Re: WORTH READING BBtv: Star Simpson's first interview on the Boston airport LED sweatshirt scare. - Boing Boing

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker () bbiw net>
Date: September 20, 2008 11:48:26 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>, "Wendy M. Grossman" <wendyg () pelicancrossing net 
>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    BBtv: Star Simpson's first interview on the  
Boston airport LED sweatshirt scare. - Boing Boing




> From: "Wendy M. Grossman" <wendyg () pelicancrossing net>
...
> The charge eventually brought against her was disorderly conduct,  
> something for which the state does not have to prove intent (as she  
> also says in the interview).


Further details about Simpson and the Boston Police should cause all  
of us some concern...

On the unfortunate side, it poses problems for electronics embedded in  
clothing.  On the disastrous side, it suggests that it is only a  
matter of time before the police will replicate the error made in a  
London underground station and kill an innocent.

MIT had a pretty good article at the time of Simpson's arrest:

  MIT Sophomore Arrested at Logan For Wearing LED Device
  <http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N40/simpson.html>

I further commend people to look at:

  <http://stars.mit.edu/me.html>

to get a feel for Star as a person. It's the page of a typical  
teenager, not of an agitator or worse.

But Simpson's recent Boing Boing interview should resolve any  
questions one could reasonably have about her and her behavior:

  <http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/19/bbtv-star-simpsons-f-1.html>

To be clear:

As for the legalities, Simpson was actually charged with both  
disorderly conduct *and* and possession of a hoax device. The latter  
is where things get unfortunate for wearable electronics:

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

From a practical standpoint, it essentially provides a felony charge  
for wearing anything that confuses others in a way that results in  
their being afraid for their life.

As for the Boston police, they are establishing a pattern.  Happily  
this time they did not repeat their earlier performance and blow up  
harmless signs:

  <http://ohlegality.blogspot.com/2007/02/legal-analysis-of- 
boston.html>

Anyhow, the felony hoax charge was dropped, which left the disorderly  
charge.

The dissonance with that is that, at the time, the police press  
interview stated explicitly that Simpson behaved well and followed  
instructions.

What, exactly, was disorderly?

d/
--

 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com