Bomb Scare

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:33 am

Yeah, it could so totally have been a terrorist double bluff.

"I know, I'll try to smuggle a bomb into the airport by wearing it openly on my chest. They'll never suspect a thing."

If only terrorists *were* that stupid.

***

She was pretty stupid to wear it, but, seriously, all it would have taken in this instance was one security guy to sidle up next to her and say "you know, miss, that looks a bit suspicious from a distance, would you mind putting it in your bag so as not to scare the uneducated?"

But, as many blog-posts are shown, the airport security guys are too keen to flexing their pseudo-muscles and abuse their power. And that gos right from the top of the TSA all the way down to the (from management, all the way down to the "I wanted to be a cop but couldn't pass the exams" that goes out of his way to screw you around in the name of "security".

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/29/mo ... urrea.html

http://www.netstumbler.com/2007/09/18/m ... -airlines/

psycho_leo · Post by **psycho_leo** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:51 am

No no no. It' much better to just shoot peoploe for acting stupid.
Some people should really be careful with what they wish for.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:42 pm

Heh - we've already had one person shot in the uk for the gross crime of "looking a bit foreign whilst running to catch a train."

psycho_leo · Post by **psycho_leo** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:13 pm

Oh I'm sure that if she looked like a arab person she'd be shot without so much as a warning.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:34 pm

What she has in the way of smarts, she makes up for stylishly with the sheer lack of common sense.

On a side note, some of you might recall the incident in London last year, right about this time of year at Heathrow Airport, where a group of terrorists were trying to smuggle materials in separate containers aboard trans Atlantic flights in an apparent attempt to create a bomb midflight. You might also recall that a number of very common and seeming harmless items were banned, like toothpaste, makeup (lipstick in particular IIRC), all liquids, and a variety of other things I can no longer recall.

Stacked against those kinds of insidious threats, any device put together with wires and flashing lights and play dough is surely an automatic red flag. It should be fairly obvious that most security personnel are not going to be experts in explosives. They're just looking for anything out of the ordinary and this most definitely is that.

psycho_leo · Post by **psycho_leo** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:46 pm

I don't think anybody questions her lack of common sense. It is after all rather stupid to waltz into an american airport with a device like that. What is being questioned though is the fact the ones resposible for insuring security lack the simply lack basic knowledge and training when it comes to dealing with this sort of situation. One would think that given the state of paranoia that's been installed, airport security would receive more training.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:09 pm

That has been a problem for some time now. Even audits by the TSA itself has revealed that airport security is still not where it needs to be. Having said that though, I don't know if it's possible or even practical to make everyone responsible for airport security, from baggage handlers to patrol officers, an expert on the subject of explosives. It's certainly impossible to expect that of ordinary citizens, any of whom may have caused a panic/scare at the airport after seeing this lady walking around with wires and flashing LEDs hanging around her neck. It's not hard in this day and age to evoke images of a suicide bomber strapped with explosives.

I think they're doing the right thing by prosecuting her. She's old enough that she ought to be thinking about others, not just herself. We can't on the one hand condemn the government for going too far while at the same time condemn law enforcement for thinking first and foremost about public safety. That is, after all, what opponents of intrusive governmental policies are hoping; that law enforcement can do it's job w/o the government threatening to take away our freedoms.

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:44 pm

Having said that though, I don't know if it's possible or even practical to make everyone responsible for airport security, from baggage handlers to patrol officers, an expert on the subject of explosives.

Who says they need to be expert? Minimal level of competence would be nice.

I think they're doing the right thing by prosecuting her.

You think prosecuting her for possessing a hoax device is doing the right thing? FFS, she'd being wearing it for several days.

Unless you want to argue that she's so smart she knew that the authorities would overreact to the point of threatening her life and prosecuting her, the charges are laughable.

Actually, if you want to make that argument, it's still laughable.

We can't on the one hand condemn the government for going too far while at the same time condemn law enforcement for thinking first and foremost about public safety. That is, after all, what opponents of intrusive governmental policies are hoping; that law enforcement can do it's job w/o the government threatening to take away our freedoms.

Is she not a member of the public?

Is being killed somehow not a violation of basic freedom?

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:51 pm

mxlm hates America and wants the Terrorists to Win.

Magonushi · Post by **Magonushi** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:51 pm

NESchampion wrote:Seriously, no one is that stupid as to wear wires and a bunch of other electronics into a god damn airport.

