Contrast this to 1982 when I made an LED necktie (16 red LEDs sequenced by a TTL chipset, with a 9V x 2 power source) and tried to board a flight in Buffalo en route to Boston. I even never made it through the metal detector. Do you suppose they didn't like the momentary switch wired through my sleeve? Anyway, GET THIS: the TSA agent simply escorted me downstairs to the ramp, helped me find my suitcase in one of the baggage train cars (yes, they took me onto the tarmac) and only then did a group of baggage handlers surround me. One guy offered $50 on the spot for the flashing tie. I had to decline and packed the tie away in my luggage--I was 15 and too interested in showing it off to some engineers on RT 128.

JPW - Are you sure you got the year right? The TSA didn't exist in 1982

What was this 'wearable' tech? If its that circuit board taped to a hoodie as shown in the picture above then that probably wasn't an entirely bright idea but in his defense you could probably bring a blank breadboard and those TSA jackasses would think it was a bomb.

I knew someone would contest the date! I was too lazy to look it up just now.

Star you are a hero. I'm sorry you had to go through what you did.

I live in Boston and I've heard a lot of people react to this story by repeating the premise that she was foolish to do it and lucky she didn't get shot. The trouble is, when the definition of what is "normal" are constantly changing due to our extreme reactions to fear of attack, it's hard to live your life. My reaction to both the Mooninite ads and this, was that the city over-reacted and then, rather than admit that sometimes mistakes will happen, they went on the offensive. With the end result being that they have redefined what free people are allowed to do...

This gal's just like Giuliani: a 'hero' by happenstance.

I have a great idea for community service. Spend some time outside of the airport gates informing people that security theater is being "performed" at the airport and we all need to take America back from the fearmongers.

I get the feeling that Star is probably more reluctant to identify herself as a "hero" than Giuliani. I should re-phrase my previous statement. She's MY hero.

This + Mooninites = Boston sucks.

I have not had to make a long-distance trip in a long time, and I don't know if I want to anymore. It seems like there are a shitload of freaky-ass rules, and innocent people are getting fucked over for doing completely normal stuff.

@5 posted by Yupa

> The trouble is, when the definition of what is "normal" are constantly changing due to our extreme reactions to fear of attack, it's hard to live your life.

What drama!

Look, wearing a circuit board and LEDs was never "normal".

Aside from the horrible inconvenience of not being able to wear jury rigged assemblages of wire and clay to an airport, can you come up with any other examples of how the definition of normal has changed such that it's "hard to live your life"?

Seriously, give me a break.

Some people have to walk 10 miles to get drinking water.

Other people have to deal with vicious gangs that terrorize their slums.

Other people have janjaweed militias killing their kids and raping their women.

THAT sort of thing makes it "hard to live your life".

Not being able to wear something that, yes, looks a it like a bomb to an AIRPORT does NOT make it "hard to live your life".

What really gets me is how the media immediately jumped on her, releasing her picture everywhere without even knowing if she was really guilty of anything at all. Then she had to put up with every idiot out there who felt they should get in her face. What about her own safety?? And what's with the police chief looking almost giddy to claim that she nearly ended up in the morgue? He pretty much has a smirk about it; like it's some joke.

It's amazing that she seems so well-adjusted and able to calmly talk about it. I imagine it must have been extremely traumatic and humiliating. I would hope SHE'd get an apology.

Who the heck is supposed to protect us against our own security system? It's like being sandwiched between two types of terrorism. 'Land of the free'... Riiiiight...

I'm ashamed and embarrassed by the way my home state handled this incident and I'm proud of Star for speaking out, she's one of _this_ Maker's heroes now.

I want to echo the hero sentiment. Americans, for all your weird self delusions about independent spirit and frontier self sufficiency, are conformists at heart. The degree to which the need for 'security' in 'a world forever changed by the events of 9/11', has been unquestioningly accepted by many Americans is revealed by the commented reactions to this story on otherwise intelligent fora, from Boingboing to Slashdot. This is a farcical absurdity, as even a shallow perusal of the 'security' literature from Bruce Schneier to Benjamin Franklin (sic) reveals. This girl is a hero, first because she is a maker - someone jury rigging and remixing technology in innovative and prescient ways, at a time when passive consumption is celebrated and technological creativity dismissed. Second because she remained iconoclastic and independent minded enough to fail to perceive life through the cynically paranoiac lens of the mainstream Western media. Fair play Star, fuck the man, don't let this shit make you afraid.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm
>(b) For the purposes of this section, the term >“hoax device” shall mean any device that would >cause a person reasonably to believe that such >device is an infernal machine.

uh-oh look an infernal machine.

The bar for "hero" is lowered even further.

The local "news" media in Boston crucified both her and the Mooninite guys in that overblown fiasco. Fortunately those guys were able to have a press conference where they only took questions about 1970's hairdos. That was an awesome move on their part, and it only made the press hate them more.

Kudos to BB for giving Simpson her day.

