After reading about the recent bomb “scare” that happened at Logan Airport, where an MIT student was nearly killed by police because she wore a breadboard and a battery on her sweatshirt as a piece of wearable art, my reaction was that the Boston police severely overreacted. Others, including some friends, disagreed.
I thought about this some more, and I stand by my original reaction. This isn’t to say that I don’t understand the concern created by batteries and wires on an unknown person in an unknown configuration. I get that. Several things, however, bother me greatly about what happened here.
First, the escalation to weapons drawn happened after she was asked by an airport employee what it was and after she responded that it was art:
A Massachusetts Port Authority staffer manning an information booth in the terminal became suspicious when Simpson — wearing the device — approached to ask about an incoming flight, Pare said. She did not respond when the employee asked her about the device she was wearing, so the employee repeated the question, police said.
Simpson then said the device was artwork and left the counter and walked around the terminal area, causing some employees to leave the building in fear, police said.
This happened before the police were involved, and the student answered honestly. Clearly, the airport staffer didn’t believe her. The obvious question is, then, what do I think should’ve happened next in a situation where the employee didn’t believe the person. I don’t know, because everything I can think of assumes a certain amount of common sense or minimal bravery from the staffer. Really, though, I think this falls on the trooper or the system here that doesn’t have a step between staffer fear and guns drawn, twitch and you die mode. At least have someone trained look. If that’s deemed too unsafe, have an expert sitting in the security office and use one of the myriad cameras that cover the airport terminals and grounds.
Second, I have an issue with charges being pressed in this case. It’s asinine. She didn’t have a bomb, nor was it intended to be a hoax device. A hoax device shouldn’t be whatever an airport staffer imagines to be a bomb. It should be a device intended to look like a bomb. Since we don’t teach people in school or through fancy government PSAs what bombs look like (indeed, the government is attempting to remove directions and specifications on actual bombs and bomb building from the Internet and libraries), this is essentially a “you scared people” law. It’s dumb. Ignorance on the part of others shouldn’t put you in jail.
Third, why is wearing this to an airport more dangerous to the public than wearing it on the T? Walking down the street in Boston? Going to the movies? Going to breakfast in the dining hall at MIT? In other words, if the place were not the airport, does your opinion of the police reaction change? If a bystander/staffer in one of those places thought Simpson had a bomb, would you want the police doing the same thing there? If she went to a nightclub (scenes of some horrific bombings in Europe in the 80s and 90s)? Shouldn’t our estimation of whether she was wearing a bomb and how the police should react remain consistent in most public places?
Fourth, and most troubling to me, is that the security here, if you want to call it that, is based entirely on the the quality of the finish. In other words, if her art had looked like this:
… it apparently would’ve been OK (it contains more or less the same components). The thing is, it could still have been a bomb. Objectively, there’s no difference… blinking lights, battery, wires. But, it’s in a nice case. (here’s the back of the Defcon badge above).
So, if you’re a terrorist, apparently you can walk into Logan if your bomb is in a nice plastic box. That’s your security.
It’s absurd that our society has gotten to the point that fear makes ignorance and leaping to conclusions OK. And that it makes it OK for a major in the Massachusetts State Police to get in front of a podium and say this:
Simpson was “extremely lucky she followed the instructions or deadly force would have been used,” Pare said. “She’s lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue.”
You can argue that the police have to protect themselves, and I’d agree. But they’re also supposed to protect us, and that means putting their lives on the line. I remember being at a wedding in 2000. At our table was a member of the NYPD bomb squad. He was complaining about how most of his calls were obvious false alarms. Someone leaves a box of donuts on the subway and it becomes a suspicious package. He was joking that they just walked up to them and kicked them and said, “Yup, it’s a box of donuts.” I presume he wasn’t entirely serious, but I also got the impression that they didn’t break out the robots and remote detonation gear for every call.
The fact of the matter is that these are low probability events. Very low. The most recent example of a public, small scale bombing in the U.S. was the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Prior to 9/11, cops seemed to take context into consideration. Now, we’ve ratcheted up the fear so high that everything is a threat, every shadow hides a terrorist, and everyone’s fear is actionable intelligence.
Is this really the world we live in? Or is it the world that we’ve scared ourselves into? I believe it to be the latter. Someone needs to make the case that it’s the former, because I see no evidence of it. Educate me in the comments below.
More on this, including some great roundups of background, at the Machinist blog and Boing Boing (loads of links).
