2007
Star Simpson helps me reanimate my blog
So I haven’t posted in, um, months. And for a couple weeks I’ve been thinking, “What should I post, after so long?”
Like angels descending to show me the way, yesterday morning some aggressive FOX journalists suddenly appeared. Averaging around 30 years old, and looking like college students having just woken from kegger-induced near-comas, they harassed me on my way into work. They were asking people what they thought about the student who built a bomb and took it to Logan: Liars. They furtively took my photo, so I less furtively returned the favor.
They were asking about Star Simpson, the unfortunate MIT student who traipsed into Logan Airport as if she were dressed for… well, dressed for a regular day at MIT. Her sweatshirt had messages about Course VI on it, and on the front a (scary!) 9v battery and a “protoboard“.
Where to start? I’ve met Star a few times, and she’s pretty normal for MIT. That’s not saying very normal.
She’s part of an extremely geeky, incredibly productive club at MIT called MITERS, the purpose of which is to hack, and to hack hard. I’m not that excited by most projects out of MITERS, as they are techno-fetishistic. There are a few exceptions: past members have used their skills for social causes like renewable energy. Overall, it’s a place where people revel in making ingenious, unusual gizmos, useless projects that could almost be called art, but aren’t involved in the discourse of art. But MITERS does allow MIT students to play with technology, and from play can come inspiration. Past members have started amazing companies, and become millionaires, in part because of hacks they discovered at MITERS.
MITERS is also the kind of place where people play with their technical identity, in the same way that artists discover their artistic identity, or new recruits become soldiers. MITERS students experiment with living a technical lifestyle: They hack their bikes, their computers, their dorm rooms, and their clothes. Sort of a nerd fraternity. And like many, many people around the world, they wear electronic jewelry and eTextiles. Star’s garb was comparatively primitive compared to the state of the art, but harmless and pretty normal.
Harmless is important. I’d imagine that a lot of people think it’s insane to wear, as AP described it, a hacked “computer circuit board” on one’s chest. The board in question had nothing to do with a computer. It was a prototyping board, an incredibly simple device that lets one plug chips or L.E.D.s into it. It is “passive,” meaning that it has no electronic function at all. It’s basically like a grid made of tin foil that lets one connect things to each other. There were a couple dozen wires in it, leading to a few L.E.D.s. My phone has about 5 L.E.D.s in it; my laptop dozens more. I have a watch with over a hundred L.E.D.s in it. (I’ve counted, and a Boston bridge mooninite has 178 L.E.D.s!) Finally, there was a 9v battery, far, far less powerful or dangerous than the battery in nearly any cell phone, and orders of magnitude less dangerous than the batteries in a laptop.
Every electrical engineering student in the country runs into one of these prototyping boards in there digital electronics class. Around much of MIT, they are more common than staplers, scissors, or rulers. For a 19 year old who was clearly comfortable with electronics from an early age, a prototyping board would look no more intimidating than a toothbrush. And for some MIT students, more familiar.
Let’s remember this: The 911 hijackers used boxcutters. I routinely wear a “leatherman” utility tool, which is more dangerous than a boxcutter. I have worn it when picking people up at the airport. When I travel, I check it under the plane. I have seen many people with leathermen or similar at the airport when picking people up.
The 411 train bombers in Madrid used cell phones. Ask yourself: Have you ever seen a cell phone being used in a plane terminal?
We’ve been warned that we must throw our liquids away before getting on the plane, as they may be mixed to make a bomb. But we’re allowed to carry them in airports when picking people up. Have you ever seen a water bottle in the airport?
Of course, the world doesn’t work from logic, and if there is one way that MIT consistently fails itself and its students, it’s by not disabusing them of that fact. The average person thinks of a bomb as a home-made contraption with wires sticking out of it. And, sadly, the average American probably thinks of a terrorist as either dressing funny (and possibly having a Euro accent, a la Diehard movies), or as being from the Middle East. (Personally, I’m scarred for people who look like Tim McVeigh. Actually, he looks a little bit like a Fox journalist!) Thankfully, it’s illegal to arrest some one who’s dark skinned or dresses funny. Should it be legal to prosecute some one for possessing something that looks nothing like a bomb?
