backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 148 comment(s) - last by Ajax9000.. on Oct 8 at 8:22 PM

Here's a picture of the sweatshirt that Simpson was wearing, including the "suspected explosive device."  (Source: CNN.com)
A valuable lesson can be learned here -- don't wear electronics to airports unless you want to be jailed

Think your Friday was bad?  Well, you should listen to the story of 19 year-old MIT student Star Simpson's eventful Friday at the Logan Airport.

Star Simpson was arrested by police who mistook a piece of tech-art for an improvised explosive device.

Simpson entered the airport wearing a black hooded sweatshirt with a light beige circuit board mounted to the front.  The circuit board featured wires, green leds, and a battery.  Friends of Simpson say the shirt was a homemade tech-art statement and that she frequently wore the shirt.  According to Simpson's friends, she was headed to the airport to pick up a friend before 8 a.m..

Another one of her friends adds:
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."
Well someone else certainly became very worried about what she was wearing.  Simpson approached an airport employee and inquired about the 8:00 a.m.  incoming flight from Oakland.  At the time she was also holding a putty-like substance that was later determined to be playdough.  When the employee asked about the device on her shirt, she responded that it was art and walked away.

Outside the terminal she was surrounded by police holding machine guns.  They told her to stop, raise her hands, and make no movements, so they could see if she was "trying to trigger the device".  Simpson obeyed the orders and was subsequently arrested.  Police quickly realized that the device she had been wearing was entirely harmless.

Simpson was charged with possessing a hoax device and disorderly conduct.  She was arraigned at the East Boston Municipal Court. She was later released on $750 cash bail and ordered to return to court October 29.

Major Scott Pare of the state police felt that Simpson was lucky that the police had not used deadly force.  He had this to say of the incident:
"Thankfully because she followed our instructions, she ended up in our cell instead of a morgue," Pare said. "Again, this is a serious offense ... I’m shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport."

Simpson lists the following self-description on her website -- the website seems to be either down or to have too much traffic:
"In a sentence, I'm an inventor, artist, engineer, and student, I love to build things and I love crazy ideas."
According to police, Simpson never did fully explain why she had brought the playdough to the airport.

The incident is a warning to those who might wear LED shirts or other blinking electronic devices into the airport--you will likely get arrested at gunpoint.  For now, Simpson is likely wishing all the unwanted legal attention will blow over, so she can get back to what she does best ... inventing.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Mooninite 2.0
By ChoadNamath on 9/24/2007 10:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'm glad to see that the Boston authorities learned a lesson from the Mooninite "bombs" in January. Oh wait, here they are again talking tough ("Thankfully because she followed our instructions, she ended up in our cell instead of a morgue") when they should be trying to downplay an incident that makes them look bad. It's amazing how a city that is so well-known for its level of education is served by such morons.




RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mooninite 2.0
By masher2 (blog) on 9/24/2007 10:55:12 AM , Rating: 5
I do love the opportunity to disagree with TomZ...it happens so rarely.

You're forgetting one important factor here. This sweatshirt wasn't the only part of the picture. The woman was also holding a large block of play-doh, a substance which (assuming she chose a neutral color) identical on sight to many plastic explosives.

Plastique-like material...wires...a battery. All the components needed for a bomb. I don't want to get into the issue of whether or not the police used inappropriate force, but this student clearly intended a bomb facsimile.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 11:25:01 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you think it is strange that the police didn't show the play-doh? I searched through tons of articles and I couldn't even find a single picture of the play-doh. Maybe the police made a "mistake" in saying that she had play-doh.

I'll agree with you that, if she had a clump of play-doh in her hand, that's pretty suspicious. But if it was just the circuit board, then the police clearly overreacted.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By arazok on 9/24/2007 11:59:27 AM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, but even without the play-doh, walking around an airport with a contraption like that on your shirt is begging for trouble.

Everybody knows these are locations where security is hyper sensitive to anything even remotely suspicious. They don't take any chances, and everyone knows it. I'm not sure that charges are appropriate in this case (they are if she did have play-doh in her hand), but certainly taking the person in for questioning isn't out of line.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 2:17:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but certainly taking the person in for questioning isn't out of line

I agree, which is what they should have done, but they didn't. They hauled her away at gunpoint and charged her with multiple felonies and are continuing to prosecute her.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By arazok on 9/24/2007 3:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
If the play-doh allegations are true, then I would say that felony charges and an armed takedown are warranted.

