BBtv: Star Simpson's first interview on the Boston airport LED sweatshirt scare.
Update: Complete and unedited transcript of our interview here.
In today's episode of Boing Boing tv: One year ago, a 19-year-old MIT engineering student named Star Simpson got dressed to go pick up a friend at Boston's Logan airport. She pulled a hoodie out of her closet, a wearable tech design she'd made with a light-up LED-circuit on the chest. In her hand was a small pink rose she'd crafted from hardened clay, a gift for her friend.
A few hours later at the airport, after an airport employee mistook her sweatshirt for a bomb and the rose for an explosive implement, Star found herself surrounded by 40 armed police who believed she was a suicide bomber. She was arrested for "possessing a hoax device," and an unprecedented media frenzy ensued. Here was the Boing Boing post from that day.
A year later, after a long series of court dates, a Boston judge ruled that Star must perform community service and make a public apology. Star says she intended no harm. She believes the authorities were unfairly harsh with her long after it was obvious she posed no threat, and that legal proceedings were unduly influenced by a prevailing atmosphere of anxiety over terrorism (this just months after a similar case in Boston).
She has since dropped out of MIT, and says the school's reaction felt like "being disowned." She has moved out of Boston in part because of recurring threats and attacks from strangers.
Star has finally come forward to tell her side of the story publicly, and she does so on Boing Boing tv today.
Link to Boing Boing tv episode with downloadable video, discussion, and video podcast subscription instructions.
If you'd like to make your very own LED breadboard hoodie, the folks at Instructables have just published Star's plans here. They're too graceful to say this, but I will: do not wear this to airports. Make a Breadboard Sweatshirt (Instant Wearable Electronics!)
MAKE will soon be publishing a related article.
Previous Boing Boing tv episodes :
* Star Simpson's fuzzy logic, MacGyver, MIT lasers, and trippy glasses: Maker Faire with Phil Torrone
Related Boing Boing blog posts:
* MIT student arrested for entering Boston airport with "fake bomb"
* Improvising electronic devices is not a crime
* OK Go's LED Jackets
* ATHF LEDs all over Boston today
the latest
latest episodes
Contrast this to 1982 when I made an LED necktie (16 red LEDs sequenced by a TTL chipset, with a 9V x 2 power source) and tried to board a flight in Buffalo en route to Boston. I even never made it through the metal detector. Do you suppose they didn't like the momentary switch wired through my sleeve? Anyway, GET THIS: the TSA agent simply escorted me downstairs to the ramp, helped me find my suitcase in one of the baggage train cars (yes, they took me onto the tarmac) and only then did a group of baggage handlers surround me. One guy offered $50 on the spot for the flashing tie. I had to decline and packed the tie away in my luggage--I was 15 and too interested in showing it off to some engineers on RT 128.
JPW - Are you sure you got the year right? The TSA didn't exist in 1982
What was this 'wearable' tech? If its that circuit board taped to a hoodie as shown in the picture above then that probably wasn't an entirely bright idea but in his defense you could probably bring a blank breadboard and those TSA jackasses would think it was a bomb.
I knew someone would contest the date! I was too lazy to look it up just now.
Star you are a hero. I'm sorry you had to go through what you did.
I live in Boston and I've heard a lot of people react to this story by repeating the premise that she was foolish to do it and lucky she didn't get shot. The trouble is, when the definition of what is "normal" are constantly changing due to our extreme reactions to fear of attack, it's hard to live your life. My reaction to both the Mooninite ads and this, was that the city over-reacted and then, rather than admit that sometimes mistakes will happen, they went on the offensive. With the end result being that they have redefined what free people are allowed to do...
This gal's just like Giuliani: a 'hero' by happenstance.
I have a great idea for community service. Spend some time outside of the airport gates informing people that security theater is being "performed" at the airport and we all need to take America back from the fearmongers.
I get the feeling that Star is probably more reluctant to identify herself as a "hero" than Giuliani. I should re-phrase my previous statement. She's MY hero.
This + Mooninites = Boston sucks.
I have not had to make a long-distance trip in a long time, and I don't know if I want to anymore. It seems like there are a shitload of freaky-ass rules, and innocent people are getting fucked over for doing completely normal stuff.
@5 posted by Yupa
> The trouble is, when the definition of what is "normal" are constantly changing due to our extreme reactions to fear of attack, it's hard to live your life.
What drama!
Look, wearing a circuit board and LEDs was never "normal".
Aside from the horrible inconvenience of not being able to wear jury rigged assemblages of wire and clay to an airport, can you come up with any other examples of how the definition of normal has changed such that it's "hard to live your life"?
Seriously, give me a break.
Some people have to walk 10 miles to get drinking water.
Other people have to deal with vicious gangs that terrorize their slums.
Other people have janjaweed militias killing their kids and raping their women.
THAT sort of thing makes it "hard to live your life".
Not being able to wear something that, yes, looks a it like a bomb to an AIRPORT does NOT make it "hard to live your life".
What really gets me is how the media immediately jumped on her, releasing her picture everywhere without even knowing if she was really guilty of anything at all. Then she had to put up with every idiot out there who felt they should get in her face. What about her own safety?? And what's with the police chief looking almost giddy to claim that she nearly ended up in the morgue? He pretty much has a smirk about it; like it's some joke.
It's amazing that she seems so well-adjusted and able to calmly talk about it. I imagine it must have been extremely traumatic and humiliating. I would hope SHE'd get an apology.
Who the heck is supposed to protect us against our own security system? It's like being sandwiched between two types of terrorism. 'Land of the free'... Riiiiight...
I'm ashamed and embarrassed by the way my home state handled this incident and I'm proud of Star for speaking out, she's one of _this_ Maker's heroes now.
I want to echo the hero sentiment. Americans, for all your weird self delusions about independent spirit and frontier self sufficiency, are conformists at heart. The degree to which the need for 'security' in 'a world forever changed by the events of 9/11', has been unquestioningly accepted by many Americans is revealed by the commented reactions to this story on otherwise intelligent fora, from Boingboing to Slashdot. This is a farcical absurdity, as even a shallow perusal of the 'security' literature from Bruce Schneier to Benjamin Franklin (sic) reveals. This girl is a hero, first because she is a maker - someone jury rigging and remixing technology in innovative and prescient ways, at a time when passive consumption is celebrated and technological creativity dismissed. Second because she remained iconoclastic and independent minded enough to fail to perceive life through the cynically paranoiac lens of the mainstream Western media. Fair play Star, fuck the man, don't let this shit make you afraid.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm
>(b) For the purposes of this section, the term >“hoax device” shall mean any device that would >cause a person reasonably to believe that such >device is an infernal machine.
uh-oh look an infernal machine.
The bar for "hero" is lowered even further.
The local "news" media in Boston crucified both her and the Mooninite guys in that overblown fiasco. Fortunately those guys were able to have a press conference where they only took questions about 1970's hairdos. That was an awesome move on their part, and it only made the press hate them more.
Kudos to BB for giving Simpson her day.
The ridiculous part of this story is the panic. Like how a lie is always worse than just coming clean, panic makes mole hills into mountain ranges.
I do think wearing a circuit board with exposed wires to an airport is opening yourself up to scrutiny. Airports are nervous places, they were before 9/11. But there's a big difference between asking someone about their shirt and being cautious and surrounding some college student with a squardon of cops.
The worst part of that panic "logic", if that really was a bomber, wouldn't they WANT to be surrounded by cops?
The "hoax device" nonsense just staggers the rational mind.
..."can you come up with any other examples of how the definition of normal has changed such that it's "hard to live your life"?"
Let's see... random pat-downs and intrusive security screenings at airports, Americans being encouraged to spy on and report "suspicious" activities of their neighbors, the government eavesdropping on people's phone calls at will, photographers being harassed everywhere for, um, taking pictures, tens of thousands of innocent people on the "no-fly" list, authorities encouraging a climate of fear... etc. etc.
Being automatically suspected of terrorist activity for carrying or wearing any type of electronic device is a part of such change.
I fly multiple times a month and I never run into any trouble. This idea that people can't live their lives is ridiculous, hyperbole and a joke. I have always felt bad for this woman and still do. But to suggest that it would be "normal" to walk around with open circuits on your sweatshirt is a farce. Anyone who thinks that ought to be ashamed of themselves.
I had a big stack of punk rock shirts in high school and college- Reagan hates me, Nazi Punks F*ck Off or anything with the DKs spelled out, Black Market Baby, etc. these got negative reactions wherever I went where people didn't understand them. I had no interest in creating negative reactions in anyone because I'm not misanthropic- I like people. So eventually I decided to wear the punk shirts at punk events where people understood them, and wear plain black shirts or shirts with milder messages at my parents house or when taking the bus or in class. We all used to keep the leather jackets buttoned until we got to a club and could wear a Pussy Galore t-shirt without the wrong reaction.
So... I do not consider her a hero and I don't believe she's done anything heroic. I don't think she stood up for anything. I feel sorry for what she went through, but I don't think she or anyone else should have expected much less. This was not a political stand, that circuit board looks now and has always looked to me more like a timing device on a suicide bomb than anything else. I know what it is, but I still think it looks like a bomb.
TJIC @#11
Bombs do not have blinkenlights. Bombs do not have countdown timers. Bombs to not have any of the technoporn accoutrements so favored by the fantasists in Hollywood.
The same applies to suicide vests/belts.
Granted, the actions taken to stop and ascertain the situation were fairly reasonable. One the determination was made that it was not anything other than a few LEDs and a battery, it should have ended there.