Update: Some interesting items in the comment thread. First, illustrating the problems with the hoax device law:
Boston police pulled this same stunt with Joe Previtera, a nonviolent protester, in 2006. He was doing a silent imitation of the famous photo of the hooded guy standing on a box from Abu Ghraib. The police arrested him — as far as anyone can tell, because they disliked his politics — and claimed that the speaker wires hanging from his wrists constituted a “hoax device.”
Again, there’s no way no one on the police force, or even in the crowd present at the time, didn’t know that the wires were part of the original images from Abu Ghraib.
Second, from a Fark thread comes this image, which pretty much sums the whole thing up for me:
I guess that’s what the police believe our world should be. But only at the airport. Outside the terminal building. On a traffic island.
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I want to clarify that I think she lacks serious common sense, not that she should go to jail for a long time or anything like that. She was clearly not thinking and I suspect that Logan is probably a more sensitive airport than most because of 9/11.
That said, without knowing the requirements of the statute for possessing a hoax device, it is possible the prosecutor might have to prove that she intended people think it is a bomb, which she clearly did not. I would be surprised if she ends up charged with it at all. I also think the police and TSA saying she’s lucky they didn’t shoot her is a bit extreme and rather terrifying. But I stil think she’s an idiot.
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
That’s the thing, though… should Logan be “more sensitive” because of 9/11 at the curb? It just doesn’t make any sense upon reflection. There’s no rational reasons for it. That’s what makes the idiot call hard for me.
I don’t want to be afraid going to the airport, and of all things I shouldn’t have to be afraid of the goddamn security. Yet, I am. And you’re saying she should be. Because fearing the security is the only reason she’s an idiot for wearing that.
Sujal
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I think people in general do need to be aware of the climate of heightened security (paranoia?) at airports, if nothing else, to not subject themselves and other to delay or a possible overreaction from either guards or other passengers. It’s a reality of travel today, whether or not it is the ideal. And I suspect had she worn the same sweatshirt out and about in the city, someone might have gotten freaked out too.
Airports have always had a heightened sense of concern, even before 9/11, it was illegal to make jokes about bombs, etc. People were charged with saying things in a joking manner. So really, this isn’t anything new, except that public has a heightened awareness of terrorism and might be more quick to react to something that looks out of place.
I’m not defending airport security in general, I think it’s generally a huge joke that does not make us safer. I do think, however, that we as travellers do need to be sensitive to the scrutiny that has always been part of air travel and will continue to be for the forseeable future.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
It’s one thing to have a list of proscribed activities and actions. It’s another to have to actively predict what might be “scary” before going to pick someone up at the airport, let alone fly.
Second, I am talking about the reality and the ideal. The reality doesn’t change unless people stand up to the paranoia and push for something closer to the ideal. So, I agree with you that this is the reality, but the reality is wrong. It’s less than optimal for a number of reasons. One day, someone innocent is going to get shot. It will probably happen before an actual suicide bombing at an airport.
Perhaps I’m just sensitive about this, but then again I have to worry about what books I bring with, that I’ve shaven the day of or some day close to my flight, and I always carry my passport with me because someone might decide I’m scary because of my skin color. That’s the reality as well.
Sujal
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
PS, I don’t think we’re disagreeing about much.
I think it comes down to whether Star Simpson should’ve had to think about wearing that sweatshirt when she went to pick up or meet her boyfriend.
I agree with you that knowing what security at the airport has become, she should’ve expected a bad reaction from airport security. It seems we both object to the idea that this is criminal.
In other words, half of what you said was that she should have the courtesy to prevent delays, etc. I agree, that’s the nice way to be and it’s what I try to do when I pack so that my laptop is accessible at the security gate.
I disagree about whether we should build security around what gets people “freaked out.” BTW, she took the subway to the airport, I think. probably wearing the sweatshirt.
Sujal
September 24th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Ok, having worked in the security field now for four years, I find this situation shows that are security posture is absolutely irrelevant as compared to an actual threat. First, I believe the police acted just as they should from a perceived threat. The way they approached her, the instructions they gave her, and the actions they took were consistent with the way I would expect a security force to react from a perceived threat.
The problem comes from the question of what constitutes a “perceived threat.” From what it looks like, the perceived threat came from the notification by the terminal employee. This is important because the police will respond to any reported threat, especially by a staff member of the airport/airline. It didn’t matter what she was wearing to the police since they weren’t there to evaluate it. The evaluation that it could be a threat came from the employee and it was acted on as if it was a threat. As long as any employee reports that “she may have a bomb,” the police will (should) approach it the same way every time. They won’t wait, they will react. If it is a bomb (however unlikely) and it does go, the questions will come: “Why did you wait? Why did you try to look first? Why didn’t you just address the person?”
