MIT student arrested for entering Boston airport with "fake bomb"
Short version: it wasn't a "fake bomb" at all, it was a wearable tech jacket on the body of a friendly young technologist who would have been *way* better off wearing something else to the airport today. Authorities in Massachussetts who've been accused of overreacting to tech art misunderstandings before -- remember the Mooninite Menace? -- are throwing the book at her.- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A 19 year old female M.I.T. student was arrested at gunpoint after entering Boston's Logan International Airport with what authorities claim was "a fake bomb" strapped to her chest, according to wire reports. The device is said to have been some kind of computer circuit board with Play-Doh and wires attached, strapped over her black hoodie. Link to AP report on her arrest.
The young woman is identified as Star Simpson, shown in the image above left, and she is a sophomore from Hawaii.
Here is her MIT website, here's her homepage, here's one of her recent projects. She has a user account on Instructables.
Snip from her vanity site:
This being Boston, I'll be interested to learn whether this was a legitimate threat or a misunderstanding/overreaction by authorities, combined with poor fashion judgement on the young lady's part.In a sentence, I'm an inventor, artist, engineer, and student, I love to build things and I love crazy ideas.
In a paragraph; I'm currently studying computers and how they work at MIT. I play at a student-run machine shop called MITERS. Before that, I lived for a long time in Hawaii, while traveling the world and saving the planet from evil villains with my delivered-just-in-time gadgets.
Here's a happy-fun quote from the AP item:
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."Image of the lovely and talented (seriously!) Ms. Simpson on a better day, with torch and mirror, from this photoset of MIT tinkerers at the MITERS student-run machine shop, shot by George Lange.
Update: Law enforcement spokesperson at press conference being broadcast on CNN right now -- "She said it was a piece of art, and wanted to stand out on career day. I'm not sure why she had the Play Doh on her hands. She couldn't explain that.... there were wires attached to a battery that actually lit up... I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear such a device to the airport. We had someone with a submachine gun at the airport go right to the scene."
Update 2: Deja duh: Boston Globe referring to this incident as "Logan Hoax Arrest." And here's a photo of that gun.
Update 3: They're showing the LED hoodie on CNN right now (screengrab from a local TV report below).
Looks like the "improvised electronic device" consisted of a circuit board and a common battery that caused her sweatshirt, which had painted writing on it, to light up. Authorities referred to the paint as "putty."
The hoodie reads "Socket To Me / COURSE VI." A BB commenter familiar with MIT stuff says, "Course VI means she majors in Electrical Engineering / Computer Science."
Sheesh! Someone needs to not let these hyperintelligent hacker chirren out of the house wearing this kind of stuff when they're headed to airports in Boston. {shakes head}. Poor thing.
Update 4: She's being charged with "posession of a hoax device" (again with the hoax devices!) and disorderly conduct. But on the plus side, she's not dead.
Update 5: BB Discussions moderator Teresa Nielsen Hayden puts it in context. And the winner of the comment thread is BB reader Rob Cockerham:
I can't believe NBC is promoting Bionic Woman like this. What a terrible idea.Update 6: Christy from Instructables.com (Simpson is a regular participant on the site) says:
Star was an intern at Squid Labs this summer, and is an all-around awesome geek who loves to build things. FYI, friends at MIT say she wears the hoodie on a regular basis- it's just unfortunate that she had it on while trying to pick a friend up at the airport. MIT students don't really do mornings, or worry about what they're wearing, so I can't imagine she'd even think about her clothes before heading out to pick up a friend at the airport before 8am.Update 7: Christy from Instructables.com says (1125am PT),When Star gets out we'll have her do an Instructable on
1) how to get arrested at the airport without being shot, and
2) how to package your homemade electronics to look purchased.
Maybe BB and Instructables should start handing out some official-looking stickers and plastic covers to make breadboards look more commercial -- it will keep our readers away from automatic weapons.
I just put up a forum post on Instructables asking for design suggestions. If BB readers have any suggestions, just send them over and we'll print them up asap!