Any one of the pieces by itself I could understand not pressing charges (the gadget, or the play-doh in hand). Put together, and you have either a very stupid person, or somebody willingly testing the alertness of authorities. I question if this person was truly surprised that she got arrested with that combo.

Who walks around with a bomb looking gadget strapped to them and then feels compelled to play with a ball play-doh at the same time???


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Micronite on 9/24/2007 4:49:39 PM , Rating: 3
I say regardless of play-doh, they did the right thing.
I'm trying to determine what I would do if I saw that contraption on her chest:
Hmmm... let's see, oh, you have an op-amp here, an LED controller here, a few wires here, caps, resistors... Ah must be a piece of art. Very nice.
Yeah right! Sorry, I'm EE and even I wouldn't do that.

Suppose it was a terrorist. Then gunpoint would have been completely accpetable. Should we drop the charges because it may have been a mistake? Think what this exercise cost taxpayers? Should they not have responded this way because she said it was "art"? The public should not have to pay for her oblivion.

The way I see it, there are two possible outcomes...
1) The girl gets charged, fined, and everyone realizes that you shouldn't bring something that looks like it could be a bomb to the airport. (Duh!)
or...
2) The girl gets them to drop the charges, the police get lax in security for fear of another embarrassing situation.

Think about it, which would you prefer?


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Alexvrb on 9/24/2007 6:30:51 PM , Rating: 4
You sir, are a naive fool. Explain to me exactly what a bomb looks like. A stuffed teddy bear can be an explosive device. Do you know what substance they use to simulate plastic explosives, due to its texture and appearance? Play Doh. She had something that looked like a plastic explosive, and a battery capable of detonating said material.

Also keep in mind this airport has not been devoid of previous incidents. Think back... you'll remember who else has been to this airport and WASN'T CAUGHT.

What's your next excuse? She was a harmless girl? She could have been a brain washed cultist for all you know.

I've lost a lot of respect for you today, sir.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 7:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think the police made up the play-doh bit. They mentioned it "in passing" in the press conference on Friday, but they never showed it or released any photographs of it AFAIK. I also was not able to find the criminal complaint or any other official documentation which is usually released to the media for high-profile cases.

This would be a convenient way to dupe the public into adopting the attitude that you have regarding this case.

To me, I find it hard to believe that a sophmore at MIT Engineering would, just for the heck of it, make a fake bomb and wear it to the airport while picking up her boyfriend. Something stinks about that story - it doesn't seem plausible, and I'm guessing it was a naive mistake she made which drew an overreaction by the police, who then felt it necessary to "embellish" the story a bit to cover their butts.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Oregonian2 on 9/24/2007 9:57:34 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, authorities shouldn't be allowed to do anything unless explosions actually happen and at least a minimum of five people are dead. Only THEN can they do anything (but of course will be blamed for something happening).

The only solution is one of those things that turns back time with everybody still remembering what happened the first time so that only those who actually will successfully blow folk up are grabbed (and even then probably will be accused of violating rights if the first time-path isn't able to be recorded and/or be lawfully enterable into court actions).


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By kyp275 on 9/24/2007 11:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have no idea what a real bomb looks like, but I don't think it's a plastic board with a 9-volt battery on it.


If you have no idea what a real bomb looks like, then how can you say something "doesn't" look like a bomb? :rolleyes:


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By elgoliath on 9/24/2007 5:32:57 PM , Rating: 5
I would prefer they surround her, even take her in for questioning if deemed necessary, and then drop it when it is known that it was not a bomb. Continuing to prosecute after it is known that it was just a piece of art is ridiculous imo. I think it is time that some common sense was brought back into play.

To answer your question: Yes, we should drop charges because it was a mistake.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Screwballl on 9/24/2007 10:15:58 PM , Rating: 3
agreed... Thats what I was wondering, how the hell are they getting away with continuing to press charges for something that she is not guilty of.
Now if she pulled a stunt like that moron that questioned Kerry then I can see disorderly conduct but she cooperated every second with the police and the device was found to be exactly what it was and what she said it was, ART.
As for the playdoh, theres only a few mentions of it, no evidence, no further information. It could have been one of those stress squeezy things. Some crap is just taken way out of proportion. If they do continue to press charges, she should have the right to counter sue for false arrest and whatever else they can find they did wrong.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By elgoliath on 9/24/2007 5:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
Also, what exactly DID this cost tax payer? Not saying it didn't, I don't know for sure, but it would seem that regardless of whether she did what she did, these same people and resources are being paid for anyhow.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By elgoliath on 9/24/2007 6:07:48 PM , Rating: 3
One last point regarding how much money was wasted by her actions, I'd bet it is far less money than it is going to cost to prosecute...


