5 ms·

BTW Sgt. JD Nelson of the Alameda County Bomb Squad is not some rookie. He is the explosives guy on Mythbusters. There quite possibly could have been a reason

BTW Sgt. JD Nelson of the Alameda County Bomb Squad is not some rookie. He is the explosives guy on Mythbusters. There quite possibly could have been a reason why Sgt Nelson thought this went beyond a piece of art.

KeliNorth 14y ago
No, what it means is that Sgt. Nelson knows how to work with bombs. It doesn't make him a subject matter expert on terrorism or art. Just bombs. And as charged, yes, the subject of the article did have materials needed to make bombs minus the explosives. Everyone who has a timer/watch/cellphone does, which is the point of why this is so ridiculous. If you arrest everyone who has all the materials necessary to make a bomb minus the explosives, everyone would be arrested.
- mikeryan 14y ago
  There's more to making a detonator then just the timing device.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  This is what I brought up in the last thread. IEDs are IEDs because they can be made from almost anything. Now it does take skills which most people don't have; but this isn't about skills it is about physical kit, and purely in terms of the physical stuff needed I'm almost certain you could buy it all at the airport in the "secure" part (e.g. travel clock).
dlgeek 14y ago
The original article I read yesterday (from /.) said the bomb squad cleared him but he was arrested anyway.
shrikant 14y ago
I'm all for civil liberties, but the info in this case is actually quite thin. I'd keep the pitchforks and torches away till a fuller picture emerges. The facts of the case so far are: 1) Dude is outfitted in camo, watch that looks like an IED timer, and shoes rigged out like the "shoe bomber". 2) Dude gets pulled aside and claims it's all art. 3) Dude gets arrested. Getting flagged for questioning because of (1) seems straightforward to me. How it went from (2) to (3) is less clear, and it might be prudent to hold off the hand-wringing for now.
- ScottBurson 14y ago
  Disagree. The fact that McGann actually has a Web site demonstrating his artistic bona fides is plenty of evidence for me.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    Because you can believe everything you read online, right? It wouldn't be hard to fake that? I tend to think there is more to this as well, including plenty of Gestapo ass-hattery from the police and the TSA. I just wonder if part of the art project included being arrested. We may be witnessing a piece of performance art.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
  Who is going to tell you how it went from 2 or 3? The TSA? That would be certainly unbiased. The fact is that he was arrested for having a wierd outfit. If somebody believes that this guy who has been an artist for many years, flies a lot and registered his domain in 1995 is a actually a terrorist they are delusional and shouldn't be in charge of any kind of law enforcement.
  - dkokelley 14y ago
    > "The fact is that he was arrested for having a wierd [sic] outfit." It's not possible to know that yet. It may never be possible, if the TSA withholds certain information, or that information never becomes part of the public record.
    - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
      Oh yeah, is actually possible that they voluntarily omitted crucial information in their report that would make them look as the heroes they really are. /s
- saalweachter 14y ago
  You've got to look at four probabilities: X, probability someone wears a geeky watch with exposed toggles and electronics; Y, probability someone wears military-style clothing; Z, probability someone wears oversized shoes; W, probability someone is a terrorist. I'm betting X * Y * Z is still much larger than W.
incision 14y ago
>He is the explosives guy on Mythbusters. I don't know what's worse... The idea that knowing how to blow stuff up qualifies you to profile folks as potential terrorists or that being consulted for a TV show qualifies you for anything.
- astrodust 14y ago
  If you work in the explosives business, maybe everything looks like a bomb to you.
driverdan 14y ago
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
readme 14y ago
Honestly I don't think they were in the wrong for stopping the guy. Arrest was probably too much, but when you are wearing a watch that looks like a bomb detonator, you should definitely be stopped and questioned. Unfortunately every member of the TSA cannot be an expert in this man's artwork to understand what he actually had in his posession. Suspicious watches (and protruding wires!) are one of the things they are trained to look for as all of the 9/11 hijackers had digital casio wrist watches. So yeah, honestly I think confiscating the watch and stopping him was a good move. Maybe even denying him his flight would be sane. What does it take for you guys to agree that someone shouldn't get on a plane, a backpack full of c4!? The idea is to stop the disaster before it happens, and at this point all we have are vague clues. Not to mention the fact that for economic reasons, each TSA officer is going to be a layman who probably isn't well versed in electronics. Combine this with the fact that it looked like he "hid" it under his coat... This guy needs to use some discretion when flying, I'm sorry! As much as I disagree with the erosion of our civil liberties, wearing a watch that looks like a bomb detonator onto a plane is not a smart move. Sure, us HNers would know the difference between art and a real device. The general public does not, and we cannot expect them all to gain our same level of competence with electronics. Finally, the TSA stopped someone that was actually suspicious.
- ncallaway 14y ago
  I don't think many people complained that this guy received extra scrutiny. If something looks/seems suspicious it's acceptable to apply a higher level of scrutiny in determining the actual risk. The article acknowledges this, and says it's pretty reasonable that they stopped him, talked to him, and would have been reasonable if they had asked him to mail the device to himself. What's totally unreasonable in any context is the fact that this guy was CHARGED WITH A CRIME, and is now sitting in jail on $150,000 bail. He will have to go through a lengthy trial process and potentially serve jail-time. Unless the facts are contrary to what the article presents (which is possible), this is totally unreasonable.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