I talked to Star briefly -- she's out on bail, is just fine, and thinks the whole thing is crazy.Update 8: Bruce Schneier: "Definitely stupid police overreaction. Refuse to be terrorized, people!"Of course, they've impounded her sweatshirt, so she's got to do something else for Career Day.
And Chris Anderson, who, apart from being Editor in Chief at Wired Magazine is also a total UAV nerd, says:
Sorry to be late chiming in with support for Star, but I can confirm that she's a world-class geek and otherwise cool person. While she was at SquidLabs this summer, she helped with our UAV testing. Cracked one of the imaging problems, too. Really sorry to see the lapse of judgment that led to this arrest, but I'm sure she's got a glorious career ahead of her regardless.Update 9: BB reader Sujal Shah says,
One clarification: Simpson did answer the original information desk staffer's question about what the art was. That there's no step between an answer that wasn't believed and guns drawn is a big issue to me. Innocent people will get killed this way.Here's the post I left on Schneiers blog:
Just so we're all clear on this, she DID ANSWER the desk staffer who asked her what the contraption on her sweatshirt was. She responded that it was art. Link to local TV account. The employee had to repeat the question before she got an answer. This bit of info was missing in the original AP version, which made it sound like she refused to answer what the device was.


Sheesh. That's like walking up to a customs agent and saying, "I have a bomb." What an idiot.
Electronics. Strapped outside the hoody. Of an MIT Student.
I call shenanigans (on security). My guess is it's some sort of harmless project.
Hi, Jack!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15012105/ is the current press information
http://stars.mit.edu/me.html is apparently the suspect's home page.
We need to see a photo of the device before we pass judgement
I like the comment the police released to the press:
"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."
A quote from Boston Police:
"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."
Wow, she sure put the "mor[on]" in sophomore! Maybe for her next art project she can run around the airport screaming "I'm Al Qaida! Look at me! I'm Al Qaida!"
I thought MIT students were supposed to be a bit more intelligent than the rest of us. Walking into an airport with an electronic device strapped to her chest ..... a very stupid action. She is lucky to just be in a cell, but I have a feeling a lot of people (including her) will never understand why, this time, the Boston Police are in the right.
I think what we're all missing is an MIT Computer Science student is probably not into making a lot of "art." I know, board/chip design can take some creativity, but I don't see this as guerrilla performance art or even an attempt to poke holes in the TSA web.
I think she's a bit unhinged.
...and she did it in BOSTON! Home of the overreaction to improvised electronic devices!
before anyone tries to come up w/ a crazy theory for what "Course VI" means...
all the majors (and course titles, and buildings) are numbered and referred to by their numbers, not their names.
All that Course VI means is she majors in Electrical Engineering / Computer Science
Can anyone tell me what practical use a machine gun is to security in an airport? Isn't that just about the worst security weapon you could use where you have one or two "bad" people mixed in with hundreds of "good" people, short of a rocket launcher?
"Look, there's a terrorist in the crowd of people! Open fire on them with a machine gun!"
Like most "security," automatic weapons are theatre. Although there is virtually nil chance security would need to use a gun in an airport, on the very rare occurrences where guns are used, I cannot imagine any scenario where a machine gun would be more useful than a handgun.
Screen capture?
I can't believe anyone in their right mind is calling her an idiot.
She wore a piece of home-made, electronic jewellery to an airport. If she wore that same piece of jewellery to say, the bus-station... would a guy run out with a machine gun to pop 100 bullets in her head? It is absolutely ludicrous.
I'm willing to bet the whole putty on her hands thing was made-up to justify the insane over reaction.
I don't understand why there isn't an outcry, questioning the competency of these trigger happy, security guards. In my opinion, they should be fired as should their superior officers for letting something this embarrassing happen.
"She said it was a piece of art, and wanted to stand out on career day."
Mission accomplished?
I'm surprised to see so many Boing Boing readers kowtowing to lunatics in power. I'm unsurprised to see MSM nitwits declaring whatever this was a "fake bomb".
Circuit board, wires, and batteries? Holy shit, I'm surrounded by fake bombs! Is a garage door opener a fake bomb, too?