THAT'S when it all went brainhurtingly stupid and asinine.
Fortunately those guys were able to have a press conference where they only took questions about 1970's hairdos. That was an awesome move on their part, and it only made the press hate them more.
----
I think it made the public hate them a whole lot and pretty much painted them as corporate douchebags who try to fake cool.
"...that circuit board looks now and has always looked to me more like a timing device on a suicide bomb than anything else."
Green LEDs. In the shape of a star. Looks like a "timing device on a suicide bomb".
Wow. You need glasses. Badly!
You also need to stop watching "24" right now.
You also need to realize that the whole point of a suicide vest is to CONCEAL its presence until one is in a crowd of people.
To have the "timer" visible to all and sundry, well, that does kind of negate the whole "conceal" thing.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/2713229598_32137528f7.jpg
I prefer my LED wearable to hers. Also not airport friendly.
Neener, you appear to have your stories confused. Star Simpson had nothing to do with the Aqua Teen Hunger Force / LED signs thing.
Star's an idiot. Even if, like me, you think all the recent "security" measures are complete BS, she deserves what she got. An "idiot" would know that strapping a flashing breadboard to your chest and trying to board a plane is going to end poorly.
You cannot expect a TSA dimwit to know a bomb from a bagel, let alone a bomb from a breadboard. And a breadboard is going to look threatening to someone who has zero technical knowledge.
Star Simpson is the *MIT engineering student* (presumably of reasonable intelligence to be such) dumb enough to wear something to an airport that would *obviously* cause the TSA agents grief.
Shout out to Star. Thanks for sharing that with us. You have all my love and support.
As someone who lives in a country that is far from being problem free, Mexico, it is embarrassing to watch this happen in a country that claims to be so far ahead of the curve when it comes to taking care of its own. Whatever happened to freedom? The message this is sending is live in fear, the enemy if there is any has won, lets send the US to the dark ages. No ground up, meaning average Joe innovation or personal initiative can blossom to its full potential in such an environment. What a shame, because the US used to be awesome at that.
Green LEDs. In the shape of a star. Looks like a "timing device on a suicide bomb".
...
You also need to realize that the whole point of a suicide vest is to CONCEAL its presence until one is in a crowd of people.
-----
Yes, I said that it does, sheesh. And not only am I right, but the police and the press also thought this. What you're not acknowledging is that you have some cultural context that 99% of the rest of the populace and probably about 25% of BoingBoing readers do not have. That's the key point here.
That is not the whole point of a suicide vest or terrorism, obviously! I can't believe you'd suggest that there is no history of people wearing fake suicide vests to cause public reactions. Are you suggesting that suicide bombers only act in one way for one outcome? Have you read international news in the last 25 years?
Tried to post this from anon, didn't seem to make vetting.
http://www.nycresistor.com/2008/08/31/nycresistor-poster-child/
That's my wearable led jacket. I absolutely like it and think it makes for awesome stylishness. Not being able to wear it around for fear of being tackled by high school drop-outs is aggravating. So I totally feel for this girl. That and honestly... who doesn't absolutely despise the TSA? They do more damage to america on a daily basis than al quaeda.
Hey MED1972 didn´t socrates say something like I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.
Knowing you are a fool allows you to learn a lot more than thinking you know everything.
S gss ´d rthr b n dt thn n sshl.
Clearly her lawyer chickened out and told her to take the deal.
As a lawyer in the NYCity area, I would have loved to have taken this case. Just thinking about meeting the press on the courthouse steps after one of these appearances- Im just positively dreaming of how I would excoriate these assholes.
An "idiot" would know that strapping a flashing breadboard to your chest and trying to board a plane is going to end poorly.
And "somebody who actually read the story" would know that she never tried to board a plane.
I very much appreciate BB's efforts to bring Star's story to the public, getting her side of the story is absolutely necessary to begin analyzing this issue. Certainly, no one should have to endure the ridicule that she faced, and I think the overreaching and embellishment of a media happy to find a "Boston Suicide Bomber" are to blame.
But to call her a "hero," and to mock the TSA/Law Enforcement's response as "drama" is the height of self-delusion.
Many of the above comments extol freedom of expression, but ignore the responsibility that comes with that freedom. Certainly you are free enough to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But you can not escape the responsibility of a child being trampled in the rush to get out by claiming to be a hero of free speech.
The TSA/Security/Law Enforcement at airports are trained and expected to be paranoid. They are trained and expected to look for devices that may be bombs. They are not sympathetic or understanding of maker culture and I do not fault them for that. I do expect an adult MIT student to recognize this and respond accordingly. I expect them to be responsible for their actions. I don't expect the Airport to make an exception for the student's conception of free speech.
Any student of history recognizes that an individual's freedom in society is always in flux and at the whim of historical context. We (Americans) have lost significant freedoms since 9/11. Star's tragic story demonstrates this. We must stand up to the overreaction and injustice of a government and society obsessed with security. But categorizing Star's serious lapse in judgment as heroic freedom fighting does nothing to move this debate forward, and it is utterly naive to do so.
Great that you talked to Star, but if you ever use Skype for an interview again and have cameras running, would you please only use Skype for the audio or put the cameras closer to the laptops?
Watching two people talk to their computers robs this of some of the human element. You could place the video cameras right next to the screens and blow the video up full screen on Skype chat. Also make sure that the laptops and cameras are at head height so you're not looking up at them.
Really, this looked terrible.
Just to ensure I have some facts straight:
1) Star Simpson was an MIT engineering student at the time of the incident.
2) She wasn't aware (or is feigning ignorance) that walking into an airport (in Boston of all places) with an electronics project strapped to your chest might possibly confuse people.
3) "...some of them were holding these really big devices that I learned were machine guns later."
Seriously?! Sorry, but I'm incredulous to say the least. If this is the type of story we have to use to defend ourselves against the police/nanny state, we're in big trouble.
Anonymous, your response is clear, coherent, and inspired. I don't disagree with it. However, she did not actually attempt to enter a secure area at any point. She was simply waiting for a friend in an insecure area of the airport. One might even be inclined to say a "public" area. In fact the TSA wasn't even really to blame in this incident. An over-reactive employee alerted the boston police to a girl with wires on her sweatshirt after a conversation with her. I mean obviously it MUST have occurred to her that her that she was doing something at least marginally risky. But that does not excuse the over reaction (possibly dangerous over reaction... much like crying fire in a crowded theatre because a man just fired up a lighter) and tremendous waste of resources brought about by the irresponsible actions of both the airport staff and the boston police department.
This was clearly not a case of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is important to be clear about that, as many of the initial news stories about this were essentially accusing her of doing this as a haux.
It is this over-reaction, following the initial mis-identification of her as a threat, which has really prevented the debate from moving forward. The BPD spokespeople I have heard will admit no wrong for this incident. Not in the initial mid-identification of her as a threat, nor the follow up prosecution. I can only hope that while they maintain this public facade, they are doing some self assessment and training around maker culture and guerilla art so that they can better identify real threats in the future.
While Star was stoned on whatever at the Steer Roast she told it in a very different way; it was not an act of performance art and she had some clue what could happen.
Her quality of work with other circuit boards is actually pretty decent, this shows that the wiring was intentionally to attract attention. This was not just some sweat shirt she threw on, the wiring is assembled after the garment was washed and the battery was a decision before she left the dorm.
1) she exposed security behaviors at Logan
2) she created a sense of fear via the media's impression of the event
3) she made many people concerned for their own safety and the safety of others.
4) she cost the city, logan, and the airlines money
5) she put the officers and the city into a difficult position, if she had been shot, there would have been lawsuits.
She's now a joke at MIT; she's pointed out as if she's a side show to those visiting MIT.
Star is just now realizing the cost of her actions. Her employment options and lab access are now limited*
Many of the grants will not condone her involvement, because of her security stunt.
She also drinks way too much for a 19 y/o.
Neener @28: "Are you suggesting that suicide bombers only act in one way for one outcome?"
That's the point, really. Social control. Time was, people with electronics on their clothes were treated reasonably, as in JPW's account @1. Check out the device, switch it off, put it out of the way. Minimum of fuss and inconvenience to everyone concerned. There was room to be unusual, eccentric, to practice both your skills with a soldering-iron and your right to be an individual. Now, someone who steps over a very narrowly defined line and is noticed by the authorities gets blamed for crossing that line. Because, in the minds of a nation inspired by 24 and the like, any deviation from the norm is the sign of a terrorist.
Star may have been naive, but that isn't a crime. Naivity is a natural condition; we all start out that way. Does that mean it needs to be knocked out of everyone by the stock of a semi-automatic?
@#25 MED1972, speaking of idiots, you need to learn to listen/read/both. She was picking up a friend at the airport. She never went through security and never intended to board a plane.
State Police Maj. Scott Pare: "Had she not followed the protocol, we might have used deadly force. She's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue."
This was the comment from the original incident that really gave me sympathy for Star Simpson; I found it reprehensible for the police to say that they would have felt justified in killing her, and that she should feel "lucky" that they spared her life.
It's the arrogance of power.
Sh's n dt. vry nw nd thn y rd bt smn pkng r tntng lrg prdtr n z nd fr thr trbl thy ls n rm r gt gd mlng. Wld y dscrb tht Drwn wrd nmn s hr? The TSA and/or airport police are big animals with big pointy teeth. There is enough stuff to condemn them for about over-reactions and silly security theater. But to walk into an airport with wires and circuitry on your person is poking that damn polar bear with a stick. Stpd t bst. nd t tks wy frm nyn wth gnn rgmnt gnst th bg nml's stpdty.
