seconds...

(am tryin a new batin technique, "the paraioid quibblefuq" - I use authoritarian techniques and fear of the unknown as lube)

VM | October 2, 2007, 12:17pm | #

nuff said

ChrisO | October 2, 2007, 12:24pm | #

Regardless of whether this young woman did a very bright thing (obviously not), there is no way she should be facing criminal charges over it. She should be given a stern lecture on awareness of her surroundings and an apology from the gun-wielding morons.

jimmydageek | October 2, 2007, 12:26pm | #

Way back in the day (high school), I went to a TSA (technology student association) conference in DC. I was young, 17ish? One day, my friends and I found a metal pipe leaning up against a building. We picked it up and proceeded to carry it around everywhere...along with various objects containing wires (we were tech students, after all). Back in the day, (pre-911), this received no attention in DC!! Now, the same scenario would get me shot in a POS place like Boston...and some morons here would see it as completely justified.

ed | October 2, 2007, 12:27pm | #

Armchair quarterbacking is easy. I suspect the same snarkiness would be evident here if the incident had been a security test and some poor schlub of an agent had waived her through. Then libertarianism's sharpest wits would be having a yuk-yuk fest at how incompetent the screeners are to have let through such a suspicious-looking character.

mediageek | October 2, 2007, 12:34pm | #

For people who love the second amendment so much, you folks sure are horrified by the "brandishing of machine guns in a public place".

Dan, that's because I've seen how your average cop shoots.

Randolph Carter | October 2, 2007, 12:35pm | #

well, ed, if she had been carrying a bomb to test the airport security and they had waved her through, then yes, there would be a different snarkfest. The TSA agents who had been forewarned by moles within the inspector crews would be receiving double scorn (remember that story? Maybe not).

BUT

Instead of waving a bomb through security, the TSA terrorized an MIT student with a hi-tech sweater, and implied that if she had been anything but co-operative she would be in a morgue. And apparently, that's the book the TSA runs by.

frequent flyer | October 2, 2007, 12:37pm | #

I suspect the same snarkiness would be evident here if the incident had been a security test and some poor schlub of an agent had waived her through.

If I recall, she did not try to clear security -- she was not a passenger so she can't.

She went to an information desk to get flight information. She was challenged and asked what was on the hoody. After the second time, she responded that it was art. She was then confronted with weapons draws as she went to her car to wait for her boyfriend.

She was clearly clueless regarding the nature of her acts. The "highly-trained" personal -- armed with automatic weapons -- very clearly overreacted.

Lamar | October 2, 2007, 12:39pm | #

"I suspect the same snarkiness would be evident here if the incident had been a security test and some poor schlub of an agent had waived her through."

Your probably right, but you make it sound like there are two alternatives: terrorize the public with machine guns or let anybody with a bomb on a plane. I would think a competent security team would get the woman away from crowds if she had a bomb, not provoke her in the middle of the airport.

mediageek | October 2, 2007, 12:40pm | #

John-

I've read all of your comments in this thread.

After slogging through all of them, quite frankly, I'm shocked that you're able to breath without mechanical assistance.

Lamar | October 2, 2007, 12:40pm | #

Her 40 year-old boyfriend that is.....(she's 19). Just a little flavor to the story.

James | October 2, 2007, 12:41pm | #

The Sons of Leviathan
Robert Higgs identified the Leviathan as an opportunistic beast, using crises — real or manufactured — to expand its realm, to slither its tentacles into the remaining halls where large amounts of liberty are found. Any national or international event can be spun into the need for more government, more interventions, and more intrusions of its slimy appendages.