Possibly the dumbest thing I've read so far is the mayor stating this to be a reminder of the terrorism threat. Doesn't this imbecile remember how his city was the laughing stock of the nation over the ATHF incident?
Meanwhile, just this past week, poor Jack Hanna, stuck in an Ohio airport with a flamingo wedged in the turnstile. Where was security when HE (and his flamingo) needed it???
Read the story here:
http://todaysfacilitymanager.com/facilityblog/2007/09/friday-funny-security-delay-for.html
Boston.com has picked up the story, including some of the quotes in the comments here:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/09/mit_student_arr.html
Anyone seen as a potential threat is subject to immediate execution. Thankfully all of our decisions are rational and are in our best interest.
This makes me glad I don't live in the US. Its rediculus that something like this could even be mistaken for a bomb. The head lines are still calling it a fake bomb. It doesn't even look like a bomb, doesn't have anything remotely resembling a bomb. Why do they consider anything with exposed electronics a bomb.
A bomb generally required a pressure vessel. No electronics needed. There are many ways to cause an explosion. Electronics are the mainstay of movies but in reality, there are many simpler ways. If someone is going to bomb an airport they are either going to walk in with a well hidden bomb and blow it up or yell out I got a bomb. They are not going to walk up to a desk with it in plain sight and ask when a flight is going to come in.
Why isn't the headline, electronics are not explosives! Or even electronics mistaken for bomb in airport.
Its more likely that anyone carrying a cellphone, laptop, or even a travel mug has a bomb.
there were wires attached to a battery that actually lit up
She controls the technology of Edison! SHOOT HER!
We've clearly passed the point where the prevailing fear of technology has surpassed the prevailing knowledge of technology.
Any electronic device not bearing a Dell/Apple/Sony/Motorola/etc logo is now immediately viewed as a potential weapon.
I bet if you walked into an airport holding any current model graphics card in your hand, you'd be promptly gunned down.
Even "knowledgable" security apparatchiks have an unreasoning suspicion of any non-corporate, non-official tech. I wonder how many DHS/FBI agents attend the Maker Faire...
These kind of behaviors are not appreciated specially when there are terrorists on loose trying their best to seek an opportunity to create violence.
Jess @ Prank Videos
"They're showing the hoodie on CNN right now, looks like the "improvised electronic device" consisted of a circuit board and a common battery that may have caused her hooded t-shirt (which had painted writing on it) to light up."
Hey! I had a t-shirt (kinda) like that when I was a kid. No big circuit board though, so just static light show, in my case. It came from a toy store in Charlotte Amalie. There was an iron-on transfer of a snarling leopard, and there were little lights stuck through the design, with wiring on the inside of the shirt, and it was all powered by a 9 volt battery.
It was boss! No idea up to now that it would also make me a terrorist hoaxer. Hn... maybe I'll recreate it in memoriam of all our salad days of personal freedom.
~cabrilla
i'd be afraid to go outside in boston anything other than naked. who knows what they could label as a bomb next.
Uhhh.. "Electronic device strapped to her chest" That's a quote from the police folks. It wasn't an "electronic device strapped to her chest". It was a light-up nametag. Today is career fair day at MIT (and she's one of the most enthusiastic engineers I've ever met).
She also had a can of play-doh. It wasn't 'connected' to the device in any way. So... she had something that lit up and a childrens' toy.
Oh, and she's 'a little dark skinned'.
So by all means, whip out the machine guns. She's obviously a threat.
As for learning a lesson from the whole ATHF episode in January, I would have hoped is was the City of Boston that had learned a lesson as they were the fools in that affair.
I weep for my country. I'm embarrassed by by home city.
Monty
Doesn't this imbecile remember how his city was the laughing stock of the nation over the ATHF incident?
-----
No, in my non-insulated world, everyone blamed the marketing corporation for that one, not Boston.