The ridiculous part of this story is the panic. Like how a lie is always worse than just coming clean, panic makes mole hills into mountain ranges.

I do think wearing a circuit board with exposed wires to an airport is opening yourself up to scrutiny. Airports are nervous places, they were before 9/11. But there's a big difference between asking someone about their shirt and being cautious and surrounding some college student with a squardon of cops.

The worst part of that panic "logic", if that really was a bomber, wouldn't they WANT to be surrounded by cops?

The "hoax device" nonsense just staggers the rational mind.

..."can you come up with any other examples of how the definition of normal has changed such that it's "hard to live your life"?"

Let's see... random pat-downs and intrusive security screenings at airports, Americans being encouraged to spy on and report "suspicious" activities of their neighbors, the government eavesdropping on people's phone calls at will, photographers being harassed everywhere for, um, taking pictures, tens of thousands of innocent people on the "no-fly" list, authorities encouraging a climate of fear... etc. etc.

Being automatically suspected of terrorist activity for carrying or wearing any type of electronic device is a part of such change.

I fly multiple times a month and I never run into any trouble. This idea that people can't live their lives is ridiculous, hyperbole and a joke. I have always felt bad for this woman and still do. But to suggest that it would be "normal" to walk around with open circuits on your sweatshirt is a farce. Anyone who thinks that ought to be ashamed of themselves.

I had a big stack of punk rock shirts in high school and college- Reagan hates me, Nazi Punks F*ck Off or anything with the DKs spelled out, Black Market Baby, etc. these got negative reactions wherever I went where people didn't understand them. I had no interest in creating negative reactions in anyone because I'm not misanthropic- I like people. So eventually I decided to wear the punk shirts at punk events where people understood them, and wear plain black shirts or shirts with milder messages at my parents house or when taking the bus or in class. We all used to keep the leather jackets buttoned until we got to a club and could wear a Pussy Galore t-shirt without the wrong reaction.

So... I do not consider her a hero and I don't believe she's done anything heroic. I don't think she stood up for anything. I feel sorry for what she went through, but I don't think she or anyone else should have expected much less. This was not a political stand, that circuit board looks now and has always looked to me more like a timing device on a suicide bomb than anything else. I know what it is, but I still think it looks like a bomb.

TJIC @#11

Bombs do not have blinkenlights. Bombs do not have countdown timers. Bombs to not have any of the technoporn accoutrements so favored by the fantasists in Hollywood.

The same applies to suicide vests/belts.

Granted, the actions taken to stop and ascertain the situation were fairly reasonable. One the determination was made that it was not anything other than a few LEDs and a battery, it should have ended there.

THAT'S when it all went brainhurtingly stupid and asinine.

Fortunately those guys were able to have a press conference where they only took questions about 1970's hairdos. That was an awesome move on their part, and it only made the press hate them more.
----

I think it made the public hate them a whole lot and pretty much painted them as corporate douchebags who try to fake cool.

"...that circuit board looks now and has always looked to me more like a timing device on a suicide bomb than anything else."

Green LEDs. In the shape of a star. Looks like a "timing device on a suicide bomb".

Wow. You need glasses. Badly!

You also need to stop watching "24" right now.

You also need to realize that the whole point of a suicide vest is to CONCEAL its presence until one is in a crowd of people.

To have the "timer" visible to all and sundry, well, that does kind of negate the whole "conceal" thing.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/2713229598_32137528f7.jpg

I prefer my LED wearable to hers. Also not airport friendly.

Neener, you appear to have your stories confused. Star Simpson had nothing to do with the Aqua Teen Hunger Force / LED signs thing.

Star's an idiot. Even if, like me, you think all the recent "security" measures are complete BS, she deserves what she got. An "idiot" would know that strapping a flashing breadboard to your chest and trying to board a plane is going to end poorly.

You cannot expect a TSA dimwit to know a bomb from a bagel, let alone a bomb from a breadboard. And a breadboard is going to look threatening to someone who has zero technical knowledge.

Star Simpson is the *MIT engineering student* (presumably of reasonable intelligence to be such) dumb enough to wear something to an airport that would *obviously* cause the TSA agents grief.

Shout out to Star. Thanks for sharing that with us. You have all my love and support.

As someone who lives in a country that is far from being problem free, Mexico, it is embarrassing to watch this happen in a country that claims to be so far ahead of the curve when it comes to taking care of its own. Whatever happened to freedom? The message this is sending is live in fear, the enemy if there is any has won, lets send the US to the dark ages. No ground up, meaning average Joe innovation or personal initiative can blossom to its full potential in such an environment. What a shame, because the US used to be awesome at that.

Green LEDs. In the shape of a star. Looks like a "timing device on a suicide bomb".

...

You also need to realize that the whole point of a suicide vest is to CONCEAL its presence until one is in a crowd of people.
-----

Yes, I said that it does, sheesh. And not only am I right, but the police and the press also thought this. What you're not acknowledging is that you have some cultural context that 99% of the rest of the populace and probably about 25% of BoingBoing readers do not have. That's the key point here.

