Comments:Student arrested over "art" shirt with exposed wiring at Boston Airport

Diesel Sweeties
This immediately comes to mind. Not sure whether one inspired the other. Freedom of the dress :D --121.45.6.6 15:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This comes to mind with me. THEY'RE BACK! --TUFKAAP 16:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh?
This could be any number of things; someone not too bright not realizing the seriousness of such things, a practical joke, a cry for attention, or some other thing.

I like to think that it was to scare the airport people. It is easy to get mad at the place you have to wait hours and hours to get on a plane to another airport to wait hours and hours & repeat until destination! Contralya 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussions above were copied from Talk:Woman wearing fake bomb arrested at Boston Logan International Airport/Comments

She says it was art, but I believe her motivations were political. My theory is that she did it just to see how the police would react, and she was right. They would have been quick to use lethal force and seem to have no qualms with it. Such is the state of our nation. Looks like terrorists have won the first battle... Raphael s 22:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was clearly political. She made a nametag to use for a career fair and ended up causing an irrational bomb scare. But it was really to test the police. 18.238.6.77 01:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Though it was probably political, I disagree with you on the other things. The fact that the police had lethal force was a GOOD thing. If it was a real suicide bomber than they would need to be shot! They wouldn't of had 'no qualms', if you have had problems with the police in the past, it is because you DON'T do what they say. You are just plain wrong. That guy who was tasered would NOT cooperate and was fighting police (I believe this is were you get your 'idea' from) he was just trying to cause trouble, you play into his hands. I can't stand activists that are blind. Contralya 02:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't political at all. Note how the response from her and her attorney Ross Schreiber has been primarily that "she's not a bad person" and only "the police were incompetent and acted out of line" as an afterthought of sorts. Even this article which definitely states it was a fake bomb and then says she "claims to be an M.I.T. student" (emphasis added) didn't go so far as to imply that she's manipulating the police and/or the press for political purposes. 18.238.6.77 03:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

—74.34.189.229 03:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)hardly seems like the device would look like a bomb really. doesn't even sound like she had any intent to impersonate a bomb-strapped person. i say, brava for her! be as productive as possible in school, be a success! —74.34.189.229 03:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it seem like one simply has to get a circut board, glue some LEDs to it, and get some wires to stick out of it, and VIOLA! You've just crippled the City of Boston. Need I remind you of Aquagate?--98.201.35.10 05:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone even notice the person on fire behind the device? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be the "Burning Man", a symbol for East Campus, the dorm in which she lives. The dorm gets a whole bunch of hoodies with it on them and them sells them. 18.238.6.77 05:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right...and I suppose the entire world knows that? If I were a cop, and I saw that AND the device, I would not have hesitated to shoot her...Art? What a bunch of bullshit. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it's a good thing you're only publishing incorrect information about her rather than killing her. 18.238.6.77 06:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Boston.
We're retahded. --TUFKAAP 05:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC) But seriously, she must been prototyping her "bomb" with that breadboard. ;)

Also, you can't take the subway directly to the airport, more you can you take it to Aiport station on the Blue Line (the same line I want to come to my town just across the river from Revere, sorry chip on my shoulder) and take a shuttle bus, or... take the Sliver Line... which is... a BUS. Bus rapid transit! --TUFKAAP 05:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, semantics. It's a smaller difference than what the media reports have presented, a "fake bomb" vs. "a computer circuit board and wiring". 18.238.6.77 05:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

these quotes are kind of scary
""This is a serious event and was handled quickly and safely. She claims this was art and just wanted to display the art. She didn't understand the seriousness of the situation and she is lucky we did not use deadly force because we had machine guns on scene," said authorities during a press conference at 11:00 a.m. today.

"She's extremely lucky she followed the instructions or deadly force would have been used. And she's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue," said Pare."