I have to agree with TJIC that, considering we could be living in Afghanistan, this is kind of small potatoes. But we're not living in Afghanistan. Our drinking water comes to us out of the taps, and the only "gang" on my street is a group of seniors who speedwalk the neighborhood at dawn. So, I think I can get a little upset about this. Sorry that I won't "count my blessings" and keep my mouth shut.
Yes, I think what she did showed a lack of common sense. As stated before, it should have dawned on her that some people might freak out about it.
But. She's a kid, and kind of a goofy kid. And the fallout since then has been a huge overreaction. The people who are arguing that she should have shown common sense need to apply it to the TSA and law enforcement. Yell at her, fine her, and then be done with it. It's obvious she wasn't trying to scare people or make a political statement. There was no need to ostracize her further. And death threats? Seriously? That kind of hate is repugnant and should not be tolerated, regardless of all the other blessings we are lucky enough to have as Americans.
The issue isn't that we should be allowed to wear whatever we want to the airport. Rather, it's that in such a fearful and hateful climate, a young woman with bright prospects has been the subject of hateful persecution because she made an inappropriate fashion decision. She didn't drive drunk and kill a kid. She didn't smuggle drugs for her cartel boyfriend. She didn't smash a tanker full of oil into an environmentally-sensitive bay. She wore a stupid blinky shirt that should not have raised undue alarm among trained professionals who, I hope to God, know what a bomb looks like.
So, no, jackboot thugs aren't kicking in my door and raping my goldfish, and I'm very thankful for that. But if we don't correct the irrational fears running amok, it's going to make it very difficult for us to have a conversation or attitude that preserves intelligence and civil liberty and, well, kindness among our neighbors. I couldn't care less about her right to wear that shirt. But I care very deeply for her right to be a safe and happy member of her community after what is, in effect, a very minor infraction.
This is about the only thing that I'd think is an "infernal machine".
"some of them were holding these really big devices that I learned were machine guns later"
So people are idiots for mistaking a strap-on led device as a bomb but she doesn't know what a machine gun looks like? I guess that gives some insight into her naivete. That being said, I don't think she deserves jail time but maybe owning up to her actions and at least admitting that she was looking for at least a little reaction would go a long way. Would she wear the same sweatshirt in downtown Tel Aviv or to the Ben Gurion International airport?
THIVAI, great comment. I just read through the comments on the original post from the day this all started and was just amazed that some people can actually be OK with this happening.
Yes, she probably shouldn't have worn it, but why is it OK that the officers on duty didn't even bother to investigate what the device was. Or, once they realized that she wasn't a threat couldn't they have just let her go, or at least confiscated the sweatshirt and let her go. That this charade is still going on today just speaks to the complete stupidity of the people that hold the power in our country.
America is about freedom. The founding fathers of our country would be so angry and ashamed that we've been reduced to this. I can guarentee that the terrorists had two distinct agendas when they attacted us on 9/11. 1) to hurt as many people as possible and send a dramatic message 2) to generate a culture of fear.
Let me just say that they've won people! Every time we are OK with the authorities taking away our freedoms we give them another victory. On our present course we might as well be living in Afganistan. Stop taking your freedom for granted and stop letting the government take it away in the name of "security"!
@31 posted by Anonymous
> Clearly her lawyer chickened out and told her to take the deal. As a lawyer in the NYCity area, I would have loved to have taken this case. Just thinking about meeting the press on the courthouse steps after one of these appearances- Im just positively dreaming of how I would excoriate these assholes.
When I pay a lawyer, I don't want them to dream about how they're going to excoriate people - I want them to dream about how they're going to win the case.
Her lawyer didn't "chicken out" - he realized what the law was, realized how it would play in front of a jury, and made a good call.
TJIC I don't think the lawyer made a good call. She by the letter of the law did nothing wrong and they would be unable to prove she did. She could have sued in a follow up suit. For defamation of character, and wrongful arrest. Not to mention as mentioned several times previously... despite the dangerous actions of the boston police no internal investigation is ongoing.
Ths s cmpltly snn.
Pr Str, sh cldn't xprss hrslf by wlkng thrgh n rprt trmnl (Mnd y, sm rprt tht 9/11 flghts dprtd frm) wth llmntd crctbrd strppd t hr chst, hldng smthng md t f cly... Wt, whhhht?
Ths ntrvw s pndrng t ts wrst. Whn yr schl nd lwyr rn't n brd, spclly n Bstn (Cmbrdg), y knw y'v dn smthng rrvcbly wrng, r nfrgvbly stpd.
Y knw, thr r rsns y cn't yll "Fr" n crwdd thtr thr; y'r nt xctly mpngng n hr cvl lbrts.
Mrcy n ths wh fl srry fr ths scpth.
State Police Maj. Scott Pare: "Had she not followed the protocol, we might have used deadly force. She's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue."
"This was the comment from the original incident that really gave me sympathy for Star Simpson; I found it reprehensible for the police to say that they would have felt justified in killing her, and that she should feel "lucky" that they spared her life.
It's the arrogance of power."
They didn't say they would feel justified by killing her. And it's also really easy to pass judgment on the police in hindsight. For all they knew at the time of the incident, Star was a suicide bomber. They didn't know this girl, and they didn't know that what she had really was just a silly LED board. For all the common sense this girl is lacking, she's very fortunate that the police were able to sneak up behind her and completely restrain her. Otherwise they would have shot her if she were making sudden gestures. If an actual suicide bomber was recognized at an airport, all of you would be pissed that the police didn't shoot first and ask questions later. I know things are a lot different than they used to be, but to think that all policeman are just dying to shoot you is absurd. Once this girl is older, maybe she'll realize that there are better ways to express your individuality than the clothes you wear, and an airport is simply no place to do it. The police acted exactly as they should have.
When a kid with some LEDs and a clay flower can cause such an extreme reaction, the terrorists have already won.
#43:
The issue isn't that we should be allowed to wear whatever we want to the airport. Rather, it's that in such a fearful and hateful climate, a young woman with bright prospects has been the subject of hateful persecution because she made an inappropriate fashion decision. She didn't drive drunk and kill a kid. She didn't smuggle drugs for her cartel boyfriend. She didn't smash a tanker full of oil into an environmentally-sensitive bay. She wore a stupid blinky shirt that should not have raised undue alarm among trained professionals who, I hope to God, know what a bomb looks like.
Thank you for bringing that point.
We all seem to be arguing about whether or not wearing an unusual piece of clothing in an airport is a wise decision, but it is beside the real point.
Fact is, she was treated like a criminal while she committed no crime. She did not have any weapons, no intent to harm anyone, nothing harmful about her at all. I agree that security had every right to ask her about the shirt and what she was doing there if they felt suspicious. But once she provided an answer and explaination, that's where her civic responsibility ended. Calling a whole squad after her was completely disproportionate and abusive.
It doesn't matter that her little fashion statement annoyed you. She is an American and is supposed to have rights.
Look, wearing a circuit board and LEDs was never "normal".
Perhaps, but it never was a CRIME either.
What is disturbing is that we are accepting that honest citizens be harrassed and treated like dangerous criminals because we start judging who's looking 'normal' and who's not. So she's a bit of a weirdo; so what?? Does that mean anyone a bit quirky out there should expect to be arrested and prosecuted just because the 'normals' felt annoyed or worried about their fashion choices? I think it's a very slippery slope. We cannot start criminalizing harmless behaviours in the name of 'protection againt terror'.
Just the thought of getting arrested and publicly labled a threat just for choosing not to wear argyle to the stupid airport lounge is pretty terrifying to me.
Living in a culture of least common denominator means no child is left behind. It also means the ones that try to jump ahead will be cut down.
Star may have been naive, but that isn't a crime. Naivity is a natural condition; we all start out that way. Does that mean it needs to be knocked out of everyone by the stock of a semi-automatic?
----
Of course not, but that's why I pity her and would never consider her a hero. #49, I do feel sorry for her because I think she royally screwed up just like P2P filesharers who got sued but thought they were standing up for something and some friends of mine who got arrested for possession. I feel sorry for them because they got caught up in some groupthink where the socially unacceptable becomes some kind of statement and then they realize that actual laws apply to them and they're stuck paying for something that they didn't really mean to do.
I have never seen the TV show "24." I thought it was about spies in the white house, is it all about terrorism? I think you're overestimating that show's impact.
#25, Xeni, where did I say she did? I have no stories confused. Both are brought up here as they illustrate Boston's (over)reactions to:
1. some kind of weird MIT sort of prank
2. corporate advertising
I don't think she was crucified as some people claim. She did something stupid, the media reported it, she is told to perform community service. Big deal.
She seems like a pretty cool girl though and I hope things work out well for her. I really liked her photos...well, except for the one where she was skinning an opossum.
"Fact is, she was treated like a criminal while she committed no crime. She did not have any weapons, no intent to harm anyone, nothing harmful about her at all. I agree that security had every right to ask her about the shirt and what she was doing there if they felt suspicious. But once she provided an answer and explaination, that's where her civic responsibility ended. Calling a whole squad after her was completely disproportionate and abusive."
OK so wait, you're saying that since she answered a few questions, all suspicions about her being a suicide bomber should have ended? Wow, your idea about security appears to be nothing more than the honor system.
Security Agent: "Is that a bomb on your chest?"
Suicide Bomber: "ummmm, no. i'm just making a fashion statement."
Security Agent: "OK, you can go."
Suicide Bomber: "MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!. I mean, thank you."