That is not the whole point of a suicide vest or terrorism, obviously! I can't believe you'd suggest that there is no history of people wearing fake suicide vests to cause public reactions. Are you suggesting that suicide bombers only act in one way for one outcome? Have you read international news in the last 25 years?

Tried to post this from anon, didn't seem to make vetting.

http://www.nycresistor.com/2008/08/31/nycresistor-poster-child/

That's my wearable led jacket. I absolutely like it and think it makes for awesome stylishness. Not being able to wear it around for fear of being tackled by high school drop-outs is aggravating. So I totally feel for this girl. That and honestly... who doesn't absolutely despise the TSA? They do more damage to america on a daily basis than al quaeda.

Hey MED1972 didn´t socrates say something like I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.

Knowing you are a fool allows you to learn a lot more than thinking you know everything.

S gss ´d rthr b n dt thn n sshl.

Clearly her lawyer chickened out and told her to take the deal.
As a lawyer in the NYCity area, I would have loved to have taken this case. Just thinking about meeting the press on the courthouse steps after one of these appearances- Im just positively dreaming of how I would excoriate these assholes.

An "idiot" would know that strapping a flashing breadboard to your chest and trying to board a plane is going to end poorly.

And "somebody who actually read the story" would know that she never tried to board a plane.

I very much appreciate BB's efforts to bring Star's story to the public, getting her side of the story is absolutely necessary to begin analyzing this issue. Certainly, no one should have to endure the ridicule that she faced, and I think the overreaching and embellishment of a media happy to find a "Boston Suicide Bomber" are to blame.

But to call her a "hero," and to mock the TSA/Law Enforcement's response as "drama" is the height of self-delusion.

Many of the above comments extol freedom of expression, but ignore the responsibility that comes with that freedom. Certainly you are free enough to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But you can not escape the responsibility of a child being trampled in the rush to get out by claiming to be a hero of free speech.

The TSA/Security/Law Enforcement at airports are trained and expected to be paranoid. They are trained and expected to look for devices that may be bombs. They are not sympathetic or understanding of maker culture and I do not fault them for that. I do expect an adult MIT student to recognize this and respond accordingly. I expect them to be responsible for their actions. I don't expect the Airport to make an exception for the student's conception of free speech.

Any student of history recognizes that an individual's freedom in society is always in flux and at the whim of historical context. We (Americans) have lost significant freedoms since 9/11. Star's tragic story demonstrates this. We must stand up to the overreaction and injustice of a government and society obsessed with security. But categorizing Star's serious lapse in judgment as heroic freedom fighting does nothing to move this debate forward, and it is utterly naive to do so.

Great that you talked to Star, but if you ever use Skype for an interview again and have cameras running, would you please only use Skype for the audio or put the cameras closer to the laptops?

Watching two people talk to their computers robs this of some of the human element. You could place the video cameras right next to the screens and blow the video up full screen on Skype chat. Also make sure that the laptops and cameras are at head height so you're not looking up at them.

Really, this looked terrible.

Just to ensure I have some facts straight:

1) Star Simpson was an MIT engineering student at the time of the incident.

2) She wasn't aware (or is feigning ignorance) that walking into an airport (in Boston of all places) with an electronics project strapped to your chest might possibly confuse people.

3) "...some of them were holding these really big devices that I learned were machine guns later."

Seriously?! Sorry, but I'm incredulous to say the least. If this is the type of story we have to use to defend ourselves against the police/nanny state, we're in big trouble.

Anonymous, your response is clear, coherent, and inspired. I don't disagree with it. However, she did not actually attempt to enter a secure area at any point. She was simply waiting for a friend in an insecure area of the airport. One might even be inclined to say a "public" area. In fact the TSA wasn't even really to blame in this incident. An over-reactive employee alerted the boston police to a girl with wires on her sweatshirt after a conversation with her. I mean obviously it MUST have occurred to her that her that she was doing something at least marginally risky. But that does not excuse the over reaction (possibly dangerous over reaction... much like crying fire in a crowded theatre because a man just fired up a lighter) and tremendous waste of resources brought about by the irresponsible actions of both the airport staff and the boston police department.

This was clearly not a case of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is important to be clear about that, as many of the initial news stories about this were essentially accusing her of doing this as a haux.

It is this over-reaction, following the initial mis-identification of her as a threat, which has really prevented the debate from moving forward. The BPD spokespeople I have heard will admit no wrong for this incident. Not in the initial mid-identification of her as a threat, nor the follow up prosecution. I can only hope that while they maintain this public facade, they are doing some self assessment and training around maker culture and guerilla art so that they can better identify real threats in the future.

While Star was stoned on whatever at the Steer Roast she told it in a very different way; it was not an act of performance art and she had some clue what could happen.