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Grast on 9/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Mooninite 2.0
By ebakke on 9/24/2007 8:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
I wish I could slap you.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Flunk on 10/2/2007 9:59:00 AM , Rating: 1
Are you advocating racial profiling? I think this is the single most offensive thing I have ever read on Dailytech. It's prejudice like this that causes a lot of these problems in the first place.

How can you tell who is a terrorist? Certainly not by looking at them!


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Christopher1 on 9/24/2007 5:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
Felony charges are NOT warranted in this case. Think about it, idiots out there who support this: someone who is coming in with a bomb strapped to their body, intending on killing a bunch of people is NOT going to make it that obvious!
They are going to want to hide the bomb behind clothing, coats, etc........ not have it out in the open!

We need to realize that by the police doing stupid things like this, and more importantly that airline worker even bothered to call the police when any 2 year old could tell this was not a bomb........ it just totally UNDERMINES the airline security and makes it seem like our airline security people are total nutjobs.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By ebakke on 9/24/2007 8:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
If everyone assumes a real bomb will be disguised, and openly visible bombs are fakes, it won't take long before someone carries around a real one and says "oh, it's just art." ......BOOM


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By elgoliath on 9/24/2007 8:26:02 PM , Rating: 3
According to that logic people should have to be nude to go to the airport or ride on a plane (and even that may not be enough). A bomb can be hidden anywhere in anything.

The point is that a 'terrorist' is not going to be wearing it on the outside of their shirt, no if ands or buts about it. The airport was right in stopping her (something a 'terrorist' doesn't want); they were right in calling the cop's even (better safe than sorry); what is not right is everything that happened after the police were called.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 8:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's irrelevant anyway, since anybody could walk into an airport (or anywhere else for that matter) with a bomb in their backpack and noboby would have any clue. Any security which depends on visual identification of a bomb in that way is inherently flawed, right?

And this situation is also a gentle reminder that we don't have much "real" security at airports anyway. If someone is dedicated to kill others and damage property, it would be pretty easy to do. And I personally don't believe I want to always live in fear of this type of event. The percentage odds of being killed by a terrorist is probably less than 1 in a million. You're more likely to be killed in a car accident on the way to the airport.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By 16nm on 9/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Mooninite 2.0
By masher2 (blog) on 9/24/2007 12:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "National news did not even mention this Play Doh I bet because its existence is questionable."

On the contrary, nearly every national news service did mention the Play-doh, including the very AP wire story you yourself quoted. Here's a link to CNN's mention of it:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/21/bomb.hoax/index.h...


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By 16nm on 9/24/2007 2:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, sorry, the national TV news, specifically, NBC Nightly News and Today Show. I wonder why they would have omitted this information. Also, why does the media not seem to know the color of the play-doh. I bet if it was an off white color then the media would have known about it. I am always suspicious when details are lacking. I am willing to bet that the play-doh was a bright color typical of a child's toy.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By MercenaryForHire on 9/24/2007 2:50:38 PM , Rating: 4
So mixing in a little lime green food colouring with my plastique makes it perfectly okay to bring into an airport?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but I can't see a bill - I'll still put money on it being a duck rather than a goose with a speech impediment.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By 16nm on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mooninite 2.0
By MercenaryForHire on 9/24/2007 3:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, and have your kid carry it. No one will suspect a thing. Or just shape it like a Snickers bar and seal it in a Snickers wrapper and you're set. Do you see how rediculous this can get? There are detection technologies that overcome all of this.


Now you're into the argument of the effectiveness of airport security, which is a related, but still different, kettle of fish. If the objective was to get the explosive on a plane, then yes, detection devices would work - if the objective was to detonate it prior to or entering the secured area, it wouldn't.

quote:
The police over-reacted, but it is understandable. The idea of prosecution, in my opinion, is a violation of her constitutional rights. She should be cleared and she should sue the hell out of the police dept. for false arrest when this is over.


Ah, the lawsuit defense. Makes me just want to weep tears of red, white, and blue every time it's mentioned. The arrest itself wasn't made under false pretenses.

quote:
Say what?


The "looks like a duck" saying had better not be new to you, or I'm going to feel really old.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By 16nm on 9/24/2007 3:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if the objective was to detonate it prior to or entering the secured area


What does that matter? What would then be the difference of detonating it there or in a store or square?

quote:
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but I can't see a bill - I'll still put money on it being a duck rather than a goose with a speech impediment.