However, I agree that once she was in custody and all facts about her were confirmed, the whole thing should have ended, after the police told her what kind of a moran she was.
wsn't wr tht t ws th Stt Plc's nfmlrty wth "MK-r Cltr" tht blw thngs t f prprtn.
'm srry, th mth s blltprf:
Crctbrd + Flshng LDs + Cly = Bmb
Bmb + rprt = Frnzy
Wht f sh ws wlkng rnd wth "jst sqrt gn" nd sh plld t t "jst t shw t t th cps."
Ppl hv bn sht rchng fr thr wllt.
Ms. Smpsn sms t b th xcptn t gnrnc bng blss.
M - Sh gt ff sy.
I'm curious about the interview video, Stars location appears to be the Alameda Naval Base and I know that Boing Boing does a lot of operations in the Bay Area, I've seen Xeni around. So if Star was in the bay area, why the interview via internet approach? Was it just a stylistic choice?
As for the Boston area officials response to her shirt: Overreaction in the extreme, pure idiocy, and as Star said, theater. We are no more secure with these morons running things and I don't think the it's about security, it's about controlling the populace.
On a related note, anyone who desires power, or once having it enjoys it, should be denied it for they will most certainly abuse it.
#59: no problem and I appreciate your willingness to respond.
@Neener, sorry if I misunderstood the thread there.
I heard yesterday that 15% of the children of Iraq now have PTSD, courtesy of our Marines and Air Force. That's the whole point of this war, of every war IMO. Destroying pride, destroying the living who survive.
It's what bullies DO. It's how they stay on top.
I'm sorry Star, I'm so sorry that you got caught up in it. Land on yer feet girl, you got potential.
Big Dave Diode, You speak the truth:
"When a kid with some LEDs and a clay flower can cause such an extreme reaction, the terrorists have already won."
Re: #11 POSTED BY TJIC, et al.
While I agree that "janjaweed militias killing their kids and raping their women" is a far more convincing example of "hard to live your life" it does not invalidate Yupa's argument. For example, it is perfectly justifiable to characterize losing my iPod and spilling coffee on my suit as "boy I had a bad day today" rather than waiting until I catch smallpox and are mauled by a bear before I can use that phrase. Maybe the phrase "harder to live your life" would be less troubling.
Furthermore...
The problem is that the highly subjective criteria of what is "normal" and "not normal" is being used to define what is, or is not, a credible terrorist threat. In fact, terrorists go out of their way to avoid triggering the "not normal" response of security personnel. Which leaves the rest of us in the position of an increased level of "hardness" being associated with how we "live our life" due to the implied threat seen in anyone who wishes to express their unique and charming personality in how they dress and express themselves.
Now, were I a new Caledonian Crow I would apply my causal reasoning skills to the problem. While the 9/11 terrorists had a toasty complexion, my experience as a crow would tell me there have been many terrorists with pale complexions (Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, the KKK, etc.). So the young woman's skin color would not be a terrorist indicator. What about the presence of a circuit board attached to a person's clothing and a doughy substance in their hand? Well, if terrorists where accustomed to attaching circuit boards to their chests and kneading plastic explosive in their hands that would be a warning sign to a crow, however since there is no record of a terrorist ever doing such a thing, this would seem to be an unlikely indicator.
A crow would see the 9/11 hijackers as casually dressed with dockers, polo shirts and small carry-on bags. Maybe in a rush to get through security. Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh would be seen by a crow as having short, neatly cropped hair, physically fit, with an intense manner. From a crow's perspective, the defining characteristic of a terrorist would be a business traveler who does all his shopping at Lands End.
I hope this has been helpful.
A crow's eye view of what terrorists wear and what they hold in their hands:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/postphotos/asection/2005-02-13/11.htm
Ah, I see, so they were thinking that she might have been a suicide bomber cleverly attempting to conceal the bomb by wearing it in plain sight and holding the explosive element in one hand.
No, sorry, that "math" there isn't working. The only thing bulletproof about it seems to be the layer of denial necessary to think the authorities made a wise decision in regarding her as a threat and then continuing to pursue her as such.
Damn, that was @ #58, hit post instead of preview. Anyways this Tharklord fellow just said it better.
#65 Crrct. Sh ds nt lk lk 9/11 l-Qd hjckrs, nr ntrvrtd pp bmbrs. Kds.
ntl ftr sgnfcnt vnt ccrs, t s nly n rtrspct tht y fnd th crcmstncs ldng t t nvtbl; th sm crcmstncs y cld nt pssbly pstltd th vnt ccrng. Fmlrz yslf wth th Blck Swn thry.
Th pnt y r mssng, s tht sh brght smthng tht ndnbly lks sspcs nt n nvrmnt tht frwns pn tht.
hh, nd ths:
>n Smpsn's prsnl wbst t MT, sh sys sh s stdyng cmptrs nd njys tnkrng n stdnt-rn mchn shp.
"n sntnc, 'm n nvntr, rtst, ngnr, nd stdnt, lv t bld thngs nd lv crzy ds," th wbst sys."
http://www.bstn.cm/nws/glb/cty_rgn/brkng_nws/2007/09/mt_stdnt_rr.html
Wlkng rnd n rprt wth wht lks lk bmb? Snds lk n wy tckt t Gtm.
Just to clarify one thing for everyone- the "doughy" flower in her hand was not actually dough at all. It was basically a baked sculpture- it was hard as a rock. She even banged it on the table for us to prove.
Anyways, thanks to everyone for watching. I'm loving reading all the comments!
Derek Bledsoe
Segment Producer, BBtv
Grw p, Str. D smthng dmttdly stpd, nd nd drp t f MT bcs y fl lk y r "bng dswnd." Wy t shw th wrld sm bckbn.
'll hv sm frs wth my brgr, thnks.
The point you are missing, is that she brought something that undeniably looks suspicious into an enviroment that frowns upon that.
And the point that you are missing is that she was surrounded by men threatening to kill her and thrown in jail for merely "look[ing] suspicious".
Those who trade liberty for temporary security deserve neither. As true in the 18th century as it is today.
Face facts, people.
If you do anything out of the ordinary, you're going to cause fear in people.
Someone who feels afraid is likely to call the authorities to investigate.
The authorities' investigation is going to (a) cost the taxpayers for their time, and (b) divert their attention from the 'real' threats.
Both the time consumed and the diversion of the authorities' attention represent a cost to society.
It's only fair that you should pay that cost, since you caused the problem in the first place by looking strange or acting in an unusual manner.
Star got off lightly; I'm sure that the Boston police spent many thousands of dollars on her case.
I wish I could find the flaw in this reasoning, since I myself am very likely to find myself viewed as strange, even inadvertently. But I don't think there is a flaw. In a society that is faced with existential threats at every moment, each step in this chain of reasoning makes perfect sense.
That's why I try very, very hard to blend in with the crowd. Anything else is tantamount to turning in a false alarm.
@Engine Here (#58):
In fact, they have been shot for reaching for their wallets because the cops have demanded ID. By your reasoning - which I am certain that any reasonable person would agree with - everyone should wear ID in a transparent holder on a chain around the neck at all times so that they can present it while holding their hands in the air.
I entirely agree that it's sensible to put your hands in the air any time you see anyone in a uniform. Even better is to fall to the ground spread-eagled. The first priority in encountering anyone in uniform is to establish that you're not a threat to them or to their authority. Even then, you should expect to be tasered if they still feel threatened, and thank your lucky stars that it was a taser and not a bullet.
If you don't like it, enlist in the police force. Remember that any civilian is a potential threat to society.
People do seem to be missing the point here, with all the "you should know better than to taunt the dangerous animal" talk. Our government should not be a dangerous animal, and should not react with deadly force to a non-lethal threat - further it should be smart enough to know what is a lethal threat instead of reacting to everything as such and sorting it out later. The pint is that it is wrong for our government to be so reactionary, stupid, violent, ill-informed and vindictive. Sure, she should have expected this, but what happened to her was wrong, that expectation should have been the cynical one, no the common-sense one.
One of the reasons our governement continues to act this way is because people are happy to let it be a dangerous animal, and the popular sentiment is that it is your own fault if you get bit. Our government and its agencies are made up of people who supposedly represent our best interests - we should be horrified and disgusted that they bite, not shrug and say, oh well, you shouldn't have gotten near the cage.
The problem is that the highly subjective criteria of what is "normal" and "not normal" is being used to define what is, or is not, a credible terrorist threat. In fact, terrorists go out of their way to avoid triggering the "not normal" response of security personnel.
-----
No. No no, you really miss it. Ok, you admit that not all people who commit crimes like this look a certain way. Now we have to accept also, that they act differently too.
So... You're saying that one kind of criminal goes out of their way to avoid triggering the "not normal" response. But I posit that variants on the exact same criminal are... nutso, so nutso that they have no basis for what normal is and act insane. I also can toss out, someone high on PCP doing this, and someone really high on PCP may have no understanding of how to appear normal. Do you see your logical misstep? There is absolutely no telling how someone is going to act when committing a crime like this, there is only reaction to events as they unfold.
OK so wait, you're saying that since she answered a few questions, all suspicions about her being a suicide bomber should have ended? Wow, your idea about security appears to be nothing more than the honor system.
She answered their questions. She showed them the darned LED. She explained what it did and how it worked. Yes, that should have cleared her. If we can't live with that, then we're all guilty until proven innocent, just like she was.
My idea about security is that people who are paid to know what a real bomb looks like ought to know what they are dealing with when seeing some basic LED device up-close.
What's next: Getting shoved in jail because your cell-phone charm from Japan looked like a fancy detonator?