#14 posted by Christovir
Great point. I saw US soldiers with M-16s in airports right after 9/11 and in Frankfurt, DE there are 19 year olds wandering around in uniform with machine guns. Great theater, but really stupid. One full-auto burst from a machine gun would probably kill and injure as many people as a small bomb. Not the right tool to prevent harming innocent bystanders, unless they're up to the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" point.
Also, for now I guess not so much with the wearable computing.
Maybe our government's technophobia is a logical extension of the fact that the only uses they can imagine for wearable computers (and technology in general) is better ways to kill people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Force_Warrior
I can't believe NBC is promoting Bionic Woman like this. What a terrible idea.
It was shown on CNN, does ANYONE have a screen capture...
I have a feeling a nice photo of the hoodie & wiring will easily say to 90% of the people either "she's lucky she's not dead" or "gah, what an overreaction".
But until we SEE the device, we can't say one way or the other.
She had her first and almost final 15 minutes of fame! Scary stuff!
photo of hoodie
Sometimes I think that the fearmongering that occurs in my country is due not only to those in power who stand to profit off of it (whether monetarily or politically), but also by those people who insist that it has to be ok to just do whatever the hell we want without regard for the way we are perceived by society at large.
I will readily concede that there are too many extreme examples of overly-tightened security, and my heart goes out to those folks like the man who was turned away for his so-called "I.E.D". But seriously, someone comes into an airport with electronics strapped to her chest and some of us here think that everyone should have just looked at her and said, "Oh! An artist!"
BS.
If you're into DIY electronics, frankly, you're in a small niche compared to the rest of the nation. It's unreasonable to expect everyone else to see homebrew electronics on someone's shirt and deduce immediately at a glance that it's a novelty device or "art."
As much as airport security can sometimes go overboard, I'm glad to see that they can respond immediately to what could have been an actual threat by someone a little off-kilter.
I'm glad she's alright; she is lucky.
Saw the device. It's a standard-issue MIT solderless breadboard. You can buy them at RadioShack. It has ten or so green LEDs on it (also probably from RadioShack), and a nine-volt battery (funny, those come from RadioShack too). It get negative style points, but yeah, it *is* the kind of thing you would see MIT students wearing around campus.
A point that may have been overlooked: she wasn't trying to pass through security and get on a plane. She was there to meet someone on an arriving plane, and asked someone at the info desk for information. The machine guns came out while she was waiting on a traffic island outside the airport.
The Fark.com thread has some images of the sweatshirt.
link to thread, post is at (2007-09-21 12:14:01 PM) by tomlennon
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3083934
link to pic
http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/cfa4827569_20070921device3.jpg
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/mit2_070921_ms.jpg
airports are such a sad, unpleasant place to be now.
i really feel for star.
you know, the real terrorists tend to wear the bombs on the inside of their clothing.
There are some pictures of the device here.
We already knew that Boston police and security personnel can't tell a bomb from a breadboard. The Great Mooninites Scare wasn't the first instance like this, and the panic over Star Simpson's ornament won't be the last.
I love it.
The folks at the airport clearly dont hold any kind of mastery for 1) the english language or 2) current events.
I understand they think by saying "Improvised electronic Device" they're trying to say IED - which means "Improvised EXPLOSIVE device"
Every time I read "improvised electronic device" I think of someone who drew a wiring schematic on a napkin.. "AH AH! IT LOOKS LIKE ELECTRONICS! IT MUST BE A BOMB!"
or someone who paints up some twigs to resemble capacitors and resistors and has some wires/vines leading into some dirt clods.
I love it.
The folks at the airport clearly dont hold any kind of mastery for 1) the english language or 2) current events.
I understand they think by saying "Improvised electronic Device" they're trying to say IED - which means "Improvised EXPLOSIVE device"
Every time I read "improvised electronic device" I think of someone who drew a wiring schematic on a napkin.. "AH AH! IT LOOKS LIKE ELECTRONICS! IT MUST BE A BOMB!"
or someone who paints up some twigs to resemble capacitors and resistors and has some wires/vines leading into some dirt clods.
I just saw the device on CNN - it's really obviously an electronics project. She apparently wanted to "stand out for Career day". She seems really pro-active and the shirt seems to be the kind of geek showmanship that would usually get posted on BB.
