Boston overreacts again

[ParanoiA]

i would be fine with the origional situation if they hadn't accused her of a hoax suicide bomb afterwards. it was cleary just a misunderstanding.

 

I can't imagine why any sane person would want to set that precedent in the first place. I guess lawyers are lawyers and they'll pursue such ends regardless, but it's such an obvious step backwards in terms of freedom. Innocent people - as in all of them - will be punished.

[Severian]

If that's the case then fine, I'll shut up about it. But iNow, Severian, Cap'n, some others have implied as much. I see no issue with using our standard means of taking down a suspect.

 

I did say "if they had been sufficiently well trained then they would have realized that the breadboard wasn't a problem after a quick inspection". I probably wouldn't have confiscated it since it is relatively useless in making a bomb or using as a weapon, but it is fair enough to stop her and inspect it. (And when they are done inspecting it, a nice smile and a polite 'Sorry for bothering you ma'am".)

 

To be honest I am not sure where this thread can possibly go now. I know that I would not have mistaken the 'device' for a bomb, but I admit that it is an assumption that security personnel should also know that it wasn't a bomb. However, is it really too much to ask that they have enough training to make such a basic judgment?

[insane_alien]

what obvious purpose does it serve? i honestly can't see the point in wearing it. the closest thing to jewelery i wear is a watch. the watch lets me know what time it is. it has a purpose. what is the purpose of hanging things from the ears? seems quite pointless to me.

 

i think you are trying to go along the fashion line i told you not to go along. the bread board thing was fashionable(only in the subculture of MIT but the students are not restricted to campus). so to argue that the breadboard serves no purpose but then claim stuff like earings have a purpose is quite hypocritical and contradictory.

[DrDNA]

i would be fine with the origional situation if they hadn't accused her of a hoax suicide bomb afterwards. it was cleary just a misunderstanding.

 

 

She obviously isn't a retraded space alien. "We are strong. [MIT students] are smart." She could "make our spaceship go".

 

She was looking for a reaction of some sort, that much is clear, and she got one. Of course it was a little larger than what she originally bargined for.

 

A "misunderstanding"? That's too funny. Can you major in fashion at MIT?? If so, she's doomed.

 

After seeing a pic of her "circuit", if she's is a EE major, she's in big trouble too......no wait, on second thought that thing does look like something a retarded space alien might build.......(no offense to you InsaneA )

[insane_alien]

umm. i did not say she was majoring in it. i was merely suggesting that geek fashion does not coincide with 'normal' fashion. geeks like things with flashing lights. i know, i'm a geek.

 

also, just because she is doing a degree in EE doesn't mean everything she makes has to be incredibly complicated. engineers like the phrase 'keep it simple stupid'

 

also, enough with the ad hom. i do not appreciate being called retarded.

[Pangloss]

also, I thought the idea was Infiltrate Quietly without raising suspicion(s) to get into the Max Kill-Zone, and NOT to wear to harmless homemade LED Badge!

 

Right, which, if you had your way, would be by wearing a bunch of electronics gadgetry on the front of your shirt.

 

This whole thing reminds me of a hillarious Saturday Night Live "fake advertisement" sketch. I wish I could find the video for it, but they don't put all their skits online yet. It basically involved a husband meeting his wife at the airport, and she handed him a cool new product that's supposed to make it easier to keep track of all your different cellular telephones, blackberries, pagers, PDAs, etc etc etc. It was a utility vest covered with eletronics with all the wiring visible, and a great big hand-held red plunger button to control it all! The last shot was of the guy running through the airport trying to catch his airplane and hopping over a security checkpoint and all the guards were whipping out their guns. (hehe)

[YT2095]

I must admit, using Micro-pore tape to hold the wiring in place looks a bit slack and the needle work leaves much to be desired (I`d have Used White Cotton at least!).

 

Right, which, if you had your way, would be by wearing a bunch of electronics gadgetry on the front of your shirt.

 

oh good grief Grow UP!

 

you know damn well I`d wear a Starwars Storm-trooper outfit or a Battle Droid, and at least LOOK like I meant business!

[pcollins]

what obvious purpose does it serve? i honestly can't see the point in wearing it.

 

That's your look out. You can at least acknowledge that normal do.

 

umm. i did not say she was majoring in it. i was merely suggesting that geek fashion does not coincide with 'normal' fashion. geeks like things with flashing lights. i know, i'm a geek.

 

Then you should probably do something about that.

[DrDNA]

I must be getting old. I remember the "good ol days" when young ladies wore tight skirts or hot pants and low cut tops to get a reaction........

I hope that this doesn' t sound TOO sexist.......

[YT2095]

well I dunno, how old ARE you?

 

I also wore Geek Jewelery, I used to have a small Quartz window microchip as an earing, now I only wear a NIB magnet earing (holds tools and screws for me when my hands are full). but then again, I`m only 40.