A place where you can accidentally do something that police quite probably respond with deadly force is quite a scary reality in my opinion. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I'm curious as to why he thought it a good idea to advertise the fact that had she done anything wrong, they likely could have killed her. Normally it seems wise to not emphasize one's incompetence. 18.238.6.77 04:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with you guys? If there was a real suicide bomber, everyone would be relived if they got shot by police! The police had no idea if it was a real bomb or not and they could of potentially all died! Get real, people. The police don't abuse authority as much as the 'don't tase me bro' guy wants you to think they do. The police were doing their jobs, well. Contralya 05:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to say that it is an abuse of authority. A situation like that is a very delicate one, and I agree that if it was a suicide bomber, such force would be justified. However on the other hand, there is something intrinsically scary (for me) with a world where you could accidentally do something and the police may shoot you. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that they respond quickly is great, though ideally the airport personnel shouldn't have been incompetent enough to think that a bomber is going to have lights advertising the fact. What's messed up is that Pare acts proud of the fact that they could have easily killed her for having LEDs and Play-Doh had she made a wrong move.  That, and the fact that after it was established that there was never any danger, the authorities are pressing charges when none of this would have happened had the woman at the information desk (later commended) been able to tell the difference between an LED and a bomb (they're quite different, I assure you).  18.238.6.77 05:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above...Anyone see the person on fire behind the device? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See the top left of her dorm's website. It's their symbol. 18.238.6.77 06:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right...and I suppose the entire world knows that? If I were a cop, and I saw that AND the device, I would not have hesitated to shoot her...Art? What a bunch of bullshit. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you were a cop, you, or someone higher than you, should (hopefully would) have done the research to find out what it meant before you even took a gun anywhere near her. --86.130.19.10 13:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC).
 * No. She should know, at 19 years old, to not walk into an international airport, with computer circuit boards, lights and a flaming person, to the same desk the 9/11 hijackers went to. Now thats not smart. She did all this very well aware of the consequences. She is an MIT student, not a mental case. So she knew exactly what she was doing. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Yes, and an MIT student wouldn't think twice about wearing a circuit with as much technology as a light-up pen on his/her shirt on campus. For better or worse, people don't think about reinventing themselves in appearance and demeanor every time they leave campus. Considering that she had to ask the information desk about her boyfriend's flight, her trip to the airport was a last-minute one for all we know. Your assumption that she knew what she was getting into is completely unfounded. 18.238.6.77 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, see her shirt and whats on it. If you are that stupid to not know what you are doing, then you sure as hell should not be at MIT let alone allowed anywhere near an airport. To say that she was clueless about what she was doing is unfounded. Remember this is an "inventor, engineer etc" at MIT not some joe schmo. IF your brain is that messed up to not know what you were doing, then throw her in a hospital. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In terms of the logo, if you're in (or as good as in) the same city as where the logo is relevant, you would expect someone in the police force to know what it represented. Even so, if it's something you probably see everyday, why would it occur to you that other people might misinterpret it, even if you do go to . The writing seems more nonsensical to me than any other darker meaning as well, though a quick Google search suggests (not confirms) that it is related to her university course. And it was before 8am, about which I'll say nothing more, for fear of an overreaction. --86.130.19.10 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC).

I find the discussion about the student's shirt ridiculous. Terrorists don't tend to make t-shirts advertising their ways, or walk into an airport with a battery in plain sight. Ultimately, there are two problems in security systems: false positives and false negatives. It's clear that this was a false positive &mdash; the student was not carrying a bomb and was not a threat, but the police did not recognize that. Until Boston police learn how to identify and deal with false positives their system will continue to be weaker than it should be. -- IlyaHaykinson 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the world going
People are getting way too scared for this kind of thing actually holding up in the long run, I mean, it's one thing to call the police and have her being investigated but to actually give her a fine is just sick. She didn't do anything wrong so she shouldn't have to pay for it just because someone can't see the difference between a art-project and a bomb. Btw, what was the play-doh for?

-91.126.35.250 18:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Many companies will distribute putty or Play-Doh in eggs with their logos on it at the career fair. That's likely how she got it and was just playing with it in her hand. 18.238.6.77 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is simple. It is not 'just an art project'. She has some other motivation for the act. She is simply lying. I don't think a MIT student can be that stupid.
 * "Art project" would not be an accurate statement to describe the device. It was a nametag designed for her use at a career fair, and she had been wearing it on campus for a few days when the bomb scare at Logan happened. The fact that she goes to MIT only supports the belief that there was no ill intention. Any MIT student wouldn't think twice about the "danger" a few LEDs on a shirt. 18.238.6.77 02:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraq = Viet Nam -- Have we come full circle now?
Most younger people don't know much about Viet Nam. I remember it well, I'm 50. I was lucky, I don't have to serve.