The "looks like a duck" saying had better not be new to you, or I'm going to feel really old.


Since when do geese and ducks look the same? Your point is lost.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By MercenaryForHire on 9/24/2007 3:46:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What does that matter? What would then be the difference of detonating it there or in a store or square?


I fail to see what this has to do with your original argument.

quote:
Since when do geese and ducks look the same? Your point is lost.


It's not lost - it's just flying clear over your head.

You see a bird waddling across the street at a distance. It's not clear what it is. Suddenly, a quack originated from it. The bird is most likely:

A: A duck
B: A goose
C: Delicious


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By 16nm on 9/24/2007 4:31:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I fail to see


and i'm not surprised. you should be ashamed that you can not keep up with the argument and that i have to explain it for you.

your argument is that she should have known that her art sweater would provoke this situation. you say that a bomber could access the airport's unsecured area, a place with potentially numerous casualties. I say that that argument does not make sense. A bomber could access any of a number of public places and that this seems to imply that the woman could not wear her art sweater anywhere. Not to a music festival. Not to a football game. Not to a farmer's market. And so on... No freedom of expression for Star Simpson. Our constitution gives her the right to wear it. Our legal system is trying to ignore that right.

Besides, let us be honest here. I saw the "explosive" device (pun intended) on the television and I must say that only an absolute fool would think it's a bomb. Compare the socket board to the 9v Duracell battery. It is very thin and flush with the sweater it is mounted to. It seems so silly to me that a trained security personnel would see this young woman walking around with that on her sweater and conclude that she was a bomb. And ask yourself, would a bomber not want to conceal the bomb? This very young woman obviously has very poor taste to walk around with that silly looking device glued to her, but in America, she is supposed to have the freedom to do so.

Here is a picture of it:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/09/22/my-courageous-...


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By 16nm on 9/24/2007 4:35:35 PM , Rating: 1
I should add that what a policeman should have done was walk up to her and tell her that at first glance she appears to be wearing a bomb and that while she is at the airport she should remove it. Yes, should not HAVE TO remove it but it would seem like a resonable request and probably any reaonable person would oblige. They should not have shown up with guns blazing. Very poor judgement on their part. A simple situation turned on its head.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By bhieb on 9/24/2007 5:24:56 PM , Rating: 1
The police did not get a close look at the device. More than likely the person she talked to at the counter (one not trained in EE and bomb identification such as yourself) was concerned and called the cops. They err on the side of caution and show up "guns a blazing" as they should.

Should they prosecute? On the surface no. But (and this is pure speculation on my end), she is an "art" person and as a group they are out to make a "statement". I imagine she was questioned and did not play ball, so they took her in. I also think she did it knowing full well what it could be mistaken for, just to make her "statement". Just like most liberal "art" people she wanted to test the bounds of free speech, and guess what if it can invoke public panic you cannot do it. We will find out when she actually goes to trial, but my guess is she planned this to see what would happen. I am sure she bragged to some friend about how if she wants to wear her "art" to the airport there is nothing "the man" can do about it. If so throw the book at her, if not let her off and be done with it.

But for goodness sake quit blaming the cops for responding as they should. Afterall they are not the ones to apply guilt that is up to the trial. They had a person that did break several laws, and they arrested her accordingly. Whether she meant to is still unknown.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mooninite 2.0
By bhieb on 9/24/2007 5:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
Correct after a couple of minutes, but it is a little late not to come "guns a blazin" after the fact (even if it is only a couple of minutes).

The only act of excess was procecuting her, and the cops felt she knew better so they arrested her. That is all they can do, if in doubt they have to. You act like they sentenced her right then and there. They made a call that this girl's story was not quite right so they took her in. It is not their job to determine her guilt that is up to the trial (or at least the DA that questioned her later that day), but in a case with this much grey area they cops should have arrested her and let the process determine her guilt.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By 16nm on 9/24/2007 6:42:55 PM , Rating: 1
Dang it I hate to reply...

quote:
The police did not get a close look at the device.


This quote is from the article above:
quote:
Police quickly realized that the device she had been wearing was entirely harmless.


In my opinion, the police handled this situation VERY poorly and have egg on their face as a result. Oh, and ofcourse they have presented a case to the prosecutor that he simply must prosecute.

quote:
They had a person that did break several laws, and they arrested her accordingly.


