I went with the "idiot" option because even if you don't agree with the overzealous security theatre that is today's airports, you'd have to be pretty dumb (or maybe not quite interfaced with reality) to think that doing something like this was anything other than a very bad idea.
I agree. I find the "terrists won't put LEDs on a real bomb dummass DUH" sentiment that some of my friends have expressed a rather cheap rationalization.
I could have been swayed away from "what an idiot" if she'd explained to the first person who asked that it was an art project, and taken it apart then.
I'd vote "... plonker" but "... idiot" will do -- not that one shouldn't be able to amble about with random things that could well look suspicious in some contexts, just that one shouldn't really be surprised if people then look upon them suspiciously.
It's not clear from the reports I've seen that she didn't try to explain. As for taking it apart, if someone thinks it's a bomb then "keep your hands where we can see them and don't touch the device" might be more reassuring. Schneier (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/09/woman_arrested.html) moves his position from "what was she thinking?" to "I now have complete sympathy for the student, and none for the police" as more reports come in. I think she was foolish not to anticipate the overreaction (or to use it for publicity having anticipated it), but that criminal charges for a bomb hoax are not the right reaction to a foolish art student.
Of course it's quite easy to imagine art projects that go kaboom at dramatic moments; I don't think "it's an art project" necessarily translates into "I am not a deranged lunatic". But I agree that it's not a bomb hoax.
In an era where one can't board a plane with a sealed 250ml carton of orange juice, wearing a circuit board with blinky lights and even wandering around the grounds of an airport is liable to get you dead.
Are actual IEDs likely to be this obvious to spot? Er... I very much doubt it.
Was it worth charging her, and leaving her with a criminal record? No, definitely not, once the 'device' had been determined to be safe, surely.
Is she lucky to be alive? Yes, probably. Particularly if she'd looked, say, more Middle Eastern.
“The employee asked about the plastic circuit board on her chest, and Simpson walked away without responding, Pare said” seems pretty clear. Does some other report contradict it?
"A Massachusetts Port Authority staffer manning an information booth in the terminal became suspicious when Simpson -- wearing the device -- approached to ask about an incoming flight, Pare said. She did not respond when the employee asked her about the device she was wearing, so the employee repeated the question, police said.
Simpson then said the device was artwork and left the counter and walked around the terminal area, causing some employees to leave the building in fear, police said."
This article (http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_264104114.html) does indicate that she was meeting a specific person, who does appear to have ended up in the right city.
...even if the latter article is the correct one, I think it's still perfectly reasonable to identify the device as described and depicted as a possible bomb.
Yet another stupid overreaction in the name of "security". By all means, give her a telling off and confiscate the device so it doesn't alarm any other weak-minded goons. But how does arresting and prosecuting her make us any safer? Answer: it makes us less secure because we have to worry about being arrested and prosecuted every time we travel by a security industry that seems to have escaped any form of democratic control.
A law-abiding colleague at work was complaining about how he had been stopped and searched by police on a train, and another colleague, who otherwise seems quite sensible, said, apparently in all seriousness, "This is the price we have to pay for our security."
The constant brainwashing from the "security" industry is clearly having the desired effect. Wake up, everyone!
Me too really, and I defo vote "idiot", but you did ask for contraditions.
Personally I think it was absolutely reasonable for an untrained member of staff on a counter to be worried about it and to call the trained guys. And it sounds like they did their job and quickly identified it as safe. I think prosecuting her for a hoax seems a bit much perhaps, but she probably did just cost the airport a lot of money and scared a lot of people, even if it was unintentional.
This case may make people who want to carry things that look like bombs in airports worry about being arrested, but frankly I'm not too unhappy about that.
You're happy because you can't right this minute imagine a circumstance in which you might want to transport something that might "look like a bomb" in the opinion of some idiot with a gun and a badge.
My colleague's backpack apparently "looked suspicious" to the police officer who searched him.
Stopping somebody at gunpoint for wearing a circuit board isn't? (Shouldn't airport security employees know the difference between a circuit board connected to an LED and battery, and explosives?)
I wouldn't expect to be able to wander around with a replica bomb (a theater prop, say) in broad daylight and not be challenged by the people whose job it is to stop bomb attacks. The same would have applied, say, ten years ago, although obviously I can't prove this.
I'd agree that over-sensitive security staff can be a problem, but I don't agree that they were being over-sensitive in this case.
To try to be utterly clear, I don't think this particular story is anything out of the ordinary. Obviously since we have stupid security everywhere these days, people who don't watch what they say and do and wear in public will get stomped on.
What I am complaining about is that people whom I thought were sane seem to be starting to think that this is an acceptable state of affairs. The frog doesn't know the water is boiling.
No, it isn't, it's extremely reassuring. You can wire stuff up in all sorts of different ways. If you stop someone who looks like they might be a problem, you can then find out whether they are. If you let them through, you might not get a chance to find out until it's too late.
Go and talk to some people who have lived under fascist rule, and then we can talk about what the word means some more.
There's a difference between stopping and questioning someone for wearing a name tag, and pulling a gun on them. Had she been a little slower to react, she might be dead. For wearing LEDs. The only difference I can see between someone getting a gun pulled on them for wearing a circuit board at an airport and terrorism is the number of people involved.
The structure of accountability for acts done in the course of that activity? That one is done as part of a job that society overwhelmingly considers necessary, and the other isn't? That one is done in response to risk analysis and the other is done on the basis of killing as many people as possible because you hate their society? That people who go to an airport do so on the implicit understanding that it will have security staff, whereas people who use aeroplanes and the tube don't do so on the implicit understanding that it will have terrorists?