I guess this follows with the conventional knowledge that ALL CIRKIT BOARDS EXPLOAD OKAY? Boston has basically been batting zero with this whole "anti-terrorism" thing.
Remember, people: don't express yourselves through technology. Drop those home-made gadgets and toss an ipod around your neck.
A 'hoax device' hmmm, by that definition a real bomb could be a:
- hoax 'hoax device'
- a failed 'hoax device'
Just curious... Can anyone who is protesting her treatment state exactly what a bomb is supposed to look like, even it were worn on the outside of some idiot "martyr's" shirt?
First off, she should be aware of the state of airport security and the lack of understanding that non-technical people have regarding electronics. This is common sense, which unfortunately is not required to be an engineering student. I saw the 'device' in question and it looks like she just has nerd pride and wanted to show off her love of electronics.
I am glad that she wasn't shot, but if she was would that surprise anybody?
Now she will face charges, which I hope are dropped. It seems that she was just ignorant of the situation and made a mistake. I mean look at it... its a freaking breadboard with LED's!
And it's Rob Cockerham @29 for the the thread win!
oh ffs, another led bomb is it? are there any sane people in the boston pd?
have to say though...
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/slideshow/news/14173047/detail.html
3rd pic, tut tut, i'd have expected much more from an mit student, that thing looks a right mess :oP
"I'm surprised so many people are siding with someone who wears a circuit board and wires into an airport."
Because real "bombs" look just like the random circuitboards, multicolored wiring and countdown timers of cheesy-ass 20 year old TV shows.
Despite what people are saying here not everyone knows what a beadboard is when the see one. From the pictures I've seen it's easy to interprete as a chunk of explosives, or a housing for explosives. And those of you who are calling the police idiots, what would you have preferred they do? Ignore her? #33 has it dead right, and made his point much more eloquently than I, I might add.
My question is, do the airport police really need SILENCED sub machine guns?
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070921/photos_ts_afp/0598f9ff58394b4ea8d23cd1edc6402d
Is there really any reason for law enforcement to be using silencers?
Also, well done whoever wrote the caption for that image, it is H&K not "HNK"
Jacob Davis: That's exactly the point. If a bomb can look like a laptop or an electronic art project or a pair of shoes, why single out this particular bit of electronics? Wouldn't a real terrorist, say, wear the blinking electronics under the hoodie? And not ask a question at the information desk before leaving the airport?
It might be possible to point at any single instance and say, "Okay, sure, that's a legitimate mistake." But TSA has a history of this, and the ratio of false alarms to real threats is skyrocketing. Is "Ack, it blinks!" really a good enough reason to point a machine gun at a nineteen-year-old girl? At what point do we start examining their methods? At what point does the disconnect between "youthful misjudgment about a pretty bit of soldering" and "armed response" merit a reaction? Does a college kid need to be gunned down before we say, "Oh, hey, wait, hold on"?
You can tell me, "That guy's got some mean dogs in the park, and they're not on a chain. Don't go in there carrying meat, or if you've recently been working with meat, or really with any food at all." And maybe it would indeed be unwise to go into the park holding a ham sandwich. But that shouldn't stop us from asking, "Why are the dogs so mean? Why aren't they on a leash? Why am I in danger when I'm not doing anything wrong?"
It's possible for more than one person to be wrong in a situation. In this situation, one side has the authority and the guns.
To BoingBoing in general: I'm in Boston. Is there any way I can help this girl out, or show my support?
In case anyone missed it, the reason Xeni said "again with the hoax devices" is that Boston has a long dishonorable history of overreacting to unfamiliar objects, then claiming they were "hoax devices," which are illegal under Massachusetts law. This is nonsense. A hoax bomb is something that a reasonable person could believe was a bomb, and which its owner claims is a real bomb in order to scare or coerce people in its vicinity.
Boston police pulled this same stunt with Joe Previtera, a nonviolent protester, in 2006. He was doing a silent imitation of the famous photo of the hooded guy standing on a box from Abu Ghraib. The police arrested him -- as far as anyone can tell, because they disliked his politics -- and claimed that the speaker wires hanging from his wrists constituted a "hoax device."