How we got into these two wars is very different, but the outcome looks to be the same.

Late in the Viet Nam war tensions, here in the US, grew to the point that we shot our own people: Kent State.

Today we have Star Simpson. Her "crime" was to wear a piece of home made art.

What appalls me the most is Scott Para's "bragging" that he almost killed her. Perhaps I am under the mistaken assumption that our police forces were hired to protect us, not kill us. Whatever happened to "To Protect and Serve"? Have we come at the point where we need protection from our own law enforcement?

Scott Para should be fired with all due haste.
 * LOL he was protecting...for all we knew at the time, she was a terrorist. If I was him, and I shot her, I would feel bad but at the same time, I was doing my job to protect those at the airport. See my reply aboove in the quote section too. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, are you in the Boston PD? Seriously, are you guys at war with anyone that uses a breadboard? You know, generally EE prototypes do have visible wires and batteries. But seriously, who would pay for casing when it isn't necessary? --132.198.252.6 21:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No he shouldn't be fired. Seriously, if someone pointed a water gun designed to look like a Glock at you, that is terrorism, since you fear you will be shot. The police did the right thing arresting her. You are just plain wrong. People can't be allowed to terrorize people like that. Do you know what a terrorist is? An example of a terrorist is a person who wears dynamite and nails under their coat, walks into a market place, and blows themself up to kill as many innocents as possible. Do you want to be one of those innocents? Do you want to think you may be one of those innocents? I am sure some people who saw her thought they might be. Contralya 01:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your examples are all of people who intentionally disguised innocuous devices as dangerous weapons. There is nothing in this case that implies that she disguised the circuit as a bomb. 18.238.6.77 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, then; what if someone was holding what seems like a rifle but was really a paint ball gun, but it was 100 yards away, at police? I don't think a MIT student would walk into an AIRPORT with something that resembles a bomb, and you wouldn't point a paint ball gun at a cop. Contralya 07:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If she were pointing a paintball gun at someone, then she's very likely going to shoot him or her with a paintball. Unlike this situation, where she never gave any indication that she was going to attack anyone with an LED. 18.238.6.77 14:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hate to say it but... Only in the U.S. She had a college hoody on with a bit of wiring and the cops go crazy. Erm. What? Why did they even need the machine guns? What purpose could a gun serve against any kind of bomb threat anyway? One mis-shot and boom! Just seems that the USA really has no rationality what so ever. Sort it. She's an ART Student... doesn't take too much effort to work it out. Xenophobia to the max. —82.5.27.171 11:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, she's not an art student. The device was a nametag she created to stand out during a career fair. 18.238.6.77 14:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Bostonian police so shrilly shriek their "instructions" that whether a person under arrest follows them or not is a matter of "luck".

Maybe it's just me, but I seem to remember Boston having troubl identifying movie signs as bombs recently, maybe the police in boston need to be train in what a bomb looks like Vs a T-shirt to light up a star, and a sign to light up a moononite. Maybe it's just my opinion, but the Boston Police do seem rather inept.

"She's extremely lucky she followed the instructions or deadly force would have been used. And she's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue," said Pare.

Pare sucks

I'm sorry, but if I saw a person with a homemade LED star on their shirt, "bomb" would not be the first thing to run through my head. Sure, I don't blame the authorities for being suspicious, but they handled it wa-aay too cautiously. If somebody's bringing a bomb into an airport, they're not going to try to attract attention to themselves, let alone wear a flashing circuit board on their chest. Yes, it wasn't the smartest move in the world, but to accuse her of trying to cause a panic is nonsense.

Freedom
I find this quote very disturbing.

""She's extremely lucky she followed the instructions or deadly force would have been used. And she's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue," said Pare."

I think that based on this CNN story below we should believe him.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/airplane.gunshot/index.html

In the land of the free your life can be taken for having a mental illness or proudly displaying your work. It seems the war on terror has already been lost if the intentions of the terrorists is to take away the freedoms of the American people.