Sure, Star was being kind of dumb. Or absentminded. But Norbert Wiener, one of the most famous professors from MIT, used to forget if he’d eaten lunch or not. After speaking to someone in the hallways, he would ask what direction he’d been walking when they’d met, so that he’d know if he was coming from or going to the canteen. I find that pretty dumb — MIT is full of people who are math smart but socially naive. That’s why we have a charm school — though not enough students enroll.
MIT issued a press release that described Star’s actions as “reckless, and [they] understandably created alarm at the airport.” It _is_ understandable that they created alarm. Airport personnel aren’t necessarily aware of what electronics look like, or can do. Police should be more aware, but they have a lot on their mind. But reckless is a strong word. Absentminded. I’d say out-of-it. But MIT should also have mentioned that the way Star was dressed is pretty normal for students here. And MIT should have said that the stuff that Star was wearing are significantly less dangerous than many of the things that people around her were carrying. She was singled out because she looked weird: This was about appearance, not threat.
The key is whether charges will be brought. Star’s outfit doesn’t look like a hoax bomb. It looks like tools we use every day at MIT, in nearly every introductory electronics class. Star’s sweatshirt looked like a $5 prototyping board — the very last thing anyone would put in a bomb. Just because the public has a misconception about how bombs look doesn’t mean that their misconception should lead to prosecution, any more than the misconception that Middle Eastern looking people might be terrorists should lead to their prosecution.
Douglas Barnes has made a Comment
Wow, this may be the best analysis of this I’ve read (and for some reason I’ve been obsessed with following the coverage of this …)
September 22, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Terry has made a Comment
Her protoboard merely contained a simple array of green LEDs in the shape of a star. Attached to her sweatshirt, it was part of her clothing, and I am guessing she never, ever, thought of it being perceived as threatening, and almost forgot she was wearing it. But very naive to wear it in Boston, at an airport, and especially at Logan. However I think it is ludicrous to see “hoax device” endlessly echoed across the media. While it was reasonable to apprehend her, if the authorities have any anti-bomb competence at all they should have very quickly determined there was no danger in her display. In that case mutual apologies might be in order, not this hysteria. I think the Boston authorities grossly exploited the mooninite episode for money and posturing. I am waiting to see what the Play-Doh business is all about however. If she did intentionally imply a threat, that would change things radically. The 9/11 terrorists succeeded in damaging our society as well as our buildings. Unfortunately we help perpetuate that damage by overreacting in incidents like this.
September 22, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
Rhea has made a Comment
Thanks for this great explanation of the MIT culture. Us outsiders have no idea….
September 23, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Blackhawk has made a Comment
You would think that an idiot from M.I.T. would be oxymoronic but it’s not. An M.I.T. student allegedly meeting her boyfriend at Boston’s Logan International Airport decided to wear a shirt adorned with a circuit board, flashing lights, wiring and a handful of Play-Doh. The unfortunately named Star Simpson now says the shirt was just a piece of art of which she was proud and wanted to display. Huh? It’s lame artwork at best and there is a time and place to display that kind of thing and an airport is not it.
It’s clearly an example of someone having bad taste in humor/art (not to mention hair), worse judgment and who wanted to stir up attention. Well, she’s got it now. She’s just not willing to suffer for her “art”. It’s time for people to realize this kind of asinine behavior will not be tolerated and she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law possible. It’s not like the illegal nature of making jokes about having a bomb hasn’t been well-known even well before 9/11. Star Simpson needs to find out that these laws are in place for the protection of the citizenry and are to be taken seriously even if your parents are dopes who gave you a name making you destined to stupidly seek the spotlight no matter the consequences.
September 23, 2007 @ 11:59 am
JJ Brannon has made a Comment
I’m an MIT alumnus from the late 70s and as soon as I saw this story, I knew it was bogus.