"They had a person that they thought broke several laws, and they arrested her accordingly."

Another way to look at this is:
Before 9/11/01, which laws would she have broken?

Really, this is not about this one MIT student. Like you speculated about, she may have planned this as a hoax. But, this or similar situation like this could occur and I think we should examine what went wrong and correct it from ever happening again. I can imagine myself carrying one of my child's video games w/tape around it holding the batteries in place through an airport and being mowed down gangster style by police convinced the batteries were explosive cells attached to a cellphone. Last week, this would have seemed rediculous. Now, it seems possible. It's disappointing that so many posters can only take this story at face value and cannot see its greater implications. The fight on terror seems to be getting a little out of hand. I think it needs to be reigned in. The way to stop an airport bomber is not to catch him when he is at the airport. By then it is too late. If this student were a bomber, she would have detonated killing the police and surrounding people. Instead, she almost got shot. An innocent person not breaking any laws. We caught an innocent MIT student!! Woo-hoo! Now we are safe!! The fight on terror really has gotten the better of us.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By bodar on 9/24/2007 7:41:38 PM , Rating: 1
"...innocent person not breaking any laws"?

She intentionally went to an airport with a device she clearly meant to look like a bomb. If that isn't a hoax, then what is? The police could not tell her intentions or state of mind when they confronted her at gunpoint. Just because someone isn't a religious extremist, doesn't mean they are just run-of-the-mill crazy.

If there is no penalty for creating a bomb hoax or sending someone a letter full of baby powder, then there is no deterrent. The police did not shoot her because she complied with their orders, which were not out of line considering the circumstances. You gave an example about about getting shot down by crazed airport police for having a taped-up Gameboy. That's a valid concern, and hopefully the police would show the same restraint they did here. However, intent would be the difference regarding charges. If the DA can prove that she MEANT for the device to be mistaken for a bomb -- which given her propensity for "zany ideas" and the whole Playdough bit, it should be a slam-dunk here -- then she should be found guilty of creating a bomb hoax. Clearly your hypothetical GameBoy was not intended to incite a panic.

I am liberal myself, and the war on terror is a beast all its own but this is just straight-up Monday morning quarterbacking. For a smart person, she shows little common sense.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 7:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
She intentionally went to an airport with a device she clearly meant to look like a bomb.

Huh? How did you know that? How about "innocent until proven guilty"? Or are police press releases enough information for you to convict on its own? Because after all, the police never make any mistakes...!

Don't give me that "liberal myself" crap. Think about what you're saying!


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By bodar on 9/24/2007 8:58:02 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry, I guess PCB + battery + putty-like-substance = toaster oven to you at first glance? The cops, not being engineers (because then they wouldn't be cops), treated like it was actually a bomb. End-result? Nobody got hurt, and she's still lives to be a moron. Notice that I said "IF the DA can prove" intent, which implies that there is a trial involved.

What reasonable person carries around Playdough just for kicks? Should I be treated any differently for walking into a government building carrying a garbage-disposal unit with a timer attached? "What, it's not a bomb. I just like to do my garbage-disposing at scheduled times."

Assuming that the facts are true -- which all we have to go on really -- one could make a strong case for a bomb hoax. Obviously, even a jury would have to look at all the evidence combined and figure out who they believe. I am making a judgment based on what I'm presented. How is that different? Are you saying that the article is somehow biased and does not present both sides fairly? My opinion is not going to send her to jail. Maybe I'm just tired of the lack of personal accountability in this country, I don't know.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By bhieb on 9/25/2007 9:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
We don't know it was intentional, neither do you know it was not. And guess what Tom neither did the cops!!!! THAT IS WHY THEY ARRESTED HER!

They did not know one way or another (barring her word), what her intent was. Yes shortly after they saw the device they knew it was not a bomb, but they still did not know if she did this as a hoax. THEY HAVE TO ARREST HER! How hard is that to understand, if in doubt it is not the cops who make the judgement.

Again hours later after waiting to be booked, and the DA came and asked some questions. More than likely they got the impression it was a hoax and decided to procecute, I was not in the room so I don't know what made the DA decide that. But for the 100th time IT WAS NOT THE COPS that acted excessively.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By bhieb on 9/25/2007 9:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
Dang I just have to reply too.

quote:
We caught an innocent MIT student!!


If it was intentional (and there is no way to know either way without the arrest that you think is not necessary), then she is not innocent. And it does not matter what the device looked like, it was odd enought that someone thought to call the cops. That by itself means to the general public it could be considered a bomb.