Her quality of work with other circuit boards is actually pretty decent, this shows that the wiring was intentionally to attract attention. This was not just some sweat shirt she threw on, the wiring is assembled after the garment was washed and the battery was a decision before she left the dorm.

1) she exposed security behaviors at Logan
2) she created a sense of fear via the media's impression of the event
3) she made many people concerned for their own safety and the safety of others.
4) she cost the city, logan, and the airlines money
5) she put the officers and the city into a difficult position, if she had been shot, there would have been lawsuits.

She's now a joke at MIT; she's pointed out as if she's a side show to those visiting MIT.

Star is just now realizing the cost of her actions. Her employment options and lab access are now limited*

Many of the grants will not condone her involvement, because of her security stunt.

She also drinks way too much for a 19 y/o.

Neener @28: "Are you suggesting that suicide bombers only act in one way for one outcome?"

That's the point, really. Social control. Time was, people with electronics on their clothes were treated reasonably, as in JPW's account @1. Check out the device, switch it off, put it out of the way. Minimum of fuss and inconvenience to everyone concerned. There was room to be unusual, eccentric, to practice both your skills with a soldering-iron and your right to be an individual. Now, someone who steps over a very narrowly defined line and is noticed by the authorities gets blamed for crossing that line. Because, in the minds of a nation inspired by 24 and the like, any deviation from the norm is the sign of a terrorist.

Star may have been naive, but that isn't a crime. Naivity is a natural condition; we all start out that way. Does that mean it needs to be knocked out of everyone by the stock of a semi-automatic?

@#25 MED1972, speaking of idiots, you need to learn to listen/read/both. She was picking up a friend at the airport. She never went through security and never intended to board a plane.

State Police Maj. Scott Pare: "Had she not followed the protocol, we might have used deadly force. She's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue."

This was the comment from the original incident that really gave me sympathy for Star Simpson; I found it reprehensible for the police to say that they would have felt justified in killing her, and that she should feel "lucky" that they spared her life.

It's the arrogance of power.

Sh's n dt. vry nw nd thn y rd bt smn pkng r tntng lrg prdtr n z nd fr thr trbl thy ls n rm r gt gd mlng. Wld y dscrb tht Drwn wrd nmn s hr? The TSA and/or airport police are big animals with big pointy teeth. There is enough stuff to condemn them for about over-reactions and silly security theater. But to walk into an airport with wires and circuitry on your person is poking that damn polar bear with a stick. Stpd t bst. nd t tks wy frm nyn wth gnn rgmnt gnst th bg nml's stpdty.

I have to agree with TJIC that, considering we could be living in Afghanistan, this is kind of small potatoes. But we're not living in Afghanistan. Our drinking water comes to us out of the taps, and the only "gang" on my street is a group of seniors who speedwalk the neighborhood at dawn. So, I think I can get a little upset about this. Sorry that I won't "count my blessings" and keep my mouth shut.

Yes, I think what she did showed a lack of common sense. As stated before, it should have dawned on her that some people might freak out about it.

But. She's a kid, and kind of a goofy kid. And the fallout since then has been a huge overreaction. The people who are arguing that she should have shown common sense need to apply it to the TSA and law enforcement. Yell at her, fine her, and then be done with it. It's obvious she wasn't trying to scare people or make a political statement. There was no need to ostracize her further. And death threats? Seriously? That kind of hate is repugnant and should not be tolerated, regardless of all the other blessings we are lucky enough to have as Americans.

The issue isn't that we should be allowed to wear whatever we want to the airport. Rather, it's that in such a fearful and hateful climate, a young woman with bright prospects has been the subject of hateful persecution because she made an inappropriate fashion decision. She didn't drive drunk and kill a kid. She didn't smuggle drugs for her cartel boyfriend. She didn't smash a tanker full of oil into an environmentally-sensitive bay. She wore a stupid blinky shirt that should not have raised undue alarm among trained professionals who, I hope to God, know what a bomb looks like.

So, no, jackboot thugs aren't kicking in my door and raping my goldfish, and I'm very thankful for that. But if we don't correct the irrational fears running amok, it's going to make it very difficult for us to have a conversation or attitude that preserves intelligence and civil liberty and, well, kindness among our neighbors. I couldn't care less about her right to wear that shirt. But I care very deeply for her right to be a safe and happy member of her community after what is, in effect, a very minor infraction.

This is about the only thing that I'd think is an "infernal machine".

"some of them were holding these really big devices that I learned were machine guns later"

So people are idiots for mistaking a strap-on led device as a bomb but she doesn't know what a machine gun looks like? I guess that gives some insight into her naivete. That being said, I don't think she deserves jail time but maybe owning up to her actions and at least admitting that she was looking for at least a little reaction would go a long way. Would she wear the same sweatshirt in downtown Tel Aviv or to the Ben Gurion International airport?

THIVAI, great comment. I just read through the comments on the original post from the day this all started and was just amazed that some people can actually be OK with this happening.

