CrunchGear

I think you answered your own question… they are supporting her because they think that the law is going too far. A heavy ticket, a warning, putting her on a watchlist…. anything. but no one should be put in jail because they brought something into an airport that scared someone who didnt even know what it was.

While I agree with the sentiment, if these people saw what was in half the devices they use on a daily basis, they would throw themselves in jail. Granted they are not parading around with wires hanging out of their shoes or anything, but come on - read a book, finish school. It’s not like she was wavying around a brick of C4.

Should I come across a nerdy chic with a circuit board, the first thing I’d think about would be hmm I wonder if she’d sleep with me. Next I’d be asking why I’m so hard up to consider sleeping with a chic who carries around a circuit board.

Not sure when political diatribe became appropriate for CrunchGear, but I’ll bite. From TFA:

“FWIW, I can’t fault airport security personnel who spot an unfamiliar electronic device, worry that it might be dangerous, and question accordingly. That’s what they’re there for. But why do prosecutors still insist on carrying these charges against Simpson, despite clear and abundant evidence she meant no harm?”

That pretty much sums up my opinion. Prosecuting based on “hoax” is a very slippery slope. For example, suppose Ms. Simpson wasn’t wearing the circuit-board-emblazoned outfit, but had just dropped her iPod, which shattered the case, and she was holding some of the pieces. An exposed circuit board is an exposed circuit board, after all, and so I wouldn’t have a problem with security examining the broken iPod to determine that, indeed, it is a broken iPod. Would the State of MA then sue based upon a broken iPod being a “hoax” explosive? If you feel that they should press charges, I cordially invite you to move to a nation with a code that follows your mindset, such as North Korea. If you feel that a broken iPod should not be considered a “hoax” explosive, then why is an exposed circuit board in some cases a “hoax” and not in others?

A “hoax” is a little like pornography, in that it’s a case of “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it”. That is why it’s dangerous for public officials to toss around “hoax”-related charges. It smacks more of “dammit, I want to prosecute, so find me a law I can use” than actual rational jurisprudence. It’s not too far from there for authorities to apply “dammit, I want to prosecute…” against other people they don’t like, such as those with Italian-sounding surnames.

Do I recommend wearing DIY electronics to airports? No. Do I want security examining those people who do? Yes, enough to determine that there is no risk to folks in the airport. Do I want such people prosecuted for wearing such items? No, if the garb is determined not to pose a risk to anyone.

i don’t know why you bother writing this and wasting your time. you answered your own question. it is about the “extent” of the law being applied to her.

“Although there are issues regarding homeland security that piss everyone off, when it comes to flying at a huge airport like Logan, I’m glad there’s a ton of security. Know why? So I don’t end up dying when some jackass flies the plane I’m on into a building or getting stabbed.”

Strawman.

Nobody is arguing that better security is bad. But what we have is not better security, it’s security theater. Look up the term if you’re not familiar. Heck, read pretty much anything Bruce Schneier has written in the years since 9/11.

Getting cops some training on what actually does make up an explosive device and what’s Lite Brite will have a genuine positive impact on security. Threatening geeky college students with lethal force does not a secure airport make.

Happy? Got that out of your system? Good - now get off your damn high horse for a second.

She is intelligent. So what? Intelligence is not the same as common sense. She showed poor common sense by showing up at the airport with what she was wearing. But the reaction from TSA also lacked common sense. They took a situation, over-reacted, and now they are over-prosecuting this issue because they haven’t figured out how to act professionally and properly train their personal.

Keep in mind that she didn’t walk into just any airport.
Logan International is where the 9/11 hijackers boarded the two planes that hit New York.
They are understandably a bit jittery about things that might go boom.
I really wouldn’t expect anyone who works at any airport to see a person with exposed wiring on the front of their shirt and say “Oh goodie! She likes to make fun projects.” and I’d be pretty upset if they did without checking it out.
I for one have no problem with the way she was treated or the punishment she may receive.

speaking of common sense:

what evil-doing bomber would walk into an airport with a bomb in their hoodie or whatever.

any self-respecting terrorist-type would put that thing in a bag.

*ahem*
“this girl who had the device is one smart cookie”
She is a dumbass. Flat out. If she wants to live in her own nerdy world then fine, but yeah, like you said she needs to wake up and see how the rest of us live… in constant fear of terrorists!!!
idiot

She’s a nice looking girl ! And smart too (MIT,wow!),but there is such a ‘thing’ call’d common sence. Wake-up little girl,you’re in the real world now! People do not like to play ‘games’ were by human lives,are on the line;be it real or imaginary.

Honestly, I don’t see how any one could prosecute this case. Is there any evidence that she had any intent of carrying out a bomb threat? The law requires intent.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm

Many people in this country are too worried, or too tuned into the seductive nature of power over others. I can understand how someone that is too afraid, and tasked with being sure nobody will blow up something, could be so steeped in this constant tea of fear that their logical facilities would be dimmed enough to think that someone wanting to blow up something might not take pains to hide their bomb. This is unfortunate and dangerous for all of us, understanding of the need for watchfulness is diminished, through lack of respect for the watchers. The climate of fear is increased for everyone, both fear of bombers in those who are inclined that way, and fear of the government for those who have that worry. Both fears have some basis in reality, but the fear grows within each which also makes the tension between the two greater.

To decrease that fear, in my opinion, the best possible move would have been to stop Star Simpson, ask her a few questions, determine that she was not meaning any harm, then apologize for the inconvenience, and help her get to her destination swiftly. This would build goodwill, and engender helpfulness.

Perhaps the bureaucratic structure of the security apparatus is such that Star Simpson must be arrested once she is stopped, or the officer making the arrest would get in trouble for harassment, or bad judgment, or just because that is the standing order. It is this sort of bureaucratic problem that is the horror of bad government and the mechanism of repression.

I sincerely hope that someone in the right position has the common sense to come to these conclusions and work to create sympathy and understanding rather than foster alienation.

p.s. it was a solderless breadboard so your guideline may not work so well.

The website I’ve attached here, shows the AP photo of the device on the black sweatshirt. You can buy everything but the transparent tape from your local electronics hobby store.

She was lacking some common sense, yes. But some of you think she should have recalled 9/11 flights out of Logan Airport there in Boston - excuse me, she is not from the east coast. I suspect she ddin’t make the 9/11 connection as she was 13 and probably 5,000 miles away at the time.

I have no worries about security stopping her - that would just be prudent for any suspicious device or action. I am griped more that she was arrested even though they quickly determined this device was harmless and that she was not a threat. Can you see where this kind of oppressive behavior leads?

Maybe a little late to comment on this, but your conclusion is just plain wrong. It is sometime necessary to fly with handmade or modified electronic devices. I have often done this, hand carrying a prototype out to a customer for testing or demonstration purposes. FEDEX is next day, and for one customer I was doing same day out and backs, a one day delay would have been trouble when we were facing the deadline.