Had the Star been wearing another shirt over the one she had on and had somewhat concealed the breadboard, but the staffer still noticed it and reported it, the outcome would have most likely been the same (up to the arrest). Had she not had the breadboard, but some wires were sticking out of her outfit, the employee may have still had the same reaction, and the same outcome would have resulted.
But, now let’s take it a little bit further.
I don’t know what the weather was like in Boston on Thursday, but let’s say it was sunny and 85. Had Star been wearing a long, heavy trench coat, what should the reaction of the airport employee have been? Thinking logically, the employee should have had a similar reaction: What this person is wearing is out of place. If I don’t like/believe the answer given when asked, “why are you wearing such a coat,” I should report it. Now, I know you may be thinking, “come on – a coat is not the same as wires and batteries and putty and stuff.” If that is your thought, then you have to ask how many suicide bombers openly expose their bombs. It may surprise you to hear that the number is next to zero in this day and age. The main objective is to get to the area you want to blow without being noticed. If you get stopped, and failed to reach your point of interest, you have failed your mission.
So, in a “real world” scenario, coats in the summer should be more suspicious than an openly visible breadboard. Now, I am not saying ignore something that is absolutely obvious. Those things have to be pursued, but do you think anyone would have thought twice about a coat in the airport (even if it was 85). Absolutely not.
If Star wears the breadboard shirt (openly visible) in the middle of a crowded street, should she be stopped? What if it was a coat in the heat?
What I am saying, which I think is along with what Sujal is saying, is that the perceived situation is what is acted on and has no bearing on what the actual threat is or was in Star’s case. If it is completely obvious, it is most likely not a threat. Like the box of donuts on the subway. You still have to report it, you still have to investigate it, and you still have to take caution. But the truth is, you are more likely going to be hit by what you aren’t expecting, what isn’t necessarily “obvious.” http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1473710.htm
The truth is anything can be a bomb. I’ve seen them. It doesn’t matter if it is a laptop, a stroller, an iPod, a clock/radio, a breadboard, or a pen. She did not go through security, so the authorities did not have the advantage of x-ray or metal detectors. So, all they could go on was a person’s perception of the situation. I can guarantee you this. If this country is going to be hit by a professional suicide bomber, you will not (in almost all cases) not be able to detect it. Who ever does it, will do it in such a way that it will not be noticeable. Whether it is a person with a coat, a person pushing a stroller, or a mailbox on a corner that wasn’t there the day before, anything can be used for an improvised device.
And, once you start suspecting the “not obvious” you are suspecting everything. Every person with a coat, every mailbox, every Ryder truck, etc. Everything and everyone becomes a threat by default, which is absurd. Everything can’t be a threat, so we limit ourselves to what we only perceive as a threat. This is the problem that we face. The truth is we cannot protect ourselves from everything. In fact, we cannot protect ourselves from most things. And no matter how hard we try, we can’t have perfect perception of the situation. If someone wants to kill people, they will. Whether by a gun in a mall, a bomb in a crowd, or a driver hitting pedestrians. Training airport employees and police may improve the ability to perceive actual threats, but will not vastly improve the process to the points that all Star’s will be dismissed.
What you have to ask yourself is, “Is this the best way to spend our resources to get the most protection?” Since we can’t protect against everything, we must protect against what we think may be harmful. For thousands of false alarms, we may be lucky enough to get one Diana Dean’s hunch (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4864792/). Is this a good price to pay, or a slippery slope towards becoming an overly paranoid society that will eventually send a 100 innocent people to prison in hopes of someday not letting 1 guilty one go free?
Here’s something else the police have to understand. The way suicide missions are run these days, there is most likely a backup detonation option, so what good would have it done to have shot her? It doesn’t matter if she was “in a coffin” if the backup detonator blows the same device. So, if it is a bomb, it has a really good chance of blowing anyway and if it is not you risk killing an innocent person. Now weigh that with the fact that you will get thousands of false calls versus a yet to happen real one (suicide bomber).
At the end of the day, it was not stupid of her to wear the shirt to the airport. She is free to express her individuality through her clothing. It was ignorant of her to not understand the situation enough to think that she may get arrested. Charge her with that, not a crime.