KeliNorth 14y ago

No, what it means is that Sgt. Nelson knows how to work with bombs. It doesn't make him a subject matter expert on terrorism or art. Just bombs. And as charged, yes, the subject of the article did have materials needed to make bombs minus the explosives. Everyone who has a timer/watch/cellphone does, which is the point of why this is so ridiculous. If you arrest everyone who has all the materials necessary to make a bomb minus the explosives, everyone would be arrested.

mikeryan 14y ago
There's more to making a detonator then just the timing device.
UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
This is what I brought up in the last thread. IEDs are IEDs because they can be made from almost anything. Now it does take skills which most people don't have; but this isn't about skills it is about physical kit, and purely in terms of the physical stuff needed I'm almost certain you could buy it all at the airport in the "secure" part (e.g. travel clock).

dlgeek 14y ago

The original article I read yesterday (from /.) said the bomb squad cleared him but he was arrested anyway.

shrikant 14y ago

I'm all for civil liberties, but the info in this case is actually quite thin. I'd keep the pitchforks and torches away till a fuller picture emerges. The facts of the case so far are: 1) Dude is outfitted in camo, watch that looks like an IED timer, and shoes rigged out like the "shoe bomber". 2) Dude gets pulled aside and claims it's all art. 3) Dude gets arrested. Getting flagged for questioning because of (1) seems straightforward to me. How it went from (2) to (3) is less clear, and it might be prudent to hold off the hand-wringing for now.

ScottBurson 14y ago
Disagree. The fact that McGann actually has a Web site demonstrating his artistic bona fides is plenty of evidence for me.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  Because you can believe everything you read online, right? It wouldn't be hard to fake that? I tend to think there is more to this as well, including plenty of Gestapo ass-hattery from the police and the TSA. I just wonder if part of the art project included being arrested. We may be witnessing a piece of performance art.
jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
Who is going to tell you how it went from 2 or 3? The TSA? That would be certainly unbiased. The fact is that he was arrested for having a wierd outfit. If somebody believes that this guy who has been an artist for many years, flies a lot and registered his domain in 1995 is a actually a terrorist they are delusional and shouldn't be in charge of any kind of law enforcement.
- dkokelley 14y ago
  > "The fact is that he was arrested for having a wierd [sic] outfit." It's not possible to know that yet. It may never be possible, if the TSA withholds certain information, or that information never becomes part of the public record.
  - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
    Oh yeah, is actually possible that they voluntarily omitted crucial information in their report that would make them look as the heroes they really are. /s
saalweachter 14y ago
You've got to look at four probabilities: X, probability someone wears a geeky watch with exposed toggles and electronics; Y, probability someone wears military-style clothing; Z, probability someone wears oversized shoes; W, probability someone is a terrorist. I'm betting X * Y * Z is still much larger than W.

incision 14y ago

>He is the explosives guy on Mythbusters. I don't know what's worse... The idea that knowing how to blow stuff up qualifies you to profile folks as potential terrorists or that being consulted for a TV show qualifies you for anything.

astrodust 14y ago
If you work in the explosives business, maybe everything looks like a bomb to you.

driverdan 14y ago

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

readme 14y ago

Honestly I don't think they were in the wrong for stopping the guy. Arrest was probably too much, but when you are wearing a watch that looks like a bomb detonator, you should definitely be stopped and questioned. Unfortunately every member of the TSA cannot be an expert in this man's artwork to understand what he actually had in his posession. Suspicious watches (and protruding wires!) are one of the things they are trained to look for as all of the 9/11 hijackers had digital casio wrist watches. So yeah, honestly I think confiscating the watch and stopping him was a good move. Maybe even denying him his flight would be sane. What does it take for you guys to agree that someone shouldn't get on a plane, a backpack full of c4!? The idea is to stop the disaster before it happens, and at this point all we have are vague clues. Not to mention the fact that for economic reasons, each TSA officer is going to be a layman who probably isn't well versed in electronics. Combine this with the fact that it looked like he "hid" it under his coat... This guy needs to use some discretion when flying, I'm sorry! As much as I disagree with the erosion of our civil liberties, wearing a watch that looks like a bomb detonator onto a plane is not a smart move. Sure, us HNers would know the difference between art and a real device. The general public does not, and we cannot expect them all to gain our same level of competence with electronics. Finally, the TSA stopped someone that was actually suspicious.

ncallaway 14y ago
I don't think many people complained that this guy received extra scrutiny. If something looks/seems suspicious it's acceptable to apply a higher level of scrutiny in determining the actual risk. The article acknowledges this, and says it's pretty reasonable that they stopped him, talked to him, and would have been reasonable if they had asked him to mail the device to himself. What's totally unreasonable in any context is the fact that this guy was CHARGED WITH A CRIME, and is now sitting in jail on $150,000 bail. He will have to go through a lengthy trial process and potentially serve jail-time. Unless the facts are contrary to what the article presents (which is possible), this is totally unreasonable.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]