Crises never seem to arise often enough for those wanting more power. Therefore, government will manufacture events, or spin the innocuous or unrelated incident into a crisis, whenever it desires more of the people's liberty. What occurs at the national level also occurs at the local level as the sons of the Leviathan seek their own bits of power, the tidbits dropped from the mouth of the great beast

dhex | October 2, 2007, 12:42pm | #

We love to make fun of hillbillies and lower middle class people in this day and age, but the dumbest redneck hillbilly I have ever met would be smart enough not to pull that stunt.

john, i think you're right on this one. i've watched hundreds of hours of COPS and i don't think any of those people can operate an on/off switch.

speaking of COPS (the show) they had a special taser episode this past sunday iirc. long story short, they love tasers. love them tasers.

sit down.

why?

zap! zap! zap!

whit | October 2, 2007, 12:48pm | #

spare me the "terrorize" her rubbish. assuming they had RS that it was an IED, then that was the only reasonable way TO respond, based on any use of force continuum that makes sense.

millions of people use airports every year. a truly infinitessimal fraction are so incredibly stupid as star was.

nobody KNOWS what her intent is (although everybody here is a mindreader and assumes they do). it sounds likely that she had no nefarious intent. but it is hardly certain.

im willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, that she is just an incredibly stupid person. and yes, you can be great in physics and still be colossally stupid and have no common sense. i knew a couple of caltech students that fit that bill perfectly.

for people who say she shouldn't be charged, do you even know the wording in the relevant statute. while i doubt she intended to create the perception she was an IED, many statutes criminalize "recklessly" creating an appearance etc. to the general public. those are usually of the misdemeanor variety.

ChrisO | October 2, 2007, 12:49pm | #

Her 40 year-old boyfriend that is.....(she's 19). Just a little flavor to the story.

So, you're saying there's hope for us old guys yet...

ChrisO | October 2, 2007, 12:50pm | #

for people who say she shouldn't be charged, do you even know the wording in the relevant statute. while i doubt she intended to create the perception she was an IED, many statutes criminalize "recklessly" creating an appearance etc. to the general public. those are usually of the misdemeanor variety.

I don't care what the statute says. The prosecutor has discretion, and in this case used that discretion very poorly.

VM | October 2, 2007, 12:51pm | #

tied between dhex and mediageek!

hier is a pic of one of those mega intelligent rednecks "john" mentions. As confirmed by dhex.

mediageek | October 2, 2007, 12:51pm | #

john, i think you're right on this one. i've watched hundreds of hours of COPS and i don't think any of those people can operate an on/off switch.

Let's face it. Operating a tshirt is outside the realm of your average COPS perp.

whit | October 2, 2007, 12:53pm | #

ok, fine ... that's your opinion. imo, a charging with an agreement of deferred sentence (iirc, in Mass., the disposition would be "continued without a finding" ) which means if she stays out of trouble for a year, that the charge is wiped from her record would be appropriate.

Paul | October 2, 2007, 12:55pm | #

How about this angle: airport security is so bad at identifying bombs that they thought a blinking computer chip was a security threat.

Joe, isn't that true on its face? Why would this be..."another angle"?

joe | October 2, 2007, 12:55pm | #

assuming they had RS that it was an IED, then that was the only reasonable way TO respond, based on any use of force continuum that makes sense.

They didn't have reasonable suspicion that it was an IED. They had reasonable suspicion that it was an unknown object.

The question is, should the government allow security personnel to act as if they suspect someone is carrying a bomb when they don't know, or should they act as if they have to confirm that the person is harmless, unless they have a real reason to suspect otherwise.

Crushinator | October 2, 2007, 12:56pm | #

The girl was lucky that she was not also wearing a provocative miniskirt - TSA would have shot her at first sight.

The fact that she is a student at MIT made her a prime target for the envious media. Students from elite universities are pure evil and have the temerity to challenge authority. MIT must be sanctioned and de-funded as they are obviously in cahoots with Columbia U. and Osama Bin Laden.

I agree with John regarding the terrorist threat of hillbillies, but for a different reason. Based on the COPS shows, rednecks only wear tattered blue jeans. They never wear shirts, belts, socks, shoes, underwear, or deodorant. They have no