Boston overreacts again

[iNow]

She never even made it through security. She never intended to. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[bascule]

She never even made it through security. She never intended to. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

 

Yeah, I'm really failing to understand what the big deal is. There are tons of buildings where you could easily walk into the lobby with a high powered explosive and kill hundreds or thousands of people.

 

Imagine if someone walked into the lobby or the central elevator shafts of the Empire State Building with a suitcase loaded with plastique. (when I visited the only security checkpoints I went through were for ticketed individuals who were going up to the observation deck, and the central elevator shafts had a single guard and were blocked only by a velvet rope)

 

The only real counterargument I'm hearing is bare wires or LEDs make it "obvious" and if someone were able to bomb a large public place with an "obvious" bomb (i.e. anything with the appearance of an improvised electronic device) it would be a PR disaster compared to if the bomber exercised a little forethought and placed the bomb in something nondescript like a suitcase. Never mind LEDs attached to your clothing aren't particularly useful for a bomb, and in fact would harm any realistic bombing operation by drawing unnecessary attention.

 

Is the potential PR disaster of an "obvious" bomb (which clearly isn't, as this incident and the ATHF one demonstrates) really worth the cost to those prosecuted for false positives?

[ParanoiA]

Don't you think that security guards in airports should be given some rudimentary training on what a bomb is, what it can be made from and what is likely to be suspicious as a possible component of a bomb?

 

Yes, you're right. I just meant I didn't want them dismissing suspicious gizmos based on anecdotal knowledge, false confidence from conversations like these. By all means, real training by people with experience would seem a given now that you bring it up.

[Pangloss]

I think the opposite. Assuming everything that even remotely looks like a bomb is a bomb is ONE OF the things that keeps 9/11 from happening again.

 

Though it totally irks me when I have to agree with revprez, I think people forget that when we WEREN'T checking every package, the complainers, I'm sorry I mean the "experts", were telling us that NOT checking every package was a disaster waiting to happen. Now that we're doing what they told us to do, it's suddenly the wrong thing to do!

 

Well fine, if checking every package is the wrong thing to do, can we write it down and plaster it on every bridge overpass this time, so that when we do switch back to letting everything go unchecked, this time we'll remember WHY we're letting everything go unchecked?!

[swansont]

I think the opposite. Assuming everything that even remotely looks like a bomb is a bomb is ONE OF the things that keeps 9/11 from happening again.

 

Though it totally irks me when I have to agree with revprez, I think people forget that when we WEREN'T checking every package, the complainers, I'm sorry I mean the "experts", were telling us that NOT checking every package was a disaster waiting to happen. Now that we're doing what they told us to do, it's suddenly the wrong thing to do!

 

Well fine, if checking every package is the wrong thing to do, can we write it down and plaster it on every bridge overpass this time, so that when we do switch back to letting everything go unchecked, this time we'll remember WHY we're letting everything go unchecked?!

 

Since nobody else had guns pointed at them and was arrested, then I conclude that the other 99.9...% of people at Logan that day that had things that remotely looked like bombs were not assumed to have them. Since one point in all this is that any suitcase, briefcase, purse, laptop, etc. could be a bomb. We aren't checking every package. She never got to a checkpoint, never intended to go through. No ticket.

[ParanoiA]

Why does that look more like a bomb than a suitcase or a chocolate bar?

 

 

Why does it look less like a bomb? We already know that anything can be a bomb. We get it. Everyone here gets it. Let's move past it and get to the point.

 

Why should we treat obvious items any differently than non-obvious ones? Why on earth would you rule something out because "a real bomb wouldn't be that obvious"? Ruling anything out is an automatic in. Give me cold logic here.

[iNow]

Nobody is arguing that checks should not occur. Most are arguing that the checks in place are inadequate, and our resoponse often excessive. The issue is the manner in which this girl was approached/dealth with, the inept processes currently in place for those actually going through security, and the problem of limiting false positives, and, worse, false negatives.

 

By some of the comments in this thread, it seems we should lock everyone up just for walking into an airport, then only after extensive cavity searches, scans, pokes and prods do we let them through to the ticketing counter, then after additional searches, through the security check point and on to their gates. I don't think that's a good way to proceed.