They did it again in January and February of this year -- [1], [2], [3], [4], [6], [7] -- after their maxed-out overreaction to lite-brite Mooninite images left the rest of the country snickering at them. The best quote on that one was from Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, on the obviously suspicious nature of the Mooninites: “[The device] had a very sinister appearance. It had a battery behind it, and wires.”
(Just a month after the Great Mooninite Scare, the Boston Bomb Squad managed to come up with an encore: they blew up a traffic measuring device that had been put in place by the Boston Transportation Department.)
Judging from their record, charging someone with possession of a hoax device is Boston's way of announcing that they've once again mistaken some harmless bit of electronic gear for a bomb.
It is not okay to do whatever you want, wherever you want, just because you happen to think it's cool. You cannot shout "fire" in a theater just because it amuses you, even if it's an art project, and you can't wear a circuit board into an airport for the exact same reason.
You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater because that act, by itself, causes harm:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
It's hard to argue that it's a clear and present danger when she wore the breadboard, clearly displayed, all over the streets of Boston, through the airport, at schoool, etc, without causing a panic.
And while we're at it, I can do whatever the hell I want, whenever I want, even stupid shit, as long as it doesn't cause a panic, because that's what freedom means. Which side of the "Live Free Or Die" equation are you on, anyway?
What's annoying about this is the media's ongoing description of the device as a "fake bomb." It's not a "fake bomb" it was mistaken for a real bomb by security.
What's up with the whole submachinegun statement? Are they trying to tell us that they have a policy of shooting things (or people in possession of said things) on sight if they don't know what they are?
CKD (37), thank you for the photos of the device.
Anybody here want to volunteer that they, too, would have thought that thing was a bomb? To me, that thing looks like a little piece of board, a few blinkylights, and a battery, and is pretty obviously intended as an ornament.
Apparently Boston still hasn't taught their people that all electronic devices are not bombs. This one wasn't even hooked up to a container of hair gel.
I think the most salient point here is that she was not about to fly, she was just picking someone up at the airport. She was probably wearing what she happened to be wearing that day. How many of us consciously ask ourselves "is something I'm wearing mistakable for a bomb?" Yes, absolutely, security should have checked her out, as they should with anything suspicious. It will be a gross waste of tax money if she is prosecuted. We have become a nation of cowards. The terrorists have won.
I hope these police never visit Disneyland or Walt Disney World. They'll have to arrest everyone in the light parade.
What's next? Are they going to arrest people with those light up visors or t-shirts?
Being that this took place at Logan Airport I doubt the Boston Police had anything to do with it. More likely it was the Massachusetts State Police that did the gun pointing. Certainly the guy holding up the sweatshirt in the pictures is a statey. But hey, it's more fun to recall all BPDs mistakes. By the way, do people here believe that police in any other airport in the country would have reacted differently?
@33 - "It's unreasonable to expect everyone else to see homebrew electronics on someone's shirt and deduce immediately at a glance that it's a novelty device or 'art'."
Having now seen the "device", any security person who cannot tell that is not a bomb at a glance, should be fired immediately.
There is absolutely no reason a bomb needs exposed wires and lights. Identifying bombs by looking for wires and lights is insane. A bomb needs space to carry the explosives: any piece of luggage should be more suspicious than anything stitched to your chest.
If the police should not ignore this, anyone carrying a briefcase should be shot on site.
JTG: What's wrong with, "Excuse me miss, could you show me what that blinking thing is?" You know — the way they respond to laptops.
[Edit: My last post should have read "Mass police have a history [...]," not TSA. I don't think TSA was at all involved here.]
I am just asking, is this ThinkGeek t-shirt a "threat" then?
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/generic/8a5b/
Comments on these airport security posts frequently have the same theme: The security people should be able to tell the difference between a fill-in-the-blank homemade device and a bomb. I'm not saying that the TSA isn't awful, because it is. But if you were trying to secure the airport and somebody walked up with a homemade electronic device that you couldn't identify, what would you do?