#72
Prhps 'm jst nt gnrnt ngh t mk sddn gstrs t plcmnt wh nstrct m t "Kp yr hnds whr w cn s thm."
(nd wh r lkng fr n rmd nd dngrs srl rpst wh fts th sm dscrptn nd drss)
mn, f tht ws m?
f ws mndng my wn bsnss, nd mn frm p th strt dntfd thmslvs s NYPD, nd t "hld t rght thr," nd knw 'v dn nthng wrng, th frst thng wld d s rn p th strs t my hs, thn trn rnd t th dr nd rch nt my jckt whl thy wr scrmng "shw m yr hnds." Thn wndr why ws ht n th chst wth 19 rnds.
vry ctn hs r-ctn. f th cps rlly jst wntd t kll hm, thy wld hv sht hm, nd thn jst plntd gn n hm. knw lts f cps; tht sn't t f th rdnry. Trbl ws, thy rlly thght thy jst sht srl rpst.
Bt gss th mtnl sd f t mks fr bttr nws. "Mn gnrd cps, s dd" sn't grt hdln.
She should never apologize.
She should sue for damages and demand an apology.
There is no excuse for the stupidity she had to endure.
To those who responded, I accept your charges of "idiot". I should have paid closer attention to the story. I didn't watch the video and I haven't read about teh situation since it first came to light oh so many moons ago.
The fact still stands that Star bought her own situation.
Is all this security theatre wrong? Yep. Abuse of power, unnecessary use of force, overblown responses? Yep. Doesn't change that fact that the situation is what it is (even if we feel it is wrong) and she either knowingly walked into it, or she lacks some serious judgement.
My bad for saying she tried to board a plane. She didn't. But she did walk in to an airport with an unidentifiable electronic device attached to her hoodie. It doesn't take a degree in engineering from MIT to know that might not be the best idea.
She's not "just a kid" as many people have stated. She's 19 years old. A university student. We are expected to believe she didn't know any better? We're expected to believe she doesn't know what a rifle looks like?
Tone down the rhetoric for a moment people!
Star was not acting heroically by wearing that sweatshirt, nor was she acting idiotically. She was, quite simply, an engineering student at MIT wearing a craft project and waiting to meet a friend.
The resulting fallout was shameful. Instead of dropping the matter and politely warning people to try to avoid bringing any potentially misleading devices to an airport, the authorities decided to prioritize not losing face. That means real terror threats were not their priority. They wasted the valuable time of the criminal justice system persecuting someone WHO HAD COMMITTED NO CRIME.
Star, it's a shame you had to endure this and the unkind words of people who seem to have lost compassion for their fellow Americans. But you seem like a very bright and resilient individual. Good luck out there in this crazy world!
Basically what it comes down to is this. A girl who did absolutely nothing wrong by the letter of the law. And whose inalienable rights are protected under the constitution...
Was convicted of nothing. Forced to apologize for nothing. And do community service... for nothing.
Then to top it all off was harassed.
That's about as unamerican as it gets folks. And the people responsible for it should all be brought to justice.
"THE LAND OF FREEDOM" - episode N° 669
We are around 6 billions of people on the Earth and case like this happens only in USA...
In Europe and Japan Tshirts with some embedded gadgets are over 10 years old and no raver will ever have any problem traveling from Ibiza to London with an "electronic sweat shirt"...
'm cp. Lt m tll y smthng. n, y'r nt smrtr thn th rst f s. Gt vr t. knw mr lwyrs, dctrs, Mns mmbrs, ngnrs, mlt-mllnrs, tchrs, tc., wh r n lw nfrcmnt thn y wld vr blv. Mny f s hd trds, prfssns nd crrs bfr bcmng cps, spclly n th tchnlgy fld.
f y blv wht Ms. Smpsn dd ws lrght, ldbl r vn ccptbl, y hv prvn tht y r mrly smpl chldrn wth n sns f rght nd wrng bsd pn rl lf xprnc. Spt ff ll y wnt..."stpd mrc".."cvl srvnts....gnrnt"...tc. W xst fr rsn nd sh s vry, vry lcky wmn.
ls, gt th fcts strght. n f y mrns wrt tht sh gt ll th wy thrgh th rprt…sh wnt t th rrvls dsk. Tht’s rght thrgh th drs.
Hw bt ths gm frm n bvs gns, “Dng thr jb stppd t th pnt whr thy pprhndd hr fr bng n “pprnt dngr” nd dd nt xtnd t clmng—wtht vdnc, xprts, r vn th slghtst knw hw—tht thy hd cght scd bmbr r smn wth “hx dvc.” “Ws t NT hx dvc? Ws t nt bmb? r y tht ncrdbly dll??? Bsds, dnky, th md rprts thngs t y ppl, nt th plc. cld nt b bthrd t gv mst f y twts th tm f dy.
Sh ws crryng swtch n hr bg tht ws gvn t hr by frnd? r y kddng m??? vry kd y stp wth wd sys th sm thng. vryn gng mmbr wth gn trs tht xcs. Y r ll pthtc nd tht stpd lttl twt s lck sh s brthng...dn't kd yrslf nd dn't tst t.
Th n tm plc rspnd n lx mnnr s th tm smn ds. r mny thr d. r th cps d. Thn y’ll ll st, gn n jdgmnt, nd sy th cps wr flsh…thy wrn’t tkng t srs, tc.. Grw p, y flsh lttl chldrn. t’s nt gm.
Sch flshnss. Y bvsly hv n xprts n th fld f lw nfrcmnt. t s wht rsnbl prsn blvs, nt wht sm gk r nrd fgrs t ftr tkng nt ccnt th vrsn ffrd by nthr gk r nrd.
’ll pt t smpl fr y…. pll gn n m nd wll sht y whr y stnd. f t s ltr fnd t b fk…h wll, Y shld hv knwn bttr. Brng wht y KNW lks t b dvc nt n rprt nd crry swtch wth y…y’r lcky t b lv. Ths trprs dd grt jb.
That's why I try very, very hard to blend in with the crowd. Anything else is tantamount to turning in a false alarm.
Which is what "real" terrorists do, blend in and blow shit up!
Walt Whitman would say it's our duty as American's and participants in this great democracy, to cry fowl every chance we get. It's the only way this system stays working. If people aren't willing to push back against the minor tyranny of the day, we will lose this country.
i understand she meant no harm and this is really one big misunderstanding. That being said, i dont think i would ever walk into an airport with a circuit board attached to my chest. i mean... its kind of asking for trouble isnt it?
also, makes boston look kind of funny. "LED = WMD, ZOMG!!! TERRORISTSTS!!!!"
The problem with this sort of vague, clothing, electronic toy, skin color based profiling is it just makes things worse.
It becomes a self-reinforcing strategy with increasingly negative results.
Step one: Security arrests unusual people because of funky clothes, glowing jewelry and frizzy hair.
Result: People get scared and stop wearing funky clothes, glowing jewelry and frizzy hair.
Step two: "Unusual" now becomes defined by the more common criteria of wrinkled shirts, necklaces and bad hair cuts.
Result: People get scared and stop wearing wrinkled shirts, necklaces and bad hair cuts.
Step three: "Unusual" now becomes defined by the even more common criteria of solid colored shirts, neckties, and wavy hair.
Result: People get scared and stop wearing solid colored shirts, neckties, and wavy hair.
After a while, the visual definition of a terrorist gets so broad it includes everyone who even slightly deviates from the currently accepted "non-terrorist" stereotype. After all, how many people are on the terrorist watch list now? 50,000 - 100,000 - a million plus? There are only so many resources and so much attention we can devote to this problem and it is being diffused to the point of uselessness.
Our terrorist filter isn't based on terrorist strategy, but on an "anything out of the ordinary" paranoia; a category that sweeps up the garden-variety crank, and also all the interesting, intelligent, creative, outspoken, dynamic people that a free society should cherish most. We guard against fear because we think that is synonymous with danger. For example, we spend billions on a Mexico border wall, with part of the reason to make it more difficult for terrorists to enter the country, while the only cases of terrorists caught sneaking across the border was when they came in from Canada.
We have a strategy that would not "occasionally" capture a terrorist, but is intrinsically designed to NEVER catch one.
The black swan is flying overhead, getting ready to crap on us and nobody's looking up.
A question or two to the people who think that those who trampled Star's civil rights were correct in doing so:
Why wasn't the airport employee arrested after it was discovered that she had a) cried wolf, even after having Star explain what was going on b) called in a very expensive SWAT/TSA/Whatever team with *BUG GUNS* c) threatened the life of another person with her ignorance d) (seemingly the worst...) cost the American taxpayer a lot of money??
Why didn't at least one of the reporters at the 'lucky to be in a cell rather than the morgue' press conference point out the absurdity of that statement.
Hopefully, you people (and I mean the ones that have soft-on's for the fact that Star got manhandled by leather clad men with large, rigid guns tucked under their arms) know the story that goes something like (with apologies to Nemesis...) - first they came for the frecks, and I said nothing because I had no freckles... etc. They will eventually make EVERYTHING illegal. In Dublin you can get put in prison for up to 2 years for busking on the wrong street should the police wish to exercise that right - no one busks in those areas, not due to the threat of law but the threat of the law enforcers.
Good luck U.S. - you will need it. I advise reading some books set in during the Russian occupation of the former Czeckslovakia - in particular pat attention to how the secret police turned friend against friend, sibling against sibling, and remember - the walls have ears!