[DrDNA]

Older than my teeth and as young as my gums.........

[ParanoiA]

Well this got interesting while I was at lunch I see.

 

Why is it that society has to be tolerant of your geek fashion statement but you don't have to be tolerant of their ignorance of it? People don't have to recognize your fashion statement, nor like it at all. Conversely, you don't require their approval to sport it. Neither you, nor society is required to understand each other.

 

You're only required to obey the laws of the land.

 

Sooooooo,

 

When we misinterpret your fashion statement - that's called being human. Of course, so is admitting that you made a mistake in suspecting a LED display for a bomb...

[bascule]

When we misinterpret your fashion statement - that's called being human. Of course, so is admitting that you made a mistake in suspecting a LED display for a bomb...

 

Yes, mistakes were made on both sides.

 

Now why is this going to trial?

[ParanoiA]

Yes, mistakes were made on both sides.

 

Now why is this going to trial?

 

I think it's because there is a body of thought driving this that this behavior was wrong. That this will spiral out of control and suddenly everyone is running around with hoax devices.

 

My thought, obviously, is who cares? Like so many have pointed out in here, if anything can be bomb, then essentially everyone IS running around with hoax devices already.

[bascule]

I think it's because there is a body of thought driving this that this behavior was wrong. That this will spiral out of control and suddenly everyone is running around with hoax devices.

 

That would be a slippery slope fallacy.

[fattyjwoods]

I mean the customs or whatever did the right thing but they should of let the guy go afterwards cause after 9/11 no-one knows what Osama is up to.

[DrDNA]

I mean the customs or whatever did the right thing but they should of let the guy go afterwards cause after 9/11 no-one knows what Osama is up to.

 

"Customs"?

"Guy"?

Read.

http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_264104114.html

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A judge would make an appeal to popularity.

You are simply deferring the answer to my question as long as possible, or at least being intentionally obtuse.

 

There will, at some point in the decision chain, be some person or group of persons who cannot just ask someone else for their opinion on the subject. How will they decide?

 

No reasonable, serious person has taken issue has taken issue with it.

That does not make it intrinsically right.

 

For a solipsist, this is true.

And would you care to establish any specific case in which it is not true?

 

What's the difference?

In one case a person finds it reasonable and in the other case that person may not.

 

It enters when we enter the regime of consistently denying the common consensus about basic matters of fact and value.

I was not aware that most people ever entered a common consensus about values.

 

And frankly "the common consensus" does not mean "everyone," and my point was that you cannot get everyone to agree on value issues. Your argument is irrelevant.

[pcollins]

You are simply deferring the answer to my question as long as possible, or at least being intentionally obtuse.

 

I'm assuming you don't want to go down the road towards solipsism. Consider this the least idiotic path this tangent may follow.

 

There will, at some point in the decision chain, be some person or group of persons who cannot just ask someone else for their opinion on the subject. How will they decide?

 

Presumably they'd consult their conscience.

 

That does not make it intrinsically right.

 

What in this life is intrinsically right?

 

And would you care to establish any specific case in which it is not true?

 

Easy. In the case of a man who rejects solipsism.

 

In one case a person finds it reasonable and in the other case that person may not.

 

So why should we be concerned with the latter?

 

I was not aware that most people ever entered a common consensus about values.

 

This is not surprising.

 

And frankly "the common consensus" does not mean "everyone," and my point was that you cannot get everyone to agree on value issues.

 

I'm definitely not considering the insane, so why would you think that I'm trying to reach "everyone" in the strictest sense of the term?

 

Your argument is irrelevant.

 

How so?

[DrDNA]

Quote:

"Most fake bombs missed by screeners

75% not detected at LAX; 60% at O'Hare

By Thomas Frank

USA TODAY

 

WASHINGTON — Security screeners at two of the nation's busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY.

 

Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows.

 

At Chicago O'Hare International Airport, screeners missed about 60% of hidden bomb materials that were packed in everyday carry-ons — including toiletry kits, briefcases and CD players. San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows. The TSA ran about 70 tests at Los Angeles, 75 at Chicago and 145 at San Francisco.

"

...

....

"Tests earlier in 2002 showed screeners missing 60% of fake bombs. In the late 1990s, tests showed that screeners missed about 40% of fake bombs, according to a separate report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

 

The recent TSA report says San Francisco screeners face constant covert tests and are "more suspicious."

""

End Quote.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20071018/1a_lede18_dom.art.htm

[Tiger's Eye]

The issue isn't so much what she was wearing. I think all of us here would agree that it's a stupid thing to go into an airport wearing a wired up sweatshirt with a battery, but the issue is how the security personnel reacted. All of this control and zero tolerance in the name of public safety just smells wrong.

 

If you read the first article linked in the OP, you'll see that the authorities were stating just "how lucky she is" that they didn't put a bullet in her skull.