I worked in a hospital during the Unibomber period. If we got an unexpected package, we called the bomb squad. We had to. People were actually getting blown up. Even if we had the smartest, nicest airport security people that you could imagine, this woman would still have had a gun pointed at her head.
"Jacob Davis: That's exactly the point. If a bomb can look like a laptop or an electronic art project or a pair of shoes, why single out this particular bit of electronics? Wouldn't a real terrorist, say, wear the blinking electronics under the hoodie? And not ask a question at the information desk before leaving the airport?"
More to the point why would a IED have to have anything flashing at all. The thing that people should be most worried about is that the Troopers either don't know this or disregard the fact.
Unfortunately there seems to be an over-abundance of authority figures through out the western world (not just the u.s.) who believe that all "terrorists" are mindless drones been directed by some moron with a lower IQ than a farmyard animal.
Is it really asking too much to have airport security actually educated about explosive devices? It sure doesn't take an expert to recognize that a 9volt battery won't blow up a plane.
Sheer incompetence and fascism.
-ian, Ramapo College NJ
WRT to the submachine gun vs. a handgun being more dangerous to bystanders: That gun is more accurate than a 9mm handgun, which translates to _fewer_ dead bystanders not more. And they don't use these things on full-auto like you see in the movies.
And yes, of course, most of it is just to make us feel less afraid and more afraid at the same time.
"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."
Well, the critics have spoken: her "art" sucks. And if I saw someone in a hoodie with some homemade electronic/putty gizmo strapped to it, I'd report her to the authorities in a heartbeat. This woman is an idiot and does not deserve to fly with the rest of us who are just trying to be left alone and get from A to B. I doubt BoingBoing would be so sympathetic if her shenanigans had caused them to miss their overseas flight.
I could easily see that girl getting in line, having someone see the breadboard and quite reasonably shout, "Holy crap it's a bomb". In the ensuing panic, 2 people are trampled to death.
See, I've had jobs where I had to work with, and transport, crappily-made breadboard projects, all over the time. I could easily imagine, say, the flat-earther from "The View" thinking these were bomb parts and freaking out, when in fact, they were Engineering 101 kits. I do not want to put my freedom and my life in the hands of people who do not bother to distinguish "homemade electronics" from "bomb".
I'm pretty sure that if I were in Boston, and got stopped by the police with the Engineering 101 project kits in my car, I'm pretty sure the headlines would read "HOAX CAR BOMBER CAPTURED". And there would be tons of people jumping up and down with glee that yet another freedom had been taken away, without a care at all about what we had lost.
I wonder if I miss living in Boston.
When I volunteered in the wearable department at the media lab, someone told me a story about bringing the MIThril wearable through the airport. The guy told a story about being tackled after going through the security line, and having to explain the wearable in great detail -- long before 9/11. He said that when he does travel with the device, he puts it into a suitcase, and includes a big stack of documentation, so there will not be any doubt of what the device is. Unfortunately, I can't imagine that any of these trigger-happy underpaid and clueless security-theatre employees can tell the difference between an iPod, feats of hackery, or an actual bomb.
This is why I make the 10.5 hour drive when I go to Boston, which is actually a shorter time door-to-door. That, and I can bring a wide range of fluids.
As others have mentioned, wouldn't an actual bomb be better packaged, and less obvious?
Wasn't there a movie about terrorists implanting bombs inside their bodies to escape detection?
@Bricology: What you've seen is the inside of the sweatshirt. The other side has light-up paint which this circuit board powers. She also had no intention of flying, just picking someone up.
MIT students hardly care about what they wear, especially in the odd hours of the morning. This student made this sweatshirt a long time ago and wears it regularly around campus. She wore it to the MIT Career Fair today to stand out, as she set it up herself. She just so happened to also wear it to the airport, probably without even a second thought.
Honestly, who would have caused the overseas flight delay? The girl wearing a sweatshirt, or the overreacting police force marching in with submachineguns when a single airport manager could have asked and received a demonstration of what essentially is a lite-brite on a sweatshirt? If I had missed my flight, I'd sure as hell have blamed the airport for their blatant stupidity as opposed to the girl for her ignorance of other peoples' stupidity.