(from other post)
We don't know it was intentional, neither do you know it was not. And guess what neither did the cops!!!! THAT IS WHY THEY ARRESTED HER!

They did not know one way or another (barring her word), what her intent was. Yes shortly after they saw the device they knew it was not a bomb, but they still did not know if she did this as a hoax. THEY HAVE TO ARREST HER! How hard is that to understand, if in doubt it is not the cops who make the judgement.

Again hours later after waiting to be booked, and the DA came and asked some questions. More than likely they got the impression it was a hoax and decided to procecute, I was not in the room so I don't know what made the DA decide that. But for the 100th time IT WAS NOT THE COPS that acted excessively.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Eris23007 on 9/24/2007 5:28:03 PM , Rating: 1
For what its worth: the civil liberties defense is pretty weak in this case. The Supreme Court has clearly delineated that such actions as walking into a crowded theatre and yelling "FIRE!" is not considered free speech.

This action, walking into a crowded airport wearing something that can easily be mistaken by non-techies as a bomb or IED (as demonstrated by the mooninites incident!), is not going to win a free-speech case.

That said, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the girl. A 19-year old who has gown up in an intensively technical environment very well may not have sufficient common sense to see that perspective. If I were the prosecutor, I would probably push for a "community service" oriented sentence.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By ebakke on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Eris23007 on 10/4/2007 8:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, no. I've known enough intensely technical people to cease being shocked by the absence of common sense, and more simply feel sympathy for them...


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2007 3:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
Of course they omit certain information that makes this person look guilty.

If you havent noticed, pretty much all those news channels except for Fox News are highly liberal. They want to make the political figures - in this case, the cops - looks like idiots just like they tried to do for that person who went crazy at the John Kerry rally.

The person at the John Kerry rally got what he deserved. You need to act accordingly when in the presence of major political frigures - especially with what has happened the past few years with national security. If you act like an idiot, then you deserve to be make to look like an idiot.

In this case, the MIT person wore something that resembled a BOMB. No one knows that its only playdough and an electronic device for lights. Cmon people, dont be stupid and cry brute force or defend this person. This person was a complete moron. If they went to MIT, they should obviously know better than to wear that at an airport. Christ, you cannot even SAY the word bomb around an airport - what makes you think you can wear something that may resemble a bomb to a normal person INSIDE of an airport?

Wake up people.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Sunrise089 on 9/24/2007 5:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
NOTE: Self-professed libertarian speaking here.

This has nothing to do with the news media's political slant. This has to do with the fact that the news media thinks it generates higher ratings to show "that's outrageous" type stories than the nuts-and-bolts sort of cases that make our criminal justice system (mostly) work. In other words, if armed terrorists had gotten in a shoot out with security at the airport, you can bet that whatever slant airport security as a whole had received, the police would have been glorified.

In the same vein, for small stuff, the media almost always wants to portray the police as overly harsh, and make the (note: young and female) defendant into a victim. Hence we get very selective terminology - she was "surrounded" by "machine gun" wielding officers, while she was expressing her "art" and carrying play-dough (with no mention at all of the similarity to plastic-explosive, perhaps the single most relevant fact here.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2007 5:47:28 PM , Rating: 1
So your saying that the news media is not a liberal media, and that it is not used as liberal propaganda?

Cmon man.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By ebakke on 9/24/2007 8:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't say that at all. He said the liberal bias (if you believe it to exist) doesn't come into play here.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By gradoman on 9/24/2007 1:16:54 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry, but we all know that in this day and age, we are all under greater scrutiny for anything that MIGHT be suspicious; I must ask, is the art worth your life? Couldn't she have just taken her damn sweatshirt off, disassemble the circuit and board like a normal person?

Has she been living under a goddamn rock? How could she be so smart and yet so dumb?

I understand that it's sad that we live in this sorta world, but is it REALLY worth your life?


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By 16nm on 9/24/2007 2:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I must ask, is the art worth your life?


So now when we want to express ourselves, we must stop and consider if it may result in death? What happened to freedom of expression? Is it only for those who don't care to live? That sounds rediculous to me.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 3:00:19 PM , Rating: 1
This is exactly the purpose of the terrorists. Exactly. And if Americans accept this way of living in fear, then we have allowed the terrorists to accomplish their objective.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By MercenaryForHire on 9/24/2007 3:14:36 PM , Rating: 3
Equating a logical airport security procedure ("if you look like you're wearing a bomb, we're going to nail you") with the erosion of the First Amendment is absurd. If they had arrested her walking across the MIT campus, you might have a leg to stand on.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mooninite 2.0
By MercenaryForHire on 9/24/2007 3:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the thing in any way actually resembled a bomb, then you'd have a leg to stand on. I mean, did you see the picture?