Yes, she probably shouldn't have worn it, but why is it OK that the officers on duty didn't even bother to investigate what the device was. Or, once they realized that she wasn't a threat couldn't they have just let her go, or at least confiscated the sweatshirt and let her go. That this charade is still going on today just speaks to the complete stupidity of the people that hold the power in our country.

America is about freedom. The founding fathers of our country would be so angry and ashamed that we've been reduced to this. I can guarentee that the terrorists had two distinct agendas when they attacted us on 9/11. 1) to hurt as many people as possible and send a dramatic message 2) to generate a culture of fear.

Let me just say that they've won people! Every time we are OK with the authorities taking away our freedoms we give them another victory. On our present course we might as well be living in Afganistan. Stop taking your freedom for granted and stop letting the government take it away in the name of "security"!

@31 posted by Anonymous

> Clearly her lawyer chickened out and told her to take the deal. As a lawyer in the NYCity area, I would have loved to have taken this case. Just thinking about meeting the press on the courthouse steps after one of these appearances- Im just positively dreaming of how I would excoriate these assholes.

When I pay a lawyer, I don't want them to dream about how they're going to excoriate people - I want them to dream about how they're going to win the case.

Her lawyer didn't "chicken out" - he realized what the law was, realized how it would play in front of a jury, and made a good call.

TJIC I don't think the lawyer made a good call. She by the letter of the law did nothing wrong and they would be unable to prove she did. She could have sued in a follow up suit. For defamation of character, and wrongful arrest. Not to mention as mentioned several times previously... despite the dangerous actions of the boston police no internal investigation is ongoing.

Ths s cmpltly snn.

Pr Str, sh cldn't xprss hrslf by wlkng thrgh n rprt trmnl (Mnd y, sm rprt tht 9/11 flghts dprtd frm) wth llmntd crctbrd strppd t hr chst, hldng smthng md t f cly... Wt, whhhht?

Ths ntrvw s pndrng t ts wrst. Whn yr schl nd lwyr rn't n brd, spclly n Bstn (Cmbrdg), y knw y'v dn smthng rrvcbly wrng, r nfrgvbly stpd.

Y knw, thr r rsns y cn't yll "Fr" n crwdd thtr thr; y'r nt xctly mpngng n hr cvl lbrts.

Mrcy n ths wh fl srry fr ths scpth.

State Police Maj. Scott Pare: "Had she not followed the protocol, we might have used deadly force. She's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue."

"This was the comment from the original incident that really gave me sympathy for Star Simpson; I found it reprehensible for the police to say that they would have felt justified in killing her, and that she should feel "lucky" that they spared her life.

It's the arrogance of power."

They didn't say they would feel justified by killing her. And it's also really easy to pass judgment on the police in hindsight. For all they knew at the time of the incident, Star was a suicide bomber. They didn't know this girl, and they didn't know that what she had really was just a silly LED board. For all the common sense this girl is lacking, she's very fortunate that the police were able to sneak up behind her and completely restrain her. Otherwise they would have shot her if she were making sudden gestures. If an actual suicide bomber was recognized at an airport, all of you would be pissed that the police didn't shoot first and ask questions later. I know things are a lot different than they used to be, but to think that all policeman are just dying to shoot you is absurd. Once this girl is older, maybe she'll realize that there are better ways to express your individuality than the clothes you wear, and an airport is simply no place to do it. The police acted exactly as they should have.

When a kid with some LEDs and a clay flower can cause such an extreme reaction, the terrorists have already won.

#43:

The issue isn't that we should be allowed to wear whatever we want to the airport. Rather, it's that in such a fearful and hateful climate, a young woman with bright prospects has been the subject of hateful persecution because she made an inappropriate fashion decision. She didn't drive drunk and kill a kid. She didn't smuggle drugs for her cartel boyfriend. She didn't smash a tanker full of oil into an environmentally-sensitive bay. She wore a stupid blinky shirt that should not have raised undue alarm among trained professionals who, I hope to God, know what a bomb looks like.

Thank you for bringing that point.

We all seem to be arguing about whether or not wearing an unusual piece of clothing in an airport is a wise decision, but it is beside the real point.

Fact is, she was treated like a criminal while she committed no crime. She did not have any weapons, no intent to harm anyone, nothing harmful about her at all. I agree that security had every right to ask her about the shirt and what she was doing there if they felt suspicious. But once she provided an answer and explaination, that's where her civic responsibility ended. Calling a whole squad after her was completely disproportionate and abusive.

It doesn't matter that her little fashion statement annoyed you. She is an American and is supposed to have rights.

Look, wearing a circuit board and LEDs was never "normal".

Perhaps, but it never was a CRIME either.

What is disturbing is that we are accepting that honest citizens be harrassed and treated like dangerous criminals because we start judging who's looking 'normal' and who's not. So she's a bit of a weirdo; so what?? Does that mean anyone a bit quirky out there should expect to be arrested and prosecuted just because the 'normals' felt annoyed or worried about their fashion choices? I think it's a very slippery slope. We cannot start criminalizing harmless behaviours in the name of 'protection againt terror'.