Had she been a little slower to react, she might be dead. For wearing LEDs.
I'm not saying this is a sensible state of affairs, but I do think it's a good idea to be aware that pissing off people with guns (or people who have the power to invoke people with guns) can be dangerous. And I think it is stupid to not take into account that people are people, and hence easily pissed off and/or frightened.
Everything's stupid, but we typically design systems such that being stupid isn't life-threatening wherever possible, which is a principle that appears to be being eroded here.
Why is a known terrorist target a more likely place to find a terrorist than an unknown terrorist target?
Why is a person who's wearing something that looks like it might be a bomb more likely to be wearing a bomb than someone who isn't wearing anything that looks like it might be a bomb?
Stopping someone for wearing a PCB in the place where a terrorist attack happened once before is security theatre: anyone who thinks it's a good way to track down terrorists is deeply deluded; the only purpose is to make the public think you're tracking down terrorists.
That's just lazy.
They charged her with possessing a hoax device. Given that it seems plain her intention was not for anyone to think she had a bomb, and she didn't have a bomb, and no competent security professional would have thought she had a bomb, that doesn't seem to be reasonable grounds for arrest.
If that's an error on the part of individual officers, all well and good; if the system encourages (as I fear it does) the arresting of people without good evidence they've committed a crime, that's heading towards totalitarianism.
(Having said all that, the woman was silly to do what she did while Dubya was still in office.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-23 10:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-23 10:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-23 10:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-23 11:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 03:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 06:26 am (UTC)Schneier (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/09/woman_arrested.html) moves his position from "what was she thinking?" to "I now have complete sympathy for the student, and none for the police" as more reports come in.
I think she was foolish not to anticipate the overreaction (or to use it for publicity having anticipated it), but that criminal charges for a bomb hoax are not the right reaction to a foolish art student.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 07:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 08:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 08:35 am (UTC)In an era where one can't board a plane with a sealed 250ml carton of orange juice, wearing a circuit board with blinky lights and even wandering around the grounds of an airport is liable to get you dead.
Are actual IEDs likely to be this obvious to spot? Er... I very much doubt it.
Was it worth charging her, and leaving her with a criminal record? No, definitely not, once the 'device' had been determined to be safe, surely.
Is she lucky to be alive? Yes, probably. Particularly if she'd looked, say, more Middle Eastern.
Is this all insanely stupid? Absolutely.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 08:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 09:31 am (UTC)http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_264104114.html
Date: 2007-09-24 09:42 am (UTC)Simpson then said the device was artwork and left the counter and walked around the terminal area, causing some employees to leave the building in fear, police said."
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 09:43 am (UTC)Re: http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_264104114.html
Date: 2007-09-24 10:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 10:09 am (UTC)Re: http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_264104114.html
Date: 2007-09-24 10:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 10:20 am (UTC)A law-abiding colleague at work was complaining about how he had been stopped and searched by police on a train, and another colleague, who otherwise seems quite sensible, said, apparently in all seriousness, "This is the price we have to pay for our security."
The constant brainwashing from the "security" industry is clearly having the desired effect. Wake up, everyone!
Re: http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_264104114.html
Date: 2007-09-24 10:25 am (UTC)Personally I think it was absolutely reasonable for an untrained member of staff on a counter to be worried about it and to call the trained guys. And it sounds like they did their job and quickly identified it as safe. I think prosecuting her for a hoax seems a bit much perhaps, but she probably did just cost the airport a lot of money and scared a lot of people, even if it was unintentional.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 10:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 11:01 am (UTC)My colleague's backpack apparently "looked suspicious" to the police officer who searched him.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 11:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 12:19 pm (UTC)I wouldn't expect to be able to wander around with a replica bomb (a theater prop, say) in broad daylight and not be challenged by the people whose job it is to stop bomb attacks. The same would have applied, say, ten years ago, although obviously I can't prove this.
I'd agree that over-sensitive security staff can be a problem, but I don't agree that they were being over-sensitive in this case.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 12:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 12:44 pm (UTC)What I am complaining about is that people whom I thought were sane seem to be starting to think that this is an acceptable state of affairs. The frog doesn't know the water is boiling.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 12:46 pm (UTC)Go and talk to some people who have lived under fascist rule, and then we can talk about what the word means some more.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 12:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 01:06 pm (UTC)Just a few.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 01:15 pm (UTC)I'm not saying this is a sensible state of affairs, but I do think it's a good idea to be aware that pissing off people with guns (or people who have the power to invoke people with guns) can be dangerous. And I think it is stupid to not take into account that people are people, and hence easily pissed off and/or frightened.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 02:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 05:52 pm (UTC)Why is a person who's wearing something that looks like it might be a bomb more likely to be wearing a bomb than someone who isn't wearing anything that looks like it might be a bomb?
Stopping someone for wearing a PCB in the place where a terrorist attack happened once before is security theatre: anyone who thinks it's a good way to track down terrorists is deeply deluded; the only purpose is to make the public think you're tracking down terrorists.
That's just lazy.
They charged her with possessing a hoax device. Given that it seems plain her intention was not for anyone to think she had a bomb, and she didn't have a bomb, and no competent security professional would have thought she had a bomb, that doesn't seem to be reasonable grounds for arrest.
If that's an error on the part of individual officers, all well and good; if the system encourages (as I fear it does) the arresting of people without good evidence they've committed a crime, that's heading towards totalitarianism.
(Having said all that, the woman was silly to do what she did while Dubya was still in office.)