At least in Scotland where I live even the Glasgow bombers received nothing worse than a punch on the nose. Maybe freedom if not privacy is still to be had here in the land of the CCTV camera.

who mixes a little wiring board up with a bomb?
I find it scary that the security people did not realize that a little circuit board with wiring and LEDs is very unlikely to be a bomb. This means that these people really are looking for the completely wrong things. Someone carrying a bomb is very unlikely to display it in this way. These security people are very badly trained.

Of course, there are some silly movies showing bombs with LED counter displays attached to them - but that is just a gag for the film. Real bombs don't need any LEDs and they don't even need wiring - definitely no open circuit boards. If we are starting to go after people wearing a piece of art they produced themselves, we are always going to miss the real terrorists. I at least believe those are a bit smarter than walking with a "blinky" into an airport.

I only don't understand the part with the play-doh. Why the hell was she carrying that? Where was she carrying it? Was it connected to the device? In that case, she was really trying to see how far she could go - pretty silly in my eyes.

- Joe


 * The device was for her use at a career fair, and some companies will distribute putty or Play-Doh in plastic eggs with the company logo on them. She likely got the Play-Doh from that and was just playing around with it in her hand when she went to the airport to pick up her boyfriend.  (To answer your question, she had the Play-Doh in her hand and it wasn't part of the circuit at all from what I've seen.)  18.238.6.77 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

that is completely ridiculous! they might as well arrest people with light up shoes. it doesnt sound like she was disturbing the peace and she was not carrying a mock device, it was not intended to imitate a bomb. this is why i refuse to fly in the States. 130.15.33.159 20:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, Boston Airport was NOT where her career day is/was, nor did she work there. If it was for career day, then keep it where its supposed to be. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You amuse me. She'd likely been wearing it for several days considering MIT's career fair runs for most of the week.  She'd probably even been off of MIT's campus with it.  There shouldn't have been any reason for her to have to remove the circuit when she was meeting her boyfriend from the *gasp* airport.  Last I checked, there was no restriction saying that if she made if for a career fair, she had to remove it when she left.  18.238.6.77 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, I'm frustrated by the reporting of this article. Reports are focusing on the fact that it was misinterpreted as A BOMB IN AN AIRPORT, rather than focusing on that IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING. The girl clearly had no illicit intentions, and has every right to wear an electrical device on her shirt to an airport (last I checked, they are not illegal). This stuff promotes the "state of fear" the government wants us to be in. Perpetually afraid to the point that we would justify the police shooting a young person because they were wearing a piece of electrical equipment. Yes, it's fine and good that someone reported her, that the police arrested her, but once it was realized that it WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING, that should have been the focal point of the police statements and reporting. Then the girl could have apologized for not considering the possible consequences of her actions, and we could move on. Instead, we have to continually reinforce the mantra that "we are in a perpetual state of fear," and say it's better to kill someone for a misunderstanding than insist that we are still, after all, a free country.74.136.36.2 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)frustrated
 * I completely agree with this. After it became clear that she was not a threat and that her t-shirt was a student project, she should have been let go and the police should have been rather embarrassed for mobilizing their machine-gun-wielding forces for what turned out to not be the real thing.  Every failure -- both a failure of detecting what is real, as well as a failure to detect what is not real -- is a problem of the system, and needs to be addressed by the security forces. -- IlyaHaykinson 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a TOY!
Basically, she wore one toy and carried another into an airport. She was not interested in answering questions about it. And airport personel say "its a bomb!".

My reaction:
 * Prosecute any airport personel who identified it as a bomb -- for making bomb threats. (If they aren't trained in identifying bombs, the most they should say is suspicious device.)  (And retrain everyone else!  Reporting someone claiming to have a bomb is very different from reporting something you think is a bomb.)
 * Prosecute the airport personel who fled (as reported in other news sources) -- for disturbing the peace. (Train the rest: never run from a possible bomb, it only encourages a real bomber not to wait.)
 * Prosecute whoever thought machine guns should be in airports, particularly in the front areas of airports, for endangering the public.
 * Fire the official who called her "lucky". The officials were lucky, not her.  Similarly for the DA in question.
 * Fire everyone who is calling it a "fake bomb" after learning what it really was.
 * Make MIT sorry they ever expressed anything other than support for her.
 * Let Star Simpson go. She did NOTHING wrong.