Just the thought of getting arrested and publicly labled a threat just for choosing not to wear argyle to the stupid airport lounge is pretty terrifying to me.

Living in a culture of least common denominator means no child is left behind. It also means the ones that try to jump ahead will be cut down.

Star may have been naive, but that isn't a crime. Naivity is a natural condition; we all start out that way. Does that mean it needs to be knocked out of everyone by the stock of a semi-automatic?
----

Of course not, but that's why I pity her and would never consider her a hero. #49, I do feel sorry for her because I think she royally screwed up just like P2P filesharers who got sued but thought they were standing up for something and some friends of mine who got arrested for possession. I feel sorry for them because they got caught up in some groupthink where the socially unacceptable becomes some kind of statement and then they realize that actual laws apply to them and they're stuck paying for something that they didn't really mean to do.

I have never seen the TV show "24." I thought it was about spies in the white house, is it all about terrorism? I think you're overestimating that show's impact.

#25, Xeni, where did I say she did? I have no stories confused. Both are brought up here as they illustrate Boston's (over)reactions to:
1. some kind of weird MIT sort of prank
2. corporate advertising

I don't think she was crucified as some people claim. She did something stupid, the media reported it, she is told to perform community service. Big deal.

She seems like a pretty cool girl though and I hope things work out well for her. I really liked her photos...well, except for the one where she was skinning an opossum.

"Fact is, she was treated like a criminal while she committed no crime. She did not have any weapons, no intent to harm anyone, nothing harmful about her at all. I agree that security had every right to ask her about the shirt and what she was doing there if they felt suspicious. But once she provided an answer and explaination, that's where her civic responsibility ended. Calling a whole squad after her was completely disproportionate and abusive."

OK so wait, you're saying that since she answered a few questions, all suspicions about her being a suicide bomber should have ended? Wow, your idea about security appears to be nothing more than the honor system.

Security Agent: "Is that a bomb on your chest?"
Suicide Bomber: "ummmm, no. i'm just making a fashion statement."
Security Agent: "OK, you can go."
Suicide Bomber: "MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!. I mean, thank you."

However, I agree that once she was in custody and all facts about her were confirmed, the whole thing should have ended, after the police told her what kind of a moran she was.

wsn't wr tht t ws th Stt Plc's nfmlrty wth "MK-r Cltr" tht blw thngs t f prprtn.

'm srry, th mth s blltprf:

Crctbrd + Flshng LDs + Cly = Bmb
Bmb + rprt = Frnzy

Wht f sh ws wlkng rnd wth "jst sqrt gn" nd sh plld t t "jst t shw t t th cps."

Ppl hv bn sht rchng fr thr wllt.

Ms. Smpsn sms t b th xcptn t gnrnc bng blss.

M - Sh gt ff sy.

I'm curious about the interview video, Stars location appears to be the Alameda Naval Base and I know that Boing Boing does a lot of operations in the Bay Area, I've seen Xeni around. So if Star was in the bay area, why the interview via internet approach? Was it just a stylistic choice?

As for the Boston area officials response to her shirt: Overreaction in the extreme, pure idiocy, and as Star said, theater. We are no more secure with these morons running things and I don't think the it's about security, it's about controlling the populace.

On a related note, anyone who desires power, or once having it enjoys it, should be denied it for they will most certainly abuse it.

#59: no problem and I appreciate your willingness to respond.

@Neener, sorry if I misunderstood the thread there.

I heard yesterday that 15% of the children of Iraq now have PTSD, courtesy of our Marines and Air Force. That's the whole point of this war, of every war IMO. Destroying pride, destroying the living who survive.

It's what bullies DO. It's how they stay on top.

I'm sorry Star, I'm so sorry that you got caught up in it. Land on yer feet girl, you got potential.

Big Dave Diode, You speak the truth:

"When a kid with some LEDs and a clay flower can cause such an extreme reaction, the terrorists have already won."

Re: #11 POSTED BY TJIC, et al.

While I agree that "janjaweed militias killing their kids and raping their women" is a far more convincing example of "hard to live your life" it does not invalidate Yupa's argument. For example, it is perfectly justifiable to characterize losing my iPod and spilling coffee on my suit as "boy I had a bad day today" rather than waiting until I catch smallpox and are mauled by a bear before I can use that phrase. Maybe the phrase "harder to live your life" would be less troubling.

Furthermore...

The problem is that the highly subjective criteria of what is "normal" and "not normal" is being used to define what is, or is not, a credible terrorist threat. In fact, terrorists go out of their way to avoid triggering the "not normal" response of security personnel. Which leaves the rest of us in the position of an increased level of "hardness" being associated with how we "live our life" due to the implied threat seen in anyone who wishes to express their unique and charming personality in how they dress and express themselves.