 

Again... Actions against girl handled poorly. She should have been approached, but not with rifles (not drawn and pointed anyway).

 

Issues raised... Difficulty in improving detection techniques without considering everyone and everything a threat until proven innocent.

 

How do we handle these?

 

 

If we stop calling everyone who posts an idiot, we may actually find a decent solution with each other's help.

[bascule]

Why does it look less like a bomb? We already know that anything can be a bomb. We get it. Everyone here gets it. Let's move past it and get to the point.

 

Okay, I'll move past that argument if you and everyone else can move past this strawman:

 

Why should we treat obvious items any differently than non-obvious ones? Why on earth would you rule something out because "a real bomb wouldn't be that obvious"? Ruling anything out is an automatic in.

 

Is anyone saying she shouldn't have even been stopped and that the device shouldn't have been inspected and/or confiscated? Not that I've seen.

 

I think what people (at least me) are having a problem with is the escalation that occurred, accusations of a "hoax", and the subsequent pressing of charges.

[bascule]

bascule: I suggest you reconsider what sort of person the average American is.

 

And there's the point: the law is unduly discriminatory against potential false positives.

[Severian]

I was suggesting that the average American hasn't got a clue what a bomb is supposed to look like, and may well take a breadboard with wires to look like one. The average American doesn't even know what a breadboard is.

 

But the average American should not be making the decision whether or not to arrest her. That decision should be made by security professionals, who one might hope did have "a clue what a bomb is supposed to look like". If they do not, then it is their fault (or their boss's fault) for them not being sufficiently trained to do their job in a competent manner.

[YT2095]

Anyone who thinks this is a bomb is a f*cking idiot:

 

 

 

actually my 1`st and Immediate impression that it`s some sort of Green LED Star, the sort you can get built into almost anything now and worn at parties etc...

Usually in a Heart shape.

the "Bomb" idea didn`t enter my head, for a start there`s no Timer, secondly Why wear it in full view (and have it light up!), thirdly you only need a battery and a switch!, a whole breadboard is Overkill!

 

 

but then that`s just my 1`st impression, I`m not trained in counter terrorism either.

[Pangloss]

But the average American should not be making the decision whether or not to arrest her. That decision should be made by security professionals, who one might hope did have "a clue what a bomb is supposed to look like". If they do not, then it is their fault (or their boss's fault) for them not being sufficiently trained to do their job in a competent manner.

 

Right, fully trained mind readers who should be fully capable of looking at a FedEx package and knowing there's a bomb inside, so that they won't harass innocent-but-strangely-electronics-covered bystanders and instead leap straight to the fully concealed terrorists that nobody but they can see.

 

Because, you know, we can put a man on the moon, so we can surely know from the merest glance what is a bomb and what is not!

[YT2095]

Right, fully trained mind readers who should be fully capable of looking at a FedEx package and knowing there's a bomb inside, so that they won't harass innocent-but-strangely-electronics-covered bystanders and instead leap straight to the fully concealed terrorists that nobody but they can see.

 

Because, you know, we can put a man on the moon, so we can surely know from the merest glance what is a bomb and what is not!

 

dude, that`s a Strawman and then some! LOL

[ParanoiA]

Because if they had been sufficiently well trained then they would have realized that the breadboard wasn't a problem after a quick inspection. Only someone really really ignorant would think that the breadboard was dangerous, and I would hope that such ignorance would be cured by training.

 

But would you agree that the standard protocol for restraining a suspect should be done until this inspection?

 

Using guns to stop people is basic stuff. We all have a duty to submit to authority, to a point. It is unreasonable to think that the tried and true method of restraint should be tossed out because breadboard enthusiasts don't like being misinterpreted.

 

If we suspect it's a bomb, then we better freaking act like it. Pointing guns and restraining someone for this inspection should be expected. The overreaction came when the authorities didn't like being "had" and tried to punish her for this incident.

 

Personally, I can understand the anger. They're human. They got scared - they did their job and didn't shoot her - but they felt the fear and were probably angry at her in the way any parent would be angry at their child after a close call. She could have won a Darwin award.

[YT2095]

"Land of the Free"? My a$$!

[ParanoiA]

oh 2 for 2. better go hand myself in as a terrorist then.