 

Really? Has the baggage claim area become that much of a war zone that we need to shoot people? You'd better not flip someone off in the Starbucks line or your ass could get tazered.

 

There's a lot of tense people at the airport counters, people late for planes, headed to stressful meetings, light on sleep and food... who are all already in bad moods. Are they lucky too that they didn't get bullets in their skull? At what point have we gone too far? At what point do we realize that we're headed in the wrong direction and change course?

 

Of course the security personnel at airports have a tough job. Of course not all of them know what is and is not a bomb. This is part of the problem.

 

However, to escalate so quickly from "that's pretty strange, we should go check it out" all the way to "you're lucky we didn't put a bullet in your skull" seems to skip a few intelligent steps, and illustrates just how far the "force in the name of protection" has already gone.

 

I want to be safe. I want others to be safe. I think this can be done more intelligently than we do now.

 

 

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Ya, the fact that they were stating that "she was lucky" bugs me as well. It seems like they're trying to tell her that SHE was wrong and that nothing on their part was stupid or a mistake. That's not really fair, but then again, I'm not a huge fan of airport security, granted that their job is hard. Going through airports is difficult nowadays, and though I understand it is for safety, I still think that people are overly paranoid. As some people have already said, you would think that terrorists would attempt to be more subtle about their missions. I would imagine that half the point of a terrorist attack is the element of surprise: to shock people into fear, so that they become submissive. No sense in waving a banner so that people would take you out right away.

 

I travel a lot, and I don't think that I exaggerate when I say that security is a little high-strung. One security lady started freaking out and wouldn't let my mom pass through because she had documentation that looked foreign to her (it was a visa). She got so caught up in how 'strange' (and somehow suspicious) it looked, that she failed to notice that the document specifically said it was approved by the US government (she had to call over another guard...). Another time, I met a guy on one of my flights into O'Hare airport: he was Indian, spoke english with a very heavy accent, and was somewhat mousy and kept to himself. It was the first time he had travelled anywhere outside of India, so he was rather lost. We got to talking, and when we were going through security, the guard looked at this passport, and ushered him to another security checkpoint, away from where the rest of us, and they kept him there for about ten minutes. He came out looking slightly frazzled, since they basically rummaged through his messenger bag very thoroughly, as well as his clothes. They prolly thought he had too many pockets It makes me wonder what 'suspicious/suspicious behaviour' is defined as.

 

I agree with iNow. Sure, it was stupid to go into a Boston airport out of all places with a wired up sweatshirt, but was it necessary to threaten her with guns? Something seems a little screwey here. I guess no one is innocent now. It's now "guilty until proven innocent". Fine, maybe not quite that extreme, but leaning towards there. With situations like this, why aren't airports coming down on bringing in iPod, computers, and cellphones?

 

I'm not against the fact that they checked her out; they probably should have. I just am a bit unsettled that they jumped the gun, quite literally at that.

[Pangloss]

Regarding DrDNA's post on the previous page about the story last week on screeners, I thought it was interesting that most of the stories ignored the fact that PRIVATE airport screeners failed to detect only 20% of the test bombs -- a whopper of a difference when compared with the 75% figure for TSA screeners.

 

Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do.

 

But screeners employed by private companies at San Francisco International Airport fared much better than government screeners when they were put to the new tests, missing only 20 percent of the simulated explosives.

 

"They do a lot of on the job training," said airport spokesman Michael McCarron. "Daily, they do testing of the equipment and the personnel as they go through here."

 

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Story?id=3747712&page=2

[bascule]

I recently went through airport security attending a trade show... carrying with me a prototype device which had an exposed circuit board and wires!!!

 

One time through was fine, but on the return trip they pulled the device out of the X-Ray and examined it with a terrified look in their eyes. They shouted "TSA!!!" (even though they were wearing TSA uniforms... I guess there's a real TSA and a fake TSA)

 

I was taken aside, the device swabbed with chemicals before being handed to another TSA officer who spent several minutes scrutinizing it. The contents of my backpack removed and my laptop was swabbed with chemicals. They brought over a dog to sniff me, I was frisked, and they passed a wand over my body. Then they proceeded to ask me a lot of weird questions like "What is your parents' country of origin?" Guess my last make has too many vowels or something. They had me show them my laptop was real and actually functioned, and after about a half hour of that crap they released me with just barely enough time to make my flight. Ugh.

 

Now, I'm sure, were the same device placed within a housing no one would've cared. But... BARE WIRES! Must be a bomb.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Moral of the story: Terrorists should buy a $5 project box from RadioShack before boarding a plane.

[iNow]

Moral of the story: Terrorists should buy a $5 project box from RadioShack before boarding a plane.

 

The truth of this comment is somewhat disturbing. Why have actual security when the illusion appeases the masses at a lower cost?