See my postulate re: "tennis balls" below. It looks a lot more like a bomb than a Spaulding.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2007 3:55:31 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, and how many people out there have actually ever seen a real bomb? Not very many at all, so they have no idea what one really looks like. So the cops had every reason to do what they did.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 4:48:07 PM , Rating: 1
So in you view a plastic board with a 9-volt battery on it is what a bomb looks like?


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By kyp275 on 9/25/2007 12:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So in you view a plastic board with a 9-volt battery on it is what a bomb looks like?


to the general public whose experience with explosvies devices are likely limited only to what they've seen in movies, the answer is a resounding "yes". and TBH, that should be common-sense.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By 16nm on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mooninite 2.0
By gradoman on 9/24/2007 4:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
"When the employee asked about the device on her shirt, she responded that it was art and walked away."

You're going to tell me that this wouldn't cause a stir? How dumb!!


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 5:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
Hey gradoman, what's that red stuff on your shirt? It's not blood, is it?

Nah, it's ketchup (and walks off)

:o)


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By gradoman on 9/24/2007 6:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hahah,

The question is, is it banana or tomato ketchup?

I'm not sure I'd totally ignore the over-reacting security at the airport. I have made that mistake with the cops at my Aunt's house more than a decade ago and their hands were on their guns the moment I made that mistake -- of turning away from them.

I can't understand her reasoning -- going to the airport with her breadboard w/an array of LEDs for * and then turning away from the employee's questioning...?

You weren't asking for a bullet to the head, were you? :D Nor were you trying to appear suspicious, were ya?


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mooninite 2.0
By murphyslabrat on 9/24/2007 3:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So now when we want to express ourselves, we must stop and consider...

This is a responsibility that we do have. I cannot go around flipping people off, as this is a horribly offensive action. Even if that really was expressing myself, it is still a duty that I, as a citizen of the United States and freely speaking person, must fullfill.

Nonetheless, either she didn't think about it, or this was a social experiment. While the latter would be hilarious, the former is not a crime. What is the problem, however, is that the police just arrested an innocent person at the point of many automatic weapons ("machine-guns" was probably refering to SMG's or assault rifles), and they have to save face somehow. Apparently, that way is to protract the legal dealings, and emphasize the "disorderly conduct" line.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By 16nm on 9/24/2007 3:59:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is a responsibility that we do have. I cannot go around flipping people off, as this is a horribly offensive action. Even if that really was expressing myself, it is still a duty that I, as a citizen of the United States and freely speaking person, must fullfill.


Sure, and you can even go around killing people if you so choose however you will be spending some time in prison. So, while I understand the point you are trying to make, I do not see it. As far as I know, walking around flipping people off is illegal. There is nothing illegal about wearing electronic art. Nothing. To me, it's perfectly understandable that on Career Day at MIT, this young lady could put on her cheesy looking little art sweater w/circuit board and blinking LED's without even considering how it might be percieved at the airport later that day and only considering its perception at Career Day. This day was probably an event for her and she probably had her calendar marked. I don't think it would have been an ordinary day. Really, the prosecutors should be ashamed of themselves for not letting common sense prevail here. I can't believe our legal system is actually trying this woman. It is absurd.

quote:
and they have to save face somehow. Apparently, that way is to protract the legal dealings, and emphasize the "disorderly conduct" line


Believe me, it is very suspicious that we do not know the color of this play-doh. I must believe that it is some absurd color and the police do not want to look any more like the idiots they are on this issue. Our legal system must have a heck of a lot of free time to waste it on stuff like this.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By MercenaryForHire on 9/24/2007 4:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is nothing illegal about wearing electronic art. Nothing.


As is being clearly illustrated, you're quite wrong.

quote:
Believe me, it is very suspicious that we do not know the color of this play-doh. I must believe that it is some absurd color and the police do not want to look any more like the idiots they are on this issue. Our legal system must have a heck of a lot of free time to waste it on stuff like this.


See above re: the colour meaning nothing.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By 16nm on 9/24/2007 4:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...you're quite wrong.