OK, I admit I may be excessive in all but the last point, but everyone involved in this EXCEPT Star Simpson was in the wrong, and needs to know it. It is a very sad day for this country when a wearing a toy gets machine guns pointed at you! --Divad271812 00:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't have to read past your first sentence to reply. Thats what she did wrong...walk into an airport with a toy designed to look like a bomb. And anyone who does not see the reality of that, has not been following the story. You don't walk into an airport (or any airport), where the 9/11 hijackers took off with a prank, toy or whatever hell else you guys want to call it. In today's world, she could very well have been a suicide bomber...is that what its going to take to say "I told you so?" I'd prefer not to wait that long. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously I haven't been following the story then. Please show some evidence that it was intended to look like a bomb, since we're clearly so oblivious. 18.238.6.77 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well its not a mass hallucination here. Evidence: Airport officials, police, witnesses...I am sure if you were there when it happened you would have thought the same thing they did...oh were you there???? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please show me a source where airport officials or police stated that it was intended to look like a bomb since you haven't been able to furnish one yet. In fact, that seems to be the very reason the article was moved from Woman wearing fake bomb arrested at Boston Logan International Airport. 18.238.6.77 02:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Could the security response have been better?
Are we to believe that security cameras at airports are less capable than similar security systems in casinos? After the concern was raised by the information kiosk attendant, security should have had Simpson under close remote surveillance. The cameras in casino's have full pan and zoom capability. They would have been able to examine this device and the Play-Doh in detail to determine if it was a threat. And even if the local security personnel didn't have the necessary expertise, they could have transmitted the images instantly to someone that did.

If this were part of a real bomb, what would be it's function? We have seen exactly what they could have seen. There is a standard proto-board with resisters, wires, LEDs and a battery. -- A power source? Sure, there is a 9v battery, but it would have been easier to hide the battery in the pocket of the hoodie out of view. -- A detonator? There isn't anything on this board that looks like a detonator. There aren't even any switches. And again, why would this be out in the open? -- An indicator? A bomber may want to know when their bomb was armed. But this is way too elaborate for an indicator. A simple indicator hidden from outside view is all that's needed. And I certainly wouldn't build a critical component on a proto-board that is flaky enough sitting flat on the lab bench. If the airport officials still thought this might be a real bomb, they could have scanned her with a portable explosives sniffer. Don't tell me that airports don't have these .

Does anybody really think this could be a hoax bomb? It doesn't even register on my threat index. Did any of the airport employees that ran away actually see the device first? Aren't there security personnel, doormen, porters etc at the airport entrance that would have seen this device first before Simpson got to the information kiosk?

My opinion of how this incident should have been handled if the airport authorities thought it could be interpreted as a bomb would be to send a non-threatining employee like a janitor over to tell Simpson that her display is freaking out the other people at the airport and that she should take it off while she is here. He could then go over to mop up the floor behind the information kiosk. Dan Oetting 15:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Vacates Felony "Hoax Device" Charges Against Star Simpson
On Monday, 2 May, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts dropped the felony "Hoax Device" charges after Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley concluded the State could not go forward with the case.

The WikiNews article on the arrest of Star Simpson last September 21 includes a number of citations to concurrent stories in the national media. Curiously, one story, by the Boston Globe, posted at 1:15 PM on the day of the arrest, is not cited here.

It is instructive to take a closer look at that regrettably overlooked story.



In the above cited Boston Globe story, Major Scott Pare of the Massachusetts State Police is shown holding up the black hoodie with Star's LED circuit board, for the benefit of the press photographers. As you can see, he is pointing to the circuit with the middle finger of his right hand, clearly unconcerned that the circuit might present any danger to himself or to Bill Brett, the Globe photographer.

Star Simpson had cooperatively yielded up her black hoodie without the slightest resistance, and explained to the airport authorities that it was a simple piece of electronic artwork that she had crafted as a name tag for MIT Career Week, which was then in progress on campus.

Can you honestly say, after looking at the Globe photo by Bill Brett (published scant hours after Star Simpson was arrested), that Major Scott Pare was fooled into believing that Star's illuminated name tag presented a threat to anyone?

Call for Follow-Up Story on WikiNews
In view of the principles of Ethics in Journalism, please publish a follow-up story so the the world-wide readers of WikiNews will not be left with an unfavorable impression of Star Simpson.