So you'd have no objection to the same things happening to you if you were carrying any of these items:

Cell phone
Cell phone charger (extra suspicious with all those wires)
Pocket Planner
Remote car key
iPod + earphones (lights, wires, buttons: that requires at least a warning shot)
Laser Pointer

Now granted this student probably wasn't acting with consideration for the intellectual caliber of the airport security guards, but I still think jumping straight to threats with MP5s is a bit excessive.

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:59 pm

Rusty, I thought we'd established that many months ago.

Hmm. Guess I need work on mah hatin' of teh Merka.

Post by **ayergo** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:21 pm

From what i read, she pretty clearly knew it looked like a bomb (even was playing with silly putty) at the time. I suspect she was just curious what would happen and was testing the system, being an MIT student and all. Ballsy move imo, i wonder what exactly she was testing.

fluffmonster · Post by **fluffmonster** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:28 pm

yeah, she provoked 'em. If I was security, I'd have given her the full bomb treatment even knowing it was just some props too. That job sucks, and there's no way I would take any shit.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:42 pm

mxlm wrote:Who says they need to be expert? Minimal level of competence would be nice.

That's what you already have. MINIMAL level of competence.

You think prosecuting her for possessing a hoax device is doing the right thing? FFS, she'd being wearing it for several days.

Unless you want to argue that she's so smart she knew that the authorities would overreact to the point of threatening her life and prosecuting her, the charges are laughable.

Actually, if you want to make that argument, it's still laughable.

If I were to make a judgment, it'd probably be that she did this intentionally for some obscure self gratifying purpose. But whatever her reasons were, she still has to make good decisions and she still needs to exercise good judgment in public. She clearly did neither. If someone asked you to wear that device around your neck and walk around in an airport, would you? You'd have to be living in a cave to believe that it wouldn't trigger a reaction. Yet another reminder of how uncommon common sense really is.

Slap her with a "that sure was stupid" fine and send her home. Lesson hopefully learned.

Is she not a member of the public?

She sure is, but what's your point? That she didn't scare herself? That she has the right to wear a flashing breadboard necklace in an airport?

Is being killed somehow not a violation of basic freedom?

It absolutely is. The trouble is, you're just thinking about this one individual. The airport security personnel are concerned with the lives of the entire public. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. Would *you* want to approach and pat down someone who you *thought* was wearing an explosive device?

If lives were not at stake, you surely wouldn't have seen this kind of reaction. You can't just overlook the context. I would be FAR more worried if she walked around the airport completely unmolested.

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:23 pm

If I were to make a judgment, it'd probably be that she did this intentionally for some obscure self gratifying purpose

I like the vagueness of this judgment. Care to be any more specific?

Anyway, aren't you a conservative? Since when do small-gov conservatives think that prosecution is a proper response to being stupid in public?

The charge is possessing a hoax device. It was not a fake bomb (remember the 'made for career day, worn in public for several days' bit?)

That's what you already have. MINIMAL level of competence.

We obviously define minimal differently. I'd describe what we have as incompetence.

She sure is, but what's your point? That she didn't scare herself? That she has the right to wear a flashing breadboard necklace in an airport?

My point is that she has the right not to be shot by government agents for, um, no crime at all.

And no, this isn't analogous to pulling something that easily be confused as a weapon on an officer, because, um, what she would could not be easily confused for a bomb.

Of course, it was. Because security was, and is, incompetent.

It absolutely is. The trouble is, you're just thinking about this one individual. The airport security personnel are concerned with the lives of the entire public. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. Would *you* want to approach and pat down someone who you *thought* was wearing an explosive device?

No, I'm not thinking about just her. I'm thinking about everyone. Our security is incompetent, and this is merely one example of that. They overreacted. They overreacted because they're incompetent.

They thought breadboard + LEDs + battery + tape + outside of shirt = bomb. That's...amazing. To put it mildly.

As for putting myself in their shoes, I have. So they didn't have proper training. That's not their failing, sure. But it's still a failing on their end, not on her end.

If lives were not at stake, you surely wouldn't have seen this kind of reaction. You can't just overlook the context. I would be FAR more worried if she walked around the airport completely unmolested.

As I've already said, there is such a thing as degrees. The proper response to 'that looks weird but is almost certainly non-threatening' is not 'don't move or I'll kill you'.

There are ways to approach such situations that don't involve coming *this* close to killing an innocent woman. Proper training would be a nice start.

If you can come up with an example of a terrorist wearing a bomb on the outside of his/her clothing, complete with flashing lights, maybe I'll start taking your argument seriously. Until then, you're arguing a position that is clearly untenable; 'the cops responded reasonably' can only be true if mistaking what she wore for a bomb was reasonable. It wasn't. It clearly wasn't.