You're quite the debater.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By kyp275 on 9/25/2007 12:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're quite the debater.


well, he is right :P


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By murphyslabrat on 9/27/2007 4:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, while I understand the point you are trying to make, I do not see it. As far as I know, walking around flipping people off is illegal. There is nothing illegal about wearing electronic art. Nothing.

The point is not in the relative legality, but in the acceptability of the action. My point is not that wearing electronic art is as bad as flipping people off, I am saying that the same principle applies: think about your audience.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By arazok on 9/24/2007 1:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
Did you have to quote the whole article?


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Samus on 9/25/2007 3:47:15 AM , Rating: 2
Do these moron's really think bomb's have blinking LED's in them. Jesus... I thought higher education was a requirement to be an officer?


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By 16nm on 9/25/2007 10:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
holding a large block of play-doh


What is your source on that? Her attorney understandibly has a different idea as to its size. I would just like to know who is claiming it was a "large block" of play-doh. Bet it's the police.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By tedrodai on 9/24/2007 10:45:48 AM , Rating: 3
I disagree completely. Bombs don't have to 'look' a certain way. How could you expect anyone to know exactly what that is the first time they see it? Security officials are paid to investigate suspicious-looking people/things (among other duties), and frankly, that piece of clothing is pretty suspicious-looking. The moron in this case is the student who walked into one of the more controlled and paranoid environments you'll find in any city with something that looks so strange attached to her sweater. Personally, I prefer the people that are supposed to protect my family and friends from wackos to assume the worst and be wrong rather than assume the best and be wrong.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not calling her a wacko for her art, or anything. I just feel it wasn't bright to walk into the airport with it--and I don't feel the response by authorities was inappropriate.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 10:52:54 AM , Rating: 1
I'll give you a clue - a person walking in with a bomb is going to conceal it - they're not going to be asking about arriving flights.

Also, she was not in the secure area of the airport.

Sure, I want my police to protect my family, too, but I also don't want the police to so overzealous they put my family in harm's way. The woman here is someone's daughter who could have been killed.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By jskirwin on 9/24/2007 11:35:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'll give you a clue - a person walking in with a bomb is going to conceal it - they're not going to be asking about arriving flights.


In all cases? How about a mentally ill person?

quote:
Also, she was not in the secure area of the airport.


I assume you mean the area between the gates and the TSA screening checkpoints. But to get to that area she would have had to have been screened, and no doubt subjected to some pretty rigorous examination - if not held at gunpoint.

Not just bombs but all kinds of attacks - grenades, shootings etc - have happened in airports. Most of these attacks (both pre and post 9-11) have occurred in non-secure areas of airports. For example, in July 2002 a man opened fire on the El-Al counter at LAX, killing 2 and wounding 4. In 1985 Palestinian terrorists shot up the El Al check-in counter in Rome, killing 18. Most recently, this past summer's Glasgow bombing occurred in a non-secure area of the airport.

And it's not just Middle Eastern looking men involved in attacks. Both the Red Army and Bahder-Meinhoff Gang used women in their attacks. A young Asian/Caucasian family would match profiles for both terror organizations.

Given the number and nature of threats, you cannot train police to look for particular items (e.g. bombs, guns) so you instead train them to look for the unusual. This is standard procedure for police - watch an episode of Cops! and you'll see that many criminals are arrested for acting unusual, or something they possess being out of place.

So I believe that you are making a fundamental error in your perception of how law enforcement operates.

quote:
Sure, I want my police to protect my family, too, but I also don't want the police to so overzealous they put my family in harm's way.

That's a pretty tough balancing act when you consider what the cops are up against. As other commenters have mentioned, Logan was used by al-Qaeda in the past.

It's easy to Monday-morning Quarterback this incident when you know the student's intent and exactly what she possessed. But if you imagine yourself on the scene with no information, would you have reacted any differently?

And what if she had been mentally unbalanced and listening to voices in her head telling her to blow up the American Airlines counter - and you had failed to act because you thought that what she was carrying was not a bomb - and it turned out to be one. Would you be able to live with yourself?


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Christopher1 on 9/24/2007 6:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Would you be able to live with yourself?


Answer: Yes, I would! I would be able to live with myself because I KNOW that even mentally disturbed people who are trying to blow up things are going to be more slick and hidden about it, coming straight from the FBI.

You are acting like a mentally disturbed person would be obvious about their mental illness: they are not usually, they look just a normal as you or me until you talk to them.
The 'gibbering to themselves' kind of mentally disturbed person is exceptionally rare, and are NOT DANGEROUS!


RE: Mooninite 2.0