Now, were I a new Caledonian Crow I would apply my causal reasoning skills to the problem. While the 9/11 terrorists had a toasty complexion, my experience as a crow would tell me there have been many terrorists with pale complexions (Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, the KKK, etc.). So the young woman's skin color would not be a terrorist indicator. What about the presence of a circuit board attached to a person's clothing and a doughy substance in their hand? Well, if terrorists where accustomed to attaching circuit boards to their chests and kneading plastic explosive in their hands that would be a warning sign to a crow, however since there is no record of a terrorist ever doing such a thing, this would seem to be an unlikely indicator.

A crow would see the 9/11 hijackers as casually dressed with dockers, polo shirts and small carry-on bags. Maybe in a rush to get through security. Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh would be seen by a crow as having short, neatly cropped hair, physically fit, with an intense manner. From a crow's perspective, the defining characteristic of a terrorist would be a business traveler who does all his shopping at Lands End.

I hope this has been helpful.

A crow's eye view of what terrorists wear and what they hold in their hands:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/postphotos/asection/2005-02-13/11.htm

Ah, I see, so they were thinking that she might have been a suicide bomber cleverly attempting to conceal the bomb by wearing it in plain sight and holding the explosive element in one hand.

No, sorry, that "math" there isn't working. The only thing bulletproof about it seems to be the layer of denial necessary to think the authorities made a wise decision in regarding her as a threat and then continuing to pursue her as such.

Damn, that was @ #58, hit post instead of preview. Anyways this Tharklord fellow just said it better.

#65 Crrct. Sh ds nt lk lk 9/11 l-Qd hjckrs, nr ntrvrtd pp bmbrs. Kds.

ntl ftr sgnfcnt vnt ccrs, t s nly n rtrspct tht y fnd th crcmstncs ldng t t nvtbl; th sm crcmstncs y cld nt pssbly pstltd th vnt ccrng. Fmlrz yslf wth th Blck Swn thry.

Th pnt y r mssng, s tht sh brght smthng tht ndnbly lks sspcs nt n nvrmnt tht frwns pn tht.

hh, nd ths:

>n Smpsn's prsnl wbst t MT, sh sys sh s stdyng cmptrs nd njys tnkrng n stdnt-rn mchn shp.

"n sntnc, 'm n nvntr, rtst, ngnr, nd stdnt, lv t bld thngs nd lv crzy ds," th wbst sys."

http://www.bstn.cm/nws/glb/cty_rgn/brkng_nws/2007/09/mt_stdnt_rr.html

Wlkng rnd n rprt wth wht lks lk bmb? Snds lk n wy tckt t Gtm.

Just to clarify one thing for everyone- the "doughy" flower in her hand was not actually dough at all. It was basically a baked sculpture- it was hard as a rock. She even banged it on the table for us to prove.

Anyways, thanks to everyone for watching. I'm loving reading all the comments!

Derek Bledsoe
Segment Producer, BBtv

Grw p, Str. D smthng dmttdly stpd, nd nd drp t f MT bcs y fl lk y r "bng dswnd." Wy t shw th wrld sm bckbn.

'll hv sm frs wth my brgr, thnks.

The point you are missing, is that she brought something that undeniably looks suspicious into an enviroment that frowns upon that.

And the point that you are missing is that she was surrounded by men threatening to kill her and thrown in jail for merely "look[ing] suspicious".

Those who trade liberty for temporary security deserve neither. As true in the 18th century as it is today.

Face facts, people.

• 
  If you do anything out of the ordinary, you're going to cause fear in people.
  
• 
  Someone who feels afraid is likely to call the authorities to investigate.
  
• 
  The authorities' investigation is going to (a) cost the taxpayers for their time, and (b) divert their attention from the 'real' threats.
  
• 
  Both the time consumed and the diversion of the authorities' attention represent a cost to society.
  
• 
  It's only fair that you should pay that cost, since you caused the problem in the first place by looking strange or acting in an unusual manner.
  

I wish I could find the flaw in this reasoning, since I myself am very likely to find myself viewed as strange, even inadvertently. But I don't think there is a flaw. In a society that is faced with existential threats at every moment, each step in this chain of reasoning makes perfect sense.

That's why I try very, very hard to blend in with the crowd. Anything else is tantamount to turning in a false alarm.

@Engine Here (#58):

People have been shot reaching for their wallet.

I entirely agree that it's sensible to put your hands in the air any time you see anyone in a uniform. Even better is to fall to the ground spread-eagled. The first priority in encountering anyone in uniform is to establish that you're not a threat to them or to their authority. Even then, you should expect to be tasered if they still feel threatened, and thank your lucky stars that it was a taser and not a bullet.

If you don't like it, enlist in the police force. Remember that any civilian is a potential threat to society.