Out, damned spot! There's a certain dirty secret about Boston, which is that for several decades, a certain ethnic community in Boston was funding terrorism in the British Isles. That certain community is heavily represented in the police forces around Boston. And that certain community is saddled with guilt, and defensive enough about it to make them lash out at targets of opportunity. And Star drew that short straw.
Aha! The Mall Ninja LIVES!!
Please re-emvowel joedogs' post,just fer the yuks!
This may be fuzzy logic, but I think I want a Star Simpson.
Hassan,
How about a highlights reel?
♥ I'm a cop.
♥ ...you are merely simple children...
♥ One of you morons wrote...
♥ Are you that incredibly dull???
♥ I could not be bothered to give most of you twits the time of day.
♥ You are all pathetic...
♥ Grow up, you foolish little children.
♥ Such foolishness.
♥ It is what a reasonable person believes, not what some geek or nerd figures out after taking into account the version offered by another geek or nerd.
♥ ...pull a gun on me and I will shoot you where you stand.
Face facts, people.
If you do anything out of the ordinary, you're going to cause fear in people.
Your fear is your own prison.
Don't make it ours and then brag about it you slfsh bstrd*.
* - self applied.
I forget who said it, but the subject was brought up that she was being surrounded based on mere suspicion.
True. But not all suspicion (imo) is equal. If a person is suspected to be shoplifting, he or she is given a different response than say, someone suspected of standing around in a crowded while wearing a device that may or may not destroy property, kill those near, maim those further away with shrapnel, give up to third degree burns to others...
I'm not saying that it stupid to defend her, but I have to agree with the sentiment that the number of people who recognize this for the harmless make project it is, are greatly outnumbered by those who may not. I'm sure from a distance its really hard to tell what it is. And yea, from a pop cultural idea of what a suicide bomber looks like, its not a hard leap to make.
So while the TSA's immediate response may not be completely out of line, the harassment she received after the fact is bullshit. Intent needs to be taken into account. If no hoax was intended, she needn't apologize, her photo should not be made public, the security should have a press release stating that though the possible threat was addressed, the suspect was found to be not having any explosives on her person and no threat or hoax was intended and therefore was subsequently released.
The fact that this is not what happened is cause enough for concern.
Wow. I'm amazed at the extent to which people can argue that doing something out of the ordinary means you deserve whatever happens to you, no matter how crazy people get.
I don't have any problem with the cops stopping her and asking what she's doing. They're just trying to make sure everything is jake, and if they get tips, they should certainly check them out. But unless Boston had a string of suicide bomber attacks that somebody forgot to tell me about, then this was an overreaction from the get-go, and the cops should have had enough sense to take with a grain of salt a single panicked report from some information booth volunteer.
I was horrified to read about what happened to this student, but it was the hostile posters on this thread that made me sick to my stomach.
You've got the guys who think the cops were justified, that all these stupid security rules actually have an impact on terrorists, instead of just citizens. You've got the guys calling her an idiot.
Is she a hero? It is an interesting choice of words, putting together that sweatshirt was not heroic, but it was creative. I never went to engineering school, but I went to art school in the eighties and we did this sort of thing all the time. Yes, we were trying to get reactions out of people, but it the hope was as much that the reaction would be delight as any other.
So she put on this shirt and went to the airport and got surrounded by cops and that was clearly frightening and traumatic. And one would have thought that the whole thing would have blown over and folks would have come to their senses, but no, it went on and on and got worse and worse.
So you have this trauma and then you don't have support from the authorities who you thought were there to protect you, and then people at the school (where she might have reasonably expected to get some moral support) did not help and shunned her and some were out and out hostile (Yeah, I'm talking about you, #38, you douchebag) and all of that made it worse.
So she dropped out of school and it is sounding to me a lot like the poor kid has PTSD, and for good reason. And if she does, no matter whether you view her initial actions as heroic or not, if she does have PTSD, now she has to be heroic. Because if you have PTSD, just getting out the door can be an act of heroism, an act that takes more courage than any of the authoritarian bullies here will ever muster.
And she's been dealing with courts and the public reaction and talking about it?
Damn, that's what makes her a hero. That's guts. It's not the blinky sweatshirt or the initial shitstorm, but dealing with the aftermath that is where she had to show what she was made of.
Star, hang in there kid. It's an ugly world that's getting uglier every minute. We put on airs, but we're no better than the ants and the baboons, just simple animals who have knee jerk reactions, most of us. If you find your way back to school, and I hope you do, you might want to take a political psych class. It will help you understand the way the mob thinks.
And if you find some folks along the way who actually can use their brains, who actually can empathize, who do give a shit, treasure them. Because they are rare and special beings. Treasure them and take inspiration from their efforts.
And some of us will take inspiration from yours.
I'm still trying to comprehend the idea that what she was doing as being so beyond the pale. Are we really expecting our (freshmen?) college students making an early morning friend pick up at the airport to have more common sense and training in criminal/terrorism matters than the security at the airport and Boston law enforcement? Yeah, 'cause I want the girl with the blinking star on her chest to be on the ball!, those guys with machine guns, heh, who cares how they behave.
security?, safety?, wow.
I think hero is a strong word (sort of like 'how could she not realize'... and a the same time, 'come on it's a bread board, this is absolutely ridiculous' as I watched in the media circus in disbelief). But I definitely give you kudos Star because your incident put a spotlight on this culture of fear that has mushroomed in recent times. Thank goodness you were not physically harmed in any way.
I'm a maker and a Palestinian American, ultra cautious not to ruffle any feathers in airports (especially when traveling to conventions, and have been singled out numerous times post 9/11 (without my projects in hand)). The frenzied mixing of fear and ignorance is a potential hazard in airports, my concern is when that dangerous mix starts to seep outside the airport grounds and into the rest of society.
It is important that cases like yours are in the general consciousness, as well as in the minds of regulators and those who determine protocols for security. Perhaps then the immediate on the scene (as well as "news" and cultural) reactions can be then put into perspective. (I can't believe the reactions from people in the street!) I think it was wrong to wear that to the airport, though, for those from maker culture, an innocent mistake. The greater wrong, was the disproportionate reaction that ensued on all levels.
Thank you for telling your side of the story. I hope this has not curtailed your academic career beyond leaving MIT; that the negativity has subsided and you can glean some positivity from your experience.
97 the world is an ugly place and stupid actions make it only worse. This was no act of protest or performance art, she knew what she was getting into.
She is no martyr; she is no hero; she is exactly why security has become increasingly paranoid.
It makes me sick that Americans take their freedoms for granted- everyone seems to feel entitled to do what ever they want and when there are consequences you blame the system, never the individual.
Stupid and dangerous actions should not be rewarded. Are you going to celebrate a child who walking into traffic? No. They maybe lucky the first time, even the 10th time, but luck runs out and then who is to blame? Everyone but yourself.
If she had something to say, it would have been when this was news.
Only a fool would listen to her story and blame everyone else for her situation.
she is exactly why security has become increasingly paranoid
Your view of causation is profoundly out of whack.
she is exactly why security has become increasingly paranoid
I'm sure by 'she' you mean the Chicken Little at the information desk.
William @ #96:
"Wow. I'm amazed at the extent to which people can argue that doing something out of the ordinary means you deserve whatever happens to you, no matter how crazy people get."
William, I agree. Further, I would put such people in the same category as those who would blame a rape victim because of her clothing choices.
For those of you in that category who are now offended by being compared thusly, just look in the mirror and say "You invited that comparison" and see how hollow it sounds to you. Law enforcement is supposed to protect and serve us, not so you can get either laughs or a sense of self-righteous certainty about yourself from watching them assault or harass someone you don't like. If you're one of those people, I really don't give a damn if I hurt your feelings with that comparison.
@#50 Annonymous
Sorry for the inconvenience, here's your jumpsuit. You're citizen #00353095874. Enjoy your stay.
They did over react and the security's over reaction is far more likely to kill someone then a possible terrorist.
If you ask me the TSA needs to be disbanded it's a failed experiment just like everything else the Bush administration did.
As for the Boston Cops they only proved they are incompetent idiots not fit for law enforcement let alone be allowed to carry firearms.
she is exactly why security has become increasingly paranoid
Your view of causation is profoundly out of whack.
@ #101 I agree #100 is really out of wack and represents everything that is wrong with the world today.
The security over reacted and the Boston police finally proved to the world they are incompetent idiots.
BTW brandishing sub machine guns like they did they puts everyone at risk.
If one panicked and fired the rest of them would likely death blossom and kill several bystanders.
I find the actions of the airport police not only disturbing but also incredibly sloppy and reckless.
Security like that doesn't make you safer if anything it's a liability.
High fire rate weapons are not something you want to use in a crowded area esp when standard semi auto pistols and tasers would be more then enough firepower for the job.
Here's the thing. People on boingboing might recognise a breadboard, but to someone working airport security who's never gone to a college like MIT or been exposed to electronics engineering, that what girl is wearing a just a wierd thing with a load of wires that could be a bomb, meaning their life and everyone else nearby is in danger.
In England, where firearms are slightly harder to get hold of, people do get shot to death by armed police for holding an immitation weapon in a threatening way and not cooperating.
It's a tragedy since it's either suicide by cop, or because they're criminals who are bluffing and get called. She could have ended up in the morgue and it would have been her fault if she did.
Yada Yada rights to wear breadboards through airport security. She put an enormous stress on the airport guards by doing something that they could mistake for a bombing attempt! At the back of her mind she must have realised the ambiguity.
I'm really sorry but Star is responsible for what she did. If she's naive, she needs to develop insight into the way other people will percieve her actions.