Thursday was Career Day. Star had modded the hoodie and wore it then. Totally acceptable within her usual milieu.
Friday, she woke up late to meet her friend at the airport, grabbed her hoodie, and rushed out to the T.
The goon squad [six guys with full-autos for one 19 y.o.??] confronted her as she was in the process of leaving.
The response was, ahem, overkill.
Yes, my reconstruction has her somewhat distracted but that doesn’t deserve a death sentence.
If you see her, tell her not everyone believes the mass media.
JJB
September 23, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
JJ Brannon has made a Comment
Hey, that’s Random Hall in the background!
I didn’t recognize the gas station even though I visited my old haunts in 2004.
That’s where I was living in 1977 when the maniac drove a semi’s cab over the pumps and through the concrete-portico supports, setting the station on fire.
Never a dull moment at the ‘Tute.
The actually put a light at the 5-points intersection? We used to take bets on how many U-turns would be pulled in an hour. [Five, counting Village.
It used to be the Necco [NorthEast Confectionery Co.] plant but now it’s a BioPharmTech, right. Neurogen? Affymatrix? Wyeth?
JJB
September 23, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
Michael Z. Williamson has made a Comment
I find it interesting that people are simultaneously demanding more “protection” but outraged at the police response.
It looks, from what I’ve read, as if she was detained, charged, and released. I hope the judge recognizes the situation and lets her go.
It being Boston, I half expected they would shoot.
September 23, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Alan Bickley has made a Comment
Well said, and I agree with most of it. But I do want to make the observation that nowhere in the public record of radio or telephone traffic between the ill-fated planes of 9/11 and the ground any mention of “box cutters.” Edward Jay Epstein demolished that myth years ago, and his writing on it probably is stillto be found on the internet. He surmises that the airline came up with the box cutter allegation as a way to deflect lawsuits based on negligence in detecting certain objects that might be used as weapons. Box cutters evidently were not on that list.
September 23, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
diane has made a Comment
wow…so your point is that she has an excuse from walking away from an airline official that asked her about her shirt? I would have agreed with everything you wrote had you included that. It was when she walked away from questioning that the problems started. She could have explained her shirt, given it over to the authorities and then would have had something to go back to the MITER club and laugh about. Instead, she chose to walk away and that’s the crux of the problem.
Like it or not, this is post 9/11 and the expectations about ones actions at an airport have changed. Unless one lives in a cave and doesn’t understand how sensitive the situation is in the airports these days.
I’m finding it difficult to understand where the “looking middle eastern” came into your argument. My son spent 2 tours in the middle east with the Army, is of Italian descent, deeply tanned and for sure, looks like an Iraqi. He was hassled beyond compare when he took his leave in Europe (France, especially, believe it or not). He gets hassled at airports, he gets “looks” at banks. He understands the world we live in. Maybe Star should?
September 24, 2007 @ 9:49 am
john norman has made a Comment
I suspect you will be like most people and figure that Star Simpson had a “fake bomb” but this whole thing concerns me, how the police are dictating the discourse. A fake bomb would be some highway flares taped together. Or you know what really looks like a bomb — a backpack or a briefcase.
That thing she had was some flashing LEDs, yes it is different, and society may even make a rule that no sort of electronics with batteries, e.g. laptops, cellphones, GameBoys, etc. should be allowed in airports — that is everyone’s right. But the press does not have a right to call this a “fake bomb” and they are all doing that. If they called it “a strange electronic device that could cause suspicion” that would be correct. But by calling it a fake bomb they say that 1. it looks like a bomb (it doesn’t) and 2. the person who made it is trying to make it look like a bomb, and from what I have read about Star, she wasn’t trying to do that.
September 24, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Staff has made a Comment
I agree completely. I have seen students walk around MIT in many weird things-including a full on foil suit of arms. I don’t see Star’s sweatshirt as offensive or at all alarming. I think it is creative-lit up it would help her stand out at career day and would create in the mind of possible employers a reminder of her name. It is unfortunate that it caused an uproar, but it being likened to a suicide bomber, a “hoax device” (which implies intent to misguide), or anything bomb related after the discovery that is was a fun LED device is aweful. She is a nineteen year old girl with a bright future ahead of her and it is shameful that the media and ignorant people are slandering her. Can we no longer be creative or weird? Is this the world of 1984? Come on MIT, support your creatively strange students!