Any charge filed against her not being dropped = fearful jerks in power trying to make an example of an innocent woman.
On another note, to everyone saying, "It's obviously not a bomb, they should have known better!" : that's really condescending. My mother doesn't know what a breadboard is. My neighbors don't. Several of my friends don't. I'd wager the great majority of the US doesn't know, for better or worse. Don't pretend that everyone else knows what you know, especially when you are judging circumstances after being given all the facts at once in hindsight.
Be honest, please, how would any of you just know a bomb when you see it?
@jere7my
I agree with almost everything you stated, except for your characterization of this incident as a mistake by the airport security.
Oh -- and anyone who claims "it doesn't even look anything like a bomb!" has their head up their ass. I assure you, it looks EXACTLY like what a bomb could look like. And to the poster who claimed it was (or looked like) "jewelry" -- not to 99.9% of civilians or law enforcement, it doesn't.
A 9-volt battery, a circuit board with a few capacitors to store up the electrical charge, a couple of wires to take that charge to a couple of small lumps of C-4 (which looks just like Silly Putty), and hey presto! -- a bomb powerful enough to kill a few dozen people -- or blow a hole in the side of an airplane.
I have sometimes had to fly out of Boston with various home made (made in my lab really) gadgets. I have never had a problem because I follow the advice of a friend who has much experience with this situation. Here are his main tips as I remember them:
1: Always travel with the power disconnected.
2: Do not place prototypes inside anything that will be opaque to the X-ray machine unless absolutely necessary.
3: Tape your business card showing that you are a research scientist to the outside of carry on items holding prototypes, and to each prototype inside.
4: Approach the security checkpoint with a friendly smile, and say something like "Hey there! I'm a scientist and I am traveling with some equipment. Is there anything special you need me to do?"
I have NO idea why the business cards work, but in my experience they do. If you are, for argument's sake, a hacker or maker without an Institution, why not make up your own nice looking business cards? Or make up your own Institution? I maintain an Institutional affiliation that has nothing to do with my employers for those moments when I need to do something that my employers wouldn't like.
I am afraid that this advice may not extend to artists, but for the scientists out there I hope it helps.
ivymike, I've had to take electronic prototypes on a plane with me, and it's very simple -- you put them in checked baggage, typically with a bunch of other gear like multimeters, scopes, probes, etc. I've never had a problem. If you insist on taking blue-wire prototypes in your carryon luggage, much less strapped to your chest, you're asking for trouble. It's an easily avoided situation, and I don't consider it an incursion on some vital civil liberty that I have to put that stuff into checked bags. If the cops start busting into the office and taking me to jail because I have a waveform generator, then that's another story.
Again, it is important for us (particularly Bricology) to remember that she was not attempting to fly — she had stepped into the airport to ask a question at the info desk. She was there to collect an arriving friend, and was threatened when she was outside the airport on a traffic island.
If she was not attempting to fly, why was she any more dangerous in the airport than she was on the subway? Or should we have pointed guns at her there, too?
I love us up here in Boston. This is way funnier than the Mooninites.
But seriously, if a redheaded freckled kid walked in with this thing....
That's clearly the outside of the hoodie. Seams are rightside out, the draw string is visible, and (most telling) the pouch in the front would not be inside the garment.
I have no problem with security putting extra scrutiny to someone with an unknown device. This could have come in the form of, "excuse me miss, what have you got there." what I don't get at all is why wouldn't they just let her go moments after they got the device in their hands and could obviously tell it was innocuous.
As for the oh no, machine guns issue; Its called single shot mode. The longer barrel and two handed grip provides much greater accuracy than a pistol. And a silencer is good to use when firing in any enclosed space. Consider it hearing protection for everyone around.
I'm glad they caught her. The last thing we need is goddamn borg terrorism.
JERE7MY -- And how could you, I or anyone else know whether she was "attempting to fly" until after the fact