 

No. Just don't walk into an airport with it strapped to your chest and expect no one to get the wrong idea. No one in this thread concluded she was a terrorist. I can't speak for the idiots that handled this after the fact.

 

"Land of the Free"? My a$$!

 

How is it not free? If you draw a gun in the airport should you not be questioned or restrained for it? I see no oppression of freedom in any way here.

[YT2095]

Once upon a time she would have been pulled over to check that it wasn`t going to interfere with the planes Navigational signals (same as they tell you Not to use mobiles fones) but NOW...

 

everyone`s Bomb Crazy! and acting like Mr Bean!

[Pangloss]

dude, that`s a Strawman and then some! LOL

 

How else are they supposed to KNOW what's inside a package without looking?

 

I empathize with people having to argue with revprez's annoying tactics, but it's no excuse for ridiculous blanket statements. Those of you opposed to what happened to this person are much more interested in higher ideologies and perfect-world ethics than you are in the real-world, down-to-business issue of what can or cannot be done. You want a low-wage security guard to make a split-second (ok, "brief inspection" -- non-intrusive!) decision over whether something that looks like a toy (to you!) might actually be a bomb or not.

 

I think that's ridiculous. Trying to cast this as some sort of higher discussion is just moronic. You do something stupid at an airport, you get inconvenienced, for a few minutes or a few hours, depending on whatever the local officials see fit. That's it. There's no higher political issue, no ideological territory to turf out, and no ugly trend to be concerned over. It is what it is. Get over it, peeps.

[insane_alien]

No. Just don't walk into an airport with it strapped to your chest and expect no one to get the wrong idea. No one in this thread concluded she was a terrorist. I can't speak for the idiots that handled this after the fact.

 

the point is pcollins was infering that ANY circuit on a breadboard was an electronic detonator ALWAYS. by his definition, i have a bomb.

[Pangloss]

"Land of the Free"? My a$$!

 

YT, I have to say I'm a little shocked at the obvious hypocrisy of this statement. After all, you don't see me claiming that in YOUR country this poor innocent student would have simply been GUNNED DOWN, do you ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

 

So back it off a notch, for Pete's sake.

[YT2095]

Pangloss: Phe@r my B0mZ0rZ !!!one 111 one!11one!111!

 

[ParanoiA]

Is anyone saying she shouldn't have even been stopped and that the device shouldn't have been inspected and/or confiscated? Not that I've seen.

 

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.

 

And if no one is saying that, then why are we still arguing about what a bomb is capable of looking like? If we all agree it's no big deal to restrain someone with suspicious electronics, obvious or otherwise, until we can inspect then why is it still an issue for everyone?

 

I prefer a more common sense approach. I don't think you should draft systems and flow charts - procedures - too easy to undermine predictable behavior. Instead, keep everything flexible. They should now what a bomb can look like, the basic elements, but should never ignore their instincts or their gut. Everything that looks suspicious should be treated suspicious. Even if it turns out harmless. Laugh it off and move on.

 

We're not talking about violating civil liberties. Any of us can be pulled over by the police - detained for questioning and so forth.

 

Just as long as we're not prosecuting breadboard bandits as terrorists. That's a far worse issue - and more concerning to me. I'm afraid they'll (republicans) try to make the case that homemade electronics worn in public should be illegal and draft special legislation for it. We'll lose a lot of freedoms if that happens. Go Ron Paul.

 

the point is pcollins was infering that ANY circuit on a breadboard was an electronic detonator ALWAYS. by his definition, i have a bomb.

 

No, I've been watching pcollins' posts and I don't think he's making that argument at all. He's saying that any circuit on a breadboard could be an electronic detonator and you should be detained until we know otherwise.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss: Phe@r my B0mZ0rZ !!!one 111 one!11one!111!

 

 

Hahaha! Dewd you are so 1337!

[YT2095]

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!

[insane_alien]

fair point, what about jewelery? that serves no obvious purpose though it could be used as part of a detonator to be assembled on board the aircraft. we should detain everyone wearing jewelery as potential suicide bombers.

 

I know you are going to post it is for fashion purposes. so was the damn breadboard in question. not mainstream fashion but fashion none the less.