If I made someone fear for their life, even by accident or as a joke, or just by being naive and through a misunderstanding, I'd actually want to apologise for making them afraid, and I didn't hear a word of apology in that interview.
also frankly, that breadboard just isn't art. I've not seen breadboards on chests featured anywhere for their artistic merit.
If she disagrees with the anti-terrorism paranoia, the way to change it is to change policy, not to clearly provoke the people at the bottom of the food-chain who implement the policy and have no say in what the policy is.
If she wanted to find the modern day equivalent of sticking her foot over the top of the trench and getting out of college, she found a way to do that, too, and it was more effective than she would have liked.
I'm not convinced by her explanation of why she did this. I hope she goes on to create things with greater artistic merit and lead an exciting and successful life, and can close this little chapter, because it didn't add very much.
"She does not look like 9/11 Al-Qaeda hijackers, nor introverted pipe bombers. Kudos."
-------------------------
if the police stopped someone who DID fit the profile of a hijacker/terrorist, you'd be right there decrying "jack-booted thugs" profiling poor foreign nationals. Stop. Stop it now.
Our current climate puts law enforcement in a difficult position of trying to do a thankless job and not trampling on peoples rights. Obviously they could be doing a better job but in the case of Star, she knew full well the current political climate that walking into an airport with such a device would cause a problem DESPITE HER INTENTIONS. She's a stupid little girl who attempted to make some kind of social statement to impress her peers without thinking about the repercussions. She's not an innocent.
People who take issue with our governments policies need to realize that all the marching, all the art installations and gimmickry, all the hacky sack playing, dressing up as a corpse in a mock funeral procession and all the rest does NOTHING but impress their own peer groups. I think Penn & Teller mentioned on Bullshit that such people are more interested in being a part of something than actually taking the steps that would possibly effect change. Star is a perfect example of such stupidity.
@danegeld
Here's the thing. People on boingboing might recognise a breadboard, but to someone working airport security who's never gone to a college like MIT or been exposed to electronics engineering, that what girl is wearing a just a wierd thing with a load of wires that could be a bomb, meaning their life and everyone else nearby is in danger.
If someone working airport security hasn't been exposed to electronics engineering...should they be working airport security?
By this logic I could get shot for taking my tangled battery cable out of my laptop bag to find something at the bottom of the pocket?
I find everything she says about the incident itself very believable. It sounds exactly like what someone who innocently stumbled into a shitstorm would say afterward.
What I didn't hear, and what I wanted most to hear, addressed what Xeni said:
That's true but not complete. It's not like she went to trial and got that ruling from the judge. With her lawyer's advice, she negotiated with the prosecutor to get a deal that agreed to all that.
What I wanted to hear was, Who lined up to defend her? Who gave her legal advice? Why did she take the deal? Why didn't she go to trial? Is having the charge off her record worth the cost?
It's hard enough intending to get involved in a free speech/first amendment type issue and riding it through. I know that from personal experience. It's got to be harder to stumble into it innocently, and I sympathize with her. When it happens to you, though, you face having to rise to the occasion, and I'm not sure she managed that.
I'd like to hear about that part of it. There's where she's got something to teach.
Again.
I know she acted naively and that I would never wear something to draw attention on myself in an airport.
But you people who say that she deserved everything she got AND WORSE just worry me to the core.
She was approached and questioned by a (hopefully) trained security staff member who couldn't identify a stupid, harmless electronic component. She got swarmed and arrested by not one, but a GANG of policemen with guns. She got her picture and info posted on CNN. She got prosecuted like a criminal and got sentenced even if she did not break the law.
She SHOULD have gotten a warning by the security staff, maybe. But this was worse treatment than many sex abusers or murderers get (many have their identity protected, at least for a time).
If all you people who think that anyone you deem stupider should get abusive, over-the-top, UNCONSTITUTIONAL punishment for their gaffes, you better hope like heck you are every bit as smart and upstanding as you think you are. Because a fascist state could be coming your way.
LED's on a hoodie and a clay flower? That is what constitutes disturbing the peace? She's a 19yr old geek from MIT ... come on. A lot of my old friends wear tees like this and I've seen plenty of variations in techno crowds. Geeks.com has an LED wifi detector, but apparently that is just a pair of crosshairs to law enforcement.
Security are at an airport precisely to identify threats and react accordingly. Chicago airport just shows itself to be one dumb place to react in this way, and Chicago lawyers to be politically motivated bureaucrats, with little interest in truth or justice.
It is the job of airport security to identify and not over-react. They did their job, identified it as not a bomb and should have moved on, saying she could have got shot for having a clay flower and an led pcb board just shows the level of hysteria this country is in. We're gonna shoot more people then we're gonna save at this rate.
Saying she was naive and shouldn't have worn it is a misnomer, she can reasonably be allowed to wear this in public. You have billions of people going through these airports, and proper security procedures are not in place for naive people? That argument means that there should be no naive people at airports, otherwise they could get shot. My sister is a complete ditz but if she was treated this way I would have gone ape on the media.
Sorry Star, you had a bad attorney. You would have done better to represent yourself, even if you are as ditzy as my sister.
Benjamin Franklin's famous quote would apply here:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Overreaction by airport gestapo? Most definitely.
But where do we draw the line? Many posters here will be the first ones to point fingers the first time a real threat is missed and people die, any day now.
Can't have it both ways, folks.
Trying to challenge TSA policy with performance art at the security gorilla level is never repeat NEVER going to work out for you.
A 19 y.o. wouldn't probably understnd that, but I bet she does now.
A lot of comments here, and I don't have time to read them all to see where this conversation is, but my 2 cents:
The "hoax device" law is ridiculous, as it essentially allows the police to plant evidence-- in this case evidence of intent, in other words "It looked like a bomb to me, so therefore you intended it to look like a bomb in general." One of the Boston weekly papers printed a nice summary of how stupid the law is: if you are scared one night during a strong thunderstorm because the big oak tree outside your window looks like a monster, that doesn't give you sufficient cause to go chop that tree down the next day-- the tree didn't do anything.
There are laws regarding "infernal machines" on the books in other cities and states too, usually (if I am not mistaken) it means any homemade explosive device, and can even apply to a potato launcher. The "hoax device" idea is a unique twist that essentially give cops an "out" if they realize they have embarrassed themselves by confusing a "lite brite" with a bomb.
The other issue with the Star Simpson case is that the media were feeding like hungry sharks, and had essentially made her guilty in the eyes of public opinion before they knew all the facts. The problem with the media in the US today isn't so much that it has a political bias towards either side, but that it feeds off any kinds of controversy, and needs to invent controversy to keep the 24-hour news cycle going. The media hurt her more than the police in my opinion, and did so for profit, not out of a misguided belief in public safety.
Considering the way the US has acted post-9/11, I don't think Boston is all that much different than any other average American city, the "hoax device" law is just Boston's peculiar twist. The fact that taking photos in public is now considered tantamount to "terrorism" in so many places is a good barometer of how paranoid we've become as a society. If the Star Simpson case illustrates anything it's that it's become dangerous to do something unusual in public. We've had it beaten into our heads to watch for "suspicious activity" to the point where we're making it quasi-illegal to do anything weird and fun, like a zombie march or a water balloon fight. Getting rid of the hoax device law in Boston is a good start, but it won't change the way American society acts as a whole.
I don't necessarily think Star Simpson is a hero, but (from what I gather) she's smart and curious about the world and maybe less afraid than most other people. Maybe in these increasingly oppressive times that does constitute a hero.
@ #91 Hassan, you beat me to it, thanks; that post was long enough that my reemvoweling muscles were starting to hurt.
@ #93 Antinous, thx for the summary. Related, to whom do I submit a feature request for a single-post reemvowling button, or is that a known won't-have?
Ths s s trgs!!!!!
Th vst mjrty f y 'wht' ppl sms lk bnch f rtrds.
mn, lk t yr prsdnt, fr f***ng hvn's sk!
Ths stry (nc nd gn) jst gs t shw hw scrd, gnrnt nd rcst yr cntry hs bcm (r, stll s).
N wndr th .S. s (slwly - r rthr qckly; jst hv lk t th ltst Wll Strt scndls - cld g n nd n...) gng dwn th drn (sclly, pltclly, s wll s fnnclly ).
mrc s dmd.
@Star: Keep up the good work!
Hang in there Star. I'm with you.
I could rant about how ignorant I think some security people are, but that horse has already been beaten.
An exposed breadboard just does not seem threatening to me at all.
However, if I wanted to bring this alarm clock as a gift to a friend, I could understand the reaction:
http://www.denkimono.com/timer/
Oh, and NE (#38, #100) sounds like he/she/it may also have attended MIT? a little jealous that you didn't think of such a cool wearable hack eh? jerk?
Antinous - Thank fer the recap/summary although it didn't quite capture the righteous bug eyed froth of the original! Can I second Wally's re-emvowel button request ?
and thanks for the wee love hearts,they were very sweet!
@106 Danegeld: "I've not seen breadboards on chests featured anywhere for their artistic merit."
You've never shopped at Cyberdog, I see. Their production values are higher -- they use actual PCBs rather than solderless breadboards, the power supply is a lithium battery rather than a 9V, and if memory serves it's all surface-mount components -- but then, club kids are shelling out GBP30 a pop for these t-shirts, so I'm sure they can afford to pay a fabricator to make the boards up in bulk.
I guess you weren't in Vegas for Defcon '07 or '08 either -- both years, the convention badges have been custom-cut boards driven by a user-programmable microcontroller. There were reports of Defcon attendees on their way back home getting questioned by airport security about what their badges were, but to the best of my knowledge, no one was arrested and the Vegas PD was never involved.