September 24, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Beak Wilder has made a Comment
There’s no way around it, wearing what she wore inside an airport is gonna raise questions. Just as I would not disagree if you were detained for wearing your Leatherman. It’s a different day and age now, and like it or not, reactions and perceptions have changed in the past six years. Whether some people are going to be detained and/or arrested for harmless items, or not, we’ll just have to see. But what may appear harmless to an MIT student might not appear all that harmless to somebody else. I’m sure the last thing Logan Airport wants is to watch another plane fall out of their control and hit another building. They’ve already made their mistake, and I’m sure they’re not taking any more chances. If this girl is smart enough to go to MIT, she should be smart enough to realize that a protoboard with exposed wiring on the chest of her sweatshirt is not going to be taken lightly by anyone, no matter how harmless it proves to be in the long run.
September 24, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Gregg Reed has made a Comment
I’ve read a few comments on various sites about Star Simpson, both defending her actions and ridiculing her. I’m starting to wonder why all the sites that defend her neglect to mention the fact that she was carrying modeling clay in her hand, which looks exactly like C-4, a plastic explosive. I also noticed that some of the components on the breadboard were covered with tape.
So, in case you’re wondering, yes you CAN make a bomb out of a breadboard, electronic components, a 9 volt battery, and C-4.
I also seem to recall that the woman at the information booth asked Star about the breadboard. Instead of answering, she turned around and left the airport.
So, a woman enters an airport wearing what could be a detonator and carrying what appears to be plastic explosives, asks about an incoming flight, and then turns and leaves without answering when questioned.
You said it wasn’t about a threat, it was about appearance. Do you live in the real world, or are you just visiting?
September 24, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
Larry Winiarski has made a Comment
Well written.
My scary thought is that if the police can’t distinguish a harmless protoboard, then how the heck could they distinguish a bomb disguised in some clever manner, such as in a laptop, or in a diskman?
The scary answer: they can’t. …and won’t admit either
Think about it.
10 million dollars for high tech scanners that can’t tell bottled water from bombs. I’m guessing it’s our
generations version of the “great wall of china” or “the maginot line”. A public work that makes us feel
better…and greases some contractors fingers,
everybody wins.
..except maybe Star Simpson.
September 26, 2007 @ 6:32 am
Joseph Dunphy has made a Comment
“Should it be legal to prosecute some one for possessing something that looks nothing like a bomb?”
No, of course not.
“Sure, Star was being kind of dumb.”
No, she wasn’t. There is no such thing as outguessing somebody else’s paranoia; the woman in the airport was simply delusional, and delusions can attach themselves to anything. As you pointed out yourself, that’s not what a real bomb ever looks like, and take a good look at the movies. It’s not what a pretend bomb looks like, either. Until a few crazy people started screaming very loudly about this and the herd instinct took over, practically nobody would have thought that looked like a bomb.
She was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that could happen to anybody. What is truly disturbing is that this is being treated as a crime. What is more disturbing is the number of people willing to clutch at straws to try to defend the choice of the prosecution to do so.
Consider the establishment of a standard of guilt under which guilt or innocence is determined, not by the objective reality of what one has or has not done, but by the state of mind of one’s accuser. It’s a standard that, when the stakes are this high, begins to resemble more that of a reign of terror than that of a civilized society. What we are seeing is not the rule of law.
September 27, 2007 @ 1:49 am
Christina has made a Comment
This is one of a couple of good blogs I read in these several days.
MIT should support their students. It is disappointed to see how MIT reacted to this sad situation: the whole country is living in fear.
Some media were so eager to put gasoline on the fire as they wish that Star was shot so they would have more chance to sell their stories. A totally sad situation.
September 27, 2007 @ 4:21 pm