People do seem to be missing the point here, with all the "you should know better than to taunt the dangerous animal" talk. Our government should not be a dangerous animal, and should not react with deadly force to a non-lethal threat - further it should be smart enough to know what is a lethal threat instead of reacting to everything as such and sorting it out later. The pint is that it is wrong for our government to be so reactionary, stupid, violent, ill-informed and vindictive. Sure, she should have expected this, but what happened to her was wrong, that expectation should have been the cynical one, no the common-sense one.

One of the reasons our governement continues to act this way is because people are happy to let it be a dangerous animal, and the popular sentiment is that it is your own fault if you get bit. Our government and its agencies are made up of people who supposedly represent our best interests - we should be horrified and disgusted that they bite, not shrug and say, oh well, you shouldn't have gotten near the cage.

The problem is that the highly subjective criteria of what is "normal" and "not normal" is being used to define what is, or is not, a credible terrorist threat. In fact, terrorists go out of their way to avoid triggering the "not normal" response of security personnel.
-----

No. No no, you really miss it. Ok, you admit that not all people who commit crimes like this look a certain way. Now we have to accept also, that they act differently too.

So... You're saying that one kind of criminal goes out of their way to avoid triggering the "not normal" response. But I posit that variants on the exact same criminal are... nutso, so nutso that they have no basis for what normal is and act insane. I also can toss out, someone high on PCP doing this, and someone really high on PCP may have no understanding of how to appear normal. Do you see your logical misstep? There is absolutely no telling how someone is going to act when committing a crime like this, there is only reaction to events as they unfold.

OK so wait, you're saying that since she answered a few questions, all suspicions about her being a suicide bomber should have ended? Wow, your idea about security appears to be nothing more than the honor system.

She answered their questions. She showed them the darned LED. She explained what it did and how it worked. Yes, that should have cleared her. If we can't live with that, then we're all guilty until proven innocent, just like she was.

My idea about security is that people who are paid to know what a real bomb looks like ought to know what they are dealing with when seeing some basic LED device up-close.

What's next: Getting shoved in jail because your cell-phone charm from Japan looked like a fancy detonator?

#72

Prhps 'm jst nt gnrnt ngh t mk sddn gstrs t plcmnt wh nstrct m t "Kp yr hnds whr w cn s thm."
(nd wh r lkng fr n rmd nd dngrs srl rpst wh fts th sm dscrptn nd drss)

mn, f tht ws m?

f ws mndng my wn bsnss, nd mn frm p th strt dntfd thmslvs s NYPD, nd t "hld t rght thr," nd knw 'v dn nthng wrng, th frst thng wld d s rn p th strs t my hs, thn trn rnd t th dr nd rch nt my jckt whl thy wr scrmng "shw m yr hnds." Thn wndr why ws ht n th chst wth 19 rnds.

vry ctn hs r-ctn. f th cps rlly jst wntd t kll hm, thy wld hv sht hm, nd thn jst plntd gn n hm. knw lts f cps; tht sn't t f th rdnry. Trbl ws, thy rlly thght thy jst sht srl rpst.

Bt gss th mtnl sd f t mks fr bttr nws. "Mn gnrd cps, s dd" sn't grt hdln.

She should never apologize.
She should sue for damages and demand an apology.
There is no excuse for the stupidity she had to endure.

To those who responded, I accept your charges of "idiot". I should have paid closer attention to the story. I didn't watch the video and I haven't read about teh situation since it first came to light oh so many moons ago.

The fact still stands that Star bought her own situation.

Is all this security theatre wrong? Yep. Abuse of power, unnecessary use of force, overblown responses? Yep. Doesn't change that fact that the situation is what it is (even if we feel it is wrong) and she either knowingly walked into it, or she lacks some serious judgement.

My bad for saying she tried to board a plane. She didn't. But she did walk in to an airport with an unidentifiable electronic device attached to her hoodie. It doesn't take a degree in engineering from MIT to know that might not be the best idea.

She's not "just a kid" as many people have stated. She's 19 years old. A university student. We are expected to believe she didn't know any better? We're expected to believe she doesn't know what a rifle looks like?

Tone down the rhetoric for a moment people!

Star was not acting heroically by wearing that sweatshirt, nor was she acting idiotically. She was, quite simply, an engineering student at MIT wearing a craft project and waiting to meet a friend.

The resulting fallout was shameful. Instead of dropping the matter and politely warning people to try to avoid bringing any potentially misleading devices to an airport, the authorities decided to prioritize not losing face. That means real terror threats were not their priority. They wasted the valuable time of the criminal justice system persecuting someone WHO HAD COMMITTED NO CRIME.

Star, it's a shame you had to endure this and the unkind words of people who seem to have lost compassion for their fellow Americans. But you seem like a very bright and resilient individual. Good luck out there in this crazy world!

Basically what it comes down to is this. A girl who did absolutely nothing wrong by the letter of the law. And whose inalienable rights are protected under the constitution...

Was convicted of nothing. Forced to apologize for nothing. And do community service... for nothing.

Then to top it all off was harassed.

That's about as unamerican as it gets folks. And the people responsible for it should all be brought to justice.