Does Star's solderless-breadboard blinkenlights contraption look messy? Sure. Prototypes often do.
Star, here's one for you.:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kt/133524395/in/set-72057594061455054/
Hassan & Wally,
We don't have a re-emvowelment function. I have to do it by hand unless I happened to keep a copy of the original.
Long time reader, first time poster, and I'm too lazy to create an account. Anyways, I'd like to share a personal anecdote this case brought to mind...
I was with a group of friends during a 2600 meeting sitting in a mall food court. Most of us got food, so we had every right to be there. A few of us favored black trench coats, and this was a short time after Columbine happened - we favored black trench coats prior, certainly not because of that tragedy, and as I put in my yearbook signings that year, "Trench coats don't kill people, people kill people."
Now here comes the lapse in judgment on the part of our group. Many of us had Leathermans or other multi-tools, and we decided to pull them out and compare them. So, picture this, a group of younger people, some with trench coats, playing with pocketknives in a mall food court. Not wise, but we didn't stop to think of appearances and we certainly didn't mean to cause any distress to the public.
A police officer comes over, politely introduces himself, and asks if he can sit with us. We say "Sure, by all means." We explain our meeting, and he sees we're paying mall patrons. His exact following words: "Hey, you all aren't doing anything illegal or even wrong, but you're scaring the hell out of these people." Well, we all kind of had the realization that we might indeed be doing that, even though it was in no way our intent. So, we put the pocketknives/multi-tools away, and took off our trench coats, and continued our meeting. The officer thanked us, and we thanked him.
My point in bringing this up: this police officer used his head, and politely discussed the situation with us. He didn't get mean or even slightly authoritarian, and we were happy to comply with his request. This is how things work in civilization. Had someone just talked with Star, and asked to see the jacket, everything would have blown over quickly. Instead, everything was blown out of proportion.
To those who say "Shoot first, ask questions later.": I kindly ask you to get your un-American, un-patriotic and traitorous impulses out of my country. Any true American (or, not to be nationalistic, any true believer of democracy) understands that freedom brings risks. Those risks have to be managed, but freedom must always prevail. If that means an extraordinarily low probability of terrorist attack (tell me alarmists, what percentage of Americans will die this year or any year due to terrorism?) then so be it.
I would be willing to die in a terrorist attack so my fellow Americans can keep their civil liberties. Any true patriot should be prepared to do the same.
I feel terrible that Star ended up being abandoned by MIT. They had a chance to step up and protect one of their own (and perhaps help change America for the better), but they picked the easy route and avoided liability. This really concerns me.
I watched two great related TED talks recently that are brilliant and worthwhile. Please, learn and spread these ideas:
Eve Ensler's talked entitled "Security and Insecurity": http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/eve_ensler_on_security.html
Jonathan Haidt's talk on on the differences between liberals and conservatives: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
star, hang in there grrl. the peoples' memory is short, and life is long. joedogs @92, could you please be just be a little more dickish? it seems you've reached some kid of plateau and can't quite make it over. hmm, a plateau of dickishness. how appropos.
Star, I live in Cambridge, MA, and if I see you on the street, I'll shake your hand. You rock. I am sorry our state police are so utterly psychotic.
#121 Exactly. MIT having your back is a pleasant myth that shows up in student legends, but it's not a feature of reality. MIT will always pick the easy route and avoid liability.
#121: "I would be willing to die in a terrorist attack so my fellow Americans can keep their civil liberties. Any true patriot should be prepared to do the same."
I totally agree with you, though naturally I would prefer to not have to die in the first place (due to a terrorist attack provoked by my country's overly aggressive foreign policy.) :)
To all the critics who said that Star was stupid to wear a device in an airport, do we really expect that everyone should live their life in *fear* of standing out? Should we be *afraid* of the authorities, or simply cooperative?
*afraid* isn't the right word. I'm not afraid of the dog, but equally I don't dress as a burglar and surprise him to see if he'll bite me.
If I did provoke my dog and he bit me, and the wound got infected and I had to take time off work and lost my job, that's terrible bad luck but it's still basically my fault for harassing the dog in the first place.
The police are paid to err on the side of zealoty and Star should have realised she might precipitate a reaction.
The matter could have been resolved within a few days rather than a whole year, but that's why it's not worth getting tangled up with the law. It's a big opportunity cost if they choose to dick you around.
To the over-20-year-old trolls, I think it's astonishing how fearful/wise you were at 19 and how you haven't grown any or learned anything new since then.
Also police as uncontrollable wild animal is such a great world to live in!
Also, is much better to pursue "apparent" threats -- speeds the real criminals right through!
Seriously though, the problem of identification is summed up thus: you could have near-perfect identification if you strip searched everyone everytime, but otherwise it's a needle-in-a-haystack problem with an equal chance of success of winning the lottery. Either way, t'ain't worth it.
Yupa #5:
Yeah, I originally thought she should have used a little more common sense, but the problem is that the standard of "what is safe to take to the airport" is defined by the standards the most paranoid person that you happen to meet at the airport. If I took a bottle-cap collection in a jar (say) to the airport and sat in a restaurant for a while, I'm sure there would eventually someone who thought the bottle-caps were shrapnel for a bomb and call security.
Once security gets called in because of a suspected suicide bomber, they pretty much have to lock down the airport. And once they have to lock down the airport, they will never be able to admit that it was a false alarm caused by an overly paranoid traveler. They have to justify all of the inconvenience and disruption, and the only way to do that is to file charges.
It's gotten to the point where it feels like we're in some horrible combination of the 1930's (Great Depression), 1950's (Red Peril) and 1970's (oil prices). The inflation of the 1970's will hit soon, now that the government is taking on mass quantities of debt to bail out wall street. $700 billion is a big chunk of the GDP.
Just watched "V" again. How chilling.
That the police treated this as a real incident- sure no problem, thats what "protocol" is for. Until you find out that the woman was just wearing a harmless 'art piece'
That the Police and DA decided to prosecute her, and make a public mockery of her- rather then simply admit that they were wrong is disgraceful.
In this case as her attorney I would have made the DA drop the case or alternatively defeated it at trial. Then I would have immediately started a civil suit for false arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation, slander, and more. I would have asked for my attorneys fees on the criminal case.
While this was ongoing I would have taken the PR fight back at the prosecution.
This woman deserved to be restored to her original position. After the dump the city has taken on her it would have taken some real effort. Instead she's become an internet joke.
What is the source for the quote in the print story that MIT's reaction "felt like 'being disowned'"?
I didn't hear that in the interview, and wondered if there was a fuller story somewhere in which she discusses MIT's behavior.
@Bukharin, the sources for that statement were twofold: a first-person testimonial essay Star Simpson wrote and shared with us (this will run soon in MAKE Magazine), and her own words on video, a section of our 45-minute-long interview with her which was left out of this edit for time. I'm going to try and publish the whole transcript soon, so folks can read everything even if we can't publish a 45-minute uncut episode.
It isn't sufficient just to be co-operative with the authorities. Or rather, being co-operative entails a demonstration of abject fear. If the civilians aren't afraid of the authorities, how will the authorities maintain their authority? How can they possibly command respect without having the raw power to back it up? And how can we show adequately our respect without cringing in fear at the least suggestion that we might stand out of the crowd and draw the authorities' attention to ourselves? Those who govern are never satisfied with less.
It's a good thing, really. If the civilians aren't afraid of the government, surely the terrorists will be even less afraid.
Someone please tell me how to answer these arguments in a culture that values safety above the freedom to be unusual; conformity above exploration; comfort above learning.
That would be great, thank you!
Cry me a river!
You would have to be retarded to think that a cobbled together assemblage of wires and LEDs worn on your body would easily soar past the TSA wage slaves.
And don't give me that..." they are trained professionals " crap. They are as well trained as the security guards at your local mall.
They made me pour out my room temp. water, ( for my baby's formula), but it was certainly ok to buy the chilled $3.50 pint at the kiosk right outside security.
Don't act like an ass so the rest of us can board our miserable flights to get where we are going.
And don't get me started about the morons with the genius marketing for the Aqua Teens movie in Boston.
#138 I wonder if by "retarded," you mean "have Asperger's syndrome," which as of course you know is more common among engineers and techies, and reduces one's ability to evaluate social cues?
#138 For the love of God, it wasn't the TSA, it was MA cops outside the airport, tipped by a paranoid arrivals desk clerk.
For people wondering how someone 19 wouldn't know what a gun looked like. It's totally possible, especially for the ridiculous guns they have at the airports. I never saw one until after 9/11 (besides the ever-present holster that cops are required to have) and it absolutely freaked the sh*t out of me to be walking by those guys. Safer? I felt absolutely the most unsafe I have ever felt in my life. Why do they need machine guns instead of pistols? At least with a pistol the victim has some chance of living through a mistake.
If I were an extreme techie going to an extreme techie grad school, I very likely could do something like this as well, as the norm there is far from the norm outside of the school. As an example, I picked up some friends from an airport a few years ago and realized I had walked in being really dusty and wearing a skull and crossbones bandana. I try to look "normal" when going to the airport to get through lines faster, but had been in a hurry and didn't even think about it. I was freaked out that I was going to cause suspicion and get forced into a back room, and I was freaked out that I was now looking freaked out. That is not what the norm is supposed to be. You should not feel afraid when going about your business and not harming anyone.
I'm a strong opponent to the militarization of the police forces.
no fooksie, DO get started on the ATHF marketing guys.
Tell me about their hair, was it 1970's enough for you?